0:00

Congressman, how should we refer to you

0:02

today? Well, I prefer

0:05

Dean but you know, let's go.

0:07

Let's go with that Mr. Phillips. And just I'm

0:09

asking people to be keen on Dean so I might as well

0:11

run with it. Oh, there you go. Well, you know, I'm

0:14

a big supporter of the Dean machine already.

0:16

Oh, you know about the Dean machine with this gelato?

0:19

I'm all up on the Dean machine. By the way,

0:21

I bought an old International Harvester Metro

0:23

van for 20s when we did activations like

0:25

South by Southwest and I used to own one of those by

0:27

the way. No, you did? Yeah, I

0:29

bought it for my ranch. Come on. I

0:32

love that baby. So I bought one for Talenti.

0:34

And I saw how people just immediately

0:36

were attracted to it and fell in love with it. And

0:38

I thought, hey, when I ran for Congress, I'm going to do the same

0:40

thing. So I created the government repair truck.

0:43

Are you driving around in this international harvester? Of

0:45

course. You're kidding. Yeah.

0:47

I'll show you. I'll send you a picture of it. It's cool. It's got

0:50

a 1980 Chevy chassis under it, but it's still

0:52

the still the basic

0:54

nuts and bolts. We're referring to a type of automobile.

0:57

You can ask one of your three drivers about it, David. Don't

1:00

worry, David, your driver can take you in it. Ask your

1:02

Miami driver. He probably owns some muscle cars.

1:04

I don't think your LA driver owns muscle cars. Here we

1:06

go. Let's start the show. Three, two,

1:08

rain man, David. And

1:17

instead, we open source it to the fans and they've

1:19

just gone crazy. Hey,

1:25

everybody. Hey, everybody. Welcome to the

1:27

all in podcast with us again

1:29

today, the dictator himself, Chamath Palihapitiya,

1:32

the rain man, David Sacks, and

1:35

the Sultan of Science, David Friedberg.

1:38

We are going to continue

1:40

our conversation series

1:42

with presidential candidates today.

1:44

Our fourth presidential candidate is

1:47

on the program. Dean Phillips represents Minnesota's

1:50

district,

1:51

and he's about 25 years younger

1:53

than Trump and Biden at 54 years old. Dean,

1:57

before getting into politics, I understand.

2:00

You were the CEO of your family's spirits

2:02

business and you ran to lenti

2:04

gelato of the pistachio

2:06

flavor amazing. So Welcome

2:08

to the all-in podcast meet the other besties

2:11

and maybe you could just start out by telling

2:13

us why you are running for president

2:16

Yeah, well i'll tell you after being in the

2:18

vodka business and the ice cream business and

2:20

actually the coffee business I think I understand at least

2:23

what americans want. So that's a good start Uh, well

2:25

i'll tell you a little about my background why i'm here. I

2:27

lost my dad in the vietnam war When I

2:29

was just six months old

2:31

he had grew up with no money in st Paul

2:33

minnesota earned an rotc scholarship

2:36

on behalf of the federal government, of course Uh

2:38

to pursue his education went to vietnam

2:41

in 1968 just before I was born I

2:43

got to see the u.s Land on the moon and

2:45

I think regularly about how he looked

2:47

up two days before his helicopter crashed

2:50

and he died Looked up and saw

2:52

americans on the moon and looked

2:54

down and saw america at its worst and

2:56

literally that experience In no small

2:58

way is what brings me to this day and

3:01

I was Six months old.

3:04

My mom was 24 and widowed and we moved in

3:06

with my great grandparents for the first three years of my

3:08

life And I got lucky when I

3:10

was three my mom married a wonderful

3:12

extraordinary man who adopted me Eddie phillips

3:14

brought me into a family of great blessings My grandmother

3:17

became dear abby and my aunt and

3:19

lander. So I grew up in a family of a

3:21

lot of advice And um, i've

3:23

lived on both sides of advantage and I recognize

3:25

it. I remember the day I turned 26, uh,

3:29

and I counted the days That my

3:31

father had lived my birth father and I

3:33

remember the day after Um, I

3:36

had lived as many days as him my life

3:38

changed forever and I I

3:40

became inspired Joined our family business

3:42

after college Uh ended up running

3:44

our our beverage business. We created belvedere

3:47

vodka, which we sold lvmh And

3:49

then got into the ice cream business and

3:51

did this thing you guys created belvedere Yeah, we

3:53

my father and I and our partner steve gill Went

3:57

on a trip to poland in 1993 hoping to

4:00

sell them Philip Schnapps, which we made in

4:02

Minnesota. We thought Eastern Europe was ready

4:04

for peppermint and peach schnapps. And

4:07

we were touring distilleries and we

4:09

see, both in duty-free

4:11

in the airport and in the distilleries, the most beautiful

4:14

packaging

4:15

we'd ever seen in the spirits business. Now mind you, this

4:17

is when Absolute and Stoli were like the

4:19

pinnacle of luxury. Like $15 average now. And

4:23

my father immediately, yeah, sat at a restaurant

4:26

that night, literally, this is a literal napkin

4:28

story. He, on a napkin, created

4:31

a little matrix and said if

4:33

Stoli and Absolute are $15 and

4:35

they're the most premium in a fast-growing category,

4:38

why shouldn't there be a $25 vodka and

4:40

why should this not be it? So we negotiated

4:42

with the Polish government. Our partner

4:44

Tad Dorda from Poland helped us. And

4:47

we first obtained the distribution rights and

4:49

then when Poland privatized their spirits

4:52

industry, we acquired the distillery

4:54

and the IP and the rest was history.

4:56

And cork finish, beautiful bottle, we

4:59

sold it. We talked about the lowest common

5:01

denominator, the pens we used to write the orders,

5:03

the way we carried it, made all the difference in the world.

5:06

And then we used that same template in ice cream because

5:08

what we found is in every consumer

5:12

product category in which there are two main competitors,

5:15

Coke and Pepsi, Stoli, Absolute,

5:17

Ben and Jerry's and Hagen-Dazs, they

5:19

tend to fight to the bottom. Lower

5:22

pricing, frankly,

5:24

demeaning consumers. And there's always

5:27

an opportunity to introduce something a little bit

5:29

more premium, a little bit more special

5:31

that's still an affordable luxury. And Belvedere,

5:34

by the way, was built by Jay-Z. I can tell

5:36

you that story if you wanna hear it. It's an extraordinary one.

5:38

Yeah, yeah, tell that story too. Yeah, yeah. So-

5:41

So far you're our kind of candidate. We're like exactly.

5:43

Yeah, you just got one of those apparently. We're

5:46

all looking at you like, who is this guy? Great.

5:48

So when people ask me about my platform, I'll say

5:50

I'll be a storyteller about vodka. I'm ready to start popping

5:53

bottles over here. By the way,

5:55

that's exactly what Jay-Z did. Sax and I

5:57

popped many a Belvedere bottle when

5:59

we had our run-in. LA. True or not true, thanks.

6:02

It was a tough choice between Belvedere and Grey Goose.

6:05

Oh, I'll tell you that story too, by the way. Anyway,

6:08

so we introduced Belvedere and it and,

6:10

by the way, what we learned

6:12

in hindsight is that our aperture was way too

6:14

small. You know, we were way too, we sold

6:17

it by the bottle, not by the case. We only went to restaurants

6:19

and bars at first, not to the big stores. We

6:21

wanted it to be special and we completely

6:23

underestimated the size of what this category could

6:26

be. Sydney Frank, who introduced Grey Goose, took

6:28

a much bigger approach. Anyway, so

6:30

I'm sitting at home getting ready for work one day. I have

6:33

MTV on and it's probably

6:35

a year after we introduced Belvedere. It's doing well but not

6:37

big.

6:38

And I see a big... So, is this like mid-90s?

6:40

Yeah, I can't remember the year, Chamath. It's probably,

6:43

you know, 95, yeah, 90s, thereabouts.

6:46

I'm watching MTV. I see a Jay-Z

6:48

video and it is all Belvedere.

6:51

It's in the fridge. He's holding it. There's

6:53

people dancing. He's pouring it on him and

6:55

I froze, called my dad immediately

6:58

who, of course, didn't have MTV

7:00

on and I said,

7:02

you got to turn it on. He couldn't find the channel. I'm like, hey, dad,

7:04

you know, MTV repeats the same videos, you know, five,

7:07

ten times a day. So, we got to the office and

7:09

sure enough, we had the TV on. It came back

7:12

on. The whole company gathered at that time. We were probably

7:14

ten people and we gathered around the TV

7:16

and watched this video and I'm telling you guys within

7:19

two weeks, the brand completely

7:21

popped. And my dad, Jay-Z ended

7:23

up calling my father. They had

7:26

a dinner in New York City, a

7:29

memorable one for both. Actually, he ended up introducing

7:32

a vodka some years later called Armadale and

7:35

it failed miserably. But it was one of the

7:37

first times that I think in this new culture

7:40

of influencers and celebrity endorsers that

7:42

that magic happened. He almost literally

7:45

made Belvedere.

7:46

So, that's the story. You guys sign him to

7:48

a deal and pay him money or? No. In fact,

7:50

we talked about that and the

7:53

core. So, this is the brand foundation of the brand

7:55

house was authenticity. We didn't do a damn

7:57

thing that had anything to do with.

8:00

anything that wasn't true. The makers of it, the

8:03

product itself, we didn't pay people

8:05

to talk about it unlike Sydney Frank with

8:07

Grey Goose. So we chose not to. It

8:10

was all natural and then here's the other cool

8:12

thing and this is how my campaign is going to work.

8:14

We sent 200 bottles in very special

8:17

beautiful boxes to 200 influencers.

8:20

We believe that if we could simply seed

8:22

the brand with 200 people all around the US

8:25

that they could be the content makers and

8:27

the advocates, the ambassadors. In fact, one

8:30

of them went to this guy right behind me, Bill Clinton. And

8:33

Robert De Niro, another example, Robert Redford,

8:35

you know, leaders of industry and actors

8:39

and the like. Robert De Niro gets one of these things

8:42

and there's a note inside with a picture of the distiller,

8:44

Bogdan Zdolensky. It said watch

8:47

page three, the Tiffany section, I'm sorry, the

8:49

Tiffany location of the Wall Street Journal on

8:51

call it, it was like Monday, February 6th. Only 200

8:55

people knew what was coming. The

8:57

ad in the paper didn't show a bottle of anything. It

9:00

just said Belvedere. Bogdan wants

9:02

to know how you like it. So we literally

9:04

did an ad that Cosgosh knows back then, probably $100,000,

9:08

tiny little top corner ad that spoke

9:10

to 200 people in the United States of America

9:12

that had no idea, nobody else knew what it was.

9:15

Robert De Niro goes to the Beverly

9:17

Hills Hotel or the Peninsula, I can't remember, orders

9:19

of Belvedere Martini soon thereafter. The bar

9:21

man says, Mr. De Niro, we have Absolute,

9:23

we have Stoli, I don't have that brand. And

9:25

he says, I don't think you heard me, I want a Belvedere Martini.

9:28

So the bar man sends like the

9:30

bar back to whatever the Wine and

9:32

Spirit shop is on Rodeo Driver and Beverly

9:34

Hills. And the guy, he comes

9:36

back with a bottle. And the entire

9:39

bar

9:39

watched this little episode. And I'm telling you once

9:42

again, within a week, that store

9:44

was selling through Belvedere like it was water. So

9:46

these little moments where you identify

9:48

the right people, and now mind you, this is in the analog

9:51

era, there was no internet, there was no social media,

9:53

this was people simply talking to

9:55

people. So we sold Belvedere to LVMH.

9:58

And then we looked at the ice cream category.

9:59

So Ben and Jerry's doing the same thing. If you can,

10:02

tell us about that. What is it like to negotiate

10:04

against LVMH and Bernard Arnaud

10:06

and why do you sell it when it's working,

10:09

I guess maybe is the question. You know,

10:11

I'll tell you, well, this is not a story I've

10:13

shared with many.

10:16

They were very disingenuous. And

10:20

it deeply troubles me to this day, the

10:22

way that my father was treated, the

10:24

promises that were made simply to get a deal done

10:27

and then not kept. I think it was

10:29

a reflection on principle and I'll leave it at that.

10:32

A lesson learned. In fact, rather

10:35

than going through a competitive process, which

10:37

I think any enterprise would do to

10:39

maximize value of a brand, our

10:42

family ethos was a little different. And

10:44

I think we bit and

10:47

in hindsight it was a mistake. But

10:49

I'll leave it at that. You learn lessons, you know what, you

10:51

learn lessons every experience to this

10:53

very day. I'm learning them every day on the campaign trail too.

10:56

That was one I would never make again.

10:59

All right, well, you got the two David's votes

11:01

with the vodka. You got mine with the gelato. And if

11:03

you launch a luxury fabric brand

11:05

or sweaters, I think you're going to get your mom. First I got some

11:07

other work to do for eight years. So we'll do that afterwards.

11:10

I'll just wrap this long story up.

11:11

So we introduced, you know, Tlenti obviously

11:14

does well. We sold it to Unilever. Then

11:16

I opened a couple of coffee shops with my family

11:18

in Minneapolis. I think this would be kind of a fun folly.

11:21

And then we're watching the 2016 election at home. I

11:25

thought I would wake up the next morning. We had Hillary

11:27

Clinton as president. Not that that was thrilling

11:29

to the world, but it would have been safe. And lo and behold,

11:32

you know it happened. And I remember telling my family

11:34

that night, like, look, give the guy a chance. He's

11:36

not going to act like that in the White House. The presidency

11:39

changes you. It humbles you. It moderates

11:41

you. And my family thought I was a, you

11:43

know, I was a joke. And

11:45

I woke up the next morning. My 16-year-old was

11:48

in her room crying. My 18-year-old was

11:50

a freshman at college. We FaceTimed her

11:52

and she's crying. And I sat at the breakfast

11:55

table, guys, and I promised my daughters I would do something.

11:57

I raised them to be participants. observers

12:01

and I looked around at my district.

12:03

I thought maybe I'll run for Congress. I

12:06

looked around and I hadn't the

12:08

district had not been won by a Democrat since

12:10

the 1958 election. This is

12:12

now we're looking at the 2018 election 60 years

12:16

and the man who had won won his fourth term

12:18

by 14 points and

12:20

people told me that's crazy. You know you're out of your mind you're

12:22

giving up a good life to run for

12:25

misery and you'll never make it and you'll embarrass

12:27

yourself which is why I did it and

12:29

not only did we win we won by 12 points. We had

12:31

fun. We used invitation not confrontation

12:34

and I drove that little van all around the district

12:36

to the most un-hospitable parts. I opened

12:39

the service window. I serve coffee and

12:41

I sat I put two chairs out and people would

12:43

just come up and talk and I found

12:46

magic in just letting people

12:49

share what's on their mind. They're so unheard. Anyhow

12:51

I get to well I can tell you now I want to tell you why I'm

12:53

doing it but that's the story of where I came from

12:56

and why I'm doing this and look at the end of the day. I'm

12:58

the one of those that got lucky. You know there's a lot of kids who

13:00

lost their dads in Vietnam who

13:02

did not have the magical moment that I had to

13:04

be adopted by an amazing father and

13:07

that was the difference for me. It's my job to make sure others

13:09

get that same chance. Simple as that.

13:11

Before we jump into the future

13:13

about why you're running and what you what

13:16

you see for the country talk

13:18

about the years that you spent in Congress.

13:20

What did you observe there? What is

13:23

it like day to day and what do you

13:25

think is working and what isn't working?

13:28

I wish we had three hours. I get there, Chamath.

13:30

I get there the first week of 2019 and like

13:34

all of you that come from organizational enterprise

13:36

experience I assume that Nancy Pelosi

13:39

and Kevin McCarthy would have a have

13:41

a strategy to introduce the new members

13:43

of Congress both Democrats and Republicans. You

13:46

know get to know each other do a ropes course you know

13:48

and build some trust or something and

13:50

my goodness it was just the opposite guys. We were

13:52

put on separate buses going to different

13:54

events and I realized right away

13:57

that they had a systemic segregation

13:59

strategy. on day one and

14:01

you know I'm already sincere the two parties

14:04

this is what I've learned now we've talked

14:06

more about this the only people that

14:08

want to protect the status quo of the duopoly

14:10

and the political industrial complex that just surrounds

14:12

it all are the two parties and it

14:15

is destructive and I will get into that but

14:17

I recognize right away all of my colleagues that

14:19

the leadership in both Democratic

14:22

and Republican side they wanted to keep

14:24

us separate they did not want to give us education

14:26

and information and

14:28

they wanted to keep us so busy that

14:31

we could not become threats to their power structure

14:34

you can imagine members of Congress tend to be pretty

14:36

ambitious people and ultimately

14:39

they were smart to do that because

14:42

they made members of Congress they do this day raised

14:45

raise money all week long ten thousand hours

14:47

per week is what senators and house

14:49

members spend raising money I've

14:52

got a bill actually that would preclude it from 8

14:54

a.m. to 5 p.m. because it's such an

14:56

unmitigated joke and disaster the fact

14:58

that in the United States that a

15:01

PAC representing a special interest

15:03

or corporation can hand

15:06

a $5,000 check to a member of Congress at a

15:08

steakhouse on Wednesday evening and

15:11

then that member serves on a committee in which

15:14

that business or special interest has business

15:16

in front of the next day is the

15:18

most unbelievable form of legal

15:20

corruption you could possibly imagine

15:23

so that's one needless to say I resolved

15:25

right after that first week of orientation that I would do

15:27

it differently I befriended my Republican

15:29

colleagues my wife on Elise and I

15:31

started having bipartisan dinners at our house I

15:34

joined the problem solvers caucus I hope you guys know

15:36

about it it's the most important small caucus

15:38

in Congress we're now 32 Democrats and 32 Republicans

15:43

committed to doing what we're supposed to do get

15:45

to know each other talk policy and

15:47

try to make a difference now we're the workhorses not

15:50

the show horses so you don't know most of

15:52

our names including me but we were the ones

15:54

invited to the White House

15:56

in like week three of our service

15:58

I was one of four Democrats There were four Republicans

16:01

that President Trump invited to the

16:03

situation room to make a

16:05

proposition to get us through the shutdown, which I can

16:07

talk about that bizarre hour of my

16:09

life as well. And that's

16:12

how I resolved to do it. Now I'm ranked, depending

16:14

on the survey, number one, number

16:16

two, number 10, most bipartisan

16:18

members of the entire U.S. Congress

16:21

and including governors. And

16:23

I vote relatively progressive. It's not about just

16:25

the votes. It's about the ethos. It's about Republican-sponsored

16:29

bills that come from me. It's about me sponsoring

16:32

Republican-led bills. And that's

16:34

what makes me a little bit different than I think just about every

16:36

member of Congress, not to mention I think

16:38

I'm the only one that's willing to torpedo a career

16:42

so that the country isn't torpedoed

16:44

by this nonsense and dysfunction. There's

16:47

a lot more to talk about, but it all starts

16:49

with a systematic segregation and a

16:52

focus on fighting each other instead of fighting for

16:54

each other. I can talk about it all day long.

16:56

Let's start there, Dean. What? Give

16:58

us the assessment of what's happening in the White House right now. Before

17:01

we talk about your candidacy, just like what's

17:03

going on?

17:05

Well let me just say I respect President Biden.

17:08

He's a man I've had in my house for

17:10

an event. He's a man with whom I've flown

17:12

on Air Force One twice. He

17:15

did a beautiful video for my daughter. He called

17:17

my mother.

17:19

I think he did a fine job. I think he was the only man

17:21

that could have defeated Donald Trump in 2020.

17:25

And I have to say, I think it's fair to say too,

17:28

he's probably the only Democrat who could and will

17:30

lose to Donald Trump in 2024. He's

17:33

a human being. He's now in his 80s. He

17:36

is clearly on the

17:38

decline. He's not incompetent. I

17:41

believe he surrounded himself by competent, able,

17:43

principled people. And I believe the

17:45

White House is running as a team, as

17:47

most do. But do I think that

17:50

he will be in a position to continue leading

17:52

this country in the future? I do not. I

17:54

think I'm joined by about 75% of the country in saying that. I

17:58

also believe the policies that we passed.

17:59

for the most part,

18:01

are investments for the future. In infrastructure,

18:03

the CHIPS Act, I think is a very important bill, which

18:06

by the way has national security implications, as you guys

18:08

know. The Inflation Reduction Act, a

18:10

bizarre name for a bill that's really a energy

18:13

and climate bill, I think is pretty

18:15

good legislation. And I think he reconstituted

18:18

our allies around the world that had been frayed to

18:20

a point of great danger during the Trump

18:22

administration. So I salute the past,

18:25

but this is really an election about the future. It's

18:27

about a generational change. It's about creating

18:30

really a new American century that will be powered

18:33

by systems, structures, people,

18:35

technologies, that I'm just afraid that

18:38

President Biden and former President Trump

18:40

can't even comprehend, let

18:42

alone create thoughtful policy to both nurture

18:45

and also manage. And I think that's where we're

18:47

at. And I think we

18:49

have wars overseas that I think

18:51

in no small part are caused by a generation

18:54

that is so focused on techniques and

18:56

tools of the past that they can't even

18:59

dare look to building peace

19:01

for the future. That's why we have the Middle

19:03

East still going. That's why Ukraine, the

19:06

Vice President has some ownership in some

19:08

of these issues that I'm afraid have

19:10

to be exposed and they're the truth, and I'm happy to

19:12

talk about them. But most of all, I'll wrap it with this, affordability

19:16

in the United States of America is absolutely

19:20

the most challenging issue facing Americans. They

19:22

don't believe that their government is listening. They

19:24

don't believe the president understands. They

19:26

don't believe Congress is able to do anything

19:29

about it because we're so dysfunctional. And

19:31

that's another mission that I'm on right now. To end

19:33

this nonsense, I am gonna build a team of rivals.

19:36

I will have a White House and a cabinet

19:38

comprised of both Democrats and Republicans,

19:41

the most able leaders imaginable who

19:43

have run multi-billion dollar organizations in

19:45

some cases, understand customer service, will

19:48

employ zero-based budgeting to the extent we can.

19:50

We will employ a world-class consulting

19:52

firm to look at every single government

19:54

program, system, structure, and

19:59

personnel. to identify ways to save money.

20:01

These are things that this president, and frankly

20:03

no president, who doesn't have

20:05

business experience, nonprofit leadership

20:08

experience, and government experience could

20:10

possibly imagine, because they're so stuck in

20:12

their siloed ways of thinking. He's been

20:15

there for 50 years, and it's time

20:17

for change. I was three years old when he became

20:19

a senator.

20:20

So let's get specific on

20:22

the issues and go into foreign policy, which is David

20:24

Sachs's, I think, number one issue this election.

20:27

So first, just to be clear on Biden,

20:30

do you believe he's in cognitive decline?

20:33

Do the Democrats privately believe he's

20:35

in cognitive decline, and to what extent? Do

20:37

you think he'd make it through the next presidency? Or

20:40

do you think this is sort of a Ronald Reagan situation where

20:42

he might look back on it, and he's got some early onset

20:44

of some cognitive decline? What do you personally think,

20:46

and what do Democrats think?

20:49

I don't want to impress upon

20:51

anybody or give you the sense that I think he

20:54

has a form of dementia or Alzheimer's

20:56

or significant cognitive decline. But

21:00

anybody who pays attention can see the change.

21:02

And I'm not, people are saying that I'm

21:05

causing his problems, I could risk

21:07

his reelection. I'm

21:09

not the guy that has him losing to Trump nationally

21:12

down in five of six battleground states, the lowest

21:14

approval ratings in presidential

21:16

history almost. And I'm certainly

21:18

not the guy that has shown his

21:21

decline. That's

21:23

on video, that's on audio, you see

21:25

it. It's natural, he's a human being for goodness sakes. All

21:28

I'm doing you guys is saying the quiet part

21:30

out loud. The only one.

21:33

You ask the question, do others talk

21:35

about this?

21:36

The question is, is anybody not talking

21:38

about this? Of course they are, you guys.

21:41

They really created an opportunity for you, because like you

21:43

said, everyone's talking about this,

21:46

but no one's willing to say it. Of course. What

21:48

has been the blowback in the Democratic Party from your

21:51

declaring? What do you think? I'm

21:54

not being thrown flowers in parties, let me tell you

21:56

that. Guys, I'll tell you. I

21:59

think most would. consider me an affable, friendly,

22:02

well-liked member of Congress. I know that. That's

22:04

my ethos. My

22:06

friends are still my friends. I think

22:08

they're disappointed because this is not what you

22:10

do when you're a member of a party. You fall in

22:12

line, you shush up, you sit down, you get in

22:14

line, and you do nothing to

22:17

upset the apple cart of others who've

22:19

been waiting in line perhaps a little longer than

22:21

you. So you can imagine the

22:23

pushback has been wrong, the arrow is

22:25

sharp, and the pain quite significant,

22:28

but nothing compared to the pain that

22:30

Americans are feeling right now, and that's why I'm doing this.

22:32

And I should also let you know I had no intention

22:35

of doing this. A year ago, I was

22:37

on a radio show and a host asked me if I thought

22:39

the president should run again, and I said, of course

22:41

not. He implicitly, if not

22:43

explicitly, said he would be a transitional president,

22:46

kind of the bridge. Most members of Congress

22:48

thought he was going to stand down. That's why

22:50

Newsom and Pritzker and Whitmer

22:54

and so many others were kind of making their plans.

22:57

And I

22:58

said, and if he doesn't pass the torch, then

23:00

we should ensure at least that the stage has

23:02

newer generation candidates to

23:05

give voters a choice. Anyway, months

23:08

went by. I started seeing the polls change

23:10

dramatically. The tenor and tone of constituent

23:13

discussions with me and every single one of my colleagues

23:15

was changing graphically. All the independents,

23:17

moderate Republicans that voted for the president,

23:20

I think for the right reasons, were increasingly

23:22

telling us that they're not going to do it again. They may

23:24

not vote for Trump, but they're not going to vote rather

23:26

than vote for Biden. And over

23:29

time, it got to a point actually,

23:31

guys, where I resigned

23:33

from the House leadership table because my

23:35

position was so incongruent with

23:38

those who were in positions to do something

23:40

about it that I didn't feel

23:42

it was appropriate for me to sit with them anymore.

23:44

And I was really frustrated. I called Gretchen

23:47

Whitmer. I called JB Pritzker. I

23:49

made public calls to the candidates whose names

23:51

are better known than me to jump in. You

23:53

know, the water's warm, you guys. It's a democratic primary.

23:56

That's what we do. Not only did

23:58

those two not take my calls, which they would have any

24:00

other day.

24:01

They had their political operatives take those

24:03

calls and they told me, please don't

24:06

use their names.

24:08

That's the culture. That's the culture you guys

24:10

that we're dealing with.

24:11

You will be blackballed, you will be disenfranchised,

24:14

you will be let out the door if you so

24:16

much as even issue

24:18

a word

24:20

that you might challenge a sitting president of the United

24:22

States. This is the United States of America. It's appalling.

24:24

Anyhow, I'm frustrated. Well,

24:27

we saw that happen with RFK Jr.

24:29

because he declared initially as a Democrat

24:31

and Biden wouldn't

24:33

give him secret service protection despite the

24:36

enormous personal safety risks

24:39

and threats he's actually had. Which is the same thing for me, by the way, guys.

24:41

You can imagine. Yeah. The

24:44

biggest line item in my budget right now, by the way, is

24:47

security. The biggest line item, the

24:49

second biggest line item that's going to surpass that

24:51

is getting onto the ballot.

24:54

Right. Well, that was the thing is they wouldn't let RFK

24:57

on the ballot, they wouldn't debate him, they just want to pretend like

24:59

he didn't exist and they basically drove him out of the party. So

25:01

now he's running as an independent. Do you think you're

25:03

going to be able to get on the ballot as a Democrat

25:06

in these primaries? Absolutely. And we're

25:08

making those choices right now, David, because first

25:10

of all, it's obscene. I want to let you all know that in

25:13

a country that prides itself on being

25:15

a democracy, a Democratic Republic,

25:18

I can't even tell you how many states literally

25:21

create high barriers to entry to

25:24

satisfy the two parties to ensure

25:26

that their coronated candidate

25:29

has an advantage over anybody else.

25:31

I'm talking about- What are the most egregious ones? Give

25:33

us an example of what you have to do. The

25:35

most egregious are oftentimes the deepest blue. New

25:38

York is close to impossible.

25:40

When I say impossible- So explain it to

25:43

us, like what you have to do. So the

25:45

reason I started in New Hampshire

25:47

is it has a 103-year-old tradition of being

25:49

the first in the nation primary. They take this really

25:52

seriously. They're the most engaged Americans

25:54

in the country. They have a process. We

25:56

walk through the snow, we answer their questions. And

25:59

you also- And all you need is a $1,000 check. You

26:02

got to be 35 years old. You got to be born

26:04

in the United States of America. And

26:07

you too can become a candidate for President

26:09

of the United States. That's what I did. They

26:11

have the most beautiful ritual in the State House in

26:13

Concord, New Hampshire that is worth going to one

26:15

time just to see the majesty of

26:18

filing for President of the United States. So

26:20

there are 21 of us on the Democratic side of the ballot

26:23

because that's how it should be.

26:25

Take a state like Virginia. Wait, wait. Hold

26:28

on. Hold on for the Democratic.

26:30

But that's

26:30

incredible. I have no idea. Yeah, Chamot 21,

26:34

Marianne Williamson and I are

26:36

the best known of those 21 because the President

26:39

of the United States chose not

26:42

to. So that's how you have it. You

26:44

asked about other states though. New York,

26:47

Virginia, $450,000 to $500,000 to pay consulting

26:49

firms, to pay people $25, $26 per

26:57

signature to just sit outside and just say,

26:59

hey, can we get your signature to get this guy in a ballot?

27:02

It's not grassroots. It's not old

27:04

school, caucusing democracy. It is pay

27:07

to play. We would

27:09

need it. We would need a, well, we're going to have to raise

27:12

probably six, maybe, I'm sorry,

27:14

maybe, maybe less than that, maybe $5 million. We

27:17

have a staff of three people right now and legal

27:19

counsel just to get

27:22

my name on a primary

27:24

ballot. It's absurd.

27:57

But most people become politicians. as

28:00

a career, I've harped against this for a while.

28:03

And so they have everything to lose

28:05

if they stand up against the party and they stand

28:08

up against the political establishment within

28:10

which they're meant to operate. And therefore, just a few people

28:12

get to make all the decisions and control all

28:15

the levers and everyone else is just a marionette.

28:18

But you have- And they stay there forever,

28:20

Dave. They stay there forever. And there's no term limits, which is why

28:22

we need them.

28:23

The fact that you're self-made and you

28:25

don't have anything to lose, you can

28:28

leave Congress and you'll be fine. You're

28:30

a citizen that can go back to work and do what you do.

28:33

And you're doing this as a service. You're doing this because

28:35

of your interest in the country, it sounds like. Not

28:38

to say that other folks don't, but

28:40

they're largely going to be driven and unfortunately,

28:42

adversely affected by the fact that they have to fall

28:45

within the way that the game is played

28:47

in order to operate and will not stand

28:49

up and say the things that need to be said in order

28:52

for us to make progress and get out of these situations.

28:54

But- Those are the perverse incentives. Exactly.

28:57

I commend you for doing it. I think Jason, we should

28:59

probably talk about the topic. We have two

29:01

topics that I think we're all passionate

29:04

here. The first is foreign policy. The second

29:06

is the budget and are out

29:08

of control spending. Let's start with Saks. You

29:10

said you wanted hard questions. Welcome to the

29:13

pod. Saks, the foreign policy. Let's bring

29:15

it. Before we hear Bob, you both said hard questions.

29:17

Let's go. Please. Meet

29:19

David Saks.

29:20

Hey, David. Dean, you said

29:22

a minute ago that

29:23

one of the reasons why the world's on fire

29:26

is because of the Biden administration's handling

29:28

of foreign policy has kind of led us to this point. I

29:31

think there was a really good example of this. A week ago, there

29:33

was a new report out by a former

29:36

UN Assistant Secretary General named Michael

29:38

von der Schulenburg, who worked at the UN for 34

29:40

years. He did a detailed

29:43

study and reconstruction of what happened

29:46

in March of 2022, so the month

29:48

after the war. And what he concluded

29:51

is there was a bona fide deal

29:54

on the table between Russia and Ukraine

29:56

where Putin was going to pull back and

29:59

leave. and leave the

30:02

territorial integrity of Ukraine intact

30:05

if Ukraine would agree not to become part of NATO. And

30:07

this is something that's been discussed. There's

30:10

been many reports of this

30:11

over the last several months. Ukrainian profite had

30:13

a story about that. But now there's yet another

30:15

confirmation

30:17

that such a deal was available, and

30:19

yet Boris Johnson and Joe Biden said,

30:21

no, we want to pressure Putin not

30:24

work out a peace deal with him.

30:26

And so thanks to Western

30:28

intervention, that deal never happened.

30:31

Now

30:31

we're 20 months later,

30:33

and Ukrainian counteroffensive has failed. It's

30:35

been a fiasco. The casualties have been absolutely

30:39

massive.

30:40

Horrifying. You saw there was this article on

30:42

Time Magazine, this new profile

30:44

of Zelensky, where his own aides and advisors

30:46

say that he's delusional. He can't accept

30:48

that they're losing the war.

30:50

They furthermore say that even if the US provides

30:52

more weapons, more aid, they don't have enough

30:54

men,

30:55

they have enough soldiers to use them. Things are going

30:57

that badly. I think there's now a fear

30:59

that Ukraine could collapse in the next year, even

31:02

if we provide more aid.

31:04

So I guess, you know, I know that early on

31:06

in the war, you supported Biden's policy. I'm wondering,

31:09

have events on the ground now change your

31:11

view at all? How do you feel about it today? Do you

31:13

think it was a mistake not to try

31:15

and work out a peace deal in those early

31:17

months of the war?

31:19

And if you were president, what would you try

31:21

and do differently now to try

31:23

and end this thing?

31:24

Well, first of all, I think we have to back up to 2014

31:27

to talk about this, David. You

31:30

know, first of all, I've seen that reporting. I

31:32

do not have confirmation of the validity

31:35

of that. And if

31:37

I did, I could talk about it more directly. But if

31:39

that's the truth, I would first ask,

31:41

did that include Crimea? And secondly,

31:44

it is not a United

31:46

States decision about whether or not Ukraine should

31:48

agree to a peace deal. It is Ukraine's

31:51

decision, plain and simple. But I

31:53

do want to turn back the clock a little bit because I think this all

31:55

kind of plays together. But by the way, it didn't include

31:58

Crimea. But Zelensky was willing to. to

32:00

go for that deal and it was the

32:02

West who intervened and said, no, we want you to pressure

32:04

Putin and fight. And David, like I said, I never

32:06

speak to unless I can verify that myself

32:09

and I've not seen that intelligence in the skiff,

32:11

I've not seen that presented to me. And

32:14

by the way, there are some times where I don't know, most

32:17

times none of us know everything. If

32:19

that is the case, I would absolutely answer this

32:21

question differently. But based on what I do know,

32:25

I want to turn back the clock to 2014. This

32:28

is where foreign policy matters. President

32:31

Obama was a great orator, I think an inspirational

32:33

leader. He came to the US presidency

32:36

with only organizing state legislative

32:39

and a couple or few years of Senate experience

32:42

as a very young man. And Joe Biden was

32:44

his vice president. And when

32:46

Vladimir Putin took Crimea easily,

32:51

that set the tone for what's going on right now. And

32:54

we have not done a very good job

32:57

of prevention. That's true in healthcare.

32:59

That is true in poverty. That is true

33:02

in our foreign policy, which is, by the way, maybe

33:04

what happens when you spend 83 billion a

33:06

year on diplomacy

33:08

and 850 billion a year on

33:11

bombs and missiles. Not to mention, go

33:13

back to Eisenhower in the military industrial complex,

33:15

David, and you well know this. It does. It

33:18

controls a lot of our policy because

33:21

those who are making great profit find

33:23

ways to influence those who

33:25

open the piggy banks. I think the Crimea

33:28

moment in 2014, the writing was on the wall.

33:30

That was Putin's test. If I take an inch,

33:33

maybe they'll give me a mile. And what happened during

33:36

the Biden presidency, of course, he took the mile.

33:38

I think it has implications now, though, David, and all of

33:40

you. If we do not do

33:43

our best to support Ukraine in defending,

33:45

I think it doesn't just send a message to

33:48

Putin, a post-Putin Russia,

33:50

which is going to be a failed nation with a brain drain

33:52

and something we should talk about, but also sends

33:54

a message to Iran, North Korea,

33:56

and even China. I want to talk about that, too,

33:59

because I think ... We have a much brighter future

34:01

with them than most people portray as

34:03

it relates to Taiwan. And that's the sad truth

34:05

is we get ourselves into these situations

34:08

that then layer up the consequences

34:10

by withdrawing. And Afghanistan

34:12

was another example of that. So to answer your question, had

34:15

there been a peace deal at that point that

34:17

simply would have been, the deal would have been, will give

34:19

you your territory back in return for

34:22

not entering NATO, who

34:24

in their right mind would say that was a bad deal? Who

34:27

in their right mind? Especially... That's

34:30

Johnson. Well, by the way, that's what

34:32

you get when you get people like, well, I'm going to

34:34

make this case, as you guys know, for comprehensive

34:37

new generation of leaders all around the world in

34:39

our country and in others that are sick of

34:41

this nonsense, sick of the bloodshed, sick

34:43

of enriching enterprise at the expense of

34:45

human beings. It happens here, it happens

34:48

in Ukraine and Russia, and it's happening in the Middle

34:50

East, plain and simple.

34:53

Stacks anything else on foreign policy you want to go to?

34:56

Nothing after now would be, I think, a shameful,

34:59

horrible mistake. One thing I would argue

35:01

right now, David, is those who are

35:04

most likely going to be subject to Putin's

35:06

terror, the countries in Europe,

35:09

should be carrying a much bigger, bigger

35:11

part of this load. We have 750

35:14

bases and installations around

35:16

the world in 80 countries. We are the most dominant

35:19

presence in world history of any government,

35:22

and we spend more on our military than the next, I

35:24

think, 11 nations combined, for

35:26

God's sake. And

35:28

if anyone thinks that a kinetic risk to the United

35:31

States is the most likely harm that

35:33

will be done us, not cyber

35:35

or not social or not biological, I

35:38

think you're out of your mind. Those are the risks

35:40

that I think are most threatening that

35:42

I think this president does not quite understand,

35:45

and we have to re-comprise and re-commit to diplomacy

35:48

and defending ourselves against the

35:50

most important, literal risks,

35:52

including nuclear weapons

35:54

that can be carried in a backpack and detonated

35:57

in New York or Tel Aviv or anywhere

35:59

in the world. And if we don't start changing

36:01

how we do things, we're not

36:03

going to be ready and we are just sitting

36:06

still in dysfunction.

36:09

I'm going to change it.

36:10

Let's talk about China for one second. I'll

36:12

give it to you in two arcs. Arc number one, the

36:15

comments that President Xi made

36:17

yesterday, which were very,

36:20

if you just heard them or read them,

36:22

were very specific. We have zero desire

36:25

to seek Chinese hegemony.

36:28

We have zero desire

36:30

to find a cold or hot war, but

36:34

then there is what wasn't said, which is part

36:37

of what you said, which is, well, okay,

36:39

maybe there's no kinetic war, but the

36:41

cyber risk is still there. And actually,

36:43

the psychological war risk

36:47

is there. So two questions. One is,

36:50

how do you react to what President Xi said

36:52

last night? And then the second is,

36:54

how do you react to what's happening with this

36:56

TikTok, Osama bin Laden, PSYOP

36:59

thing that just seems to be, frankly,

37:02

just getting out of control here?

37:04

I agree. Well,

37:05

let me say I was so pleased to

37:07

see President Xi's remarks.

37:10

I think President Biden responded by saying we should

37:12

trust, but verify. I think that's appropriate. I

37:14

was troubled though, when a question was shouted

37:17

out to President Biden on his way out about whether

37:20

he considered President Xi a dictator. And he said,

37:22

yes, he's a dictator. And I think that may have

37:24

undermined this entire rapprochement,

37:27

which I think is terribly important. You

37:30

know, words matter. The

37:32

playbook matters. And the

37:35

negligence or ignorance of another

37:37

culture as it digests our

37:39

words, our actions, our intentions

37:42

is very consequential. And unfortunately,

37:45

we see this pattern with the president of doing

37:47

what he did today in using

37:49

that term. Whether or not it's really true

37:52

or not, there are ways, as we

37:54

all know, to simply not comment,

37:56

because that is going to undermine, I think, a very

37:58

important, otherwise very important question. promising

38:00

outcome. And to your

38:03

question, I'm

38:06

concerned that we have made China,

38:09

perhaps into the very enemy that ostensibly

38:11

now our military and industrial complex wants

38:13

to defend us from, which happens

38:16

time and time and time again

38:18

through our history. And it concerns

38:20

me deeply. We should be partnering with China. Our

38:24

disagreements are real. I think they should be

38:26

litigated and bridged

38:28

with diplomacy, not destruction. And

38:31

imagine what can be accomplished in this 21st

38:33

century world if two nations like

38:36

ours recognize the potential

38:39

of spending less on destruction and

38:41

more on human beings. It

38:45

astounds me. Do

38:46

you think TikTok itself is a threat

38:49

to the United States? And would you, if you were a president,

38:51

ban it or force them to divest and remove

38:53

the servers in China and the algorithm from China,

38:55

etc. Do you think it's actually being used for SIOPs?

38:59

I'll make this really simple. If

39:01

we want to change our constitution and change

39:03

what we consider speech, change

39:06

how the federal government or any domestic

39:09

government affects people's rights

39:11

to what they watch, what they read, what they eat, how

39:13

they pray, how they think, where they go,

39:16

with whom they congregate, you know what? That's

39:18

up to Americans. But I think to target

39:20

one app is a huge mistake.

39:23

And I have a very simple solution. Hold

39:26

every single platform to the same

39:28

standard, transparency

39:31

via their algorithm, have

39:33

an independent commission perhaps that is charged

39:35

and responsible with assessing and

39:38

holding those platforms to account. And

39:41

if any of them violate the terms

39:43

that we pass in the law, then they

39:45

should be banned. But to target one, I think

39:48

it's not possible. We have foreign

39:50

ownership rules for media outlets. Sure. We

39:52

do. So they have many more users and is much more powerful

39:54

with the algorithm. So then how would you

39:56

respond to that sort of counter

39:59

argument?

39:59

I'm just going to say this. If we want to

40:02

change our Constitution, this is what the

40:04

Supreme Court, I'm afraid, is going to say if we start doing

40:06

this, then change the Constitution. That's

40:08

what they said, by the way, about women's reproductive

40:10

rights. In the absence of Congress

40:12

doing anything, in the absence of that,

40:15

we're going to assess it the way it reads.

40:17

Right now, I don't think that's necessarily really possible

40:20

without a significant Supreme Court challenge. My

40:22

belief is yes. Is it a threat? Yes, it's

40:24

a threat. Every social media platform is

40:27

a threat when used by malign actors.

40:30

Maybe Haley ... Do you think we could force reciprocity?

40:33

If we allow TikTok, they allow Twitter,

40:35

Facebook, Instagram, China, or ... I think that's

40:37

the kind of thinking Jason and I like. In fact, reciprocity

40:40

as it relates to IP, enforcement of IP,

40:43

of theft, of trade, you

40:46

just hit the nail on the head. Reciprocity.

40:50

Let's be reciprocal in the nature of a relationship.

40:52

If you're going to ban our apps and our platforms,

40:55

our products, or our brands, this

40:58

is to me an opportunity

41:00

for the next generation to say this is nonsensical.

41:03

If you're going to ... By the way, China, you all know, has

41:06

significant ... They have a bubble they're facing

41:08

that will make ours in 2008 look

41:11

like a gumball by

41:13

comparison. That is coming down

41:15

the pipe. I think that has a lot to do with this

41:17

kind of step towards rapprochement.

41:20

But yes, reciprocity, and to know

41:22

that Facebook is not allowed. Yeah,

41:24

perfect example. But in the United States, that

41:26

doesn't change my contention that

41:28

we should set the same standard for every

41:30

platform, every media entity,

41:33

whatever it might be, hold them accountable.

41:35

And if they don't qualify or perform, then

41:37

they're banned. Give us your just

41:39

maybe societal then commentary

41:42

on the number of people on

41:44

TikTok right now ... Advocating

41:47

for ...

41:50

I don't even know what you want to call it. I guess reading

41:52

and sympathizing ... Yeah, with Osama bin Laden's ... Justification.

41:55

Well, first of all, I'm sure you guys do too. I look

41:57

at TikTok.

41:58

I consume as much media as ... many platforms

42:00

as possible so I understand

42:03

why some of the nonsensical perspectives

42:06

are being shared with me by so many people right now. So

42:08

I get it. But back to the

42:10

fundamental question, what do we do? This

42:12

has been by the way an age-old issue since our very founding.

42:15

It used to be anonymous pamphlets that would spread

42:17

misinformation or condemnation and fire

42:20

people up. Now it's just instantly available.

42:22

It doesn't matter if you have a printer, you can push

42:25

a button. And yes, am I concerned? Of

42:27

course I am. The fact that when I'm spending

42:29

time on college campuses right now and

42:31

listening to otherwise really

42:34

well-educated, privileged kids, same

42:37

things that are so nonsensical,

42:39

so ignorant and so shocking, I know

42:41

where it's coming from. So I understand the

42:43

problem just like all of you. I think this question is

42:45

what do you do about it? And all I'm saying is

42:48

we should have the same standard for every platform

42:50

because the same issue is on every platform.

42:52

That is my only contention.

42:53

What do you think about, you're about to say this,

42:56

but what do you think about what Nicky Haley suggested?

42:59

I was shocked that people...

43:02

Maybe just frame for the listeners who don't know

43:04

what she said. So Nicky Haley, and I asked

43:06

Mark Zuckerberg this one, so too, I'll tell you, Nicky Haley proposed

43:09

that every platform, every social

43:11

media platform have verified accounts, no

43:14

more anonymous accounts. And

43:16

she got ripped. Got ripped.

43:19

You know, I understand. It's

43:21

a reasonable argument to have. But I got

43:23

to tell you, I'm surprised that that's something that

43:25

seems somewhat reasonable to people who are paying attention

43:28

would have such a response

43:31

that she actually retracted it. I'm

43:33

not proposing it. I'm just saying that I think we should be throwing

43:35

ideas on the table. And I know from experience, just like

43:37

you guys, when you hide behind a fake

43:40

name, you can be not just

43:42

a jerk to someone. You can be downright dangerous. When

43:44

your name's attached to it, you behave in a very different

43:47

manner, not a mention when you're face to face. So

43:50

I don't think that was as absurd as people

43:52

considered it. I asked Mark Zuckerberg after

43:54

a financial services hearing a couple years ago, you know,

43:57

why doesn't Facebook just verify accounts,

43:59

make the... much easier to hold people accountable

44:01

and have higher standards of

44:04

accountability. And he said it would be a competitive

44:06

disadvantage.

44:08

And of course it actually, he only had to do it.

44:11

Yeah, and this has been tested. Korea had their

44:14

version of this in order to sign up in Korea

44:16

for their social networks or ISPs.

44:19

You have to use your social security number. Sure, that makes

44:21

sense. And the other thing, guys, is you know that if you write

44:23

a letter to the editor of most major newspapers,

44:26

you have to you have to attach your name to it.

44:28

That has to be verified.

44:31

I just think it's a conversation that

44:33

we should be having. And by the way, it might

44:35

be time to read Future Shock again by Alvin Toffler,

44:37

who predicted so much of this mess

44:40

in which we find ourselves the incapacity

44:42

of human beings to adapt

44:44

to such rapid technological change,

44:46

which by the way, you on

44:49

this, just a handful of you

44:51

on this podcast

44:54

have more expertise than the

44:56

entire United States Senate and Congress

44:58

combined as it relates to the issues we're

45:01

talking about. On tech, there

45:03

is no capacity, no competency. So on whom

45:05

do we rely? The very lobbyists

45:08

being paid by the very enterprises that

45:10

so easily can set the standards.

45:13

Right. There aren't people of better capacity. And

45:15

only 11 members of Congress have an engineering degree.

45:18

Only 11. By the way, I was I was on

45:21

Kevin McCarthy invited me to join his A.I.

45:23

cabinet, which just it was a

45:25

few four Democrats, about four Republicans.

45:28

We had our first meeting and started making plans

45:30

right before he was deposed. And

45:32

now I don't know anything,

45:34

if anything's going on in that respect.

45:36

Where do you stand on the spectrum

45:38

of decorum online on one end

45:41

and free speech on the other where the absolutist

45:43

would say, absolutely not verified

45:46

accounts as a nonstarter, because it just fundamentally

45:48

undermines the First Amendment and this

45:51

other thing, which is more organized decorum.

45:54

Chamath, I think that's the issue

45:56

of our day. Maybe the most important when it's true

45:58

both online. It's also true in our Congress. Congress right now. Where's

46:00

that intersection between debate, discord

46:04

and comprehensive division?

46:08

I don't have the good answer for it right now is the truth

46:10

and I'm afraid that if you interpret our constitution,

46:13

you know, free speech has

46:15

to be met with more free speech. But

46:17

I'll tell you that but then also will conflict

46:20

and increasingly is with

46:22

the right to pursue happiness. I mean, that's

46:24

just true. I mean, it's a it's

46:27

a it's the most complicated issue in our

46:29

era. Would I like to see our kids safer

46:32

and our mental health and emotional health improve and

46:35

the division reduced

46:36

and misinformation and disinformation rectified?

46:39

Of course, because I do put a minimum

46:41

age on use of social networks. You have kids,

46:44

would you make it 15, 16 years old? I think

46:46

it would be healthier. We have minimum

46:48

age for alcohol. That's, you know,

46:51

that's older than you have to be to fight

46:53

in the war. For God's sakes, it's ridiculous. Okay,

46:56

free basis. Cannabis is still banned at the

46:58

federal the hypocrisy of the federal government

47:01

is also what I'm running against right now. So Jason, I

47:03

think that is a good idea. You know this

47:05

and I've had daughters that grew up in the social

47:07

media era. It is one of the most destructive

47:10

it is far it is as destructive as I

47:12

think drug consumption to adolescent

47:14

health as anything else. So to answer a question,

47:17

I think that's a perfectly legal, be

47:19

perfectly reasonable. And you can't just entrust

47:21

parents to do it because Johnny's parents

47:23

will allow them to have the phone and the apps, you

47:25

know, and Jill's won't and

47:28

he can't. There has to be. I think

47:30

there has to be. We do that for a lot of other things and I think

47:32

we should talk about at what age any of this is reasonable.

47:35

But absolutely, I think that's not unreasonable. I want kids

47:37

to be safe just like you guys and so does everybody.

47:39

That sounds like driving a car is a good bet

47:41

there. 15, 16, 17 years old. We should also allow kids to learn

47:43

how to drink before they learn how to drive. We're the only country

47:46

that does it like this, you know. Drive

47:48

for five years until you legally can drink. So

47:50

when you have your first drink, you don't even know what it's going to do to you.

47:52

It's absurd. Jeffrey Zients I

47:55

know we're going to talk about spending

47:56

in a second, but just before we get away from foreign

47:58

policy, I think

47:59

it's

48:00

important that we ask, what would be

48:02

your goals with respect to conflict

48:05

in the Middle East? What's the strategy

48:07

you'd employ to achieve those goals? And who are the people

48:09

that you'd surround yourself with?

48:11

Well, I'll tell you, my strategy is quite

48:13

simple. It's peace around the world and it's prosperity

48:15

at home, plain and simple. And

48:18

I can put the legs of that stool together for you as

48:21

quickly as I possibly can. But let's talk about

48:23

the Middle East. You know,

48:25

I'm 54 years old. President Biden

48:28

has been in the US Senate or in the White House for 50 years.

48:31

None of us on this podcast have lived

48:33

through anything but bloodshed, reciprocal

48:37

misery between Palestinians and Israelis.

48:39

This cycle has continued for decades.

48:42

I've had enough. I cannot stand the sight of

48:46

babies being pulled from the wombs

48:48

of mothers by Hamas in Israel any

48:50

more than I can watch babies

48:52

being destroyed by bombs and missiles in Gaza.

48:55

And it's got to stop. I

48:57

am about to issue a statement to that end that

49:00

says, essentially, Hamas

49:02

must release all of its hostages, period,

49:04

of which there are nine Americans, guys. Nine

49:08

Americans are being held in Gaza

49:10

by a terrorist organization. And

49:12

as president, I would be making that my not my daily

49:15

desire or request my daily

49:18

demand all hands on deck. These hostages

49:20

must be released immediately. Would you send in

49:22

special forces to collect them? I would absolutely

49:24

it is the it is incumbent on the President of the United

49:27

States to extract Americans being held against

49:29

their way is implied in entity. I

49:31

don't know. Got to ask him.

49:33

But good luck asking him because he doesn't do any press conferences.

49:36

The goal for peace is reasonable. But but

49:38

these like maybe some specifics around your strategy.

49:41

So let me let me. So first,

49:43

at the moment, the hostages are safely

49:46

released, there should be a ceasefire

49:48

period.

49:49

And at that very moment, there should be a multinational

49:51

peacekeeping force sent into Gaza to

49:54

maintain security immediately. When I say multinational,

49:56

the very nations that are connected to Gaza

49:59

Arab nations. have to be part of it. Not the United States,

50:01

not Israel, of course, but a significant force

50:04

there to keep the peace immediately. Concurrently,

50:07

a multinational coalition designed

50:09

to eliminate Hamas by every

50:11

nation in the world that wants them eliminated, which frankly

50:14

is most. And then we

50:16

have got to invest, again, nations

50:18

of the world investing in a democratic

50:21

civil society, infrastructure, education,

50:24

facilities, and security so

50:27

that a new generation of Palestinian leaders

50:30

can create a circumstance whereby

50:32

another nation can be created, period.

50:34

And it's not going to happen with Israel and Palestinians

50:37

trying to do this. It has got to be imposed. It

50:40

has got to be a coalition of the willing. And

50:42

then only then will we see

50:45

the conditions for hopefully

50:47

elections for Palestinians for the first time since 2006,

50:49

17 years. And concurrently, it

50:53

is time for Israelis to call an election

50:55

to replace Benjamin Netanyahu because

50:58

he is absolutely part

51:00

of Israel's security problem. I have looked him

51:02

in the eye. I told him before this happened

51:04

earlier this year. I have been with him twice. I looked

51:06

him in the eye. I said what you are doing

51:09

is affecting the relationship with the United

51:12

States and Israel and will absolutely

51:14

affect security moving forward. I had no idea

51:16

what would be coming on October 7th. But the

51:18

settlement policy, the right-wing government,

51:21

the distraction that the judicial

51:23

reform initiative has created in that country

51:25

has made the conditions ripe.

51:28

And by the way, having been in Riyadh recently

51:30

too, it was really

51:32

getting close. The Saudis and Israelis normalizing.

51:35

And that was exactly why I believe

51:38

whether it was implicit or explicit, Iran inspired

51:40

Hamas to do this then. And by the way, in

51:43

the United States, mark my words,

51:46

our adversaries are watching the dysfunction

51:48

and distraction right now with

51:51

the same open eyes and we

51:53

have borders that are awfully easily to

51:55

get in. And that's the truth. And I'm a Democrat

51:57

saying that. I would do this entirely differently.

51:59

differently. Can you actually talk about the border?

52:02

Tell us what would you do there?

52:04

Sure. Once again, I've got a lot of colleagues who make

52:06

their decisions by reading an article,

52:08

seeing a tweet or seeing a TikTok. I

52:11

go. You know, I've been to

52:13

Israel and the Middle East twice just in the last number

52:15

of months. I've been to the southern border twice. I've seen with

52:17

my own eyes. It is the most despicable,

52:20

embarrassing failure of

52:22

American policy I have ever seen. I

52:25

have seen women walking

52:27

across the Rio Grande with babies in their arms who

52:29

have spent six or seven thousand dollars,

52:32

their whole life savings, paid

52:34

to gangs and coyotes

52:36

to bring them across the border. I've

52:38

seen the extraordinary beauty and grace

52:41

with which border patrol agents have looked after

52:43

these people. I've seen babies who were abandoned

52:46

that were on 24-hour care of border patrol

52:48

agents who took as good care

52:50

of these little kids as they would their own. I

52:52

saw people in cages. I saw the most archaic,

52:55

out of date, inefficient, ineffective

52:57

ports of entry. I saw lines

53:00

of trailer trucks

53:03

probably two, three miles long idling

53:05

in the hot weather waiting to get

53:07

across. I saw a mile long

53:10

of human beings waiting to come into the

53:12

country to do their shopping or their job or their

53:14

education. And it was horrifying.

53:17

And if we think, by the way, we need much better

53:19

border security, barriers, technologies

53:23

and facilities. And by the way, we also need

53:25

it at the northern border. I'm a border state in Minnesota.

53:28

People walk across farm fields in Manitoba into Minnesota.

53:30

We don't know who they are. Some of them get caught. That's

53:34

true. But I'll tell you guys, if we think that we can solve

53:36

the problem at the border, that's the issue

53:38

right there. This administration and past

53:41

ones just don't get it. We

53:43

should be adjudicating asylum cases in countries

53:45

of origin. Why make these poor people

53:48

take their life savings that they have no money? They're

53:51

set off in the streets here. They're supposed

53:53

to come back to a court two years from now. Let

53:55

them keep their money. Let's build dormitories

53:58

next to our consulates or our embassies. Northern

54:00

Triangle countries, wherever migrants are coming,

54:02

create some safety security there, invest

54:05

in local economies so that there can be some opportunity

54:08

and adjudicate their cases there. If

54:10

they qualify, let's bring them to America with $7,000

54:13

in their pockets so they can start a

54:17

nice new life and pursue the American dream. And

54:19

if they don't,

54:20

they will be kept in their countries of origin and of course

54:22

we have to work with Mexico as well. But this is not

54:24

rocket science, it's simple problem solving

54:26

and the fact that we continue to do this

54:29

stupid policy to this day, you guys, is in

54:31

favor of it. On the other side of this, talk about

54:33

recruiting. Many countries, Canada, New

54:35

Zealand, a lot of the Nordics have a point-based

54:37

system and they actively recruit talent.

54:40

You're an entrepreneur, you've been CEO of multiple companies,

54:43

it is an absolute arduous pain

54:45

to get talented people here right now. Recruitment

54:48

of talent in the United States is bundled with the southern

54:51

border. How would you decouple that? Would you be in

54:53

favor of a point-based system and recruitment of talent

54:55

to get more talented

54:57

immigrants in our country, which by the way, three of the four

55:00

besties here

55:01

were not born in the United States. And

55:03

by the way, my foremothers and forefathers came

55:05

here for the same reasons. Same reasons that every

55:07

one of those moms and dads is coming across the Rio Grande.

55:10

So to answer your question directly, Jason, I think

55:12

we can do both. I think we should have a merit-based

55:14

system to attract the best and brightest and most talented.

55:17

I'm sure all of you came from enterprises that would

55:19

afford benefits, perhaps education

55:22

to people. You would expect them to actually

55:24

stay at your enterprise for a number of years to kind of as

55:26

payback. We are right now, the

55:28

United States is training some of the best and brightest

55:30

in the world, not creating opportunities

55:32

to stay. And of course, Canada is the beneficiary,

55:35

the Nordic countries, European countries, you guys know this.

55:38

This notion that we can't do two things at once, that

55:40

we can't welcome the most disadvantaged

55:43

who simply want to

55:45

pursue an American dream and start at the very

55:47

bottom and match that with some of the best and

55:49

brightest who can actually start at the very top. Oh

55:51

my goodness. Why does everything have

55:53

to be binary, you guys? Black and white, good

55:55

or bad? Yes or no? It's nonsense.

55:58

Before we run out of time. Oh, darn, that's weird.

55:59

too short. No, for you.

56:02

I think we got a little over time. I got more. Hey, I got

56:04

time, guys. Oh, okay, great. We really

56:06

want to talk. I got time. Yeah.

56:08

Freiburg and I are,

56:10

I think, Freiburg moved

56:13

me to his position on this. Number one issue

56:15

for this election, Freiburg, correct me if I'm wrong, for you, is still

56:18

our out of control spending. Freiburg, maybe you could tee

56:20

this up. Yeah, I mean, I've

56:22

said this in the past. I think the US is facing

56:24

a fiscal emergency in the

56:26

sense that arithmetic starts to play out,

56:28

that the cost of debt spirals. We

56:31

can't accomplish any of the other stuff we're talking about unless

56:33

we can figure this out. We have $33 trillion

56:35

of debt today. The Treasury

56:37

estimates it's going to grow to $47 trillion by 2033, just 10

56:41

years away. $1.5 trillion

56:43

in deficit this year, $1 trillion in debt interest

56:46

expense alone this year, and a third of our debt

56:48

is coming up to be refinance soon. It's going

56:50

to get refinance at 4.5% interest rate instead

56:53

of 2%, 2.5% is sitting out today. So

56:55

the interest will swell, the deficit

56:57

will swell, the debt will swell,

57:00

and we're already taxing 18% of

57:02

GDP as federal revenue, which

57:04

a lot of economists have shown you can only get to 20% in

57:07

which the economy starts to shrink.

57:09

I think pretty good

57:11

research on this, I would argue differently, but I think that's

57:13

kind of a natural limit. The

57:16

only kind of response is, what's wrong

57:18

with spending? Why do we have

57:21

the spending problems? I guess the question

57:23

for you is, what is causing

57:26

structurally the spending problem? A lot of people

57:28

have said that this is late stage empire,

57:31

the failure of democracy because everyone votes

57:33

themselves all the money eventually. Or

57:36

is it a politically oriented problem

57:38

where folks don't want to address the biggest line items,

57:41

they don't want to hold programs to account?

57:43

And what is the answer here?

57:45

So to answer your question directly, you asked

57:47

what the cause is, it's incompetency and

57:50

perverse incentives.

57:53

There used to be a political reward

57:55

for conservatives who were

57:57

focused on fiscal responsibility because they

57:59

would win elections over tax

58:01

and spenders. But that party is long

58:04

gone, long gone. There's

58:06

no reward, that's why Trump added $7 trillion

58:08

to the deficit and that's why Biden will probably add

58:11

about that much as well. So, by

58:14

the way, I think I'm one of the only Democrats who

58:16

has been named by the Committee for a Responsible

58:19

Federal Budget, one of their fiscal heroes as

58:21

a Democrat. And also, I'm

58:24

a Hamilton Jefferson Award

58:26

winner by the US Chamber of Commerce. And

58:29

I'm also a pro-worker, this notion that you

58:31

can't be, by the way, pro-business and pro-worker,

58:33

that they're somehow mutually exclusive, that's BS.

58:36

They're mutually mandatory. But back to your question, 30

58:39

through trillion in debt, by the way, our economy can accommodate

58:42

more, that's the sad truth. The issue

58:44

is our debt service and nobody's talking about

58:46

the fact that it is gonna go from the mid 400 billion a

58:49

year to your point, Dave, with the higher interest

58:51

rates, probably approaching a trillion, maybe 840.

58:54

It's already over, is it a trillion one today? It could be a trillion

58:56

five. I don't know,

58:59

I would argue that maybe, we

59:01

could have a little argument about if it's there quite yet, but

59:04

either way, let's call it a trillion. That

59:07

means literally, that means literally, we

59:09

are spending way more for the past

59:12

than we are investing in the future. That

59:14

means we have literally no dollars left

59:16

for any discretionary spending. Every bit of it

59:18

is now consumed by Social Security, Medicare,

59:21

and our military. And

59:24

on top of that,

59:25

we've got people sleeping on

59:28

the streets in every single town and city

59:30

in America. We have kids going to school

59:32

hungry.

59:33

We have one of the most, to me, failing

59:36

public school systems in the entire developed

59:38

world. We have a healthcare system that is not

59:40

healthcare, it's sick care, a

59:42

fee for service model that should be capitated,

59:45

and our outcomes are mid-pack. And

59:47

we have a $2 trillion deficit,

59:49

and by the way, no childcare, no pre-K education.

59:52

I can go on down the list. It's nonsensical,

59:55

and we're spending $2 trillion more.

59:57

So to answer your question, you guys know

59:59

the answer here.

1:00:00

We're a country with I think 150 some million trillion

1:00:03

dollars, 150 some trillion dollars in

1:00:07

total United States household

1:00:09

wealth.

1:00:09

Where do you cut? Let's start by getting into

1:00:12

those specifics. Do you cut

1:00:14

entitlements? Do you cut military?

1:00:17

Where do you cut and how do you cut? So here's

1:00:19

what I would do.

1:00:20

Starting with Social Security. Social Security

1:00:23

you guys is the most successful anti-poverty

1:00:25

program in world history. And

1:00:29

I believe it would be not just a dereliction of duty,

1:00:32

it would be counter to every American principle

1:00:35

if senior citizens struggled.

1:00:38

By the way, we don't have a culture in America that takes care

1:00:40

of the elders like in most Asian cultures

1:00:42

and other wonderful cultures in the world.

1:00:45

So absent that, we have to afford resources.

1:00:48

So two things. As you all know, Social Security,

1:00:50

the trust fund will face

1:00:52

probably reductions in 25, about 25% cut levels

1:00:54

by 2033 based on the current path. Two

1:00:59

easy things we can do. $160,000 a year

1:01:02

is the cap right now I think roughly. We should

1:01:04

make that 250.

1:01:07

That means it's a very regressive tax. If you're making 160,

1:01:10

you're paying a whole lot more of your income than someone

1:01:12

making 250, $300,000 a year, not to mention 3 million or 30 million. So

1:01:17

we should raise the cap to 250, make sure that fund

1:01:20

at least is solvent through probably

1:01:22

2046, 2047.

1:01:24

And then I would do something different for the first time in American

1:01:27

history. For all the millions of Americans

1:01:29

who've done well, don't need their

1:01:31

Social Security,

1:01:32

that wish to become philanthropists,

1:01:34

I would trade a pool, not that goes back

1:01:37

to the Treasury, a pool

1:01:39

that would be automatically redistributed to

1:01:42

the lowest 5 or 10% of all Social Security recipients

1:01:45

in the entire country. And let's say it might

1:01:47

be a $500 boost, it might be a $1,000 boost a year for the most challenged

1:01:52

elderly Americans. But when 40% of

1:01:55

Americans can't afford a $400 car repair or emergency

1:01:58

expense,

1:02:00

You know, that literally, not for this group,

1:02:03

but my goodness. No, to your point,

1:02:05

I think it was the Fed or it was Treasury that published

1:02:07

a study. I was shocked by the actual number

1:02:09

of American millionaires that

1:02:12

exist. And it's counter to

1:02:14

the narrative, because you would, if you

1:02:16

just read the headlines, you think America's

1:02:18

in economic despair, and it's not true. And

1:02:21

the wealth creation is actually quite

1:02:23

pervasive, which is a great feature of American

1:02:26

capitalism. So to your point, there

1:02:28

probably are a lot of people. Who

1:02:30

would be willing to pay it forward to folks that didn't

1:02:32

have it if you gave them the choice? It's just not possible

1:02:34

today. So why shouldn't we be a government that creates... So

1:02:36

just, Chamath, if I could just say, one

1:02:39

of my perspectives and intentions

1:02:42

is to not necessarily... By the way,

1:02:44

we don't have to spend money to expose

1:02:46

young people who never get out of their neighborhoods

1:02:48

in many cities in this country, expose

1:02:51

them to possibility. Get them into

1:02:53

factories, into ad agencies, into high

1:02:55

tech centers, show them rockets

1:02:59

and music makers and artists. We

1:03:01

don't need to spend a whole

1:03:03

lot more money to simply completely

1:03:06

change the path of young Americans' lives,

1:03:08

not to mention old Americans' lives.

1:03:10

And that's just a perfect example of a simple solution

1:03:13

that costs zero and lets Americans

1:03:16

actually be Americans. Okay,

1:03:18

so now go to Medicare,

1:03:20

but I think I know what you're going to say, because you mentioned it,

1:03:22

capitation. But maybe talk very

1:03:24

quickly on that and then military. What

1:03:26

do you cut there? Quickly on healthcare, look guys,

1:03:29

I represent United Health Group

1:03:32

in my district. Tens of thousands of

1:03:34

Minnesotans, many of them who live in my district,

1:03:36

earn very handsome salaries from United. They've

1:03:38

done some great work

1:03:40

in many ways, but I have to tell

1:03:42

you, since I've joined Congress in my third

1:03:44

term now, you would be in

1:03:47

tears if you had to sit with the

1:03:49

people that I've sat with over so

1:03:51

many occasions

1:03:52

who thought they had coverage,

1:03:54

whose son got sick or whose

1:03:57

mother broke a leg or something.

1:03:59

They literally have gone bankrupt or take

1:04:02

on tens of thousands of dollars in medical

1:04:04

debt and they get surprise bills. And

1:04:06

then they read in the paper that their health insurer

1:04:09

reported annual net income of over $20

1:04:12

billion. And

1:04:14

I don't know how you guys feel but I got to tell you, you know, I'm

1:04:16

a capitalist, I'm also compassionate

1:04:19

and I can no longer reconcile that. I really can't.

1:04:22

There's a reason we're the only nation in the world that

1:04:24

does it this way. I think it's time,

1:04:26

by the way, from Roosevelt to Truman to

1:04:29

Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon

1:04:31

proposed universal health coverage and it was Ted Kennedy

1:04:33

that undermined it, if you can imagine that. If

1:04:35

we don't, if conservatives and

1:04:37

progressives don't come to the table and

1:04:39

talk about how we can deliver a national

1:04:42

health insurance program that is portable, let's

1:04:45

gig economy participants do their thing,

1:04:47

that people don't have to make choices about where to work just

1:04:49

because of the health care, I don't know why

1:04:51

we wouldn't talk about that. And by the way, I'm not talking

1:04:54

about the provision of care. It's really important because

1:04:56

Fox News and some Republicans have tried to

1:04:58

say this is a socialized solution, uh-uh. Just

1:05:01

the coverage because the money is in the system

1:05:03

already between 3, 4, 5, 6X pharma costs

1:05:07

between 2X health per

1:05:10

capita health costs, 10,000 per person compared

1:05:12

to any country in the world at 5. The answer

1:05:14

is I think right there in front of us, the money's

1:05:16

in the system, would not require a tax increase.

1:05:19

I think we could actually save substantial money. I'm

1:05:21

working on a proposition right now. I

1:05:23

would argue that the model is part of the problem.

1:05:26

Fee for service is antithetical

1:05:28

to what we need. We need a capitated model that

1:05:30

gives an incentive to the

1:05:33

providers to keep people out

1:05:35

of the hospital. At least try. At

1:05:37

least try. So that's the answer on

1:05:39

that. And by the way, you know, right now Medicare

1:05:41

as you probably know, I think 23% of the country or

1:05:45

no, between Medicare and the VA

1:05:47

which are single payer systems, 25% of

1:05:50

Americans right now are covered

1:05:52

by a single payer system. And by the way,

1:05:54

it works better than the other system.

1:05:57

Medicare recipients are pretty pleased.

1:05:59

huge benefit as a capitalist running

1:06:02

companies. I mean, how much of your time was

1:06:04

spent running your companies dealing with healthcare

1:06:06

and the dysfunction of employees staying at companies

1:06:09

because they couldn't get

1:06:11

healthcare in another company? What about military team? What

1:06:13

would you do? Okay, now military and this is where

1:06:16

how to answer your question very directly

1:06:18

once again, nobody can tell you that

1:06:20

they can even begin to address our

1:06:22

fiscal challenges without looking

1:06:25

at that ridiculous number

1:06:27

approaching a trillion dollars a year.

1:06:30

And by the way, the Pentagon has not passed

1:06:32

an audit. They would, in

1:06:35

my administration, it would there be

1:06:37

a top down assessment of every single program,

1:06:39

every single base and facility, every

1:06:42

explanation of why we are in those 80 nations

1:06:45

and whether or not we should be employing

1:06:47

21st century strategies

1:06:49

to keep our country safe. And

1:06:51

I think one of the simplest solutions you guys is

1:06:54

we should be entrusting countries

1:06:56

more proximate to the problems to

1:06:59

manage them. It doesn't mean we're not a good ally

1:07:01

anymore. It just doesn't mean that we are in

1:07:03

a position any longer to be the policeman

1:07:05

for the entire world when we

1:07:08

can barely take damn care of our country itself.

1:07:11

It's just so damn simple. And I'm frustrated by

1:07:13

it because as someone who lost his father

1:07:16

in a completely obnoxious and unnecessary

1:07:18

war, a

1:07:19

guy that I have on my phone right now,

1:07:21

digital audio tapes that he used to send back

1:07:23

tapes to my mom, where he says,

1:07:26

I've come to the conclusion, he loved America.

1:07:29

He did not like that war, but he loved America.

1:07:31

He said, I believe the only reason

1:07:33

we're still here is because so many

1:07:36

people are making so much money.

1:07:38

He saw it. And the same thing is happening

1:07:40

to this day, you guys that trillion dollars, that's

1:07:43

going somewhere. It's going in people's pockets.

1:07:45

And I believe we can cut that and I'm not going

1:07:47

to make a proposition. But I believe after

1:07:49

a comprehensive assessment, that we can

1:07:52

save hundreds of billions of dollars that

1:07:54

can either be saved on the bottom line or better yet,

1:07:56

actually invested in human beings

1:07:59

instead of the decision.

1:07:59

destruction of them, period. Would you

1:08:02

zero base budget? Absolutely.

1:08:04

Why did, Chamath, I've

1:08:06

had to go back to Washington twice to vote on

1:08:09

CRs, continuing resolutions. It

1:08:12

is the dysfunction is absurd.

1:08:14

There's not a, there may be five people that can read a P&L

1:08:17

or a balance sheet in the whole damn Congress.

1:08:20

Our budgeting system is completely broken and

1:08:22

yes, as president, I would demand a zero

1:08:24

base budgeting and procedure

1:08:28

and, like I said, a comprehensive

1:08:31

independent assessment of

1:08:33

every program and if it is not generating

1:08:35

return or if it could be outsourced

1:08:38

to the private sector that can deliver it for

1:08:40

better value, that's how we should

1:08:42

proceed. And by the way, it may not be

1:08:44

easy. It may take time to get done, but why

1:08:46

we don't try is absurd and to answer your

1:08:48

final question, if we don't and

1:08:51

once foreign investors no longer consider the United

1:08:53

States of America the safest place to deploy

1:08:56

capital, it's too late and

1:08:58

I will not, certainly under my watch, will not

1:09:00

let us get there, but we've got to re-craft.

1:09:04

And lastly, can I say one more thing quick on that, Chamath?

1:09:07

The only way that I think we can

1:09:09

address the biggest issue in the country, which

1:09:12

is the growing disparity

1:09:14

between those who have wealth

1:09:16

and income and those that do not, we're

1:09:19

not a nation that will redistribute. I think we've

1:09:21

been not just unsuccessful, we actually created

1:09:23

some of the problems we now find ourselves in. The

1:09:26

way to do it is to raise the foundation. The

1:09:28

same way it was raised for me by a stroke

1:09:31

of good luck. I was adopted

1:09:33

by a dad who gave me everything and

1:09:35

who knows where I would have been if that didn't happen.

1:09:38

I want to do the same thing for everybody.

1:09:41

Have healthcare, have great education, have

1:09:43

childcare, make sure you have a house, a place

1:09:45

to live. If we give everybody the

1:09:47

same thing, then we can be

1:09:49

a country that believes in self-determination

1:09:51

and...

1:09:53

Talk about education then briefly. So if the

1:09:55

spectrum is the teacher's union on

1:09:57

one end of the spectrum and vivekra...

1:09:59

who would

1:10:01

dismantle the Department of Education at the

1:10:03

federal level and just push all the responsibility

1:10:06

to the states with a voucher program. He talked

1:10:08

about it here once. Where are you and what's

1:10:11

your philosophy on the state of the education?

1:10:14

I would say I'm in the middle because I think there's some

1:10:16

worthiness to both of those perspectives.

1:10:20

What would I do?

1:10:21

I would fundamentally reinvent American public

1:10:23

education with the best and the brightest,

1:10:26

with students, with teachers, with families,

1:10:29

with the nonprofit sector and the business sector

1:10:31

because right now business needs to participate

1:10:33

in 21st century education to advise

1:10:35

the teachers and the administrators and

1:10:38

the curricula designers what

1:10:41

skills they need.

1:10:42

They're not even part of the conversation you guys. I

1:10:44

don't know about you all. Why do you think that

1:10:46

there are certain places, progressive,

1:10:49

liberal, bastions if you will,

1:10:52

that have been the first to dismantle things like STEM

1:10:54

and AP classes? Why is that happening?

1:10:57

I wish I had a good answer for that. It's

1:10:59

appalling. But I do have a good

1:11:01

solution. I'm sure like you

1:11:03

guys, you all know this, the single

1:11:06

most important determinant of a child's

1:11:08

success educationally is the quality

1:11:10

of their educator. Every single study

1:11:12

says the same thing. The United States of

1:11:14

America right now, we pay about 81% of the

1:11:16

per capita GDP to teachers for

1:11:21

compensation. The best performing systems

1:11:23

in the world and there is a correlation, pay 120,

1:11:25

130, sometimes 140, 140% of their

1:11:27

per capita GDP. They

1:11:30

make teaching one of the most admired,

1:11:33

elevated professions in their

1:11:35

nation. They identify great teachers when they're still

1:11:37

young. And I think we should be a nation

1:11:39

that does the same thing. We're not attracting the best

1:11:41

and brightest any longer. When Teach for America

1:11:44

teachers outperform teachers

1:11:46

who have tenure or been at it for 10, 20, 30 years,

1:11:49

does that not say the quality matters? It's

1:11:51

not the school how it looks.

1:11:53

But anyway, I would reinvent and the other thing is this, you

1:11:56

and I'm sure like you guys, I remember a couple

1:11:58

of teachers that made a huge difference in my life. life and

1:12:00

there are about 50 I could barely remember it all.

1:12:03

They should all be those two. And then furthermore,

1:12:05

if you think sitting in front of a blackboard is

1:12:08

the way to teach kids in this day and age, no, you got

1:12:10

to get out of the school, you got to look at Scandinavian

1:12:13

countries and Asian countries and how experiential

1:12:15

learning,

1:12:16

learning from the best

1:12:18

most extraordinary educators in the world through

1:12:20

screens on occasion but to experience,

1:12:23

you know, AI is going to fundamentally change

1:12:26

employment as we know it. We have nobody

1:12:28

in Washington that gets it. We need an

1:12:30

administration in 2024 that

1:12:32

does and begins to simply

1:12:35

rectify all these problems anticipating

1:12:38

the change that's coming. This administration is not going

1:12:40

to do it and education should be redesigned

1:12:43

based on the change we know is

1:12:45

coming. And I don't have all the answers but

1:12:48

I know a lot of people out in California and around the country

1:12:50

and around the world who could help us. You get

1:12:52

too early to regulate AI or

1:12:54

is it? No, no, you

1:12:55

think you should be doing AI. I think it should be

1:12:57

very, you know, Jason, I would say right now it should

1:12:59

be very limited and

1:13:01

this is where back to the conversation about anonymous

1:13:05

accounts. We do have to set, I

1:13:07

think, some standards and penalties for nefarious

1:13:10

use of AI. If we don't do that early and set

1:13:12

the tone, I think it will get out of control. So

1:13:15

to me, that's all we should do right now and

1:13:17

let it grow, let it expand, let

1:13:20

large enterprises and small come

1:13:22

up with extraordinary ways to save money, by the way.

1:13:25

AI is going to save extraordinary

1:13:27

sums of money for the federal government and healthcare

1:13:29

for businesses. We can

1:13:31

anticipate how employment will change and

1:13:34

what jobs will be jobs of the future. But

1:13:36

if we don't think about that now, we're going to do what Congress

1:13:39

always does, get caught off guard, have

1:13:41

to come in on a midnight, ill prepared

1:13:44

with a thousand page bill that nobody understands

1:13:46

because it was written by a lobbyist that had skin

1:13:48

in the game and does not serve America. And

1:13:50

that maybe wraps up

1:13:51

this whole conversation. Yeah, I'm just not

1:13:54

sure folks really understand in

1:13:56

Congress what they're doing. No,

1:13:58

it's front.

1:13:59

The difference between foundational

1:14:02

models and the utilization

1:14:05

of those models in an endpoint

1:14:08

are very different regimes to

1:14:10

think about regulation. That

1:14:14

framework isn't even understood. Not at all. We're

1:14:17

not even talking about regulating outcomes

1:14:21

or actions. We're talking about regulating the infrastructure

1:14:23

that could cause various outcomes.

1:14:27

Regulate the infrastructure. I'm very

1:14:29

much against where this is all evolved to. I

1:14:31

think some folks want to say, hey, this is a regulatory

1:14:34

capture moment. But I

1:14:36

want to see someone in Congress stand up and demonstrate

1:14:38

an understanding

1:14:39

first

1:14:40

before they can even have the right

1:14:42

to articulate

1:14:44

a framework for regulation. I

1:14:48

want to shout out this guy. Don Beyer is

1:14:50

a former US ambassador, Democrat from Virginia.

1:14:53

He must be 70. He went back to

1:14:56

college. I think Johns Hopkins, and just received

1:14:58

or is pursuing his degree in artificial intelligence.

1:15:01

That's the kind of representative. Isn't

1:15:03

that cool? You would never know his name because he's not on

1:15:06

Fox, Remus, and B.C. screaming

1:15:08

at night. But those are the kinds of people that should

1:15:10

be celebrated. A lot of my Republican

1:15:12

colleagues got thrown out of Congress because

1:15:14

they had the audacity to support the Constitution

1:15:17

when Trump was impeached

1:15:20

the second time. Those people I celebrate.

1:15:22

I got to run, but can I tell one quick story to wrap my

1:15:24

whole story up and about what I want to try

1:15:26

to do? At the

1:15:29

end of the day, none of this occurs.

1:15:31

None of the successes, none of

1:15:33

the policy ideas, none of the ideation occurs

1:15:35

if we don't repair. That means restoring

1:15:38

friendships, our families, our

1:15:41

communities, and our country. So I

1:15:43

do a series back home in Minnesota called Common Ground.

1:15:45

I get six Democrats and six Republicans

1:15:48

invited to a table. We break bread. We introduce

1:15:50

ourselves to a little bit of our life stories. We

1:15:53

talk about healthcare policy. We talk about immigration

1:15:55

policy. Which is where everything I share tonight

1:15:57

comes from both Democrats and Republicans. And

1:16:00

it's a two-hour session facilitated by an extraordinary

1:16:03

group called Braver Angels. I

1:16:05

encourage you to look them up. They are remarkable

1:16:08

doing this work all around the country. And at the end

1:16:10

of these sessions, we go around the table and

1:16:12

each person at the table shares a little bit

1:16:15

about what they got out of this experience.

1:16:18

And I had an episode not long ago that sums

1:16:20

up my whole mission. A young woman, Emily,

1:16:22

looks across the table at Dave and says,

1:16:24

Dave, when you drove up in your F-150

1:16:27

with the Trump sticker on it, I almost got

1:16:29

back in my car, left the parking lot and

1:16:31

drove away. I could not bear to go in the building,

1:16:33

let alone sit at the table with you.

1:16:36

And she said, but I got to say, I so

1:16:39

loved sitting here. And you're a good guy and

1:16:41

I learned something. Goes

1:16:44

around the table, comes to Dave and he looks at Emily

1:16:46

and says, Emily, when you drove up in your Prius, I

1:16:49

wanted to run it over. And

1:16:52

he says, but hey, I got to tell you, Emily, I've

1:16:55

never met a progressive as cool as you and I

1:16:57

really am glad I came to this today. And

1:16:59

at that moment, Emily and Dave

1:17:02

stood up in front of our table and they embraced.

1:17:05

And to see a bleeding heart liberal and a

1:17:07

dyed in the wool trumper do

1:17:09

that probably was

1:17:12

the most important

1:17:14

moment in my entire career in service. If

1:17:17

that is the only moment of its kind

1:17:19

in my career in service, it would have made it worthwhile

1:17:22

and that is exactly what I'm going to

1:17:24

inspire as President of the United

1:17:26

States. Get Emily and Dave to

1:17:28

hug it out. All they have to do is

1:17:30

be invited for a little dinner, given

1:17:33

some space and place to recognize their common cause

1:17:35

and their common ground. And that's how we're going

1:17:37

to do this. I don't see a candidate right now

1:17:39

in the ballot that has that intention, has

1:17:42

that capacity

1:17:43

or has that capability. So

1:17:45

I just want to thank you guys and. Just

1:17:47

saying, just yes or no. Can everybody

1:17:49

expect that you will be on the ballot in every state?

1:17:53

I can't say I'm going to be in the ballot in every state, Chamath,

1:17:55

because I don't think it's possible between time

1:17:57

and money. I'm going to have to make some choices.

1:18:00

And that's just the sickening truth. I

1:18:02

want to salute Bernie Sanders. He actually

1:18:05

made it possible for a candidate like me and

1:18:07

probably future candidates who are subject

1:18:09

to this nauseating system to actually

1:18:12

still compete and get to

1:18:14

the convention and maybe win because he

1:18:16

depowered people like me, members

1:18:19

of Congress that used to have outsized votes,

1:18:22

disproportionately so, versus voters.

1:18:25

And I celebrate him because he was

1:18:27

right. I used to think he was a sore loser. Bernie Sanders

1:18:30

was absolutely right about a rigged

1:18:32

system that is keeping people

1:18:34

out of the process, keeping candidates out of the process,

1:18:37

and keeping debate out of the process. So

1:18:39

I'm going to be on most ballots. I've

1:18:42

got to raise money. And frankly, I hate to be

1:18:44

shameless, but the truth is, if we want to

1:18:46

get on ballots, I need support. And

1:18:48

it's easy. Dean24.com. By

1:18:52

the way, I'm at 15% in New Hampshire

1:18:54

after just two weeks. We thought it would take six if

1:18:56

we were lucky. Wow. So people can throw 15 bucks

1:18:59

our way to get on ballots at Dean24.com. And

1:19:02

by the way, Joe Biden, 27%. 73% of

1:19:07

New Hampshire Democratic voters do

1:19:09

not want the sitting president

1:19:11

of the United States as their nominee.

1:19:14

And mark my words, we're going to bring change.

1:19:17

Thank you guys. All right. Thank you so much.

1:19:19

Thanks for the time.

1:19:21

Thank you very much. Keep the faith, guys. I mean it. Love

1:19:23

to see you again. Yeah. Great. Thank you. A great 90

1:19:25

minutes with Dean Phillips. Everybody go to Dean24.com if

1:19:27

you want to learn more. All

1:19:30

right, besties. I think that was another epic

1:19:33

discussion with the presidential

1:19:35

candidate. What's your thoughts,

1:19:37

Chamath? You set up this interview. Where

1:19:40

does he stand in your likely

1:19:43

votes for president

1:19:46

in 2024? Where would you rank him now?

1:19:49

Andrew Yang texted me like last

1:19:51

week and said, would you guys do this? And

1:19:53

I was really interested because

1:19:55

mostly I didn't know where he was coming

1:19:57

from, to be totally honest. But

1:20:00

I think his national visibility is probably going

1:20:02

to increase a lot. My reaction is that he

1:20:06

is who he says he is, which is like kind

1:20:08

of down the middle. He doesn't take

1:20:11

either extreme and he kind

1:20:13

of takes a moderate point of view and says there's a

1:20:15

balance of this and that that can work.

1:20:18

And that's actually good that he owns that as opposed

1:20:20

to it being sort of a consequence or a

1:20:22

byproduct of not getting what he wants. He kind of like

1:20:24

that is where he starts. So

1:20:27

I like that about him a lot. I thought he was really candid

1:20:29

about what doesn't work. I really appreciate

1:20:31

that honesty. He's

1:20:34

saying some of the right things around

1:20:37

capping Medicare, zero

1:20:40

based budgeting the military. I

1:20:43

think all of those things are right. I didn't like

1:20:46

to be honest, the free speech part.

1:20:49

I thought that that was I don't think you can have

1:20:51

some kind of registry of verified accounts

1:20:53

or something. I just think that's a nonstarter for America.

1:20:55

It's a super slippery slope. But

1:20:58

in general, I was really impressed.

1:21:03

And his war stories as a businessman

1:21:05

were pretty cool. Pretty awesome.

1:21:08

Sax, what's your candid

1:21:10

thoughts on obviously he's not part of your political party, but

1:21:12

what do you think his chances are versus Biden

1:21:15

and how would you assess his performance here today?

1:21:19

I was pleasantly surprised that

1:21:21

he made the case for himself,

1:21:24

not just based on Biden's age and

1:21:26

the fact that he's 54.

1:21:28

But he also, I think, took a number

1:21:30

of interesting policy stances that were

1:21:32

a little different than where Biden is. He did

1:21:34

it on foreign policy, did it on domestic policy. So

1:21:37

I think he took a number of positions that

1:21:39

were refreshing.

1:21:42

And

1:21:43

a big one, I think, relates to his personal

1:21:45

story where he talks about how he lost his father in Vietnam

1:21:49

and that that war was kept going much

1:21:51

longer than it should have been because basically

1:21:53

the greed of the military industrial complex. And

1:21:55

he didn't fully connect the dots all the way

1:21:58

to our present situation.

1:21:59

Ukraine, but

1:22:01

at least I think he would be skeptical

1:22:03

of the influence of the MIC and our politics.

1:22:07

What he said with respect to Ukraine is, well,

1:22:09

he said that it would be shameful to abandon them now, but

1:22:11

he also said that if it's true, he wasn't willing

1:22:13

to concede it because he just didn't know factually,

1:22:16

but if it's true that we could have avoided the war

1:22:19

by taking NATO expansion off the table, then it

1:22:21

would only be common sense to do that.

1:22:24

I think that when the histories of this are written, it's

1:22:26

going to be abundantly clear that we could have

1:22:28

done precisely that. His difference

1:22:31

of opinion with me isn't in

1:22:33

the logic, it's just in what

1:22:36

facts he knows to be true. I actually

1:22:39

thought that his position there

1:22:42

was reasonable. If

1:22:46

it came down to a choice between Dean

1:22:48

Phillips as the Democratic nominee and someone

1:22:51

like Nikki Haley as a Republican nominee, I'd

1:22:53

vote for Dean Phillips all day long. One

1:22:56

other thing I like about him is he is a business

1:22:59

owner and he presents

1:23:01

as a Bill Clinton Democrat. I think that it's not

1:23:04

an accident he's got a picture of

1:23:06

Bill Clinton on the wall behind him. He

1:23:08

presents as a ... That was exactly my takeaway too. I thought,

1:23:10

wow. He presents as a moderate Democrat who's

1:23:12

a little bit of a throwback to the Democratic Party of

1:23:15

the 1990s. If RFK

1:23:17

Jr. is trying to bring back the Democratic Party

1:23:20

of, say, the 1960s, the party

1:23:22

of John F. Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy,

1:23:24

his father, I think that Dean

1:23:26

Phillips is more trying to bring back the Democratic Party than

1:23:28

1990s. Both of them, I

1:23:30

think, are ultimately very out of step with where the

1:23:32

Democratic Party is today, but they're

1:23:35

out of step with it in ways that I like. He

1:23:38

is a candidate who I could support

1:23:40

against a Republican who, if we ended

1:23:42

up getting a sort of stale, neocon-type

1:23:44

Republican candidate, I would take a Dean Phillips all day

1:23:46

long. Really? Wow. Great.

1:23:50

Freiburg, your thoughts?

1:23:51

I think if Joe

1:23:54

Biden runs, he

1:23:56

obviously doesn't stand a chance just based on the

1:23:59

structural issue. that he described if

1:24:01

Joe Biden doesn't run and drops out,

1:24:04

I think there are probably a lot of other Democratic candidates

1:24:06

who are going to have deeper pockets

1:24:08

and more support from the party and

1:24:10

more

1:24:12

celebrity or what have you to get

1:24:14

themselves elected. With respect to his candidacy

1:24:17

and whether it's a realistic kind of campaign,

1:24:20

I would probably argue no. But

1:24:22

what I really like is the fact that he is making

1:24:25

the case, I think in a stronger

1:24:27

way than even RFK Jr. was

1:24:29

on how these incumbents

1:24:32

and how the incumbency in the party system

1:24:34

prevents new candidates from actually

1:24:37

participating in a true democratic process.

1:24:39

And it feels to me a lot like what goes on in that

1:24:42

sense is the equivalent of like

1:24:44

regulatory capture, but in politics. It

1:24:47

allows these

1:24:48

party leaders

1:24:50

and influencers, which is a very

1:24:52

small group of people to decide who gets to

1:24:54

go on a ballot in a state, to

1:24:56

decide who gets to be the nominee, who decides who

1:24:58

gets to run for president. The best thing that he's doing

1:25:00

is exposing a system that Bernie Sanders

1:25:03

calls rigged. And that clearly, I think,

1:25:06

is very inequitable and doesn't create

1:25:08

a true kind of democratic process. So it's really great

1:25:11

to see him doing this work and telling

1:25:13

the story. And I'm glad we gave him the forum to do

1:25:15

that for just that reason.

1:25:17

And if you were to have a choice

1:25:20

of him or Biden, you'd pick him.

1:25:21

Yeah. If

1:25:23

you had a choice of him or Vivek

1:25:25

on the other side, would you pick? No comment.

1:25:27

No comment. Okay. Taking off my moderator

1:25:29

hat for a minute. Loved his business stories. I grew

1:25:32

up with each month. Really excited to see somebody under the

1:25:34

age of 80 run

1:25:36

for president. And I thought there were really

1:25:38

two powerful moments there when he said he would

1:25:40

send special forces in. And then he was

1:25:43

pretty aggressive in his assessment of Netanyahu's

1:25:46

leadership. And overall,

1:25:48

he did engage with every single issue and had interesting

1:25:51

policy issues. No, Shama, it seemed pretty,

1:25:54

pretty engaging there. So overall, great

1:25:56

job, everybody. I think four for four on the

1:25:58

presidential candidates. And just as a program.

1:25:59

note,

1:26:00

we have sent the first podcasting kits,

1:26:03

the first microphones to four presidential candidates

1:26:06

for those of you counting at home. What

1:26:07

do you think will happen post

1:26:09

this, Chamath? Vivek got a big

1:26:12

bump, RFK got a big bump. What do you think is going

1:26:14

to happen post this? I think that Dean Phillips is going

1:26:16

to poll really well. The more that people get

1:26:18

to see him, and I think New Hampshire

1:26:20

has set up well for grassroots politics like this,

1:26:24

it will go over very well. The question

1:26:26

I think Freiburg points

1:26:29

is the key one, which is the

1:26:32

party infrastructure has

1:26:34

tremendous antibodies. If

1:26:36

they decide to shut you out, which

1:26:39

they did very strongly

1:26:42

and vocally

1:26:44

for RFK, you don't have much of a choice except

1:26:46

to run as an independent. His

1:26:49

candidacy is precarious, not because of the

1:26:52

viability of him as a candidate, actually, because

1:26:54

I think it's quite high, or his likability, which is

1:26:56

quite high, or his electability, as Zach said,

1:26:59

which against the right person is very hot.

1:27:02

This has all to do with the antibodies of the infrastructure.

1:27:07

Programming note, Jake, how are you drinking a chocolate

1:27:09

milk? I am drinking a core

1:27:11

power 26. 26 grams

1:27:14

of protein. I'm still on my try

1:27:16

to eat more protein, but I did have a super gut

1:27:18

bar earlier today. Oh, nice. Which

1:27:20

was quite nice. Thought that was a chocolate milk. This

1:27:23

one's got 26 grams. It's a 42 gram protein.

1:27:25

I don't want to give a free ad to core power, but Zach,

1:27:27

in addition to the antibodies that kicked

1:27:30

RFK out of the Democratic Party, the

1:27:32

press also blocked him. CNN, etc.

1:27:34

wouldn't let him on. The right would let him on

1:27:37

all day long. Does the same

1:27:39

antibody kind of system exist

1:27:42

on the right at all? Or is the right more open to multiple

1:27:44

candidates just generally speaking?

1:27:46

No, I mean, you look at Republican debates, and

1:27:49

they are vigorous debates. There is real disagreement

1:27:51

on the right. There are real debates on the right. And

1:27:53

there is a real

1:27:56

working out of contested issues. The

1:27:58

Democratic Party, by and large, is a machine.

1:28:01

It works in lockstep. That's why what

1:28:03

Dean Phillips is doing is so sacrilegious.

1:28:06

I mean, he is pretty much ending his

1:28:09

career as someone who can

1:28:11

just move up through the ranks of the Democratic

1:28:13

Party. Maybe this

1:28:16

will turn out in a way where it gives him like a leapfrog,

1:28:18

but I don't think so. I mean, I think he's basically

1:28:21

signaling to the higher ups in the Democratic

1:28:23

Party that he's no longer a

1:28:25

candidate

1:28:26

for

1:28:27

advancement through the regular course. Got

1:28:30

it. And one analogy is that

1:28:32

the Democratic Party is like the empire and

1:28:35

the Republicans are like the rebel alliance.

1:28:38

You know, the Republican Party is a bunch

1:28:40

of misfits. It's a bunch of

1:28:42

discontent. Ewoks. Ewoks.

1:28:45

And solos. And solos, whatever.

1:28:48

But the Democratic Party marches in lockstep.

1:28:50

Is that why the Democratic Party wins more, is because

1:28:52

they're in lockstep? Yeah.

1:28:54

They're much better fundraisers. They're more disciplined.

1:28:57

They have their act together right

1:28:59

now. I don't think this is always the case,

1:29:01

but I think it's true right now.

1:29:02

Yeah. Okay. Well, we

1:29:04

had a couple of other issues we wanted to get to. So I think

1:29:07

we can wrap there. Great job, everybody.

1:29:09

That was spectacular. Great job getting the candidate,

1:29:11

Chamath. Thank you for that. All right. We have to touch on what

1:29:14

happened this week with the US and China

1:29:16

relations. Everybody knows Xi Jinping was here in

1:29:18

the Bay Area to meet with Biden. Yellen,

1:29:21

welcome. Xi at the plane.

1:29:24

Maybe she's selling some treasuries. I don't know.

1:29:26

That's what the plan

1:29:29

said. I mean, we're like some sort of

1:29:31

piss poor company that's selling us junk bonds. I

1:29:33

mean, the second that Xi gets off the plane, she's

1:29:36

hawking our shitty bonds. Listen,

1:29:39

everybody's raising a fund right now. You're fundraising

1:29:41

hard. Did you guys hear the commentary that the Treasury

1:29:43

auction had a really tough

1:29:46

moment last week? They had a big auction on, what

1:29:49

was it, 10 and 30 year bonds? The 30 year bond bid

1:29:51

was not really there. And so they

1:29:53

got to get buyers in the market. They got to go get the money. And she's

1:29:56

coming to raise money currently too. She's

1:29:58

here. Everybody's having a hard time raising.

1:29:59

right now.

1:30:01

Pretty crazy. But Chamath,

1:30:03

you and I tweeted about this clip where

1:30:05

Xi Jinping said that, you know, he's basically

1:30:08

for peace and that we have to work together. Let me

1:30:10

just start there with you, Chamath,

1:30:12

so we can get through this quickly. Do you

1:30:14

take him out of his word? There were cynical people

1:30:16

saying like, hey, you know, he's just desperate, needs

1:30:19

more trade, needs more business. How do you interpret

1:30:21

Xi's peace pipe here, you

1:30:24

know, and his dinner

1:30:26

with a bunch of executives last night? I

1:30:29

think he's pragmatic. He's somebody that

1:30:31

wants to not just rule

1:30:34

over China, but he wants to do it for the rest of

1:30:36

his life, and he wants to do a good job. And

1:30:40

I've said this many times, China's issues

1:30:42

are endemic and pervasive, and

1:30:44

they're demographic. And

1:30:46

so he has huge structural

1:30:49

issues that he has to fix in the Chinese economy.

1:30:51

And so I think all of this is just about

1:30:54

him focusing on his priorities, which makes

1:30:56

sense, which is really about domestic

1:30:58

policy. There's an enormous real estate

1:31:00

issue that has to get sorted out. There is a GDP

1:31:03

issue that has to get sorted out. There's a youth unemployment

1:31:05

issue that has to get sorted out.

1:31:09

And then there's an aging and a birth

1:31:11

rate and replacement issue that has to get sorted out.

1:31:14

All of these things are in enormous

1:31:16

efforts. And so I think

1:31:19

he's pragmatic enough to not also

1:31:22

then add foreign misadventures to

1:31:24

that plate. And I think what you heard was

1:31:26

him being very clear about

1:31:30

just exactly that. What was your interpretation?

1:31:33

There's so many jumping off points here. You got

1:31:35

foreign policy, you got TikTok, fentanyl.

1:31:37

I mean, there's a long list of issues. But does

1:31:40

it feel like we're turning a corner on relations?

1:31:42

Hey, they need us, we need them. But what was

1:31:44

your interpretation on all this?

1:31:46

Well, I think what's going on here is that the administration

1:31:49

has its hands full with two wars. They've

1:31:51

still got this war in Europe over

1:31:53

Ukraine, which is going very badly. And now we have a

1:31:55

new war in the Middle East that caught them completely by

1:31:58

surprise. Recall.

1:31:59

that

1:32:00

literally a week or two before October

1:32:02

7th, you had Jake Sullivan saying the Middle East had

1:32:04

never been more peaceful. So they

1:32:07

absolutely did not anticipate what was coming,

1:32:09

and now we have half of our carrier groups in

1:32:11

the Middle East positioned there in cases, blows

1:32:14

up into a wider regional war. So

1:32:16

I think the simple fact of the matter is, is

1:32:18

that the Biden administration, this is

1:32:21

more than they can handle, or let's put it this way, they're

1:32:23

trying to put the China compete on

1:32:25

hold, they're trying to put it on ice while

1:32:28

they figure out a way to rescue

1:32:31

this losing effort in Ukraine and to prevent

1:32:33

the situation in the Middle East from spiraling out of control, is

1:32:36

just too much for them. They

1:32:38

don't have the bandwidth to deal with a war

1:32:40

or a conflict breaking out in the Asia

1:32:43

Pacific. So I think

1:32:45

that's the Biden administration's motivation

1:32:47

here as they're seeking to ease tensions

1:32:50

because they're just too bandwidth constrained to deal

1:32:52

with it. By the same token, I think Chamath

1:32:54

is right that she

1:32:56

realizes that he's got his hands full

1:32:59

with domestic economic problems. He

1:33:01

doesn't need a ratcheting up of tensions

1:33:04

with the United States right now. And I would also

1:33:07

add that on foreign policy,

1:33:10

I think what you're seeing in his remarks is

1:33:12

a return away from this kind

1:33:14

of wolf warrior diplomacy that

1:33:18

they had going on a few years ago where they were kind of

1:33:20

saying these very bellicose things and

1:33:22

they're kind of flexing their muscles in

1:33:24

the Asia Pacific region. That really

1:33:27

backfired on them because it raised the hackles of

1:33:29

all those other Asian countries and it

1:33:31

was making it too easy for the United States

1:33:33

to form a containment alliance against China. So

1:33:35

he's moving away from that type of wolf warrior

1:33:38

rhetoric that got them nowhere. And he's moved back

1:33:41

to the rhetoric of a Deng Xiaoping who said

1:33:43

that China's policy should

1:33:46

be to bide its time and hide

1:33:48

its light under a bushel. In

1:33:50

other words, just get stronger and stronger. Don't

1:33:53

let people get wise

1:33:55

to how strong you are. And then when the time is

1:33:57

right, you will flex your muscles.

1:33:59

keep

1:34:00

getting stronger. And

1:34:02

I think he's returned to that policy.

1:34:05

And you saw this with the Belt and Road Conference

1:34:08

that in Beijing just a few weeks ago, where

1:34:11

you saw countries like Vietnam participating.

1:34:13

And I think that China, their

1:34:16

strategy is now to try to

1:34:18

use some Hanita, catch some flies as

1:34:20

opposed to using this kind of bellicose

1:34:23

rhetoric. And saber rattling. And if we look at this

1:34:25

chart, I think this chart speaks volumes,

1:34:29

in foreign investment into China

1:34:31

has absolutely fallen off a cliff. In

1:34:34

the decoupling, the saber rattling, and

1:34:38

other countries looking to have resiliency

1:34:41

and not be dependent on China has obviously

1:34:43

blown up in his lap. What are your thoughts on foreign

1:34:45

trade and our business relationship

1:34:49

with China and their relationship with the West

1:34:51

and the rest of the world? This used

1:34:53

to be a thing to do to make money. And then

1:34:56

it became a question mark of whether you can

1:34:59

make money a couple

1:35:01

of years ago. And now, as of this year, I would

1:35:03

argue you are a pariah.

1:35:07

If you were trying to invest in China

1:35:09

or do any business in China, it's almost like you

1:35:11

can't do business with the enemy. That's

1:35:14

the tone shift that I think accelerated

1:35:16

in the last 24 months. And

1:35:18

as that tone shift happened in the business community

1:35:21

and the investment community, it

1:35:24

obviously escalated the

1:35:27

tenor of what

1:35:29

does the broader relationship

1:35:31

look like that I think catalyzed,

1:35:33

hey, we got to simmer things down because we can't really

1:35:36

afford or deal with that escalation

1:35:39

right now. But I don't know, I mentioned this

1:35:41

to you guys, I was at a conference this past summer, the

1:35:43

summer of 22, it was like, hey, maybe, you

1:35:46

know, when are things going to get bad with China? To

1:35:49

this summer, it's like if you were doing

1:35:51

business in China, you're trying to pick up pennies in

1:35:54

front of a freight train, like

1:35:56

you're going to get run over. And it happened

1:35:58

in one year. That was my observation. It was like this crazy

1:36:00

shift. The chart shows that, right? Yeah,

1:36:03

and I could tell from the tone of what everyone is saying on stage,

1:36:06

it was like universal. There wasn't

1:36:08

anyone that disagreed. And similarly,

1:36:10

as you guys know, we've heard this from both political

1:36:12

parties in the U.S. It suddenly became the new

1:36:15

new thing for Democrats and Republicans

1:36:17

to denounce China, denounce investing in China,

1:36:19

denounce doing business with China. But

1:36:23

too much too fast, I would argue, has

1:36:25

led to an observation of the consequences.

1:36:28

It's a deeply coupled economic partner

1:36:30

to the United States. China

1:36:32

is the largest buyer of U.S.

1:36:34

agricultural exports, $200 billion

1:36:37

a year of farm products that we make.

1:36:40

It gets shipped out to China. China is a

1:36:42

major supplier to our electronics industry. We

1:36:44

don't need to recount all the relationships, but

1:36:46

trying to decouple too quickly, trying to call

1:36:49

China the enemy too fast, I think has led

1:36:51

to a realization that that's not

1:36:54

really attainable. So I would argue that maybe this week

1:36:56

has been a moment. I don't know if it really changes

1:36:58

the long-term trajectory, but it seems like it's certainly

1:37:01

a very important and critical

1:37:04

pause in the escalation. One

1:37:06

thing I wanted to comment, I think one of the biggest winners

1:37:08

this week, I'd love your point of view on this guy, is it's like

1:37:10

Gavin Newsom. I mean, he was all over

1:37:13

this week. Like he was at the plane

1:37:15

greeting, he cleaned up San Francisco.

1:37:18

I mean, he got a shout out from the president.

1:37:20

He was at the dinner. I mean, do you

1:37:23

guys think like Gavin is, you

1:37:25

know, going to be there when Joe says,

1:37:27

I'll see you later. I'm not going to run

1:37:29

again. And then when I spoke, you

1:37:31

know, what's happening here? It's all just a big

1:37:33

coincidence. He

1:37:37

actually went on stage in San Francisco, made all those

1:37:39

comments about the city should be cleaned up and we haven't

1:37:41

been doing it. We could have the whole time. He was very honest

1:37:43

about it. Well, it's not quite what he said. Yeah.

1:37:45

But I look, I mean, I don't know what do you guys, quasi owning it, right?

1:37:47

Facts, quasi owning it. No, I don't think he did

1:37:49

own it. He gave these really weird remarks

1:37:52

about how there are some people are saying

1:37:54

that we're only cleaning up San Francisco

1:37:56

because there's these fancy people here.

1:37:59

That was just such a weird.

1:37:59

term as well. And it's true because it's true.

1:38:02

And it's true, but yeah, it was like he was headed

1:38:04

in one direction and then realized he was making a mistake

1:38:06

but couldn't quite figure out what's going on.

1:38:08

Yeah, let's pull it up. Let's pull it up. It's

1:38:11

good. Yeah, here, play it. Play the clip. They're

1:38:14

just cleaning up this place because all those fancy leaders are

1:38:16

coming into town. That's true because

1:38:18

it's true. What

1:38:21

he's basically doing there is admitting

1:38:24

that he as the governor has

1:38:26

the power to snap his fingers and wave his magic

1:38:28

wand and clean up the streets of San Francisco.

1:38:31

And that is completely different than what he's been telling

1:38:33

us for years. For years, he's been maintaining

1:38:35

that the problem of homelessness in California is

1:38:38

owned by local officials or by judges

1:38:40

or by somehow by the system itself. And

1:38:43

it's too complex and it's beyond his power to

1:38:45

simply do something about it. But he just

1:38:47

admitted that in fact he does have

1:38:50

the power to do something about it. In fact, he

1:38:52

is the boss of a one-party state

1:38:55

and all he had to do was snap his fingers and

1:38:57

make this homeless problem go away. And

1:39:00

he's willing to do that for Xi Jinping.

1:39:02

He's willing to do that for Dreamforce.

1:39:05

He's willing to do that for the Super Bowl. But he is not willing

1:39:07

to do that for the ordinary citizens of

1:39:09

San Francisco. And I think

1:39:11

that ultimately is going to be a huge vulnerability. What

1:39:13

he should have said here is it's

1:39:16

true that we cleaned up the

1:39:18

city to represent

1:39:21

ourselves well for these foreign leaders

1:39:23

who are coming in. But the truth of it is that

1:39:25

we should be doing this every day. And here's

1:39:27

my agenda for fixing it, point one,

1:39:30

two, three. And if we could get everyone on

1:39:32

board with this agenda, we could fix this problem. But

1:39:34

that's not what he said. What he basically communicated

1:39:37

was that I can solve this problem

1:39:39

anytime, but I don't give a shit about you,

1:39:42

ordinary citizens. We only do this for the fancy

1:39:44

people.

1:39:45

Jim Othman, any reaction

1:39:47

to that? He's auditioning. I mean, I think

1:39:49

that much is clear.

1:39:52

Again, I would just say you can't just go

1:39:54

to China and meet with Xi Jinping. So

1:39:56

that has to be endorsed. It's negotiated.

1:39:59

It's a name.

1:40:01

you go there with talking points, you go there

1:40:04

in discussion with state and treasury

1:40:06

and the rest of the federal bureaucracy behind you. So

1:40:09

that was a clear addition of some

1:40:11

kind.

1:40:14

And I think it was obvious that

1:40:17

they wanted the APEC Summit to

1:40:20

be the backdrop of a

1:40:22

Biden G meeting. And

1:40:25

so you're doubling down on California.

1:40:27

So I think

1:40:30

it's kind of like a dry run here

1:40:32

is what I would say. I mean, I'm not sure that it's, I

1:40:34

don't know what for. It definitely made him look presidential.

1:40:37

And I think you're right that when he went to China a

1:40:39

few weeks ago to invite Xi to the summit,

1:40:41

that was clearly sanctioned by

1:40:44

Gavi, by Blinken, by Sullivan. Of course,

1:40:46

you can't do that on your own. Of course, of

1:40:49

course. But again, the reason why they sanctioned

1:40:51

that is because they really want

1:40:53

to ease tensions with China right now, given

1:40:56

how full their hands are with the Middle

1:40:58

East right now. No, no, no, I'm not. I'm not

1:41:00

debating that. I think that that makes all the

1:41:02

sense in the world. I think that you could have sent any

1:41:04

number of, well, not any number, but one

1:41:06

of three cabinet secretaries and it would have been just

1:41:09

as appropriate. I think sending the

1:41:11

governor, I think was a little bit of a, it was

1:41:13

a test. Can he perform?

1:41:15

And I think he did a good job there. He helped himself.

1:41:17

I mean, he heard himself with it's

1:41:20

true because it's true, but he helped himself in terms of

1:41:22

the optics of a current presidential. Can

1:41:24

I say it though? I think he did look

1:41:26

presidential in China. And I actually,

1:41:29

that was the first time where I thought Gavin was really

1:41:31

being a normal person because he actually told

1:41:33

the truth. He's like, yeah, this

1:41:35

state is a, at

1:41:38

its best, no, but this state at its best

1:41:40

is a center of innovation in the future. And

1:41:43

at its worst, it's where every bad progressive

1:41:45

idea goes to die. Don't wait,

1:41:47

he

1:41:47

said that? No,

1:41:49

no, no, I'm saying that. I'm saying San Francisco

1:41:51

embodies both of those two things. On one

1:41:53