AI Doom vs Boom, EA Cult Returns, BBB Upside, US Steel and Golden Votes

1. 0:00 – 1:25

   Bestie intros!

   1. JCJason Calacanis0:00

      All right, everybody. Welcome back to the All-In Podcast, the number one podcast in the world. You got what you wanted, folks. The original quartet is here live from D.C. with a great shirt. Is that... is your haberdasher making that shirt or is that a Tom Ford? That white shirt is so crisp, so perfect. David Sacks, your-

   2. CPChamath Palihapitiya0:19

      Are you talking about me?

   3. JCJason Calacanis0:20

      Your czar. Your czar is with the perfect white shirt.

   4. DFDavid Friedberg0:22

      I'll tell you, I'll tell you exactly what it is. I'll tell you what it is, you can tell me if it's right. Brioni.

   5. CPChamath Palihapitiya0:25

      Yes, of course, it's Brioni.

   6. DFDavid Friedberg0:27

      Bink.

   7. JCJason Calacanis0:27

      Brioni spread collar. Look at that. Unbelievable.

   8. DFDavid Friedberg0:29

      How many years have I spent being rich?

   9. CPChamath Palihapitiya0:32

      When a man turns 50, the only thing he should wear is Brioni. The stitching is-

   10. JCJason Calacanis0:36

       Looks very luxurious.

   11. CPChamath Palihapitiya0:37

       That's how Chamath knew, right? Chamath, how'd you figure it out, the stitching?

   12. JCJason Calacanis0:41

       It's just how it lays with the collar.

   13. DFDavid Friedberg0:42

       To be honest with you, it's the button catch.

   14. CPChamath Palihapitiya0:45

       Hm.

   15. DFDavid Friedberg0:45

       Brioni has a very specific style of button catches. If you don't know what that means, it's because you're a fucking ignorant malcontent yourself. (laughs)

   16. JCJason Calacanis0:52

       I'm looking it up right now.

   17. DFDavid Friedberg0:53

       Jason, right. Yeah, he's like, "I just answered on TV."

   18. NANarrator0:58

       We're going all in. Don't let your winners ride. Rain man, David Sacks. We're going all in. And I said- We open sourced it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Love you, West. Queen of Kin-Wa. Going all in.

   19. JCJason Calacanis1:14

       All right, everybody. The All-In Summit is going into its fourth year, September 7th through 9th. And the goal is, of course, to have the world's most important conversations. Go to allin.com/yada-yada-yada to join us at

2. 1:25 – 25:17

   The AI Doomer Ecosystem: goals, astroturfing, Biden connections, effective altruist rebrand, global AI regulation

   1. JCJason Calacanis1:25

      the summit. All right. Uh, there's a lot on the docket, but there's kind of a very unique thing going on in the world, David. Everybody knows about AI doomerism, basically people who are concerned, uh, rightfully so, that AI could have some, you know, significant impacts on the world. Dario Amodei said he could see employment spike to 10 to 20% in the next couple years, they're 4% now as we've already talked about here. He told Axios that AI companies and government needs to stop sugarcoating what's coming. He expects a mass elimination of jobs across tech, finance, legal, and consulting. Okay, that's a debate we've had here. And entry level workers will be hit the hardest. He wants law mark- makers to take action and more CEOs to speak out. Polymarket thinks regulatory capture via this AI safety bill is very unlikely. US enacts AI safety bill in 2025 currently stands at a 13% chance, but... Uh, Sacks, you wanted to discuss this because it seems like there is more at work than just a couple of technologists with... I think we'd all agree there are legitimate concerns about job destruction or job and employment displacement that could occur with AI. We all agree on that, wh- we're seeing robo-taxis start to hit the streets and I don't think anybody believes that being a cab driver is going to exist as a job 10 years from now. So, there seems to be something here about AI doomerism, but it's being taken to a different level by a group of people maybe, uh, with a different agenda. Yeah?

   2. CPChamath Palihapitiya2:49

      Well, first of all, let's just acknowledge that there are concerns and risks associated with AI. It is a profound and transformative technology, and there are legitimate concerns about, "Where it might lead?" I mean, the future is unknown, and that can be kinda scary. Now, that being said, I think that when somebody makes a pronouncement that says something like, "50% of white collar jobs are gonna be lost within two years," that's a level of specificity that I think is just unknowable and is more associated with an attempt to grab headlines. And to be frank, if you go back and look at Anthropic's announcement or Dario's announcement, there is a pattern of trying to grab headlines by making the most sensationalist version of what could be a legitimate concern. If you go back three years ago, they created this concern that AI models could be used to create bioweapons and they showed what was supposedly a sample, I think, of Claude generating an output that could be used by a bioterrorist or something like that. And on the basis of that, it actually got a lot of play. And in the UK, Rishi Sunak got very interested in this cause, and that led to the first AI safety summit at Bletchley Park. So that sort of concern really drove some of the initial AI safety concerns, but it turns out that that particular output was discredited. It wasn't true. I'm not saying that AI couldn't be used or misused to maybe create a bioweapon one day, but it was not an imminent threat in the way that it was portrayed. There have been other examples of this. You know, obviously, people are concerned about, "Could the AI develop into a super intelligence that grows beyond our control? Could it lead to widespread job loss?" I mean, these are legitimate things to worry about, but I think these concerns are being hyped up to a level that there's simply no evidence for. And the question is why, and I think that there is an agenda here that people should be concerned about.

   3. JCJason Calacanis4:57

      So, let's start with maybe Freyberg, things that we all agree on here. There are millions of people who drive trucks, and Ubers and Lyfts and DoorDashes. Y- you would, I think, agree, the majority of that work in but five to 10 years, just to put a number on it, will be done by self-driving robots, cars, et cetera, trucks. Yeah, Dave?

   4. DFDavid Friedberg5:23

      I think it's... that might be the wrong way to look at it, or, uh, I wouldn't look at it that way and, and maybe I'll just-

   5. JCJason Calacanis5:28

      Okay.

   6. DFDavid Friedberg5:28

      ... give... frame it a different way.

   7. CPChamath Palihapitiya5:30

      Please.

   8. DFDavid Friedberg5:31

      If I'm deploying capital, let's say I'm a CEO of a company and I can now have software that's written by AI, does that mean that I'm gonna fire 80% of my software engineers? Basically, it means one software engineer can output, call it, 20, 50 times as much software as they previously could by using that software generation tool. So, the return on the invested capital, the money I'm spending to pay the salary of that software engineer-... is now much, much higher. I am getting much more out of that person because of the unlocking of the productivity because of the AI tool than I previously could. So when you have a higher ROI on deployed capital, do you deploy more capital or less capital? Suddenly, you have this opportunity to make 20 times on your money versus two times on your money. If you have a chance to make 20 times on your money, you're gonna deploy a lot more capital. And this is the story of technology going back to the first invention of the first technology of the caveman. When we have this ability to create leverage, humans have a tendency to do more and invest more, not less. And I think that's what's about to happen. I think we see this across the spectrum. People assumed, "Oh, my gosh. Software can now be written with one person. You can create a whole startup. You don't need to have venture capital anymore." In fact, what I think we're gonna see is much more venture capital flowing into new tech startups, much more capital being deployed because the return on the invested capital is so, so, so much higher because of AI. So generally speaking, I think that the, the premise that AI destroys jobs is wrong because it doesn't take into account the significantly higher return on invested capital, which means more capital is gonna be deployed, which means actually far more jobs are gonna be created, far more work is gonna get done. And so-

   9. JCJason Calacanis7:25

      Okay.

   10. DFDavid Friedberg7:25

       ... I think that the counterbalancing effect is really hard to see without taking that zoomed out perspective. To, uh, to, to respond to Sax's point, I do think any time you see a major change socially, societally, there's a vacuum. How is the system gonna operate in the future? And any time there's a vacuum in the system, a bunch of people will rush in and say, "I know how to fill that vacuum. I know what to do because I am smarter, more educated, more experienced, more knowledgeable, more moral. I have some superiority over everyone else and therefore I should be in a position to define how the new system should operate." And so there's a natural kind of power vacuum that emerges any time there's a major transition like this, and there will be a scrambling and a fighting and a whole bunch of different representation. Typically, fear is a great way of getting into power and people are gonna try and create new control systems because of the transition that's underway.

   11. JCJason Calacanis8:15

       Okay, Chamath-

   12. DFDavid Friedberg8:15

       You're gonna see this around the world. Yeah.

   13. JCJason Calacanis8:17

       Yeah. I mean, uh, so Chamath, it's pretty clear, you know, Freeberg didn't answer this question specifically so I'm gonna give it to you again. You would agree, jobs like driving things are gonna go away, if we had to pick a number, somewhere between five and 10 years, the majority of those would go away. He's positioning, hey, a lot more jobs will be created because there'll be all these extra venture capital and opportunities, et cetera. But job displacement will be very real and we're seeing, I think, job displacement now. You had a tweet recently, you know, you were talking about entry level jobs and how that seems to be going away i- in the white collar space. So w- where do you land on job displacement? F- Freeberg's already kinda given the big picture here, but let's step back to, for people who are listening who have relatives who drive Uber or a truck or are graduating from college and want to go work at a, you know, I don't know, the Magnificent Seven or in tech and they're not hiring a- and we know the reason they're not hiring, because they're leaning into AI. So let's talk about the job displacement in the medium term.

   14. DSDavid Sacks9:20

       I'm going to ignore your question.

   15. JCJason Calacanis9:22

       Great. Okay, why not?

   16. DSDavid Sacks9:22

       And I'm going to answer-

   17. JCJason Calacanis9:23

       Why should you be any different than the other-

   18. DSDavid Sacks9:25

       ... whatever.

   19. JCJason Calacanis9:25

       ... malcontents on this podcast. (laughs)

   20. DSDavid Sacks9:28

       So I, I-

   21. JCJason Calacanis9:28

       (laughs) There's two people not wanting to answer the question about job displacement. Interesting trend.

   22. DSDavid Sacks9:33

       Hold on. No, no, no. We'll go back to that, but let me start by just saying that it seems that these safety warnings tend to be pretty coincidental with key fundraising moments in Anthropic's journey. So let's just start with that. And if you put that into an LLM and try to figure out if what I just said was true, it's interesting, but you find it's relatively accurate. I think that there is a very smart business strategy here and I've said a version of this about the other companies at the foundational model layer that aren't Meta and Google, because Meta and Google, frankly, sit on these money gushers where they just generate so much capital that they can fund these things to infinity. But if you're not them, so if you're OpenAI or if you're Anthropic, you have to find an angle, and I think the angles are slightly different for both but I think what this suggests is that there's a pattern that exists, and I think that that explains some of the framing of what we see in the press, Jason, and why we get these exaggerated claims.

   23. JCJason Calacanis10:35

       Okay. Perfect. So there are people who are doing this for nefarious reasons is I- I guess where you're sort of getting at here. It's a way to-

   24. DSDavid Sacks10:44

       No, it's not nefarious at all.

   25. JCJason Calacanis10:45

       ... pump up the market.

   26. DSDavid Sacks10:45

       It's smart. It's smart.

   27. JCJason Calacanis10:47

       Okay.

   28. DSDavid Sacks10:47

       If you fall for it, it's up to you.

   29. JCJason Calacanis10:49

       It's a smart strategy. Yeah. Okay. Well, there's also an industrial complex, according to some folks, that are backing this. If you've heard of effective altruism, that was like this, uh, movement of a bunch of, I don't know, I guess they consider themselves intellectual Sax and they, uh, were kind of backing a large swath of organizations that I guess we would call in the industry astroturfing or what do they call it when you make so many of these organizations that they're not real in politics and flooding the zone perhaps? So if you were to look at this article here, Nick, I think you have the AI existential risk, um, industrial complex graphic there. It seems like a group of people, according to this article, uh, have backed to the tune of 1.6 billion a large number of organizations to scare the bejesus out of everybody and make YouTube videos, TikToks, and they've- they've made a map of it.

   30. CPChamath Palihapitiya11:50

       There's some key takeaways here from that article where it says here that it's an inflated ecosystem, there's a great deal of redundancy, same names, acronyms, logos with only minor changes, same extreme talking points, same group of people just with different titles, same funding source. There's a funding source called Open Philanthropy which was funded by Dustin Moskovitz who is one of the, uh, Facebook billionaires. Chamath, you worked with him, right? I mean, he was...... wasn't he, like, Zuck's roommate at Harvard or something? And one of the first engineers who made a lot of money. So he funded-
3. 25:17 – 52:44

   Doom vs Boom in AI: Job Destruction or Abundance?

   1. CPChamath Palihapitiya25:17

      I mean, you know?

   2. DFDavid Friedberg25:17

      Freyberg, I want- I want to come back around again, 'cause I respect your opinion on, you know, how close we are to turning certain corners, especially in science. So, I understand big picture you believe that the opportunity will be there. Hey, we got people out of fields, you know, in the agricultural revolution, we put them into factories, industrial revolution, then we went to this information revolution. So, your position is we will have a similar transition and it'll be okay. But do you not believe that the speed, because that- we've talked about this pr- privately and publicly on the pod, that this speed, the velocity at which these change are occurring, you would agree, are faster than the industrial revolution, much faster than the information revolution. So, let's one more time talk about job displacement, and I think the real concern here for a group of people who are buying into this ideology is specifically unions, job displacement. This is something the EU cares about. This is something the Biden administration cares about. If truck drivers lose their jobs, just like we went to bat previously, uh, for coal miners, and there were only 75,000 or 150,000 in the country at the time, but it became the national dialogue, "Oh my God, the- the- the coal miners," how fast is this going to happen? One more time on drivers specifically. Okay, coders, you think there'll be more code to write, but driving, there's not going to be more driving to be done. So, is this time different in terms of the velocity of the change and the job displacement, in your mind, Freyberg? The velocity is greater, but the benefit will be faster. So, the benefit of the industrial revolution, which ultimately drove lower priced products and broader availability of products through manufacturing, was one of the key outputs of that revolution. Meaning that we created a consumer market that largely didn't exist prior. Remember, prior to the industrial revolution, if you wanted to buy a table or some clothes, they were handmade, they were kind of artisanal. Suddenly, the industrial revolution unlocked the ability to mass produce things in factories, and that dropped the cost and the availability and the abundance of things that everyone wanted to have access to, but they otherwise wouldn't have been able to afford. So, suddenly everyone could go and buy blankets and clothes and canned food and all of these incredible things that started to come out of this industrial revolution that happened at the time. And I think that folks are underestimating and under-realizing the benefits at this stage of what's going to come out of the AI revolution an- and how it's ultimately going to benefit people's, um, uh, availability of products, cost of goods, access to things. So, the counterbalancing force, J-Cal, is deflationary, which is, um, let's assume that the cost of everything comes down by half. That's a huge relief on people's need to work 60 hours a week. Suddenly, you only need to work 30 hours a week and you can have the same lifestyle or perhaps even a better lifestyle than you have today. So, the counterargument to your point, and I'll talk about the pace of change in specific jobs in a moment, but the counterargument to your point is that there's going to be this cost reduction and abundance that doesn't exist today. Give an example. Let's g- give like some examples that we could see. Automation in food prep. So, we're seeing a lot of restaurants install robotic systems to make food, and people are like, "Oh, job loss, job loss." But let me just give you the counter side. The counter side is that the cost of your food drops in half. So, suddenly, you know, all the labor costs that's built into making the stuff you want to pick up... Everyone's freaking out right now about inflation. Oh my God, it's $8 for a cup of coffee. It's $8 for a latte. This is crazy, crazy, crazy. What if that dropped down to two bucks? Hm. You're gonna be like, man, this is pretty awesome, with good service and good experience, and don't make it all dystopian, but suddenly there's going to be this like incredible reduction or deflationary effect in the cost of food. And we're already starting to see automation play its way in the food system to bring inflation down, and that's gonna be- Great example. ... very powerful for people. Shout out to, uh, Itsa, CloudKitchens, and Cafe X, we all took swings at the bat at that exact concept is that it could be done better, cheaper, faster. One of the amazing things of these vision action models that are now being employed is you can rapidly learn using vision systems and then deploy automation systems in those sorts of environments where you have a lot of kind of repetitive tasks that the system can be trained and installed in a matter of weeks. And historically, that would have been a whole startup that would have taken years to figure out how to get all these things together and custom program it, custom code it. So, the flip side is like when Uber hit, those people were not drivers. Think about the jobs that all those people had prior to Uber coming to market, and then the reason they drove for Uber is they could make more money driving for Uber or now driving for Uber Eats- And the flexibility. ... or DoorDash and the flexibility, so their lifestyle got better, they had all of this more control in their life, their incomes went up. And so there's a series of things that, you are correct, won't make sense in the future from a kind of standard of work perspective, but the right way to think about it is opportunity gets created, new jobs emerge, new industry, new income, costs go down. And so I keep harping on this that it's really hard today to be very prescriptive, to Sax's point, about what exactly is around the corner.... but it is an almost certainty that what is around the corner is more capital will be deployed, that means the economy grows, that means there's a faster deployment of growth of new jobs, new opportunities for people to make more money, to be happier in the work that they do-

   3. JCJason Calacanis30:37

      Got it.

   4. DFDavid Friedberg30:37

      ... and on the flip side being things are gonna get cheaper.

   5. JCJason Calacanis30:39

      Okay. Yeah.

   6. DFDavid Friedberg30:39

      So I mean, I know, we're, we're, we're waxing philosophical here, but I think it's really key because you can focus on the one side of the coin and miss the whole other. And that's what a lot of-

   7. JCJason Calacanis30:48

      Absolutely. There is opportunity, one door closes, two more open.

   8. DFDavid Friedberg30:49

      ... journalists and commentators and f- and fearmongerers do, is they miss-

   9. JCJason Calacanis30:52

      Sure.

   10. DFDavid Friedberg30:52

       ... that other side.

   11. JCJason Calacanis30:53

       Got it. Well said, Friedberg, well said.

   12. CPChamath Palihapitiya30:55

       I think I've heard Satya turn this question around about job loss, saying, "Well, do you believe that GDP is gonna grow by 10% a year?" Because what are we talking about here? I- i- in order to have the kind of disruption that you're talking about where, I don't know, 10 to 20% of knowledge workers end up losing their jobs, AI is gonna have to be such a profound force that it's gonna have to create GDP growth like we've never seen before. So it's easier for people to say, "Oh, well 20% of people are gonna lose their jobs," but wait, are we, we're talking about a world in wh- where the economy's growing 10% every year. Like, do we, do you actually believe that's gonna happen?

   13. DFDavid Friedberg31:29

       That's more income. That's more income for everyone. That's new jobs being created. It's an inevitability. We've seen this in every revolution. You know, prior to the Industrial Revolution, 60% of Americans worked in agriculture. And when the tractor came around and factories came around, those folks got to get out of doing manual labor in the field where they were literally, you know, tilling the fields by hand, and they got to go work in a factory where they didn't have to do manual labor to move things. Yeah, they did things in the factory with their hands, but it wasn't about grunt work in the field all day in the sun, and it became a better standard of living. It became new jobs. And today, we think about-

   14. JCJason Calacanis32:02

       It became a five-day work week. It went from a seven-day-

   15. DFDavid Friedberg32:05

       And, yeah, and from seven day-

   16. JCJason Calacanis32:06

       ... six or seven-day work week to five.

   17. DFDavid Friedberg32:07

       ... and today, 100 hours a week to 45, 50 hours a week, to... And now, uh, I think the next stage is we're gonna end up in less than 30 hours a week with people making more money and having more abundance for every dollar that they earn with respect to what they-

   18. JCJason Calacanis32:19

       Yes.

   19. DFDavid Friedberg32:19

       ... can purchase and the lives they can live. That means more time with your family, more time with your friends, more time to explore interesting opportunities. So, you know, we've been through this conversation a number of times. I, I know I'm not being too prescriptive, but-

   20. JCJason Calacanis32:29

       No, it's important to bring it up, I think, and-

   21. DFDavid Friedberg32:31

       Yeah.

   22. JCJason Calacanis32:31

       ... and really unpack it because-

   23. CPChamath Palihapitiya32:33

       Yeah, let me-

   24. JCJason Calacanis32:33

       ... the fear is peaking now, Sax. People are using-

   25. CPChamath Palihapitiya32:36

       Yeah.

   26. JCJason Calacanis32:36

       ... this moment in time to scare people that, "Hey, the jobs are gonna go away and they won't come back." But what we're seeing on the ground, Sax-

   27. CPChamath Palihapitiya32:43

       Yes.

   28. JCJason Calacanis32:44

       ... is I'm seeing many more startups getting created and able to accomplish more tasks and hit a higher revenue per employee than they did in the last two cycles. So it used to be, you know, you try to get to a quarter million in revenue per employee, then 500. Now we're regularly seeing startups hit a million dollars in revenue per employee, something that was rarefied air previously, which then speaks to your point, Friedberg, that there'll be more abundance. There'll be more capital generated, more, you know-

   29. DFDavid Friedberg33:08

       More capital deployed. More, but, yeah.

   30. JCJason Calacanis33:10

       ... because yes, more capital deployed for more opportunities, but you're gonna need to be more resilient, I think.
4. 52:44 – 1:17:14

   Big, Beautiful Bill cleanup and upside: DOGE angle, CBO issues

   1. JCJason Calacanis52:44

      perfect segue. We should talk a little bit about what was the topic of discussion. Yesterday, I had a lunch with a bunch of family offices and capital allocators, uh, government folks here in Singapore, and they were talking about our discussion last week about the Big Beautiful Bill and the debt here in the United States. It's permeating everywhere. The two conversations at every stop I've made here, uh, is the Big Beautiful Bill and the balance sheet of the United States, as well as tariffs. So we need to maybe revisit our discussion last week. Chamath, you had, uh, in Freiburg, did a, uh, an impromptu call with Ron Johnson over the weekend, which then spurred him going on 20 other podcasts, uh, to talk about this. Steven Miller from the administration has been tweeting some corrections or his perceived corrections about the bill. And Sachs, uh, I think you've also started tweeting this. Where do we wanna start? Maybe, Chamath, you-

   2. CPChamath Palihapitiya53:40

      Well, I think there are just a couple of facts that should be cleaned up because-

   3. JCJason Calacanis53:44

      Okay, so facts from the administration, their view of our discussion.

   4. CPChamath Palihapitiya53:49

      Well, even though I was defending the bill last week, on the whole, I wasn't saying it was perfect. I was just saying it was better than the status quo.

   5. JCJason Calacanis53:55

      Yeah, you were clear about that. Yeah.

   6. CPChamath Palihapitiya53:57

      Yeah. But even, even I, in doing that, was conceding some points that I think were just factually wrong, and the big one was that I said I was disappointed that Doge, the Doge cuts weren't included in the Big Beautiful Bill. What Steven Miller has pointed out is that reconciliation bills can only deal with what's called mandatory spending. They can't deal with what's called discretionary spending. And since the Doge cuts apply to discretionary spending, they just can't be dealt with in a reconciliation bill. They have to be dealt with separately. There can be a separate rescission bill that comes up, but it can't be dealt with in this bill. And just to be very clear, look, if the Doge cuts don't happen through rescission, I'm gonna be very disappointed in that. I really want the Doge cuts to happen, but it's just a fact that the Doge cuts cannot happen in the Big Beautiful Bill. It's not that kind of bill, and I think it's therefore wrong to blame Big Beautiful Bill for not containing-... DOGE cuts when the Senate rules don't allow that. You know, it all goes back to the, the Byrd rules. There are only, uh, specific things that can be dealt with through reconciliation, which is this 50-vote threshold, and it has to be, quote unquote, "mandatory spending." Discretionary cuts are dealt with in annual appropriations bills that require 60 votes. Now look, this is kind of a crazy system. I don't know exactly how it evolved. I guess Robert Byrd is the one who came up with all this stuff, and maybe they need to change the system. But it's just wrong to blame the Big Beautiful Bill for not containing the DOGE cuts. That's just a fact.

   7. JCJason Calacanis55:20

      Okay.

   8. CPChamath Palihapitiya55:21

      So the other thing is that the BBB does actually cut spending. It's just not scored that way because when the bill removes the sunset provision from the 2017 tax cuts, the CBO ends up scoring that as effectively a spending increase. But tax rates are simply continuing at their current level, in other words, at this year's level. So if you used the current year as your baseline, okay, and then compared it to spending next year, it would score as a cut in spending. So it's just not, it's not correct to say this bill-

   9. JCJason Calacanis55:57

      So...

   10. CPChamath Palihapitiya55:57

       ... increases spending. It does-

   11. JCJason Calacanis55:59

       Okay.

   12. CPChamath Palihapitiya55:59

       ... actually result in a mandatory spending cut, but it's not getting credit for that because we're continuing the tax rates at the current year's rates.

   13. JCJason Calacanis56:10

       Do you believe, Sachs, that this administration, which you are part of, in four years will have spent, will have balanced the budget? Will it have reduced the deficit or will the deficit continue to grow at two trillion a year? What is your belief?

   14. CPChamath Palihapitiya56:25

       Well, my- my- my-

   15. JCJason Calacanis56:25

       'Cause there's a lot of strategies going on here.

   16. CPChamath Palihapitiya56:27

       My belief... Yeah, my- my belief is that President Trump came into office inheriting a terrible fiscal situation. I mean, basically-

   17. JCJason Calacanis56:34

       Yeah.

   18. CPChamath Palihapitiya56:34

       ... what ha-

   19. JCJason Calacanis56:34

       That he created and that Biden created.

   20. CPChamath Palihapitiya56:36

       I don't think he created it.

   21. JCJason Calacanis56:36

       They both put eight trillion, they both put eight trillion on the debt. That's just a fact.

   22. CPChamath Palihapitiya56:39

       Okay, it's a big difference, it's a big difference to add to the deficit when you're in the emergency phase of COVID, and it was emergency spending-

   23. JCJason Calacanis56:45

       Okay, fine, I'll give him a mulligan for that. Sure.

   24. CPChamath Palihapitiya56:47

       It's emergency spending. It was never supposed to be permanent, and then somehow Biden made it permanent, and he wanted a lot more. Remember Build Back Better? He wanted a lot more. So, you know, it's, it's tough when you come into office with a, what is it, $2 trillion annual deficit.

   25. JCJason Calacanis57:00

       Okay, so to my original question-

   26. CPChamath Palihapitiya57:02

       Now look, now look, hold on.

   27. JCJason Calacanis57:02

       Mm-hmm.

   28. CPChamath Palihapitiya57:03

       Would I like to see the deficit eliminated in one year? Yeah, absolutely, but there's just not the votes for that.

   29. JCJason Calacanis57:08

       Well, I asked you for four years.

   30. CPChamath Palihapitiya57:08

       You, there's a one-vote margin here in the House, and the Democrats aren't cooperating in any way. So I think that the administration is getting the most done that it can. This is a mandatory spending cut, and I think the DOGE cuts will be dealt with hopefully through rescission in a subsequent bill.
5. 1:17:14 – 1:17:41

   US Steel/Nippon Steel deal: national champions and golden votes

   1. JCJason Calacanis1:17:14

      President Trump. This was something that was being blocked by Biden, obviously, for, uh, national security reasons. Nippon is gonna acquire US Steel for $14.9 billion. Biden blocked that, as we had discussed. On Friday, Trump cleared the deal to go through, calling it, "A partnership that will create 70,000 jobs in the US." And on Sunday, Trump called the deal, "An investment," saying, "It's a partial ownership, but it will be controlled by the USA." Chamath, i- there seems to be, uh, a reframing of this deal and that-

Episode duration: 1:29:40