DOGE unveils a roadmap, Unlocking GDP Growth, WW3 escalation, Fat cell memory

Jason Calacanis 0:00 Chamath, do you hear that Friedberg got busted looking at porn on his computer?

Chamath Palihapitiya 0:03 (laughs)

David Sacks 0:04 (laughs) No, I did not. You got busted looking at porn?

Jason Calacanis 0:07 You want to know what it was?

David Sacks 0:08 Yeah.

Chamath Palihapitiya 0:09 (laughs)

Jason Calacanis 0:09 It was Elon and Vivek's Wall Street Journal op-ed.

Chamath Palihapitiya 0:13 It was. (laughs) I lost it.

David Sacks 0:14 Oh, man.

Chamath Palihapitiya 0:15 I lost it. It was too good.

David Sacks 0:16 (laughs)

Jason Calacanis 0:17 I think he was pleasuring himself to that op-ed.

Chamath Palihapitiya 0:18 He was playing the skin flute. (laughs)

David Sacks 0:21 He was playing yogurt everywhere. What happened that is?

Chamath Palihapitiya 0:24 He had to go for a quick game of pocket pool as you were... Oh my God. (laughs) It was, it was too exciting.

David Sacks 0:29 You were beating the bishop.

Jason Calacanis 0:30 Allison came in and she was like wondering what was going on.

Chamath Palihapitiya 0:33 She grabbed my computer, she looked at it-

Jason Calacanis 0:35 (laughs)

Chamath Palihapitiya 0:35 ... and it was an essay.

Narrator 0:37 Going all in. Let your winner ride. Rain Man, David Sacks. I'm going all in. And I said. We open sourced it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it.

David Sacks 0:49 Love you, bestie.

Narrator 0:50 Queen of quinoa. I'm going all in.

David Sacks 0:53 All right, before we get to DOGE, we got a little house keeping, a little housey-housekeeping. You know, we're getting into the holiday spirit here, it's episode 205, we're in year four, and we're having a Christmas party. It's going to be great. The All-In Holiday Spectacular is happening in San Francisco on Saturday, December 7th. I think the VIPs sold out, there's still some tickets left. Go to allin.com/events. And, uh, if you can't make it to San Francisco, I think you can buy, uh, a ticket for $50 on, uh, on the, uh, Zoom. I think we're going to have it on Zoom. Is that right? Am I... Do I have my facts straight there, Friedberg?

Chamath Palihapitiya 1:33 Yeah. There's going to be a live stream.

David Sacks 1:35 Mm-hmm.

Chamath Palihapitiya 1:36 Thanks to Zoom for setting this up for us. It's kind of interesting they're doing this thing where you could, you kind of, you know, get access to live events. So they're helping us-

David Sacks 1:45 Mm-hmm.

Chamath Palihapitiya 1:45 ... get this set up if you want to watch the, the stream live on Zoom.

David Sacks 1:50 Anything's possible. It could be spicy.

Chamath Palihapitiya 1:53 True that. True that.

David Sacks 1:53 True that. All right,

David Sacks 1:54 listen, bestie Elon and bestie Vivek wrote an op-ed, a barn burner in the Wall Street Journal about DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency. And they laid it out, they want to cut overbearing and unnecessary regulation, obviously. They want to cut unnecessary administrative roles, save taxpayers money. They want to run it by founders, not politicians. Helping the Trump transition team find a way to hire "a lean team of small government crusaders." Team's going to work closely with the White House Office of Management and Budget. Here's the plan: first, take aim at 500 billion in annual fe- federal expenditures that are unauthorized by Congress, then fix the government's procurement process by conducting massive audits during temporary payment suspensions. This is an interesting playbook that Elon has done before. So basically, suspend all the payments and, hey, let everybody audit those payments. Drive change through executive action based on existing legislation rather than passing new laws. And two SCOTUS rulings are going to play a major role here. West Virginia versus EPA. That's when SCOTUS ruled that federal agencies can't impose regulations dealing with major economic or policy questions unless Congress authorizes them to do so. And Luper Bright versus Raimondo, that's from 2024, and that overturned the Chevron doctrine. We talked about that on a previous episode. So according to DOGE, when combined, "These cases suggest that a plethora of current federal regulations exceed the authority Congress has granted under the law." DOGE will use software and legal experts to create a list of regulations that Trump can immediately pause. They're going to make some sort of a leaderboard, Elon said, and Vivek said he would do, he suspended his existing podcast. I didn't know he had a podcast, but he's doing a DOGEcast, a DOGE podcast. And so, Friedberg, this has been, you know, a, a major issue for you. Y- you've been talking about on this podcast that the unsustainable, existential issue for our country is all of the debt we have. What are the chances that this is going to occur? Because obviously we all know the machine is going to fight to preserve the machine. Chances that we are sitting here in four years and we've seen meaningful cuts in spending and a meaningful reduction in size of the government.

Chamath Palihapitiya 4:25 Look, it, it... DOGE has probably 18 months to do what they can do before the midterms, and there's going to be an inevitable amount of recoil and backlash that's going to arise from the actions that they're going to try and take, and President Trump's going to try and take, uh, under the, uh, recommendations provided by DOGE. Um, so they need to move fast and aggressively, and that's only going to cause the recoil to be harder and, and faster. There's going to be a ton of litigation. Obviously, everything's going to go to court. It's going to be, um, incredibly politicized. What is frustrating and challenging to me is that there is nothing that they said that doesn't seem obvious and right. I don't know how you can politicize the points that they're making. Put aside their party, put aside who they are individually, put aside how we got here. At the end of the day, this federal government needs to be run more efficiently, more effectively. It is unfair and it is a tax on every one of us to have money thrown away. To have wasted capital, to have bureaucracy that gets in the way of people being able to do their jobs. It is a tax on all of us and our kids and our future. It needs to be fixed. If it doesn't get fixed, as I've said countless times before, we are in an arithmetic debt death spiral. There is no way out of it. So by resolving both the inefficiency, reducing the bureaucracy, stopping the wasteful spending, having accountability in the org- in the government, we can actually get the United States another 50 years, 100 years, whatever long we want. But we were literally in a death spiral leading up to this moment. And I have no idea how we ended up on this timeline. I was over the moon and shocked when I read...... all of the progress over the last couple of weeks in putting this thing together, I did not know that this is where we would end up. I couldn't be more happy with what I think is gonna happen with Doge and its effect on, if not actually making the changes, shining a light on the issues that need to be addressed. And I will say, it is unfair to Americans for this to be politicized. The Democrats shouldn't make this a Republican issue. This is not about Republicans doing damage. This is about doing the right thing for the government and for the country. And the Democrats had an opportunity to own this issue, and instead they've chosen to oppose it, which makes no sense. It is frustrating and challenging to me as an American to think that this is even a political point. This should be a what's right for America point. It's almost like we're going to war, war with ourselves, with our bureaucracy, with the morass that's been built up over the last couple of decades. And I'm thrilled that this is happening, and frankly, put the p- put the people aside, maybe it's the fact that you need people that are as outspoken, as challenging, as difficult as these two particular individuals that are gonna run this group. But that might be what it takes for it to happen in the small 18-month window that they have. So-

David Sacks 7:08 We had a, um-

Chamath Palihapitiya 7:08 ... I don't know, that's my rant on it.

David Sacks 7:10 Yep, great rant. And, uh, we had a Milton Friedman clip go viral, and he spoke exactly about his positions on what he would eliminate, departments like Agriculture, Commerce, Education. Let's just play that clip, and then there was obviously the Millei interview by Lex Fridman earlier this week.

David Friedberg 7:26 Keep them or abolish them? Department of Agriculture?

Milton Friedman 7:30 Abolish, gone, I mean.

David Friedberg 7:31 Department of Commerce?

Milton Friedman 7:33 Abolish.

David Friedberg 7:34 Gone. Department of Defense?

Milton Friedman 7:36 Keep.

David Friedberg 7:36 Keep it? Department of Education?

Milton Friedman 7:39 Abolish.

David Friedberg 7:39 Gone. Energy?

Milton Friedman 7:41 Abolish.

David Friedberg 7:42 Health and Human Services?

Milton Friedman 7:43 There is room for some public health activities to prevent, uh, uh, uh, contagion.

David Friedberg 7:49 We'll eliminate half of the Department of Health and Human Services?

Milton Friedman 7:50 Yeah, something like that.

David Friedberg 7:51 Okay, one half, there we go. Housing and Urban Development?

Milton Friedman 7:54 Out.

David Friedberg 7:54 Done. That's gone. Department of the Interior.

Milton Friedman 7:57 The problem there is, you first have to sell off all the land that the government owns. But that's what you should do. You should get rid of-

David Friedberg 8:03 But it could be done pretty quickly.

Milton Friedman 8:04 It could be done. You should-

David Friedberg 8:05 The whole series of ownership.

Milton Friedman 8:05 You should do that.

David Friedberg 8:06 Department of Justice?

Milton Friedman 8:07 Oh, yes.

David Friedberg 8:08 Keep that one.

Milton Friedman 8:08 Keep that one.

David Friedberg 8:09 Labor?

Milton Friedman 8:10 No.

David Friedberg 8:10 Gone. State?

Milton Friedman 8:12 Keep.

David Friedberg 8:13 Keep it. Transportation?

Milton Friedman 8:15 Gone.

David Friedberg 8:15 Gone. The Treasury?

Milton Friedman 8:18 You have to keep it to collect taxes.

David Friedberg 8:20 All right, collect taxes through the Treasury.

David Sacks 8:21 Sax, you see that clip? You see the activity going on with Doge. W- do you think that the machine will allow what Milton Friedman is describing there, what Javier Milei is doing in Argentina, and what Elon is proposing with Doge? Do you think the machine's gonna allow, you know, the wholesale deleting of Department of Agriculture, Department of Education at a federal level and move all that stuff to the states? What do you think is gonna happen here? A- and how hard will the machine fight back against this, in your mind? Because, hey, you might have some Republicans, some Democrats, they fought really hard to get jobs, to get subsidies, to put in factories, whatever from the federal government. Are they just gonna give that all back? The clip is from 1998, by the way. Sax, your thoughts.

9:11 Well, that Milton Friedman clip, as great as it is, I mean, it really is outstanding, is setting expectations a little bit too high here. I mean, we're not gonna be able to wipe out entire major departments of the government that are Cabinet-level positions. I don't think that's in the cards. And what Milton Friedman's basically describing is a night watchman state, and I don't think we're gonna get back to that. However, if you look right now at the opinions on the legacy media, MSDNC, CNN, all that kinda stuff, they are forecasting that Doge is gonna amount to nothing. They're basically saying that the powers that be in Washington are gonna reject it completely. There's somehow gonna be a falling out between Elon and DJT. They're just very cynical. And then-

9:54 Oh, DJT?

9:56 And then you have people who are not necessarily dismissive in that way in the media, but just kind of long-time Washington insiders who feel like they've seen it all before and nothing ever happens, and so they're just very jaded and cynical. So, I would say that, you know, again, I wouldn't have the expectations of the Milton Friedman level, but I think that the expectations for Doge right now are being set incredibly low by the media and by the Washington insiders. And I think there are good reasons to believe that the results will surpass those, those low expectations. Number one is, you've got Elon Musk running this thing with Vivek, and Elon understands better than anybody the impact of deleterious regulations on business, so he can really put a microscope on that. He's got the largest speech platform in the world with X, the largest account on X, and he's also built a get-out-the-vote operation that he funded in the last election that he's promised to keep around and potentially expand. So, his influence hopefully is not going anywhere. He's gonna be able to keep using that to help keep politicians on side here.

11:08 Amplify, right?

11:09 Yeah. So that's number one is, no one's ever made money betting against Elon Musk, and I don't expect that to start right now. Number two is, you've got Vivek, who is co-head with Elon of this thing, and I think he's a perfect partner for Elon. Because Vivek, first of all, he's a brilliant guy with a lot of success in business, but he's also a Harvard-trained lawyer. He's a brilliant legal mind. And I think you could see in that op-ed, I suspect, the parts that were citing all those from court decisions, were his influence. And so they figured out a legal roadmap here. It's not just a matter of kinda going to Congress and hoping Congress acts. They've got a way here, sequentially, to do this, through the executive branch, through executive orders, going through the court system. They've kinda got a game plan here that's not entirely reliant on legislation. So, I think Vivek's influence and, and sort of legal strategic mind is a, is a big asset here. And then, I think the third reason to be optimistic is just the fact that this was printed-... on the Wall Street Journal op-ed page. It suggestive in and of itself. What this shows is that this DOGE effort is, I think, uniting both the kind of populist reformers and the establishment types within the party. If Elon and Vivek were trying to get a mandate for no more forever war, I don't think the Wall Street Journal-

12:33 Yeah. No.

12:33 ... would be publishing that, right?

12:34 (laughs) No.

12:35 Just would not happen. So, there are, are reasons to believe that this will not actually divide the party, that the party could unify around this-

12:41 It could be consensus-building, yeah.

12:42 Could be, yeah.

12:43 I mean-

12:43 Now look, every congressman and every senator is still gonna advocate for their pork barrel project in their district or their-

12:51 Right.

12:51 ... state, and it's gonna be very hard to push back on that. However, you could imagine a process like we had with the Base Closure Commission when the United States needed to close a bunch of military bases, and they created a, a co- an outside commission to recommend the cuts and everyone kinda shared the pain equally. Maybe DOGE could somehow play into that.

13:09 Force trade a little bit, yeah.

13:10 So I'm not saying it's gonna be perfect, but I do think that if Republicans share a principle across, again, both these establishment and the populist side, it would be in reducing unnecessary regulation and the number of regulators needed, the number of government employees needed to enforce all those regulations. So, I'm hopeful that they'll be able to get something done within the party. And since the Republicans have the trifecta, if they've got Trump's leadership and they've got the leadership of the Senate and House backing it, I think they'll be able to get something done. Again, it's not gonna be-

13:44 I think, yeah.

13:45 ... it's not gonna be Milton Friedman level, but I'm optimistic they'll get something good and important done.

13:49 I think the easiest thing for them to get done with DOGE is the naming, the shaming, the auditing, the transparency of what we're actually spending, because so many of the audits, Chamath, are just not completed. People don't know what's being spent. And if you show Americans a $12,000 hammer or people with job titles not coming into the office or coming into the office one day a week, one day a month, that's gonna infuriate taxpayers. And I think there's a very easy way to navigate all this. You just create the leaderboard and you not only shame people who are wasting our tax dollars, you celebrate the people who are heroes, who start showing frugality and cost-saving, and they're gonna do this with a leaderboard of the heroes and the goats. This could be the unifying, not just the Republican Party as, as Sax is pointing out, Chamath, I think this could unify the whole country. Is there anybody paying taxes that wants to see money wasted, that wants to see us pay people high salaries to not come to work? Chamath, what's your take on the sequence of events here? What are easy layups that they could actually get done? And then where is the machine gonna fight and try to stop this thing?

David Friedberg 14:58 I think you are highlighting something that they can do right away, which I think is very powerful, which is just using these distribution channels that Elon has now to create a massive layer of accountability. I do think that sunshine is a really incredible disinfectant. I think the best way that they could start, if possible, is to stop paying their vendors until you actually have some amount of accounting to figure out, as you said, how many $600 soap dispensers are actually being bought and sold now. That kind of, whatever you wanna call that, corruption or grift, it's not going to account for hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars. But I do think that it is a very moral and symbolic win that says-

David Sacks 15:46 Yes.

David Friedberg 15:46 ... we're going, we're going to start to get much more rational, and it starts to allow the average American to actually feel like they have a little bit of control and they have a more vested interest in how the government spends money. But I wanna, I actually wanna take a step back for a second. And before I talk about what DOGE can do, I just want to highlight something that's been going on in California, because I think it, it explains a lot. In California, and I'm just gonna read this stat because it's incredible, the regulatory burden in California as a state from 1997 to 2015, this is when the data is available that I found, has increased by almost 50%. As of May of 2022, there are almost 61,000 individual regulations in the state of California. So, what does that mean and where does it come from? And Nick, if you can just put out the tweet, it has happened over a period of time in which the government has been the absolute singular source of employment in the state. And we talked about this before, where this is also a problem at the federal level when you look at GDP and job growth, because it looks like a lot of these jobs are actually fake, manufactured, government-type jobs. So why is this a problem? You've seen in California, the issue that we have is that if you have a growth in the number of employees, in this case in California all the job growth within recent memory has been state employees. What is the byproduct? Regulations go up. What is the byproduct of that? There are actually no private sector jobs, and more to the point, the private sector flees. So now let's bubble that up and look at the federal government. Nick, if you wanna just show that chart that I, that I sent you. What is incredible, J-Cal, is that the more people are hired by the government, lo and behold, what do you see? The number of regulations issued by federal agencies has just continued unabated year in, year out. You cannot run a country like this. So-

David Sacks 18:01 'Cause these, these accumu-

David Friedberg 18:03 ... Congress is doing-

David Sacks 18:03 ... accumulate, right?

David Friedberg 18:04 Congress is doing less and less of a job actually trying to frame how the country should work. That white space is filled in, as Friedberg said, by these federal agencies. It compounds and accumulates. This is not replacing laws, none of these regulations have expiry dates.And so as a result, I think what you probably have is an incredible restraint on the US economy. I think that the US economy could be growing at 4 or 5%, but the reason that it doesn't grow at 4 or 5% is in that one single chart. It is impossible to be able to live up to your economic potential when you have this burden on your neck.

David Sacks 18:46 Yeah.

David Friedberg 18:46 So I think the real opportunity for Doge is to basically do whatever it needs to do using the law to wipe as many of these regulations off the books. We are better cutting them all to zero and then finding the ones we really need and then repassing those, than we are going at this piecemeal.

David Sacks 19:08 Or...

David Friedberg 19:08 And there are some incredible-

David Sacks 19:09 Yeah.

David Friedberg 19:09 ... there's some incredible ideas, by the way, that this creates. Nick, I don't know if you can find this tweet, but Doge asked what people think of the IRS. And there was an enormous amount of activity that essentially said, "Give us a flat tax and wipe out the tax code."

David Sacks 19:26 Yes.

David Friedberg 19:26 And people were very flexible in the amount of tax that they were willing to pay. But could you imagine the simplification in the tax code and the implications of that? I was in Singapore, by the way, 10 days ago when I started my trip. Nick, beep out the name of the person I'm about to say, but I had a long meeting with (beep) who, you know, is there. And I was asking him the complexity of dealing with taxes. He's like, "What do you mean? We don't... We pay a very simple tax system, there's no capital gains in Singapore, and so as a result, our filing requirements are de minimisly small."

David Sacks 20:00 Mm.

David Friedberg 20:00 But as a result, people like him, meaning great entrepreneurs, can spend all their time thinking about what to build, not how to-

David Sacks 20:07 Not tax optimization, 10-

David Friedberg 20:09 Exactly. Or not... Or how to-

David Sacks 20:11 Yeah.

David Friedberg 20:11 ... account for it.

David Sacks 20:12 Yes.

David Friedberg 20:12 So could you imagine if these guys basically used Doge as a mechanism to shrink the tax code, create a flat tax potentially? I know that that has to be passed by Congress, I understand that, but the idea of just cutting this all the way down and then finding through that process what you actually need, I think can find America 100, 200 basis points of GDP growth. It could be an economic renaissance.

David Sacks 20:39 I mean, just to build on that, cutting all the regulations to zero, you might have- throw out some babies in the bathwater, so why not put a clock on them and just say, "Whenever this was enacted, plus five years and then it rolls off, or plus two years," whatever number of months, and then you could have them, Chamath, rolling off every month to be reassessed-

David Friedberg 20:57 I think that that's a good idea, but it has to be-

David Sacks 20:59 ... you know, quarterly, yeah.

David Friedberg 21:00 I think that's a good idea, but J-Cal, I think you first have to cancel all these regulations-

David Sacks 21:05 Mm-hmm.

David Friedberg 21:05 ... and then say, "Whatever we need, we will reenact-"

David Sacks 21:08 Right.

David Friedberg 21:08 "... to your point, on a five-year shot clock that then has to be renewed in a new congressional period." And I think that that's extremely healthy.

David Sacks 21:16 Well, because you know what? People die, paradigms shift, and then nobody even remembers these regulations. You have to do archeology to figure out who created this, what was the intent? And you would never do that. You would never live, Sacks, with all of these rules forever.

David Friedberg 21:30 Just one last comment. In fairness to these government employees, the one thing is that it's not their fault, right? Meaning in the sense that they were hired into a regime where the incentive was to regulate so that you had things to oversee.

David Sacks 21:46 Yeah.

David Friedberg 21:46 And so they did their job. In fact, I would say they did their job incredibly well. But the point is that now we need to pivot for them to do a totally different job.

David Sacks 21:53 Well, Chamath, uh, I'll- I'll- I'll hand this over to Free- Freidberg. Freidberg, if you were to get re- rid of regulations (laughs) as somebody working in the government, you might work your way out of a job. So the incentive is completely perverse and reverse to what we actually need in the country, which is less regulation, more thoughtful regulation, and some process by taking these things on and off the books and adapting them to reality. Yeah?

Chamath Palihapitiya 22:16 This is where I think... I think we've talked about this many t- many times in the past, but like, all organizations have a natural tendency to grow. They- they want-

David Sacks 22:26 Mm.

Chamath Palihapitiya 22:26 ... to grow. They're not-

David Sacks 22:26 Yes.

Chamath Palihapitiya 22:27 Like, find me one nonprofit or find me one university or find me one company or one government agency that's ever said, "My job is to shrink myself." It's never happened. So why does that happen? Well, if you look at the, like, day-to-day operating role of each individual, over time, like all individuals, they want to do more. They wanna have a bigger impact, they wanna have more scale, they wanna have more leverage. So there is this natural set of incentives that drives a lot of choices and operating procedures on the ground that create more structure, more scale, more leverage, and drive more hiring. Everyone wants to become a manager of people, they don't want to just be doing the same IC job forever, individual contributor job forever. So if they w- wanna be a manager, they gotta find more stuff to do, and then they gotta hire people to do that stuff. So all of these organizations, whether... Again, and y- we've all been on boards of nonprofits, I'm sure, and we've all been involved in this sort of thing, there's always this, like, incentive to raise more capital, to hire more people, to do more stuff that sort of... It's really unclear until you really dig into the psychology of each individual person working there why this is happening. I don't think that the federal government is any different. Each of these people feel they want to be more important, they want to have a bigger role, they want to have a bigger impact, and their job-

David Sacks 23:38 Make more impact, yeah.

Chamath Palihapitiya 23:39 So if your job-

David Sacks 23:39 It's virtuous, right?

Chamath Palihapitiya 23:40 If your job direct- uh, directionally is to regulate, then what's the scaler on regulation? More regulation. So therefore, to do more, you have to regulate more. There's no regulator that says, "I wanna regulate less over time," because we've created a system that's one directional. So you have to have these resets. If you don't have them naturally, they're gonna happen unnaturally in the form of social unrest and breakdowns of the economy and collapse of social structures, all these other things that happen way, way down, or as Chamath is pointing out, in California, in the economic structure of California, which I think is happening on a kind of national scale because of the outsized role the federal government plays in our national economy here today. So s- you have to have these unnatural forces come in and, and do this readjustment from time to time. Otherwise, it's just gonna break on its own.

David Sacks 24:28 And Milei in Argentina has basically, uh, basically, I don't know, a year or an 18-month head start on us and has been doing this. He did a great podcast with Lex Fridman. They translated it, actually. They dubbed it, which is kind of interesting technology. And in this discussion, they talked about reducing the ministries, agencies from 20 to eight. They fired 50,000 government workers, 15% of the total workforce. There were 341,000 when he started. They implemented daily deregulation process to remove inefficient policies, so they just do that day in and day out. They ended discretionary payments to provinces and cities to restore market-driven utility prices, no more subsidies, yada, yada, yada, right down the line. Sachs, your thoughts on how many months it will take to do this. And there's this, this discussion, and I don't know if that's from inside the Trump administration, of, "Hey, we gotta get this done in 18 months. We gotta get this done in 18 months." What can you tell us about the, the sense of urgency about getting this done quickly and, and why that's occurring?

25:36 Well, I think Elon and, and Vivek have announced that Doge will be sunsetting or disbanding at the 250th anniversary of America, which would be July 4th of 2026. So they've only given themselves about, what's that, 18 months?

25:53 Yep.

25:54 Which kinda makes sense, right? I mean-

Chamath Palihapitiya 25:55 And that's, that's leading into the midterms, right?

David Sacks 25:57 Right, exactly. You tend to have the most momentum coming off an election like this one where you have the trifecta. So I think that makes a lot of sense that they're gonna be able to have the greatest impact, let's say, in the first year after the new president and Congress gets sworn in.

26:14 How do you get Democrats in on this, Sachs? How do you push them to join the party, to, to join the movement, to be more efficient, to be more transparent? Is there a possibility for us to get some coordination here with the other side or no?

26:28 I mean, you might be able to get some support of particular Democrats on particular things. I don't wanna say that it's not possible. Difficult, but not, not impossible. But look, I think what Milei has done in Argentina is remarkable. I mean, that was a country that was a total basket case. Inflation was out of control. Uh, it's already, because of the cuts he's made, they now have a more normal inflation rate and they've gone from basically being uninvestable to investable as a country. Now, the United States is not the basket case that Argentina is, but we are on an unsustainable fiscal trajectory. Doge is also not gonna have the power that Milei has. It's not gonna have the degrees of freedom to act, but we also don't have as big a problem. What we need to do is just bend our fiscal curve from being unsustainable to being sustainable. And if we can do that, it'll have a huge impact on the economy. Specifically, what we saw in the last election, the thing that probably hurt the Democrats the most was inflation. Voters clearly do not like inflation. They do not like the diminishment of their purchasing power. But how do you stop inflation? You have to raise interest rates, and that's not good either because that raises the cost of a mortgage, that raises the cost of a car payment. It's bad for investment, right? Because if interest rates are higher, then that means the discount rate on stocks and real estate, on every investment class basically, is higher, and the hurdle rate for investments higher. So high interest rates are also bad for the economy. So how do you get out of that box where you either have high inflation or high interest rates? The only way is to bend the fiscal curve to that more sustainable path. And if you can-

Chamath Palihapitiya 28:10 Yes.

David Sacks 28:10 ... and if you can do that, the bond markets will actually give you credit for it in advance because they know-

Chamath Palihapitiya 28:17 Hallelujah.

David Sacks 28:17 ... uh, it, because they know that they're not gonna be flooded-

Chamath Palihapitiya 28:19 Mm-hmm.

David Sacks 28:20 ... with the need to keep funding all of this US government debt. So we either get to kind of, you know, startups have this saying about being either default alive or default dead. We either get to default sustainable or default unsustainable. Right now, we're unsustainable. The bond markets know it. Inflation remains persistently high, around 3%. The Fed has not been able to cut interest rates the way that they expected to. Remember, the markets were expecting seven cuts this year. We got basically three. We got a 50 and a 25. So it's just hasn't been the cuts that people were expecting, and that's because inflation hasn't come down as much as people thought. So if Doge, working with the rest of the government, OMB, the Treasury, Congress, executive orders, can now convince the markets that the US financial picture is more sustainable, we'll get credit for that. Interest rates will come down, and that'll lead to a boom in the economy. So it's all win-win if they can pull this off.

29:16 Friedberg, any final thoughts here before we move on from Doge wishing Elon and Vivek as much success as possible? We've really, I mean, everybody should be rooting for this. You wanna give us your final thoughts?

Chamath Palihapitiya 29:31 I feel like America is Neo from The Matrix-

David Sacks 29:36 Hmm.

Chamath Palihapitiya 29:36 ... where there was, like, a thousand bullets being shot at America and we, like, literally had to dodge every single one of them in order to get to this, this point.

David Sacks 29:45 Mm.

Chamath Palihapitiya 29:46 I, again, I am so shocked and surprised in a positive way that we ended up on this particular timeline. Look, everything had to go the way it went for this to have happened. (laughs) Biden decided to run for reelection. Biden stayed in too long. They didn't run a primary. They put Kamala in. Kamala-

David Sacks 30:03 Elon got off the fence, switched parties.

Chamath Palihapitiya 30:05 Elon, Elon-

David Sacks 30:06 Yeah.

Chamath Palihapitiya 30:06 ... decided to throw 100 million bucks at the problem. Elon bought Twitter. China had a real estate bubble. I mean, you can go down the list of things that had to go right for us to get to this very moment where a small group of people have recognized the fiscal death spiral that the United States federal government has been in and have the authority and the capacity and the skills to be able to go and execute against a solution.I have no idea how this could have been architected. Maybe Sachs knew all along and I convinced him two years ago that this was how things had to go, and he's been designing it like Emperor Palpatine.

David Sacks 30:44 Maybe it's you talking about Ray Dalio-

Chamath Palihapitiya 30:45 Yeah.

David Sacks 30:45 ... and the end of the empire for three years on this podcast.

Chamath Palihapitiya 30:48 And honestly, as, as, as we-

David Sacks 30:48 Maybe you did it, Freberg. We give you credit.

Chamath Palihapitiya 30:50 As we remember, when, when we talked with Dalio about this, he's like-

David Sacks 30:52 Doctor Doom.

Chamath Palihapitiya 30:53 ... the hand's full. And also around the, the relationship with China, which I think this is all very tightly related, we may have dodged a lot of bullets.

David Sacks 31:02 Hmm.

Chamath Palihapitiya 31:03 And, uh, and if the United States can get its house in order, reduce federal spending while increasing, um, economic activity, uh, it can be a, a tremendous unlock for the US and for world peace. So, uh, because again, I think that conflict arises when, when we don't have our own fiscal house in order. And so I feel very positive, more s- more surprised and positive than I was a year ago, six months ago. It's just amazing we're on this timeline, and I do think the United States as Neo dodged a lot of bullets here.

David Sacks 31:31 Absolutely.

Jason Calacanis 31:31 Well, Freberg, I, I told you everything was proceeding as I had foreseen.

Chamath Palihapitiya 31:35 (laughs)

David Sacks 31:36 (laughs)

David Friedberg 31:36 (laughs)

David Sacks 31:36 Ah, the Emperor.

David Friedberg 31:37 You know what happened to the tenure when Elan and Vivek wrote that essay?

Chamath Palihapitiya 31:40 I don't... actually don't. What happened?

David Friedberg 31:41 Yields contracted by five basis points. You know what-

Chamath Palihapitiya 31:44 Yeah.

David Friedberg 31:44 ... the value of that is?

Chamath Palihapitiya 31:46 Couple billion?

David Friedberg 31:47 15 billion per year.

Chamath Palihapitiya 31:49 Yeah. Yeah.

David Sacks 31:50 Mm-hmm.

Chamath Palihapitiya 31:50 So-

David Friedberg 31:50 So I think that it was probably 100 billion dollar essay, just writing it.

Chamath Palihapitiya 31:56 (laughs)

Jason Calacanis 31:56 I think you will find that this Doge is quite operational. (laughs)

David Sacks 32:01 (laughs)

David Friedberg 32:03 I mean, it... I think it's got a chance. I mean, if you can't-

Chamath Palihapitiya 32:06 Uh...

David Friedberg 32:07 I think that the key-

Chamath Palihapitiya 32:07 I just wish it weren't political, right? I, I want, I want all, I want all Americans and Democrats to stand up and say, "This is the right thing for the United States."

David Friedberg 32:14 Absolutely.

Chamath Palihapitiya 32:14 "Forget about the fact and the problem is-"

David Friedberg 32:17 Guys, the essay-

Chamath Palihapitiya 32:17 Yeah.

David Friedberg 32:17 The essay saved us 100 billion, just the essay.

Chamath Palihapitiya 32:20 Thank you.

David Friedberg 32:20 Here's the thing.

Chamath Palihapitiya 32:21 (laughs)

David Friedberg 32:21 They should write an essay a day. (laughs)

David Sacks 32:24 They, they're gonna have to be very strategic-

Chamath Palihapitiya 32:26 That's true.

David Sacks 32:26 ... about how they-

Chamath Palihapitiya 32:27 If they detailed what they're doing, yeah.

David Sacks 32:28 ... pick, uh, th- the Doge team's just gonna have to be very strategic to pick things that are consensus-building, that don't make people feel like this is gonna grind the poor more and make the rich richer. That's the expectation. That's gonna be the negative framing on this, I predict, which is just a bunch of rich guys making cuts, talking their books, making cuts for things that are their pet projects, their investments. They have to come out and not make it that. They have to make it, "Here's an efficiency, here's an efficiency, here's an efficiency." And a great way to do that would be to say, "The efficiency gains and the tax cuts are gonna go to people making, let's say, under $250,000." These are not... these cuts are not being made just to make the rich richer. That's gonna be the framing.

David Friedberg 33:11 But Jason-

David Sacks 33:11 That's my best advice.

David Friedberg 33:12 ... don't you think that, don't you think that that's gonna happen no matter what?

David Sacks 33:15 What? Which part of it?

David Friedberg 33:17 That they're gonna say that no matter what. So I, I actually disagree with the first part of what you said. I agree with you that the media, the mainstream media will try to characterize this as hurting the poor. I agree, and I'm not sure yet-

David Sacks 33:29 Yeah.

David Friedberg 33:29 ... whether it will or not.

Chamath Palihapitiya 33:29 It's already started. Yeah.

David Friedberg 33:31 But I think the first part I disagree with is I don't think they should operate towards consensus. I think that they should do what's right.

David Sacks 33:39 Well, you could do what's right, and you could start with things that are the most wasteful. Like, if you start cutting kids' lunches or Pell Grants, or you start cutting people's jobs to, uh, in healthcare or education that people perceive are helping people, I think you're gonna just feed into this narrative that it's a way to cut taxes on rich people. And you know what? You do need to build consensus because this thing will get fought.

David Friedberg 34:03 How does that cut taxes on rich people?

David Sacks 34:06 If you cut regulations and a bunch of our companies benefit from it, just to be self-aware, the framing is already that this is an effort for companies that we invest in to have less regulation, to make the equity holders in those companies more rich. We have to make sure that the-

Chamath Palihapitiya 34:25 I just said... but I think-

David Sacks 34:25 Hold on, listen.

Chamath Palihapitiya 34:25 It's for all Americans.

David Sacks 34:26 You have to make sure the savings is for all Americans, and that all Americans benefit from it. And the way they benefit it, the best framing they could do is, "Your taxes are gonna be lower because you're not wasting your tax dollars." If they can keep to that, not, "Hey, we're moving regulations so that our companies get bigger."

David Friedberg 34:42 I think, to be honest, I think-

Chamath Palihapitiya 34:43 Yeah.

David Friedberg 34:43 ... being a hairdresser requires more regulation than being any one of most of my companies.

Chamath Palihapitiya 34:48 Exactly.

David Friedberg 34:48 So I actually think it benefits-

Chamath Palihapitiya 34:49 100%.

David Friedberg 34:50 I, I think it benefits other people-

David Sacks 34:52 Hmm, I don't know.

David Friedberg 34:52 ... way, way more than it benefits me.

David Sacks 34:53 And you have to show-

David Friedberg 34:54 Jason, you said-

David Sacks 34:54 ... is my point.

David Friedberg 34:55 W- what-

David Sacks 34:55 Showing... That's the point, is you have to show people that you're doing this for everybody, not just for the people on this podcast and our friends. That's gonna be the key.

Chamath Palihapitiya 35:04 What Chamath just said is so important. There's a great interview, I, I've mentioned this in the past, between Tim Ferriss and Charles Koch from a couple years ago, where he brings up this exact example-

David Sacks 35:13 Yes.

Chamath Palihapitiya 35:13 ... about how regulatory burdens make it difficult for women to become hairdressers. It's like $7,000. So they don't have the capital to do that because of the regulatory-

David Sacks 35:22 Yep.

Chamath Palihapitiya 35:22 ... burden to get there.

David Sacks 35:23 Regulatory, gotcha.

Chamath Palihapitiya 35:23 Think about building, building your home or, you know, like let's say you wanna ch- put a shower in your bathroom, change the shower in your bathroom. You don't wanna spend $15,000 on all the permitting, regulatory stuff to make that happen. It's gonna unlock value for everyone. That's a small example of kind of a regulatory problem, but this benefits everyone. And the cost of transportation-

David Sacks 35:41 And my point is you have to-

Chamath Palihapitiya 35:43 ... will come down.

David Sacks 35:43 ... communicate that. You have to be able to communicate that. And that's where using Elan's platform-

Chamath Palihapitiya 35:49 But Melay's point isn't-

David Sacks 35:50 And Melay-

Chamath Palihapitiya 35:50 But Melay's point is it shows up in the economy.

David Sacks 35:51 ... Melay did the perfect job of communicating this to people, and that's the playbook, Freberg. That's my point. People are gonna fight this. You have to convince them. You have to show them that this is helping everybody.

David Friedberg 36:01 Okay, but can we just agree-

David Sacks 36:02 That's my point.

David Friedberg 36:03 ... that they're... Okay, but that's different than how you started. You said only work on consensus projects. I agree-

David Sacks 36:07 No, no, I didn't say that. I, I think you have to highlight those-

David Friedberg 36:09 No, that is what you said at the beginning.

David Sacks 36:09 ... do them first. I said do those first. Make sure that people understand this is to save them money. I'm not saying that you don't change regulations for spaceships and self-driving cars as well, but you have to make sure you show people that this can benefit them, or else they're gonna just fight it. And that, and then it's gonna be... the whole, all this effort will be for naught. If you, if you get a bunch of Republicans, Sachs, who start fighting this and you have a splintering in your party because they feel like this isn't helping their local constituents, this whole thing could be for naught.... that, that's my view.

36:40 That story that you told is gonna be told by the legacy media and all the haters and the enemies, regardless of what Elon and Vivek do.

36:50 I don't think so. I don't think so.

36:50 Not really?

36:50 I think you can win people over.

36:52 You're gonna win-

36:52 If you show people a 22-

36:52 ... you're gonna win Kara Swisher over, people like that?

36:53 When you show people a, when you show people a $22-

36:56 Professional Elon haters? You're not-

36:57 No.

36:57 ... gonna win them over.

36:57 If you show... I'm talking about the public vote. If you show-

36:59 We already won the election. Now's the time to implement.

37:02 When you show people $22,000, you know, hammers and wasted money, you will get 100% of Americans backing this.

37:10 Yeah.

37:10 Not half.

37:10 60 Minutes been doing that for 30 years, nothing's happened. We gotta just act now.

37:15 Yeah, act and bring people on with communications. I mean, if you got, if your premise is-

37:19 I'm not disputing that commu-

37:19 ... to communicate poorly, great-

37:20 I'm not-

37:20 ... go for it.

37:21 Yeah. I'm not saying that communication isn't part of the job. In fact-

37:24 Yeah.

37:24 ... this whole conversation started by us talking about an op-ed (laughs) that Elon-

37:28 Yes.

37:29 ... and Vivek wrote.

37:29 Correct. And they're doing a podcast, right?

37:31 In which they're laying out-

37:32 Yeah.

37:32 ... in which they're laying out their objectives, and they're doing podcasts, and-

37:34 Yep.

37:35 ... Elon has the biggest platform-

37:36 Following.

37:37 ... in the world and biggest following, so I just don't think communication is gonna be the problem. But you're also not gonna be able to convince everyone. And, you know, we've already won the election. Now's the time to figure out very strategically how to implement as much as possible.

David Friedberg 37:49 (laughs) Be humble, by two million votes. Keep it in mind, you have to bring everybody along. Okay.

David Sacks 37:54 Yeah, you know what? If the legacy-

David Friedberg 37:55 What topic would you run?

David Sacks 37:55 ... media was fair, it would've been 20 million votes. For Trump-

David Friedberg 37:58 Okay.

David Sacks 37:58 ... to have won-

37:58 Great.

37:58 ... under these circumstances, and he won the trifecta, it's impressive. Don't, don't minimize it.

38:04 Nobody's saying it's not impressive. I'm not minimizing it. I'm just saying, be aware, there's 74 (laughs) million people who are rooting against Trump, and, uh, I think getting some portion-

David Friedberg 38:14 No, they're not.

David Sacks 38:14 ... of them on-

David Friedberg 38:14 That's not true. That's not true. I don't think s-

David Sacks 38:16 I think there's a decent number of people who are probably very upset that, you know, Trump won, just like last time they were upset that Biden won. Including all Americans in this is the most virtuous thing you can do.

David Friedberg 38:27 I think it's deranged-

David Sacks 38:28 Everybody should get on board.

David Friedberg 38:29 ... I think it, I think it's deranged, the idea that 74 million people are actually rooting against him. I don't think that that's true. I don't think there's-

David Sacks 38:35 Maybe they feel good that they lost. People don't feel good about losing. Bringing those people on board is virtuous.

38:42 Dude, there's already been-

38:43 Absolutely virtuous.

38:43 ... a huge vibe shift in the country. Have you seen the Trump dance? I mean, there's been such a-

38:47 Do it for us.

38:48 ... vibe shift.

David Friedberg 38:48 Let's see it. Let's see it.

David Sacks 38:49 I'm not gonna do it right now, but there's been such a huge vibe shift, the-

David Friedberg 38:52 (sings)

David Sacks 38:52 ... the energy is so optimistic-

David Friedberg 38:56 (sings)

David Sacks 38:59 ... right now.

38:59 (sings)

38:59 The energy right now is incredible, and I think people are feeling much more optimistic. Can you imagine what a downer would it be if, like, we were expecting President Kamala Harris to take the oath of office-

David Friedberg 39:08 I would be-

David Sacks 39:08 ... on January 20?

David Friedberg 39:08 It would be a downer, it would be a downer to me if-

David Sacks 39:11 Yeah.

David Friedberg 39:11 ... they were still pushing a $7.2 trillion federal budget next year. It-

David Sacks 39:15 Yeah.

David Friedberg 39:15 That would be a downer. And by the way, I think that there's a deeply linked relationship between social issues, economic issues, political policies, and foreign conflict. They all seem like they're four different things, but they're so tightly interwound. And it's interesting how everything kind of moves together with the shift in who ended up winning, winning this election cycle. And I think it really speaks to the relationship between the four.

David Sacks 39:42 Well, by the way, there's a great meme that was floating around, where it showed a photo of Trump, Elon, Bobby Kennedy, and Tulsi Gabbard, and it said that all four of these people used to be Democrats.

David Friedberg 39:55 Yep, yep.

David Sacks 39:56 You know, so the Democrats-

39:57 Oh, it put Joe Rogan in it.

39:57 Oh, yeah. Put Rogan in it too.

39:57 I tweeted that, and it-

39:58 Oh, yeah. Put Rogan in it too.

David Friedberg 39:59 It, it used to, it used to be that, that Democrats-

David Sacks 40:01 Five of them.

David Friedberg 40:01 ... were progressive. Progressive means progress, looking forward. And the last decade, the last couple years in particular, I think a lot of people that I know that are former Democrats, and Chamath, you can speak for yourself, feel like the Democrats stopped looking forward, and it was all about trying to, like-

David Sacks 40:17 Yeah, it was pessimistic-

David Friedberg 40:19 ... recast the past.

David Sacks 40:19 Yeah.

40:19 ... and grievance and victim culture.

David Friedberg 40:20 And f- And, and all of a sudden-

David Sacks 40:21 Yeah.

David Friedberg 40:21 ... you've got guys like Elon promoting themselves as Republicans, highlighting that it's all of the, uh, this is the party that looks forward. This is the party that drives progress. It's an amazing shift. I don't know if there's been anything like it that's happened this quickly in... I voted more to make America great again than I did vote for being a Republican. I, I think that the Republican Party-

David Sacks 40:42 Right, totally.

David Friedberg 40:44 ... is, is less important than it's ever been. And I think MAGA is more important than it's ever been.

David Sacks 40:50 I agree. And I'd say the biggest risk to the whole agenda, uh, probably is not the Democrats. It's actually some of these old bulls in Congress who are anti-MAGA for some reason. Trump is the one who just won the trifecta, he just won this big election. If you stick with the old Republican message, you're just a surefire loser. So give Trump his due as the leader of the party, realize it's now a MAGA party, and let's get some things done. If the reform agenda fails, to be frank, it probably is not gonna be the Democrats. It's probably gonna be these holdouts in the Republican Party-

41:27 Yeah.

41:28 ... who threw it in.

David Friedberg 41:28 Yeah, that's interesting. Yeah. Yeah.

David Sacks 41:29 Yeah, that was my question earlier. I think I asked it twice. I, I didn't get anybody to engage in it. How do you convince them? How are they being brought on board to this if they have all this pork barrel spending? Is there a strategy there? Or do you have a strategy?

David Friedberg 41:40 I think Sachs laid it out, which is that if you use the combination of the carrot and the stick, I think the carrot is creating transparency, and I think the other part of the carrot is you'll have now an extremely well-funded pact that can support people who are on board with this agenda. But the stick is, if you don't, I think that if Elon makes this a really concerted, long-term part of his strategy, then I think you should run candidates who actually are aligned with the agenda that the Make America Great Again movement wants. So, I think that's the carrot and stick, Jason, which is, like, some of these old Republicans will have to decide, "Do I basically help invest in a renewal of the American spirit, or do I keep pushing back because I like the way it was and I wanna go to war and I wanna cozy up to these lobbyists?" I think those folks are gonna have a very tough four and eight years, because I think you'll see a bunch of MAGA candidates rising up to run against them everywhere in the United States.

David Sacks 42:41 As you can see, my young apprentice, your friends have failed.

42:45 (laughs)

42:46 Now, witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational battle station.

42:51 Man-

David Friedberg 42:51 (laughs)

David Sacks 42:52 ... I- I said "be humble" like three times.

42:54 (laughs)

David Friedberg 42:54 And s- and none of it's sinking in, huh?

David Sacks 42:55 (laughs)

Chamath Palihapitiya 42:56 (laughs)

David Sacks 42:56 Ah, well.

42:56 No, I just explained, I explained the risks. I- I've been very clear. You're not gonna get Milton Friedman, okay? You're not even gonna get Javier Mollé. What we can hopefully get-

43:04 Yeah.

43:04 ... is a bending of the curve towards sustainable. I'm setting my-

43:07 I mean, I'll take break- I would take break even-

43:07 ... I'm setting my expectations to be realistic, okay?

43:11 Yeah. I mean, breaking even would be great. If we do-

David Friedberg 43:13 (laughs)

David Sacks 43:13 ... just weren't adding to the debt, that would be amazing. That would be a huge win, right?

Chamath Palihapitiya 43:16 No, I mean, go back ... Go ... Look, if- if- if the federal budget gets to $3 trillion and regulation gets cut, if you get 50% of the regulations in federal agencies cut, I think you unleash an economic sonic boom.

David Friedberg 43:32 I'm all in on Doge.

David Sacks 43:33 And I think, and I think so, yeah.

David Friedberg 43:34 I think it's the greatest thing that could ever happen.

Chamath Palihapitiya 43:36 My gosh, could you imagine-

David Friedberg 43:37 It's awesome.

Chamath Palihapitiya 43:37 ... America clocking in 4% GDPs?

David Sacks 43:39 Do you guys deal with regulatory? I mean, how much are you guys-

Chamath Palihapitiya 43:42 No.

David Sacks 43:42 ... stuck with companies?

Chamath Palihapitiya 43:43 No, zero.

David Sacks 43:43 Zero.

David Friedberg 43:44 I'm dealing with massive regulatory-

David Sacks 43:44 It's not a real issue.

Chamath Palihapitiya 43:46 The regulatory stuff is brutal, man.

David Sacks 43:48 I mean-

Chamath Palihapitiya 43:48 It's like le- It's legit brain, like, melting (beep) .

David Sacks 43:52 Tell me your number one regulatory frustration. We can go around the horn. This is a great topic, actually.

David Friedberg 43:58 I don't have any. I think I'm very blessed to work in an industry that's very light with regulation. I think it affects many, many other industries that, if they were unleashed, could contribute to American GDP an exceptional amount.

Chamath Palihapitiya 44:09 Real estate, construction, energy, uh-

David Friedberg 44:10 I also think regulations are very-

David Sacks 44:12 Infrastructure.

David Friedberg 44:12 ... regressive because they touch poor and middle income people way more than it touched folks like me.

David Sacks 44:18 100%

David Friedberg 44:18 And so, rip these regulations out.

David Sacks 44:22 Two regulations that do affect you, crypto regulation and capital formation. Both of those things are massive.

David Friedberg 44:29 They haven't hurt me. They haven't hurt me.

David Sacks 44:30 I wouldn't say hurt you but-

David Friedberg 44:31 This is my point is like they definitely-

Chamath Palihapitiya 44:32 Chamath can go raise capital.

David Friedberg 44:33 ... are throttling the economy, right? I can snap a finger and raise a couple billion dollars. That is not ... It's ... So I'm in a unique position and I, and I recognize that. What is much harder is if you're trying to be an electrician, if you're trying to be a hairdresser, if you're trying to be a massage therapist, when you have to spend 15, 20, 30% of your salary on licensure, why?

Chamath Palihapitiya 44:52 Totally.

David Sacks 44:52 Absolutely.

David Friedberg 44:52 Why do we need these stupid rules?

David Sacks 44:54 Totally.

David Friedberg 44:54 If you're, if you're a person that's trying to, like, construct a home, why does it take six and eight weeks to get permits approved?

David Sacks 45:00 Totally.

David Friedberg 45:00 Why? And-

David Sacks 45:02 Totally.

David Friedberg 45:02 ... there are no good answers for these things. So forget about me. Like, it doesn't matter about me. But the mainline part of the United States economy, as I said before, is a coiled spring. If you get rid of those regulations, it disproportionately impacts middle income and lower middle income jobs. This is why-

David Sacks 45:19 I, I, yeah-

David Friedberg 45:20 ... if you, if you see, if you see GDP, if America clocks in GDP at 4 to 4 and a half percent, watch out folks.

David Sacks 45:28 Sonic boom.

David Friedberg 45:29 Watch out.

David Sacks 45:30 I'll give you two really simple ones. Allowing everybody in the United States to participate in company formation would change everything. 95% of the company cannot participate in investing in startups or any s- you know, new company-

Chamath Palihapitiya 45:46 I think it's simpler than that, Jake Bell.

David Sacks 45:47 ... which is crazy. The accreditation laws would-

Chamath Palihapitiya 45:48 I think it's just ... I think it's more about just-

David Sacks 45:50 ... would be massive.

Chamath Palihapitiya 45:51 ... freedom to operate, just freedom to do stuff you want to do.

David Sacks 45:53 Well, that's what it is. I mean, you're free to go to Vegas and gamble. You're free to, you know, play, you know, online sports-

David Friedberg 45:59 I think the next governor of California-

David Sacks 46:00 ... but you're not free to buy bitcoin, you're not free to buy bitcoin.

Chamath Palihapitiya 46:02 You are free to buy bitcoin. You can buy it right now.

David Friedberg 46:04 You can send to me.

David Sacks 46:04 Well, bitcoin you can, yeah. But you're not free to create a token, right?

David Friedberg 46:07 I'm not sure that that's the-

David Sacks 46:07 There should be some clear path of regulation, you know, for that.

David Friedberg 46:10 I think there's many more traditional forms of economic growth that we can have before we need to make ICOs legal and easier. I- I want to say something. I think that the person that runs for governor in California should commit to cutting those 65,000 regulations down to 10,000 as needed, to replacing the DMV with a digital app and to cut taxes to near zero and to create school choice.

David Sacks 46:39 Hmm.

46:40 That'd be incredible.

David Friedberg 46:41 Whoever does that will create a renaissance-

David Sacks 46:42 Incredible.

David Friedberg 46:42 ... in California. It's the fifth-largest economy in the world, folks. And it can be a bellwether for the rest of the world.

David Sacks 46:49 Absolutely.

46:49 Well, you know, there- there's a lot of scuttlebutt online that Nicole Shanahan's gonna run for governor of California, and I'd be all in favor of that. I would say that of all the political personalities involved in the election over the past year, she gets my most improved award. I remember when, like, Bobby named her to his ticket, I was a little bit skeptical of that choice because of some of the causes that she had identified with or donated to in the past. But she, I think, has ended up being a star.

David Friedberg 47:19 She's pretty based. She's a star.

David Sacks 47:20 Yeah, totally. I mean, she's- she's red-pilled and ended up supporting MAGA and MAGA. And I don't think we're gonna get anyone better in California. So if she's willing to do it and take it on, that'd be awesome.

Chamath Palihapitiya 47:33 Sachs, what about you? You don't want, you don't want that- that mansion?

David Sacks 47:36 (laughs) It'd be a significant downgrade for me.

47:39 I was about to say (laughs) . You took the joke right out before I got to it, damn it.

47:43 (laughs)

47:43 (laughs) That was such an easy one. Yeah, you could live in the governor's mansion, also known as smaller than your guest house (laughs) . That would be your backup man cave. Well, actually that's happened. People have ... In New York, I remember one of the governors was like, "Yeah, you know, I'm good. I don't need to live in the mansion."

Chamath Palihapitiya 47:59 Where do you want to go next, boys? We- we have other things on the docket. Would you like to go to our war correspondent? Would you like to go Chrome-

David Sacks 48:06 World War III.

Chamath Palihapitiya 48:06 ... Google breakup? Would you like to go NVIDIA? Where would you like to go?

David Friedberg 48:09 World War III, I think is important.

Chamath Palihapitiya 48:11 Sachs, you put World War III on the docket. Would you like to tee it up for us? Yeah.

David Sacks 48:16 Sure. Well, there's, uh, several events that have happened in reasonably close succession. The- the first thing to understand is what's happening on the ground in Ukraine. The Ukrainians have been losing territory at an accelerating pace. There's an excellent graphic in the New York Times that I'll put on the screen that shows this. It's not a stalemate. Remember I said on this podcast six months or a year ago that it was no longer a stalemate, it was a war of attrition in which the Ukrainians were now losing.And every single month now, the Russians are taking more and more territory. Again, the curve is accelerating. We'd all invest in a business who had a growth curve that looked like this. So, not good news for the Ukrainians. In response to that, I think that's finally the condition on the ground that's created the next set of actions, which is the Biden administration finally approved the use of long-range missiles, ATACMS missiles, Storm Shadows, to hit territory deep inside of Russia. The Russians believe, and I don't know whether this is true or not, but what they say is that those weapons cannot be operated without Americans or British operators being there to, you know, they're too complicated for the Ukrainians just to use on their own. So they, the Russians, view this as not just a direct attack on their homeland, on their, their motherland, but also a direct involvement by the NATO allies, United States and Britain, in the war. And that is a big escalation. You know, a lot of people say that the Russians have all these red lines we keep crossing and, and they don't do anything. That's not true. If you actually listen to what the Russians have said, there's only been two red lines. The first red line was they said they would not accept NATO expanding to Ukraine, and they proved their seriousness on that issue by invading Ukraine in February of 2022. The second red line is they said that they would not accept American long-range missiles being used to target inside of Russia, and that line has now been crossed. So, this leads us to the next set of events, which is Russia just used what may be, some people are saying it's an ICBM, but it probably is more likely to be not an intercontinental but an intermediate range ballistic missile that hit a Ukrainian city. And it's, obviously, it didn't carry a nuclear payload, but it's the type of, of ballistic missile that is used to carry nuclear weapons. There are a couple of features of this that I think are really important. Number one, it's a hypersonic missile. It hit the target at something like Mach 10. What that means is that it just can't be intercepted. It's too fast. Uh, the, the West, and the United States in particular does not, as far as we know, have a technology to intercept a hypersonic missile like that. The second is that it had what's called a MIRV warhead or, or payload. MIRV is multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicles. Basically, what it means is the warhead splits up.

David Friedberg 51:13 Right.

David Sacks 51:13 When it gets close to the ground, it splits into six separate warheads. And the reason for this, as I understand it, is diabolical. Again, it's just, if you're launching a nuclear weapon, it just makes it that much harder to now intercept it because now you've got six warheads hitting you instead of just one. So, I mean, as I understand, a missile like this has never been used before and what the Russians are doing, obviously, is sending us a signal. And what that message is, is that they're saying, "We have the means to hit any European city or any European asset with a hypersonic missile that you can't stop, that may or may not have a nuclear warhead attached to it." And it's just a way of them expressing their seriousness and displeasure and, and, and reacting to and escalating in response to the fact that we are now allowing Western missiles to be hitting targets deep inside of Russia. So, the bottom line is this war is escalating. It's escalating nowhere good and at some point soon-

David Friedberg 52:15 Yeah. It's really...

David Sacks 52:16 ... we're gonna have to get off of this escalatory ladder-

David Friedberg 52:19 Totally. Totally.

David Sacks 52:20 ... or we're gonna end up in a really disastrous place. And just the last final point is it's absolutely remarkable that Biden decided to take us to this place with what, just six weeks left in his term?

David Friedberg 52:32 Completely.

David Sacks 52:33 I mean, as a lame duck president, what is his mandate for doing that, for taking this extraordinary risk on behalf of the country? The voters just voted for Trump, who made it really clear he wanted to end the war, and Biden and his team have unilaterally now escalated this war. They did it without consulting with Trump's team. At least that's what was publicly reported is there was no briefing set up for Trump's transition team. So, you have here Biden and his team taking a unilateral action to expand and escalate this war, even when he's a lame duck president, and the question you have to ask is why? What is the point of this?

David Friedberg 53:07 Well, I think it's just completely deranged because it's not just that... For- forget Biden and Trump for a second. If you take a step back, what was voted in was to end this war and for the United States to get our hands out of it. So, you couldn't have a clearer message to the sitting president in the White House, which is, "This is not what Americans want." And so, to basically ignore the will of the voters and to essentially go and push another country into the brink, I think, is so incredibly responsible. And you know, other times we've said in the past, "Take Donald Trump seriously, but not literally." Russia, you should take seriously and literally because they actually write it down for you and tell you. And so when they said, "Every act of aggression from now on is going to be viewed by us on a look-through basis to the actual country that is enabling this to happen," you couldn't be more clear. But Americans couldn't have been more clear, which is, "We don't want this war anymore." And I just think it's really deranged what the Biden White House is doing. It's incredibly dangerous. And by the way, not to mention, it's incredibly costly as well. I mean, we've had, like, some last-minute efforts to sort of tamp down on these last-minute budget approvals and whatnot, but we're talking about tens and hundreds of billions of dollars that we're giving on top of the risk of, of nuclear escalation. I just think it's absolutely crazy. It's absolutely crazy. Putin is not a dummy. He has heard and seen Trump's campaign rhetoric and-

Chamath Palihapitiya 54:44 ... Sachs, I don't know if this is, this has been publicly reported that he had a call with, with Trump after the, uh, the election victory. Does Putin not see that in a couple of weeks, a couple of months, there will be new leadership in the White House and there's gonna be a path to a resolution here? Like, does that not give us all a little bit of reprieve that this is not gonna escalate because everyone's waiting for January 20th?

David Sacks 55:10 Oh, I mean, for sure. I mean, thank goodness I would say-

Chamath Palihapitiya 55:13 Right.

David Sacks 55:13 ... that we have a new president coming in who does not own this war. I mean, the problem with Biden is that he completely owns this war and he does not wanna admit defeat. And so what you've seen is that over the last couple of years, every weapons system that Biden said he wouldn't give to Ukraine because it could literally cause World War III, these are Biden's words, he said it could be Armageddon if we gave Ukraine F-16s, it could be Armageddon if we gave them Abrams tanks, it would be Armageddon if we gave them HIMARS and ATACMS and could lead to World War III if we let them hit targets inside of Russia. These are Biden's words and he has basically given in on every single one of those points because he's so committed to this policy, right? He's, he's in the quagmire, he can only double down. He doesn't know how to extricate himself. And now, we don't know exactly what Kamala Harris would have done but I think probably she would have inherited Joe Biden's policy and likely continued it. And I think we have a wonderful opportunity here with Trump taking office. He doesn't own this policy, he can look at it with fresh eyes, and most importantly, he campaigned on ending the war so he has the mandate of the American people to stop it. All I can say is thank goodness and we just need to get through the next two months. We just need to get to January 20th without there being some new horrible escalation in this war.

David Friedberg 56:31 He's bi- (laughs) Joe Biden does martingaling. That's his strategy for the Ukraine-Russia war (laughs) . Just keep doubling down and doubling down and doubling down.

David Sacks 56:39 Doubling down. Oh yeah, do you wanna explain what that is?

David Friedberg 56:41 Oh yeah, sorry. Martingaling is a strategy in gambling where, let's just say, you know, you start betting a dollar and you lose, your next bet is $2. If you lose, your next bet is $4. If you lose, your next bet is $8. And eventually you'll win once, is the theory. But there's many times where martingaling does not work.

Chamath Palihapitiya 56:59 But you only, but you only, but you only win a dollar. (laughs) So you could be betting, you know, 80, uh, you know, 40 bucks, a hund- 80 bucks, $160, $320 and then you finally win and you win a dollar.

David Sacks 57:10 Right. Or, or you go broke. That's a great analogy 'cause you can also go broke, right?

Chamath Palihapitiya 57:15 You can go broke.

David Friedberg 57:15 Well, this is why they have caps at the roulette table. One time I would do this as a joke.

Chamath Palihapitiya 57:20 That's why all casinos have a max. Yeah, exactly.

David Friedberg 57:22 Yeah, so I would do this as a joke with my wife or when I was at the World Series of Poker. I'd be like, "I'll go to pay for dinner," or lunch or whatever, and I put a hundred dollars on black, lose, put 200 on black, win, go pay for lunch. And I did it one time at the WSOP and I went 100, 200, 400, 800, 1,600. I ran out of cash, I got 3,200 from my friend. I put it down, the floor man came over and said, "That's your last bet."

Chamath Palihapitiya 57:47 Oh no, my buddy and I-

David Friedberg 57:48 And so they will-

Chamath Palihapitiya 57:48 My buddy and I would go play-

David Friedberg 57:49 ... they will stop you if you, if you do this, yeah.

Chamath Palihapitiya 57:51 In our college years, early 20s, we would go to drink for free at the casino. You just sit at the blackjack table and just keep getting a dollar and black.

David Friedberg 57:57 Yeah, I've been with you at that blackjack table and watched you drink. (laughs)

Chamath Palihapitiya 57:59 Well, this was (laughs) , this was a long time ago.

David Friedberg 58:01 This, this happened last year. (laughs)

Chamath Palihapitiya 58:02 So I would... Well, I mean, if you bet a dollar and then you bet two bucks, you can just keep drinking for free for, like, two or three hours and then go out and enjoy your night. You've made 15 bucks and call it a night.

David Friedberg 58:11 Did I tell you about the losing a million dollars playing roulette?

Chamath Palihapitiya 58:14 Oh. (laughs)

David Sacks 58:16 What?

David Friedberg 58:16 Me... Nick, you gotta beep out the names. Me...

Narrator 58:20 It was me-

David Friedberg 58:21 ... (beep)

Narrator 58:21 ... and (beep) .

David Friedberg 58:23 And (beep) says-

Chamath Palihapitiya 58:23 Oh, you did tell me this. You did tell me this, yeah. This is so good.

David Friedberg 58:26 (beep) says, "Guys, I've developed a system. It's foolproof."

Chamath Palihapitiya 58:28 Oh, no. (laughs)

David Sacks 58:29 (laughs)

Chamath Palihapitiya 58:30 That's always what happens before you lose a million.

David Friedberg 58:33 And he says it's like-

Chamath Palihapitiya 58:33 Somebody says that.

David Friedberg 58:34 It's like, "We need to risk a million. We can win, like, two or three." And it's, like, 99.996%.

Chamath Palihapitiya 58:43 (laughs)

David Friedberg 58:44 So, so I say to him, "So are you really telling me that we just have to fade .004% chance of, like, total loss?"

David Sacks 58:51 Mm.

David Friedberg 58:51 And he says, "Yup." Well, guess what hit? The .004% (laughs) chart. Me, (beep) -

David Sacks 58:58 Totally.

David Friedberg 59:00 ... and (beep) and (beep) was devastating. I just kept looking at this thing like, "What just happened?" He's like, "Uh, we lost."

Chamath Palihapitiya 59:05 Yeah.

David Friedberg 59:05 And I was like-

Narrator 59:06 There it is, folks.

David Friedberg 59:07 I never again. I'm never gonna play roulette again.

David Sacks 59:09 I think the gambling analogies are the right analogies because I, look, I'm not saying World War III is gonna happen. I've never said World War III is gonna happen. I'm saying that there's a risk of World War III. And I don't need the risk to be very high to be very worried about it because it would be such a disastrous outcome, right?

David Friedberg 59:23 Catastrophic.

Narrator 59:24 Totally.

David Sacks 59:24 Exactly. So I wanna minimize e-

David Friedberg 59:26 Risk of ruin.

David Sacks 59:27 I wanna e- e- exactly. I want there to be hopefully a zero risk of that. But you know what's interesting? Is remember just, like, a week or two ago? President Trump made that trip to DC and he met with Biden in the Oval Office, and Biden had this, he was like, all smiles. And I'm, you know, everyone was, like, wondering, "Why is he so happy?" And the speculation was that he somehow wanted Kamala to lose or something. But now you think back on this, he must have known he was about to authorize this decision. So what he's doing here, he's grin (beep) . He's grin (beep) Trump. He knows he's about to give Trump this horrible hand, right? He's about to make this situation in Ukraine so much worse-

David Friedberg 1:00:08 Complicated. Yeah.

David Sacks 1:00:08 ... so that Trump will have to inherit this mess. That is, like, the definition of grin (beep) .

David Friedberg 1:00:14 Yeah, he definitely knew more than that picture let on 'cause a lot, uh, the interpretation of that picture was they are getting along, he's being super gracious, what an incredible gesture. And it just looked like very...

David Sacks 1:00:26 Yeah, he promised a smooth transition of power, and then we find out that he didn't-

David Friedberg 1:00:30 Yeah.

David Sacks 1:00:30 ... confer with his successor about this extraordinarily meaningful decision to escalate the war.

David Friedberg 1:00:38 Escalation, yeah.

David Sacks 1:00:40 It's like, that's just crazy.

David Friedberg 1:00:42 It's crazy.

Chamath Palihapitiya 1:00:44 You guys wanna do science corner? I got one for you.

David Friedberg 1:00:46 Yeah.

Chamath Palihapitiya 1:00:47 Let her rip.

David Sacks 1:00:47 Yeah, let's hear it.

Chamath Palihapitiya 1:00:48 All right.

David Sacks 1:00:49 Your superfans are desperate for a science corner. Give them what, Freebird? Give them something.

Chamath Palihapitiya 1:00:53 All right, I will give you guys-

David Sacks 1:00:55 Throw in something.

Chamath Palihapitiya 1:00:56 ... here, here's a depressing paper that was published in the journal, Nature, just this week. Research team out of Switzerland, going over to the Swiss where they are conducting extraordinary research in the epigenetics of fat cells in obesity.

David Sacks 1:01:13 Oh, so we're gonna fat shame me on the, uh, science corner? Go ahead. Great. Let's go for it.

Chamath Palihapitiya 1:01:17 No, we're actually gonna understand perhaps why it is difficult for people that have been overweight-

David Sacks 1:01:23 Yes.

Chamath Palihapitiya 1:01:24 ... to keep the weight off. So-

David Sacks 1:01:26 I did read this, and I, I think it's fascinating. Yeah, explain it.

Chamath Palihapitiya 1:01:28 It is, it is really incredible. So remember, we've talked about this many times in the past, but every cell has your whole, all your DNA, all your genes. And certain genes are turned on or off in different cells, and those genes being on or off differentiates those cells and causes them to act differently. That's the difference between an eye cell and a skin cell and a heart cell is they have different genes that are up-regulated, down-regulated, turned on, and turned off. And even when you have different kinds of cells, you have certain genes that are over-expressed or under-expressed, they're over-regulated or up-regulated or down-regulated. So that means that those genes are turning, pumping out certain proteins that do certain things in that particular cell. So what these folks did is they wanted to understand what is the epigenome, meaning what are the genes that are turned on or off or up-regulated or down-regulated in fat tissue, in fat cells? And does the epigenome change when an individual loses weight? So once they're obese and they lose weight, do the fat cells actually change their epigenome, or day, do they have an epigenetic memory? Meaning that those cells, even though the person has lost weight, those cells still continue to act as if that person were obese. So I'll tell you, in, in humans, they basically took five individuals that were obese and lost more than 25% BMI, and they looked at the epigenome, they looked at the markers of what genes are up-regulated and down-regulated before and after they lost the weight. After they lost the weight, there were a set of markers that were still up-regulated that are associated with poor metabolism and increased fibrosis and increased cellular death. So these are inflammatory genes. These are genes that are associated with the cells being inefficient at utilizing glucose to create energy. And so these cells continued to act like slow, dying cells, even after the person lost weight. And they did the same thing in mice, and they found similar results, that they caused these mice to gain weight, looked at the epigenome of the fat cells, and then looked at the epigenome after they lost the weight. And again, the mouse g- epigenome continued to act as if the mouse was obese. And what this means is that the metabolism remained reduced, fibrosis remained elevated, and likelihood of cell death remained elevated. So now, they applied glucose in this Petri dish to those cells, and they saw that the glucose had a harder time being fully, being appropriately utilized from a healthy fat cell that hadn't been obese. So it actually permanently alters and creates an epigenetic memory in the fat cells after obesity. And this could explain pretty significantly why when people that have been obese lose the weight, they are more likely to gain the weight back and have a hard time-

David Sacks 1:04:16 The yo-yo effect-

Chamath Palihapitiya 1:04:17 ... keeping the weight off. Yeah.

David Sacks 1:04:18 ... you're referring to, yes. And that, that makes total sense, because anybody who's added weight, Chamath, if you add but, you know, you eat one extra Oreo a week, that's 3,500 (laughs) calories. You do that over 20 years, all of a sudden you wake up one day, you're 20-

Chamath Palihapitiya 1:04:33 Totally.

David Sacks 1:04:33 ... 30 pounds overweight, like I was three or four years ago. And this is where I think Ozempic and Wegovy and Mounjaro and all these things are so great, 'cause it does seem like it breaks you through that, no, Freebird?

Chamath Palihapitiya 1:04:43 Well, the problem, but we, we do see in all those results that when you go off of the GLP-1 agonist drugs, you gain the weight back very quickly. This is very-

David Sacks 1:04:51 Some amount of the weight.

Chamath Palihapitiya 1:04:52 This is-

David Sacks 1:04:53 Yeah. It's, it's not the total amount. Yeah.

Chamath Palihapitiya 1:04:54 Uh, no, uh, like, it's a pretty significant bounce-back effect.

David Sacks 1:04:56 Yeah.

Chamath Palihapitiya 1:04:56 So, and, and, and this is pretty well-documented. And so I think that it speaks to the why. Now, the, it, it also introduces an opportunity.

David Sacks 1:05:04 Hmm.

Chamath Palihapitiya 1:05:05 There are molecules that can turn certain genes on or off, can now be identified and utilized to change that epigenetic memory. So now there's this-

David Sacks 1:05:13 So you can flip that switch in addition to taking Wegovy.

Chamath Palihapitiya 1:05:15 Flip that switch.

David Sacks 1:05:15 Yeah, and-

Chamath Palihapitiya 1:05:15 Exactly. This could arise from things like increased exercise. It turns out that when you do significant amounts of cardiovascular exercise, there are certain genes that are expressed that trigger other genes to switch on or off-

David Sacks 1:05:27 Yup.

Chamath Palihapitiya 1:05:27 ... and so we can start to identify those particular molecules and produce either supplements or additional drugs or combo therapies that can both knock the weight off and keep it off by changing the epigenetic memory in those cells.

David Sacks 1:05:43 That's wild.

Chamath Palihapitiya 1:05:44 And so it introduces a whole new class of opportunity for folks to explore, how do we help folks that are obese lose the weight and then flip the switch that they can keep the weight off?

David Sacks 1:05:52 I've been doing rucking. This is, like, the old man activity that Peter Attia and these guys are all talking about.

Chamath Palihapitiya 1:05:58 You put weights on, and you, like, go walking?

David Sacks 1:06:00 I wear a th- I, I started with a 10-pound weight vest. Now I'm at 35 pounds. I, I do a mile and a half hike every day with 35 pounds on. Man, I fall asleep immediately, and the, the amount of intensity that puts on your body-

Chamath Palihapitiya 1:06:13 Sorry, you, you do it right before you go to bed?

David Sacks 1:06:15 No, no, I do it any time during the day. But I'm just saying, it's, it's, I'm, I'm focused on four things right now with my health: diet, sleep, exercise, meditation. And, uh, I try to do all four each day. But the rucking specifically and the zone two stuff is what they say 40, 50-year-olds should focus on, so that's what I'm focused on. But that rucking, man, does it make your whole body strong. I highly recommend it. It's really transformative.

Chamath Palihapitiya 1:06:39 My meditation is reading Doje essays.

David Sacks 1:06:42 (laughs) For Chamath Palihapitiya, German dictator, 80, 90, he's running a software company, services company, and great. Look at you in the driver's seat.... David Friedberg, your sultan of science, working on Ohalo and the architect, the rain man, yeah, definitely David Sacks, from Craft Ventures, and maybe he's gonna be involved in Doge. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a Sax Doge hookup in the future. I don't know. I'm taking a guess here. I am your host here, Jason Calacanis. We'll see you all on December 7th live or in-person. By the way, did you guys, did you see this-

David Friedberg 1:07:20 All in Holiday Spectacular. Did you see this tweet from Brian Johnson? He tweeted out all of his blood levels.

David Sacks 1:07:26 Brian Johnson.

David Friedberg 1:07:26 This is incredible.

David Sacks 1:07:27 I love this guy.

David Friedberg 1:07:28 Look at these results. They're incredible. If he can break this down into, like, a turnkey thing that normal folks like us can follow.

David Sacks 1:07:38 For people who don't know, what this kid's doing is he is spending, like, $3 million a year or something to that effect on his own personal health, documenting it, sharing it, everything from sleep to his bone density, everything is an open book. And, uh, he's made some products out of it as well. So you, you can, you can eat his pudding too if you're, if you're interested in it. But I don't think it's as good as Super Gut, if I'm being honest.

David Friedberg 1:08:00 But how do you follow his regimen? You know what I mean? Like, it just seems too hard.

David Sacks 1:08:04 You can't have a job. I mean, he's doing... It's like he's got two jobs right now doing all this stuff. His biomarkers are showing he's 10 years younger than his actual biological age.

David Friedberg 1:08:13 Dude, look at some of these results. His, his speed of aging. He says his birthday now happens every 19 months. What the (beep) ?

David Sacks 1:08:24 Friedberg.

David Friedberg 1:08:26 I mean, Friedberg, do you, you look at these, like-

David Sacks 1:08:27 What do you think here? Science, uh, from a science perspective, any thoughts on all this?

Chamath Palihapitiya 1:08:32 Well, I think his nighttime erection rate is pretty impressive. Three hours and eight minutes for a nighttime erection.

David Friedberg 1:08:37 How does he know that? How does he know that?

Narrator 1:08:38 Wait, is he reading, is he reading, uh, Elon and Vivek's, uh, op-ed column? What's going on?

David Friedberg 1:08:44 (laughs) Slowly, he's reading it very slowly. (laughs)

David Sacks 1:08:48 Wow, he's got a 240-pound bench press and an 800-pound leg press.

David Friedberg 1:08:53 Jesus.

David Sacks 1:08:54 He looks like he's dead though. That's the only (laughs) problem with this.

Narrator 1:08:57 Guys, I gotta go.

David Sacks 1:08:57 That he's so pale.

David Friedberg 1:08:58 Sacks has gotta go. DJT on line two. We'll see you all next time on the all-in podcast. I love you boys.

David Sacks 1:09:04 Bye-bye, love you boys.

David Friedberg 1:09:05 Bye-bye.

Narrator 1:09:05 Back atcha.

1:09:08 Let your winners ride. Rain Man David Sacks. I'm going all in. And I said, we open sourced it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Love you, West. Ice Queen of Quinoa. I'm going all in. Let your winners ride. Let, let your winners ride. Back atcha. Besties are back. Oh, cold 13. (laughs) That is my, uh, dog taking a shit in your driveway, Sacks. (laughs) Oh, man. My happy dancer, we should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy 'cause they're all just useless. It's like this, like, sexual tension that they just need to release somehow. Wet your beak. Wet your beak. Wet your beak. Your beak. (laughs) We need to get merch. Besties are back. I'm going all in. I'm going all in.