Skip to content
All-In PodcastAll-In Podcast

E5: WHO's incompetence, kicking off Cold War II, China's grand plan, 100X'ing American efficiency

Follow the crew: https://twitter.com/chamath https://linktr.ee/calacanis https://twitter.com/DavidSacks https://twitter.com/friedberg Follow the pod: https://twitter.com/theallinpod https://bio.fm/theallinpod 0:00 Jason intros the group and catches some heat for his recent Twitter video & recent rounds of golf with David Sacks 8:00 Roundup controversy & the WHO's incompetence explained 18:58 Fixing the WHO, economic arms race with China 26:21 Kicking off Cold War II, 5G chips as the new oil, American manufacturing 37:34 Is the CCP targeting the US with their geographic & economic influence? China's grand plan, protecting Taiwan 46:18 Utilizing Central & South America to decrease reliance on Chinese manufacturing 51:16 Ideas to 100x America's efficiency, as if it were a startup, Jason tells his doxing story 1:13:29 Will school re-open in the Fall? Impact of decreased socialization on kids 1:23:35 Election update

Jason CalacanishostChamath PalihapitiyahostDavid Friedberghost
Jul 11, 20201h 31mWatch on YouTube ↗

EVERY SPOKEN WORD

  1. 0:00 – 8:00

    Jason intros the group and catches some heat for his recent Twitter video & recent rounds of golf with David Sacks

    1. JC

      Hey, everybody. Welcome to the All-In Podcast. This is our fifth episode. As you know, we regularly publish this podcast, well, every two to four weeks, something like that. And, uh, just to give you a little idea of how well this is going, the podcast (laughs) peaked at number 10-

    2. CP

      (laughs)

    3. JC

      ... in tech podcasts, even though we never publish it and we're only four episodes in.

    4. CP

      Number 10?

    5. JC

      So tell your friends about the podcast so we can be number one and just dunk on traditional media, which is full of people who have us as the guests.

    6. CP

      Jason, number 10 on what? Apple?

    7. JC

      Apple Technology Podcasts. We literally raced. I mean, it went from like, we debuted in the 20s, then the teens, and then boom, we hit number 10. And I was talking to somebody in media who, who has us on as guests, and I was like, "Listen, I formed a super team and we're now getting more traffic."

    8. CP

      I'm sorry, who were you talking to? Just like a mirror-

    9. JC

      (laughs)

    10. CP

      ... where you were just looking at yourself? (laughs)

    11. JC

      (laughs)

    12. CP

      I mean, you are so fucking arrogant after that shitty video.

    13. JC

      What video are you referring to? What video-

    14. CP

      Oh my god.

    15. JC

      ... are you referring to?

    16. CP

      Oh, look, you want me to say it to all the listeners. You want me to say it.

    17. JC

      All right, hold on a sec. There was-

    18. CP

      Okay, let me just- Somebody made- ... get through the housekeeping.

    19. JC

      Somebody made a cut of the billion times Jason mentioned he was an early investor in Uber.

    20. CP

      (laughs)

    21. JC

      All right, take it easy Virgin Galactic/Slack investor.

    22. CP

      I don't, I don't say anything. I mean-

    23. JC

      I know they put it-

    24. CP

      ... I have a lot of companies I could mention, but I don't say anything.

    25. JC

      Yeah, they put it on the chyron, the lower third every time you're on CNBC, everybody.

    26. DS

      I- My problem is I have too many unicorns to mention just one.

    27. CP

      (laughs)

    28. JC

      Right, so they just go with-

    29. DS

      I don't know which one to mention.

    30. JC

      They just go with PayPal and Nos Peter Thiel. Uh-

  2. 8:00 – 18:58

    Roundup controversy & the WHO's incompetence explained

    1. DF

      stop.

    2. JC

      ... group. Period.

    3. CP

      Stop. You're not... Okay, let's jump in. I wanna talk about-

    4. JC

      Let's jump in.

    5. CP

      Um, David, you sold Climate to Monsanto for a billion dollars back in the day when it was shocking to people, that amount of money. Um, still is, but, you know, you were one of the first sort of, quote/unquote, "unicorns." And then you, you know, were right in the front seat at Monsanto, probably could have been CEO if you wanted. I want you to talk to me about what is going on with Bayer, Monsanto, Roundup, and I wanna use that as a jumping off point to talk about the World Health Organization.

    6. DF

      Uh, so Roundup is a molecule known as glyphosate, and, uh, it's been used as a herbicide for decades. And for decades, it was very well studied. The US EPA and the FDA and, uh, USDA and global health organizations have studied it carefully because of its incredible, uh, use. It is a... It biodegrades, uh, the, the, the core molecule glyphosate biodegrades, um, in a, in a couple of days. Um, and it is a, a very effective herbicide. So when farmers grow stuff, they don't want weeds growing in the field, and Roundup was a pretty effective way at getting rid of weeds so you could get more crop per acre, more yield per acre. Um, a long time, people thought that Roundup, like many of the traditional, uh, persistent chemical herbicides, was carcinogenic, and people were concerned about that. And as a result, there was a lot of studying done. In fact, before I sold my company to Monsanto, I spent a lot of time researching Roundup and, and glyphosate to make sure that it was safe, that I wasn't selling my company to what everyone was saying was the devil at the time. And from a scientific basis, I felt pretty comfortable about the, uh, the, the data, the studies, the research that had been done. When I was at Monsanto, there was a bit of a political event that took place at the World Health Organization. The World Health Organization runs a group called IARC, the, uh... It's a, it's a cancer research institute that's part of the WHO. And there was a gentleman who was politically trying to get himself on that council to make the case that glyphosate was carcinogenic. And, um, years later, a Reuters reporter identified how, uh, he was able to get this council to disregard a number of scientific findings and studies, including the US EPA and other very wide broad-ranging studies by international organizations showing that Roundup or glyphosate was non-carcinogenic. But the political process by which he was able to get on the council, get that data excluded from a study, and then get IARC to declare Roundup or glyphosate a possible carcinogen or probable carcinogen, um, then triggered a bunch of tort lawyers in the United States to start suing Monsanto and now Bayer, 'cause Bayer bought Monsanto a number of years ago, for, um, uh, causing cancer. And the data is absent, but the way the US court system works is if you have some probable definition and you can get a jury to say yes, and the probable cause was there's a probable carcinogen label applied to it by IARC, um, and this Reuters reporter years ago did a great job highlighting how this whole thing was kind of politically motivated. And, and, um, and the data and the science from a broad range of scientists, including the, uh, AAAS, um, a lot of scientific, uh, um, membership organizations very definitively and clearly show that, uh, glyphosate is non-carcinogenic. Um, but, you know, it was super troubling and frustrating. Now, look, this doesn't bother me personally anymore. I have no interest whatsoever, but it turns out that, uh, these l- uh, lawsuits are now gonna cost Monsanto, and now Bayer, which bought Monsanto, somewhere between 10 and $15 billion to settle this. And this is all a function of some political, uh, um, hacking that took place at the WHO. So for a long time, I've had a bit of a concern about how the WHO operates and, and, and the process by which they do scientific assessment and validation. And a lot of this has obviously become much more, uh, apparent with the coronavirus crisis and their response with respect to masks and treatment and so on. So that, that's a little bit of the background I think you're referring to, Chamath.

    7. JC

      And so-

    8. CP

      I-

    9. JC

      Go ahead, Chamath, if you want to.

    10. CP

      No, I mean, like, it, to, to me, I, I think that this is such an interesting thing. Um, I, I wanted to use it as this on-ramp to the WHO, largely because, um, it's like the ineptitude keeps compounding in that organization. Um, I just read that we still don't have a definitive posture on masks from the WHO and that they are finally ceding ground to the idea that the coronavirus could partially be spread in air.

    11. JC

      ... I, I mean, this is so bizarre because we're-

    12. CP

      It's the middle of July, there are three million cases and half a million people who have died, and we are still there. And so, you know, when I saw that Trump pulled out of the WHO, um, you know, in this weird way the way he did it was kind of cartoonish and stupid and, you know, kind of an insolent child. But the reason he did it was actually pretty reasonable, because this organization, um, is not a scientific or health body, it's an academic body. And, you know, you can see this in universities where all of a sudden things tilt away from facts and it tilts towards, you know, um, all kinds of very, very, very small points of sort of like political capital that people fight over. And so these politicized organizations, uh, are incredible.

    13. JC

      And t- to the point at which we saw, you know, this past week, the report that well over 250 of their own scientists who they rely on said, "Hey, it's very clear that this is an airborne phenomenon, aerosol, tiny micro-particles of aerosol." When people talk, when they sing, when they cough, when they sneeze, all this obvious stuff floats in the air, and if you have a closed air conditioned, you know, location like say a church in the South or a hotel, uh, or a casino, it's not a good idea to be in there. And es- it's especially not a bad i- eh- bet- it's especially a bad idea to take your mask off. So now the WHO is 0 for 2 and Trump, as you said, in his just horrifically comical way, can't explain, as we're very clearly explaining, that this is a political organization that is funded by a duopoly of superpowers that have many issues which we're gonna get into today. Um, and, and we, it's, they're gonna say who the duopoly is. Sachs, when you look at this, uh, being our token, uh, conservative here, and you see the Trump win, how frustrating is it for you that Trump's delivery and his persona, when he is right, and a person can't be wrong all the time, I'm proof positive of that, you, you have to deal with the fact that he does it in such a stupid, inane way, that you don't actually get credit for the win?

    14. DS

      Well, you know, Trump is often the, the bull in the china shop and, um, you know, kind of, uh, disrupts the status quo by throwing a grenade into it. Um, but, uh, frequently, there, there are good reasons why the status quo needs to be disrupted. And, um, the, The New York Times laid out the case in a news story on who the, the one that reported the, the scientist complaining that you were talking about, it was just a straight news story but it almost came across as an expose because whose incompetence was laid out, um, so starkly. Um, the fact that they were slow on masks and opposed them and I think kind of lied about them, um, and then, uh, and then to, to be downplaying the airborne nature of the virus in favor of, um, maintaining this narrative that it's spread through touching surfaces or, or fomites, which I think people are realizing now is much, much less likely. Um, and so yeah, you do kind of have to wonder, uh, whose side is, is who on? And the, The New York Times article kind of suggests why they do this, which is when they m- issue a declaration, they have to think about the ramifications in all of their member countries, and so what ends up happening is they sort of start with the policy implication or, or political result that they are thinking about and then they kind of reverse engineer the science. And, you know, the article talks about how, um, you know, if, if WHO were to come out and, and sort of, um, be very clear about airborne transmission that could affect, uh, spending or, or, you know, political budgets in all of these different countries, and so they've been reluctant to do that. Um, so yeah, it's a, it's a, it's a organization that's sort of political first and then reverse engineers the science to fit that. And, um-

    15. JC

      You know what this reminds me of? It's like when you have giant investors on the board of a company, the management team comes out and now they've got to present like a pivot or an acquisition or whatever it is, and they're thinking, "Well, okay, we've got this funding source. These people own 26% of who, this person owns 22%. We've now got to present it to them and, and what are the ram- downstream ramifications?" Luckily, there's an alignment in a single company. The alignment is we all want the company share price to go up. But here in the world, it is not equally aligned. What is in China's best interest, what's in the EU's best interest, and what's in America's best interest might be radically different, and they are literally funding them, correct, Chamath?

    16. CP

      Well, there's a, they are, there, there's a, there's this thing called Sayor's Law, right, which many of us kind of have seen play out, which is that academic, the, the, the saying is something like academic politics are so vicious because the stakes are so small. And in this interesting way, the WHO has lost the script because, uh, they fight over politics. Who gets to say what, who's being positioned, and they lose sight of the real downstream, in my opinion, the downstream implications of the things that they have. Because if they actually just thought from first principles and tried to be a truly independent body that said, "We are gonna take the capital we're given from the countries that are supporting us," and actually do the best and actually publish like what is the best, uh, thing to do, for example, in the case of coronavirus, and be definitive and iterate, we'd be in a much better place. But a lot of what has allowed the posture around coronavirus to tr- transition from a health issue to a political issue in many ways has been because organizations like the WHO and the CDC...... are political bodies, and they're academic bodies. And so the incentives of the players within these organizations are not to necessarily, you know, project the right public health positioning. They are, at some level, to think about their own career trajectory and the political machinations that happen within the organization that are blind to normal citizens like us, that just consume the output.

    17. JC

      And then-

    18. CP

      And so when you see something, like an inability to give a definitive ruling on things like masks or, you know, uh, other things, you just kind of scratch your head and wonder, is it that they're dumb? And the answer is no, it's not that they're dumb, they're just motivated by very different things than public health

  3. 18:58 – 26:21

    Fixing the WHO, economic arms race with China

    1. CP

      all the time.

    2. JC

      Which might be including keeping their jobs and i- the fact that we had David Friedenberg on this podcast, uh, and then Sax, you know, chiming in after it, shortly after just definitively saying first principles, why wouldn't you wear a w- wear a mask, what is the possible downside? And Friedenberg saying, "Hey I'm getting some testing equipment, we should just be doing mass testing." Friedenberg, when you look at this, um, and how when we started the podcast I think in March or April, we were very clear as people not in the, with the exception of yourself, not in the, the healthcare space, uh, in any way, w- why can't they... What would be a better structure for the WHO? And, and, or is there a better structure than just a bunch of, you know, randos like us on a podcast very easily seeing through first principles that a 79-cent mask is a no-brainer, that getting testing, mass testing and recording it every day and doing sampling, w- what is the better solution here for governance or for dealing with these type of, uh, you know, really large problems? Uh, and once that kind of have a, a clock, that's the other thing about this problem is, this, this problem came with a countdown clock. You had to make a really fast decision in order to protect yourself, and we made a really drawn-out decision, now we're paying the price.

    3. DF

      I mean, I think under the circumstances you outline, you know, you need leadership, right? So you need probably a country or, uh, some entity to step forward and, and lead with respect to, um, being, uh, proactive and aggressive with action. Because any multinational oversight body or political body is gonna be kind of, um, you know, molassesed out. It's gonna be stalled out with the, uh, the processes and the competing interests, uh, as you guys have highlighted. So the libertarian argument would be like the free market drive outcomes and, you know, some folks will succeed and some folks will fail. Uh, if we want all of humanity to succeed, then, you know, the likely scenario is what we've seen with, with world wars and such, which is you need leadership, you need one organization or one entity or one national body to step forward and say, "This is what we're doing, and we're gonna lead." And the world was absent leadership over the last six months. Historically, the US has filled that void, uh, but that certainly wasn't the case this year. Um, and so, you know, it seems to me like you're not gonna find a political governing system, multinational governing system that's gonna be successful in solving these kind of existential global problems overnight. Uh, you really need, uh, uh, um, someone to step forward and... And the US is kind of leaving a bit of a gap. This might be a good segue because the question next is who's gonna fill that gap going forward?

    4. JC

      Yeah, so let's make-

    5. DF

      Uh...

    6. JC

      ... that segue. When you look at the, the duopoly that currently is, uh, I would say on par now. I don't think we can say we're the superpower anymore, um, and that China's an up-and-coming superpower. It's pretty clear they are an equal superpower. I don't know if anybody here disagrees with that right now but, um, if we have an edge, it's a very minor one at this point. How do we look at health problems with an authoritarian country where individuals do not vote and there is a God-King who has recently said, "I will be the God-King for the rest of my life," uh, for sure? How do we manage this relationship with China, Friedenberg? And then I'll... We can pass it over to Sax.

    7. DF

      From a healthcare perspective?

    8. JC

      Uh, let's start there, for sure, and then whatever other major issue you would like to then segue into, climate change comes to mind, trade comes to mind, human rights comes to mind.

    9. DF

      I mean, look, the... I would imagine the biggest... The argument that your geopolitical commentators would make who are probably more experienced and experts in this than any of us would probably relate to, you know, the, the degree of influence. Um, you know, the, the question of who has the most influence globally, um, may be kind of the way that you define who has the most power, uh, globally. Um, and so, you know, in the current, uh, circumstance, you can look at, uh, trade balance between China and other nations, you can look at trade balance between the US and other nations, and you can look at the balance sheet, the assets and, and the debt owed. Um, and you're right. I mean, a lot of people are making the case that, that we're kind of reaching a point of parity through some metric or some set of equations here, and at this point there's, uh, there's gonna be a jockeying for, for leadership globally in terms of influence. Um, and so that will have ramifications with respect to things that are global in nature like global pandemics. Um, and I think this is a, a really, uh, kind of, uh, uh, key flash moment, uh, flashpoint moment for us, um, because we are facing that cer... You know, we did face that circumstance this year and obviously we took the, the raw end of the deal.

    10. JC

      We've, we failed most. I mean, we, we all concur on that. We did-

    11. CP

      China-

    12. JC

      We did worst.

    13. CP

      China is just like an extremely good example of focusing on strategy while the rest of us focused on tactics. You know, the last 20 years have been punctuated by the United States spending literally trillions of dollars on endless wars and unnecessary military infrastructure and all kinds of wasted pork barrel spending and programs that just have resulted in zero ROI for the United States and its taxpayers and citizens. And instead, what did China do? They basically went around the world and they used the equivalent amount of dollars and they said, "Every war that the United States fights is a war that we can essentially be silent on, let them do that dirty work and what we will do instead is we will go and basically buy and own large swaths of Southeast Asia, large swaths of Africa, which is, you know, the emerging labor pools that will drive GDP forward for us." And what, what they've essentially created is not necessarily a voting bloc but a productivity bloc, and that's what's so...... you know, uh, interesting and also really important to understand, which is that China is fighting not an ideological war, they're fighting an economic war. And it is one where they are buying, um, you know, member states to join them with their capital. Um, and so we've kind of, like, not seen it and it's unfortunately happened right under our nose. So now what we need to do is, we need to sort of wake up to this reality and have a very aggressive point of view around what, you know, matters. So, so by the way, this is also why, um, and I'll hand the mic to David after this, but this is also why I think, like, we have completely wasted so much time focusing on, you know, all these other countries that just don't matter anymore. And, you know, I don't say that emotionally, I just say it practically, like every single minute we spend on Russia is just a waste of time. This is a, you know, country that just won't fundamentally matter in the world over the next 15 to 20 years. Large swaths of Europe, you know, they're ideologically aligned but they just don't matter. Um, the United States has to develop a really specific strategic viewpoint on the fact that it is us versus China whether we like it or not. And it starts in things like public policy, um, but it stretches to everything including capitalism, technology, intellectual property, healthcare, um, and this war will not be fought on the ground with guns. It'll be fought with computers and it'll be fought with

  4. 26:21 – 37:34

    Kicking off Cold War II, 5G chips as the new oil, American manufacturing

    1. CP

      money.

    2. JC

      Yeah. Loans, loans.

    3. CP

      And I think we need to realize that.

    4. JC

      Yeah. Loans and joint ventures. Saks, what are your thoughts here on this coming cold war? Um, you know, we, we, we, we beat the Russians in the cold... the last cold war, um, and to, to Chamath's point, the only thing they have really going for them is their incredibly, uh, sinister, uh, KGB-style, uh, information warfare and the decreasing value of their oil and irrelevance, which is why they have to do things like mess with us on social media. I mean, it literally... I feel like it's, like, the last couple of dying techniques they've got in their playbook from, you know, the '80s as the KGB, and they got a KGB agent running the country. Wh- when we look at China, m- how do you frame, um, our relationship with them and what would be the best practice for the next 10 years? Mid-term, in other words?

    5. DS

      Well, I think, I think what you see in just really in the last couple of weeks is a critical mass of scholarship and punditry declaring that we are in a new cold war with China. Um, and I think, you know, of all the momentous news events that have happened this year, um, from COVID to, um, you know, the riots and protests, um, I, I think that the most, uh, newsworthy and historically important event will be the beginning of this, the recognition that we are now in Cold War II. Um-

    6. JC

      So TikTok.

    7. DS

      ... and of cour-... TikTok is part of it.

    8. JC

      Yeah.

    9. DS

      I mean, COVID-

    10. JC

      I mean, it, it's paradoxical about a dance app is literally the tip of the spear here.

    11. CP

      No, I mean, I think, I think TikTok is sort of at the fringes. I think the, the Cold War II, to David's point, started when the United States basically embargoed Huawei from getting access to 5G technology. And I know that sounds like a very sort of, like, thin thread that most people don't understand, and we can unpack it in a second, but in my opinion, that sort of, you know, at the beginning of this year was when I started to s- pay attention and try to understand this issue more because it seemed like, wow, that's a, that's a shot across the bow, and declaring China as the clear, uh, you know, sort of the clear and present danger for American sovereignty.

    12. JC

      And the NBA and TikTok-

    13. DS

      Right.

    14. JC

      ... being cultural ramifications of that in which are different.

    15. CP

      Now, h- on this, on this, TikTok's irrelevant. Who cares? It doesn't fucking matter.

    16. DS

      Well, it's, it's-

    17. JC

      Is it irrelevant, Saks?

    18. DS

      Well, what TikTok and Huawei have in common is that the, the sort of, uh, proxy battles of Cold War II will be fought, uh, between these sort of client corporations. Whereas, you know, Cold War I, you have these, you had sort of these proxy, th- these sort of client states fighting these proxy wars. Uh, Cold War II, you have more of these, like, client corporations fighting these, um, proxy wars. Um, so, you know, it's, um, th- that's the sense in which I think they're, they're related. Um, the... what, what TikTok shows is, uh, a company that's desperately trying to maneuver so they don't become one of the first economic casualties of Cold, Cold War II. They appointed a American as CEO, they've, um, pulled out of Hong Kong so they're not subject to, um, to, to those regulations, and they're desperately maneuvering so they don't get banned in the United States. They want to preserve their market access, uh, but I think there's a very good chance that they will get shut down in the US and this country-

    19. CP

      Yeah, they've been, they've been shut down in India and today is July the 10th, and right before we went on, uh, the breaking news was that Amazon basically asked all their employees delete, to delete TikTok because of a security threat, so it's happening. I think that TikTok-

    20. DS

      Right.

    21. CP

      ... unless they basically have ByteDance sell under 20% or 30% of the company and get it into the hands of Americans, um, it will get banned, and I think that there will be a massive destruction in enterprise value. But can I tell you why TikTok doesn't matter? Uh, or doesn't matter as much? I think, David, you're right, that it's sort of like collateral damage. It, it almost is like, you know, it, it'll exist but whatever. Uh, the Huawei thing, in my opinion, is so important because it shines a light on two things. The first is that, you know, what happened essentially is United States told, uh, TSMC, "You know, you cannot basically give Huawei access to f- the 5G chipsets and the 5G technology that they would use to essentially kind of, like, you know, implement their spyware and then sell it into Western nations effectively." And so then what, what it does is it puts China in the posture of having to figure out how do they get access to this stuff? And, you know, the most obvious answer is to invade Taiwan and take over TSMC. Um-... and, you know, why would they do that? Well, obviously that has huge geopolitical ramifications, but they could only do that, again, going back to the first comment, is because they've already bought so many n- nation states into their productivity block that it's still, on a balance, a worthwhile trade. And it allows them to solve, uh, their version of Taiwanese sovereignty, uh, completely and definitively and basically say, "Look, we've, we've now solved Hong Kong, you know, Macau is already solved, and now we're gonna solve Taiwan and put the whole thing to bed, and now we have access to this critical technology that we need." Um, so, that, that's why I think sort of, like, what happens with Huawei, sort of what happens with TSMC, what happens on 5G is so important, because if you're going to force China, you know, to basically have to buy Western technology in order to get access to a critical piece of, you know, internet infrastructure, they're gonna be put to a very, very difficult test about what they have to do. And then they will have to be much more transparent, uh, on the global stage about what their ambitions really are and how far they're willing to go. And I think that's-

    22. DS

      Well-

    23. CP

      ... you know, that's a lot more important than, you know, a bunch of kids dancing to short videos.

    24. DS

      Well, and, and just to, just to add to that point, um, you know, so I think Chamath is right that these, these sort of chips, um, the 5G chips and these other chips, um, are, they're the new oil, you know, in terms of their geopolitical significance. Um, you know, obviously all of our technology, our iPhones, our advanced, you know, weaponry, uh, it's all based on these, these chips and, um, and 70% of them, uh, are fabricated in Taiwan. And, um, and I think, you know, one, one of the huge blind spots of American trade policy over the last 30 years is, is kind of not to notice that, um, that this, um, key technology that's really the substrate for all of our technology, for our economy, has now been manu- it's now been moved and it's manufactured, uh, you know, in Taiwan, uh, whose sovereignty China does not recognize and is constantly, you know, threatening, uh, with, with the risk of being, of being annexed. So, um, you know, we, we have a tremendous vulnerability there. And, um, you know, at the same, you know, we, we finally, after about 40 or 50 years of declaring that we'd be energy independent, we've achieved that, but now we have this new dependency on these chips that, um, you know, that- ... and pharma and manufacturing. Right.

    25. CP

      ... I mean, and we, and we-

    26. DS

      That's right.

    27. CP

      ... it seems like now manufacturing we're starting to realize, "Hey, Elon was right. We need to be able to build our own factories." And guess what? American spirit, American ingenuity, American focus, American capitalism, we can do it. We have the wherewithal to do it. There's no reason we cannot make these chips here. Sorry, I don't buy it that we're, we're gonna be this dependent forever. We just need to have the will and the leadership to say, "We're gonna do this whether it costs us an extra 50 cents per chip." And-

    28. DS

      Well, the fab- the fabrication of these chips is incredibly complicated. I mean, they're, uh, they're, they're basically-

    29. CP

      So let's buy the companies. Let's-

    30. DS

      ... they're microscopic.

  5. 37:34 – 46:18

    Is the CCP targeting the US with their geographic & economic influence? China's grand plan, protecting Taiwan

    1. JC

    2. DF

      I'm not, I'm not sure, um, I'm not sure I, I think that the, um, Chinese action is as deterministic as we think it is, or as we kind of frame it, where it's China's got this grand plan, they're gonna beat the US and they're gonna control things and make decisions that, that hurt us. I think a lot of this is, um, China, if you think about it less about black and white, there's a continuum. And the continuum is one of influence and one of creating, uh, an environment whereby these things can happen. So China, for example, made capital readily available for, um, the agriculture industry, uh, to be able to buy, uh, uh, buy assets. And so the companies inside of China, which aren't controlled, the Chinese government isn't telling them what to do. Uh, the Chinese government has set a policy that enables them to increase their prosperity, and as a result, increase the prosperity of the Chinese people. Um, you know, when I was at Monsanto, we were... we bid for the largest ag chemicals company in the world based out of Switzerland. It's called Syngenta. And we bid like $44 billion to buy this company, and the, the largest chemical company in China called ChemChina, uh, bid $47 billion and, and, uh, acquired the business, and they now own the largest ag chemicals company in the world. China also bought Smithfield and they bought... they put a bunch of people in Canada -

    3. JC

      Hey, Canada, yeah.

    4. DF

      ... because Canada... Yeah.

    5. JC

      How much of that money do you think came from the CCP? And, and what involvement do you think the CCP had in putting their thumb on the scale of making sure that transaction went that direction?

    6. DF

      Look, I mean, ultimately, wherever the, the capital comes from, it's no less equivalent than what you would see in the United States where treasuries, um, uh, fund the central bank, which funds banks, which fund lending to corporations, which ultimately make purchases, right?

    7. JC

      But do you think the leadership said, "Hey, we're winning this at all costs"?

    8. DF

      Yeah. So here, here's what happened. In 2007, there was a CCP, um, internal doctrine that was published, and it's now reasonably well known, and there was a speech that was given, uh, that started this aggressive action in agriculture. Um, and as a result, Chinese citizens started moving to Canada and buying farmland in Canada. They started moving to Australia, buying farmland in China. They started building these facilities in Argentina and Brazil and Africa. Um, and the Chinese government set out, you know, a strategic objective and provided the capital and enabled industry and people to go after pursuing these interests. But the CCP didn't say, "Here's the roadmap." It's not like, "Here's the specific plan for what we need to do." They had a general high level kind of point of view that, that, that I think drove all that action and all of that behavior. Um, and so, you know, it's... I, I would say it's, it's not as perhaps coercive as we might think it is in terms of the CCP wanting to target and attack US. They're trying to increase their influence around the world. They're trying to increase their own security and increase their own prosperity. And at some point, there's only so many resources globally, there's only so much land, so much magnets that, uh, you know, they, uh... and they're winning in the markets, um, and, you know, we're kind of crossing that threshold now where they're actually like a, a, a competitive competition to the US.

    9. JC

      You know, the only difference between this is, and I, I, I couldn't disagree-

    10. DF

      But my, sorry, my, my point is I just don't want to frame it as like-

    11. JC

      Yeah.

    12. DF

      ... I, I just think it's, it's a, it's a, it's a misstatement to frame it as China has this grand plan to come after the US and they're evil and that's what they're doing. I mean, you know, they, they're...

    13. JC

      Yeah. See, this is where I think you're completely, uh, wrong, uh, David, respectfully-

    14. DF

      Yeah, yeah.

    15. JC

      ... in that I believe this is an ideological war. And if you... you can't diminish what's happening in Hollywood, TikTok, um, and the NBA and other sports, where China is explicitly saying, "If you put a villain in our... in a movie, if you talk about Tibet in a movie, we are going to not play that movie and we're gonna start funding your movies." And so they are absolutely using the vector of culture. And Chamath, I think you're also wrong here where you're saying, "Oh, TikTok is not important." TikTok is something that a generation of kids absolutely are in love with, and those kids are like, "Hey, boomers, stay out of our platform." And so the... and, and the ideological issue here, Friedberg, which I think that you're underplaying, is they want to win and they want to spread their ideology, which is the ideology of authoritarianism. They are not going to win Africa and then suddenly say, "You know what would be great for Africa? If we made the entire continent democracies."

    16. DF

      Tell me how is it different than Trump-

    17. JC

      That's not in their best interest.

    18. DF

      How is it different than Trump tweeting?

    19. CP

      Well, Friedberg, I just think that it's, it's inconceivable to me that the Chinese, when they do this grandiose planning and they do the, you know, the political theater of having the thousands of people in the Chinese, you know, assembly hall once a year, you know, and Xi Jinping talks, that they haven't developed a multifaceted, multi-layered plan that they're executing. In part, I think this is why Xi Jinping essentially wants to be this ruler for life inside of China, because he... I think they have a 20 or 30-year plan, and I do think it is to disrupt the United States. And I don't think that they believe, though, which is the smart thing, that there's one silver bullet. I just think that they're gonna take a thousand shots on goal, whether it's, you know, monopolizing the rare earths or, you know, figuring out how to basically put spying software in the hands of millions of Americans. That's where I think TikTok is actually really important. It's essentially a vehicle to spy and backdoor into Americans. Um.

    20. DF

      Yeah.

    21. CP

      Or whether it's, you know, introducing a digital yuan so that we can try to disrupt the, you know, the, the, the use of the US dollar as a reserve currency of the world. They probably have a list of a thousand tactics and they're gonna go and execute them. And I don't begrudge them that. I just think it's, it's, it's well-organized machine.... I just think we now need to counterpunch.

    22. JC

      Saks?

    23. DS

      Yeah. I mean, so China's on a mission of, of national greatness. I think the immediate goal is to, um, is to assert its hegemony over Asia and to kick the US out of that region. But I think ultimately now they see in their sights potentially, uh, being the number one country in the entire world because of the, because of the chaos that, uh, COVID has brought over here. Um, so I think-

    24. CP

      A- and in fairness, David, the incompetence of Trump thus far. I mean, like, you know, it's, it's not fair to think that the Chinese Politburo versus Trump and his cabinet are an equal match. Forget your political persuasion.

    25. DS

      Yeah. I mean, they, they clearly seeem im- emboldened and, you know, just in the last few weeks and- and months we've seen the ending of the two systems in Hong Kong, which was a 50-year commitment they made in, uh, I think 1984. Um, so they abrogated on that agreement-

    26. JC

      Well, and Saks-

    27. DS

      ... that commitment.

    28. JC

      ... that-

    29. DS

      Yeah. You, you have the-

    30. JC

      ... they happened to do that three or four months before Trump is looking like he's not gonna be in office. So talking about two months-

  6. 46:18 – 51:16

    Utilizing Central & South America to decrease reliance on Chinese manufacturing

    1. DF

      earlier. Let- let me ask you guys, how many factories do you think exist in China? Take a guess.

    2. CP

      11 million.

    3. DF

      2- 2.8 million. Now, how many do you think exist in the United States?

    4. CP

      1- 150,000.

    5. DF

      Close. About 250,000. And China has about 83 million factory workers, and we have about 12. So, um, you know, Chamath, if we do end up in Cold War II, uh, where, you know, we escalate the tension and escalate the divide, how do we end up, um, you know, having, avoiding $2,000 or $3,000 iPhones? How do we get all the televisions we want for $500 bucks? How do we do that, um, given that, you know, to catch up with this production capacity will end up costing many tens of trillions of dollars of invested capital that China's invested over decades?

    6. CP

      Well, this is such a brilliant... This is, it's a fabulous question, and I think, I don't have the answer, but here's the way that I think about the solution. You know, the, the thing that we had before was, in my way, in- in many ways, like, this kind of, like, perverted sense of globalism. And I think that we, we, you know, we thought that globalism equals utopia, and that's not true. It's actually more like a chess board, which means you have, you know, two different sets of colored pieces competing against each other, and each piece on the board, in many ways, is a country. So, you know, we can look at that as a geographic skew and say, like, "We need to really consolidate, um, you know, North, Central and South America as a bloc, as a productivity bloc." And so, David, that's where we need to have more trade within those areas so that we can actually build up production capacity in places that can absorb and produce low-cost labor or low-cost items to compete with the China bloc. That may be a solution.

    7. JC

      I- I mean, that is an incredible point, Chamath, which is why the rhetoric with Mexico, which would love-

    8. DF

      It's so dumb.

    9. JC

      ... to have a deep relationship with us, is so dumb.

    10. DF

      So dumb.

    11. JC

      We- we're talking about factories, they would love for us to put more factories on there and whatever countries-

    12. CP

      Forget, forget Mexico.

    13. JC

      ... let's work our way down the peninsula.

    14. CP

      Yeah. Go to, go down the peninsula. Go, go to Honduras, go to El Salvador, go to Guatemala where the people-

    15. JC

      Uruguay, Paraguay-

    16. CP

      ... are screaming-

    17. JC

      ... they want work.

    18. CP

      Yeah. Are, are screaming for work, which is why they're trying to enter the United States. The best way is to not build a wall, take all that money, and fuel it into production and manufacturing-

    19. DF

      Right.

    20. CP

      ... and warehouse capacity in those places in which they're-

    21. JC

      We-

    22. CP

      ... leaving in the first place.

    23. DF

      And if we thought, like, China-

    24. DS

      I- I think the point is-

    25. DF

      We would... Go ahead. Do it, Friedberg. Sorry. No, you, you can't successfully sustain a cold war with China without global partnership. And I think, um, you know, this notion of, uh, nationalism and isolationism in the United States, um, will not work in a world where we are also trying to compete globally with China and are, and are raising the stakes in a, in a global, uh, cold war. You can't have it both ways. So, you know, either the, the current administration policy needs to change... I'd love to hear Saks' point of view on this, uh...

    26. DS

      Yeah.

    27. DF

      Or, you know, or we need to have a change in administration and actually, you know, uh, re-engage on a- on a global basis with partner states.

    28. DS

      Well, okay. So I, I think the, the point about, um, about... Uh, well, I think what some people on the right would say is that being able to buy cheap goods at Target is not worth the hollowing out of the American industrial base that happened over the past 30 years, and that was a catastrophic mistake. Um, and you know, this is what got Trump reelected, was shattering that, that blue wall in those Rust Belt states. Um, so I think we can kind of look back on that and wonder whether that trade-off was really worth it. Um, but moving forward, I think the balance is going to be, um, to realize that trade does create wealth. Um, you know, all wealth, in fact, comes from trade, whether at the level of individuals or nations. If it weren't for trade, all of us would be subsistence farmers or something like that. Um, but we also have to realize that trade creates interdependence because I stop making certain things in order to buy them from you. And so in order to engage in trade, we have to trust each other. I have to trust that, uh, that you one day won't decide that your ability to manufacture antibiotics is strategic and you might, uh, deprive me of them in order to facilitate some geopolitical interest. And so I think what we're waking up to with, you know, production of, of um, pharmaceuticals or N95 masks, you know, PPE, and now chips is that we've had this real blind spot with respect to trade. We've basically offshored so many of the elements that are necessary for our national survival and I think those elements have to be brought back so that America is safe and independent. But with respect to, you know, so many other things, I think it's fine for us to get them through trade, whether you know, it could be-

    29. JC

      Yeah.

    30. DS

      ... apparel or toys or so many other goods that, you know, we do want cheap goods-

  7. 51:16 – 1:13:29

    Ideas to 100x America's efficiency, as if it were a startup, Jason tells his doxing story

    1. DS

    2. JC

      I want to do a mental exercise. We all for our living try to come up with 100x, 1000x solutions, whether we're creating the companies or betting on the companies. I want everybody to just think for a second of the United States as a startup company and a 10x, 100x idea for how we can not only maintain our position but maybe become the shining, um, hill where we actually lead the world towards democracy, towards human rights. I'm going to start with the one that I just happened to... It hit me while you all were talking, which is why I love doing this podcast because I get such inspiration listening to you guys, you know, pass the ball around. We haven't added a state to the United States in a pretty damn long time. What if we said to Puerto Rico... What if we said to the Dominican Republic... What if we said to Honduras... I mean, and I don't want to make this into a, uh, exercise in colonialism, but if we said, "You know what, Puerto Rico? How do you feel about being the 51st state? Because we're already 80% of the way there." And what if we said the United States is going to, and this is just a crazy 100x idea, we're going to start taking countries that maybe love democracy, that would love to be part of the United States, and, and having a bridge towards becoming part of this bloc. Whether it's how Puerto Rico is-

    3. DS

      Jason, the United States can barely function as it is, um, I don't know if it should be-

    4. JC

      No, that's why I'm giving you the freedom to say this is a 100x exercise as a startup because if we put out crazy ideas like this, maybe we can pull people towards thinking like, um, the chessboard of how to play 3D chess or how to win the chessboard, not just move the pawns back and forth.

    5. DS

      Well, I think the first thing America has to do is, is decide whether it wants to, uh... Whether it still thinks that national greatness is important and whether it wants to compete to, um, to be the leading power in the world. Because right now, it seems like, uh, we're hopelessly divided and our guns are literally drawn on each other. Um, and, uh, you know, you've got this, um, all-out assault going on, on capitalism. You have sort of cancel culture. And America just seems hopelessly divided and I don't know if Americans still think it's important to be the number one power in the world.

    6. JC

      All right, so what's your thought experiment on how to make Americans realize this is important? Or if anybody else wants to jump in here with a 10x idea for America, go ahead, Shamaay.

    7. CP

      I have a... Well, I have an overlaying theory that I... This is sort of kind of me spitballing, so bear with me, but-

    8. JC

      Let's do it.

    9. CP

      You know, there's a, there's this concept called the Overton window, right? Which is sort of like the minimally viable acceptable surface area-

    10. JC

      Discussion.

    11. CP

      ... of dialogue, at which case it starts to sort of, you know, get extreme. I, my... I would theorize, I would tell you that the Overton window is the smallest it's ever been. And there's-

    12. JC

      100.

    13. CP

      There's basically nothing that you can talk about that is relatively benign without it being politicized and, and there's no gradation anymore. It's a very binary thing. You're either in the Overton window which for example would be like you know vegetables matter or looking both ways across the street matters and outside the Overton window honesty is black lives matter as an example you know and it gets politicized on both sides masks you know if a balaclava when you're skiing because your face is cold is inside the Overton window that same balaclava when you go to the drugstore so that you can actually you know either prevent disease one way or the other is outside the Overton window you know making sure that police you know are there to protect you in a time of need is now outside the Overton window because it's framed in a in the lens of police brutality so the Overton window has shrunk so we we have very little surface area where we can actually all agree without getting into a fight ideal I will try to cancel each other I totally agree with that I mean we have this we have this sort of epidemic of canceled culture going on and I guess Jason you recently experienced this oh my lord I mean for the love of God what happened Jason tell us what happened listen I

    14. JC

      I look at Twitter as a place to have vibrant discussions and, you know, 10 years ago it was kind of where the Overton window was most open. You could have a discussion about anything. And, um, we had a discussion about, uh, you know, my feeling that, as a former journalist, and we're doing random acts of journalism here, that I just thought The New York Times was just way too biased and that they picked a side in order for their business to survive. And I actually believe that. I believe they picked the side of Trump... I'm sorry, the side of anti-Trump in order to get subscriptions because their advertising business has been demolished by the duopoly of Facebook and Google. This led to the circling of the wagons of the, (clicks tongue) uh, journalists, which I was part of. But listen, it's pretty easy to hate me. I understand that. I'm a loudmouth. Um, and so now I'm getting piled on by the journalists.

    15. CP

      And, and you were an early investor in Uber.

    16. JC

      Absolutely.

    17. CP

      Don't, don't forget that. Don't-

    18. JC

      Let's forget.

    19. CP

      Don't do that ...

    20. JC

      Like, the third or fourth, I, I don't even ... They tell me the third or fourth.

    21. CP

      (laughs)

    22. JC

      Anyway, (laughs) so, um, there's a journalist at said publication. I'm not gonna say her name because I don't want any harassment of anybody, nobody does, um, who said, "People are stupid for going back to work." Um, "And they're idiots." And I said, "You know, this is a very convenient thing for a journalist who works behind a keyboard who makes $100,000 a year to say, because those people are literally not going to be able to feed their kids if they don't go back to work." And this led to her saying I was harassing and stalking her. Then I was in Clubhouse, the new social network where you talk, and the same journalist was in the audience. And I said to the people who were talking, "Just be aware there is a journalist in the audience, because even though this is a private beta, this could wind up being in The New York Times." Which it did. Not that discussion, but another one that was covertly taped. And I don't know if it was covertly taped by a journalist or not, but it did wind up in the press. Anyway, um, this whole thing turns into a giant fight. Uh, and ...

    23. CP

      Clubhouse sounds like some dark S&M sex club in Berlin.

    24. JC

      It ... No, no, that's exactly-

    25. DS

      Here, here's what I think is most entertaining about this.

    26. JC

      That's Clubhaus, H-O-A-U-S, Haus. It's Clubhaus.

    27. DS

      Yeah. Let me, uh ... What I think is most entertaining about this is that the, the New York Times journalist was in this vicious, uh, battle with, uh, Balaji, who's a Silicon Valley founder and personality, and they were arguing. And then Jason somehow comes running over and starts involving himself-

    28. CP

      (laughs)

    29. DS

      ... in this feud.

    30. CP

      (laughs)

  8. 1:13:29 – 1:23:35

    Will school re-open in the Fall? Impact of decreased socialization on kids

    1. DF

      I don't, yeah, I think it's gonna be a mix- mixed bag. It seems like, I mean, if you follow this, this is a political decision, right? It's not a scientific decision. Um, and so there are different, uh, politics, uh, uh, around nationally that are affecting this, and there are some schools that seem like they've got processes and, and methods of being comfortable. Some of them are just throwing everything out the window and saying, "I don't give a shit. The kids gotta go back to school." And some of them who are being very conservative and saying, you know, "We're not ready for that. We can't take the risk." So, you'll definitely see a mixed bag. I don't know where, where you're living Chamath. I don't know what's gonna happen per se, but it's definitely a local policy question.

    2. JC

      Is it safe, Friedberg, is it safe to send our kids back to a 10-person pod in a school in California?

    3. DF

      I mean, that's like asking is it safe to cross a train track, you know? Uh, you can look left, you can look right, uh, but yeah. You're cr- you know, a, a busy train intersection during, during, uh, rush hour, right? You know, it's hard to say, uh, what level of safe is safe. Um, we know that, uh, kids are less susceptible, uh, to any sort of health risks themselves from the virus and it looks like there's a lot of studies showing that they're likely less, uh, uh, uh... The virus is less transmissible through kids, especially kids under the age of 14. Um, and so it seems like there's, there's some theories that say that look, it's these ACE2 receptors whereby the virus enters the cells really start to present when you turn 10 years old a- at a greater rate. And, you know, it scales up to 14 and above 14 you're, you're kind of an adult from an ACE2 receptor point of view. And then there's the severity of the, uh, infection, as we all know, is really more of a significant issue for much elderly people. So, when you take those factors into account, the virus is likely less transmissible amongst children. Therefore, a bunch of kids get together, they're not gonna transmit it to each other, and, um, and it's likely gonna be less severe even if there is a ch- an infection for kids. The risk is just about are the teachers comfortable and what happens when they go home? And there have been a number of letters that you guys have probably seen, op-eds and whatnot written in papers by teachers saying, "I'm nervous to go back to school. I don't wanna teach this fall. I don't wanna take the risk for my health. I take care of my mom or my dad," or what have you. Um, and so there's a lot of competing interests here-

    4. JC

      All right, so let's go-

    5. DF

      ... besides just the science.

    6. JC

      Let's go around the horn of who's sending their kids back to school. I'll start. I posted on calacanis.com yesterday that we've decided as a family that we're starting a micro-school. Uh, we put out a call for, uh, a teacher and, um, you know, just looking at teacher salaries, they don't get paid particularly well in our society, as we all know. They're underpaid. So, we think we can come over the top and provide a, you know, a better financial arrangement for a teacher, um, and then, uh, have one to five students, and we're gonna just create a micro-school. That's our, that's our current plan. Um, our kids did go to camp this summer in a small 10-person or less pod, um, and we felt that was safe. Everybody was tested and it was outdoors, but for me, being indoors at a school with 300 pods of 10, um, and I think the best teachers are not gonna show up and our- my kids don't learn over Zoom. I don't know about your kids, but it's not working. So, we're starting a, we're gonna roll our own school and hopefully find one or two families who wanna chop up the cost with us or we'll, we'll just pick up the tab and invite one or two families, um, if they don't have the means to do it. But we're- we're gonna, we're gonna go solo for 2021. Friedberg, Chamath, what are you thinking right now? 'Cause we're only seven, eight weeks out from this, right? We're less than two months.

    7. CP

      I, I really think, like, look, not everybody, Jason, is gonna be in a position to hire teachers. In fact, most everybody won't be.

    8. JC

      Agreed, yeah.

    9. CP

      Um, I think it's, uh, I wanna send my children back to school. Um, I, uh, I refuse to, um, create some alternative reality for them. Um, um, I think it's really important that they are with their friends. Uh, I think that we're not really thinking strongly enough about the social implications for, you know, children. Uh, let's just say, like, you know, you take an eight-year-old or a nine-year-old or a 10-year-old and you deprive them of their friends for a year. I mean, that's an enormous part of their life where they've spent-

    10. JC

      It's like a prison sentence, yeah.

    11. CP

      They, they've been socially isolated, you know?

    12. JC

      Yeah.

    13. CP

      Um, I just think it's a re- it's a really bad outcome. So, um, I think that obviously from a public health perspective, we wanna keep our teachers safe. Um, I just think that it's so important that we realize that, you know, we are going to impact an entire generation of kids. I think that if you're 18 or 19 and, and have had, you know, 18 or 19 years of normal teenage-dom, you know, and, and, and growing up that it's okay if you miss a year or you have to, you know, do your first year of college remotely. Like, it sucks, but you can deal. Um, but I really worry about these kids in, in primary school and middle school. It's really unfair.

    14. JC

      Yeah, I mean w- our plan was to try to get to four or five students, uh, small bubble, and then, you know, have outdoor. The problem is in the Northeast-

    15. CP

      I di- I just think it, I just think it-

    16. JC

      ... I mean, having gone to school, it's, you're inside with a heating system, with a closed ventilation system-

    17. CP

      Yeah.

    18. JC

      ... that was built in 1920.

    19. CP

      And I think it avoids the real key thing which is, like, I don't think you go to school to learn as much as you go to school to, uh-

Episode duration: 1:31:59

Install uListen for AI-powered chat & search across the full episode — Get Full Transcript

Transcript of episode fZodR6T8cU0

Get more out of YouTube videos.

High quality summaries for YouTube videos. Accurate transcripts to search & find moments. Powered by ChatGPT & Claude AI.

Add to Chrome