Why a SpaceX IPO could reprice every AI company on earth

1. 0:00 – 0:12

   Bestie intros!

   1. JCJason Calacanis0:00

      All right, everybody. Welcome back to the number one podcast in the world, the All-In Podcast. David Sacks couldn't make it this week, but we have the trio. David Friedberg is here, your sultan of science, Chamath Palihapitiya.

2. 0:12 – 21:00

   SpaceX IPO, the economic opportunity of space: a new industrial frontier

   1. JCJason Calacanis0:13

      SpaceX filed confidentially to go public on April first, targeting a one point seven five trillion, with a T, valuation. When SpaceX goes public, if it's at that one point seven five, uh, trillion-dollar valuation [chuckles] so weird to say trillion-dollar valuation for an IPO, uh, they would be the eighth largest company in the world right behind TSMC and Saudi Aramco. They're both worth one point seven X, uh, at the taping of this podcast. Tesla is number ten with a one point three seven trillion-dollar valuation. Hey, if you were to combine those two, as many people are speculating will happen at some point, and you can buy the stock ticker E-L-O-N, that would be a three point one trillion-dollar company, and that would make them the fourth largest company, ahead of Microsoft. They're aiming to raise, Chamath, seventy-five billion, which would be the, by far, the biggest raise ever in an IPO. Uh, expected to go out in June. I think they were trying to hit the four twenty date 'cause that would've been even more hilarious, but, uh, they're not gonna be able to do that. SpaceX, uh, recently acquired X.AI for two hundred fifty billion. That includes X and Twitter and the X AI large language model AI company. Starlink generating between fifty and eighty percent of SpaceX's revenue. We'll have all those details shortly. Um, it'll be close to twenty billion dollars a year according to reports. Launch of rockets is the other forty percent of the business, five billion in twenty twenty-four according to reports. Total revenue, twenty twenty-five, fifteen to sixteen billion, with eight billion in profit according to Reuters. So let's stop there, uh, and we're gonna talk about all the other IPOs that could be coming. Uh, Chamath, I think people really wanna know, and you may have mentioned this on an earlier episode, what are the chances that Tesla, after-- if this IPO goes well, that Tesla and SpaceX could wind up being the same company? We saw they're collaborating-

   2. SPSpeaker2:07

      Hundred percent

   3. JCJason Calacanis2:07

      ... on a fab. A hundred percent is what you're putting it on? Okay.

   4. SPSpeaker2:10

      Okay, sorry. Let me, let me be clear. Ninety-nine point nine nine nine percent.

   5. JCJason Calacanis2:15

      Okay. [laughs]

   6. SPSpeaker2:16

      What will that mean when th- if those two companies or when those two companies merge? One of the great things that happened in my career was there was a point where you know how, like, you grind at a level, and then, you know, you just get exposed to things at a different level.

   7. JCJason Calacanis2:32

      Mm-hmm.

   8. SPSpeaker2:33

      And then you grind for years, and you get exposed to things at a yet another level. In one of those steps, I was very fortunate to be introduced, by Thomas Lafont actually, to the head of Wachtell Lipton.

   9. JCJason Calacanis2:47

      Is a law firm.

   10. SPSpeaker2:48

       The ge- law firm. T- and his name is Ed Herlihy. And he said, "This is the most important, well-known, well-run, powerful law firm in America." Then I looked at the transactions, and they're just in the middle of everything. And now, you know, my lawyer, Raj Narayan, who does everything for me, one of the senior partners at Wachtell, I can attest are incredible. And they said to me in the middle of all of this stuff when I was doing a bunch of deals, they said, "Chamath, just get ready to pay a tax." And I said, "What does that mean?" They said, "The way that the American capital markets are set up is both that you can be incredibly creative and do incredible things, but," and we talked about this a little bit last week, "there's a bunch of tort that allows folks to hang around the hoop and get paid no matter what." You see this in all IPOs. Shareholder lawsuits abound, and they try to create a class out of it. And the reason they do that is that there's D&O insurance that then will pay out some number of millions of dollars. The attorneys take forty or fifty percent, and then these plaintiffs get a few bucks. You saw how egregious this tort manipulation was when this guy with ten shares sued Elon's comp package at Tesla and won. And what was that really? That was the trial lawyers trying to get paid hundreds of millions of dollars by exploiting a seam. Why am I bringing-

   11. JCJason Calacanis4:09

       It was a shakedown. Call it what it is

   12. SPSpeaker4:10

       ... it was a shakedown. Why am I bringing this up? If you take the, the Raj and Ed example of this, this SpaceX IPO is going to set up a couple of things. The first is there's gonna be the natural noise in the market, and Elon will have to sort through all of the little ticky-tacky things. But the most important positive thing that will happen from the IPO is a validated external mark-to-market valuation of SpaceX. And the market every day in real time gives you a valid mark-to-market assessment of the value of Tesla, and this allows you to put these two things together to minimize these losses.

   13. JCJason Calacanis4:50

       Yes.

   14. SPSpeaker4:50

       And I think that that's what Elon really needs. It'll make his life tremendously simpler from a governance perspective. It'll make the companies and this quibbling about his time a non-issue because, again, nobody talks about Zuck or Satya or Sundar or Jensen allocating time across various projects inside of Meta or Google or Microsoft or Nvidia, nor should they really make this claim from Elon because, as you're seeing, there's actually an enormous overlap and commonality to the various things that he is doing. He's building the robots, but they're used inside of SpaceX. He's building a terafab. They're used inside of Tesla. He's building X AI. They're used across both. So I think we need to do this. It'll minimize the shareholder noise because it'll give less room to somebodies that says, "Hey, he set a valuation out of thin air."

   15. JCJason Calacanis5:48

       Well, and it-

   16. SPSpeaker5:49

       But dollars to donuts, these things are going to merge.

   17. JCJason Calacanis5:51

       And it speaks to the singularity that's going on right now. You know, you had a car company, you had a space company. Okay, that was a pretty h- how do those two things overlap? And it's like AI, data centers in space, where do you get chips from? And then actually going to raw materials inside of one factoryGoing out the other, and having discussed it with Elon many times, what he learned, you know, at Tesla or SpaceX about advanced materials informed different products at the different companies. And now you just-- you'll have all of that in one place. And then you think about the brain trust that he built at those two companies, plus Boring Company, plus Neuralink. If they're all in there, all this cross-disciplinary learning is gonna compound and compound, and compound. Elon knows more about factories than probably-

   18. DFDavid Friedberg6:39

       Anybody

   19. JCJason Calacanis6:39

       ... anybody. Like-

   20. DFDavid Friedberg6:40

       Anybody

   21. JCJason Calacanis6:40

       ... there's some people in China who have, [chuckles] you know-- Foxconn knows a lot about factories. You know? So, so there are some people who know as much or, or probably even a little bit more about some aspects of it, but that's a, a true advantage of bringing those two teams together, and you saw it. People would go from one company to the other. Friedberg, my question for you very acutely with your NASA hat and, uh, you know, your, your background today is 20 years ago, he, he started trying to get to space with SpaceX, and here we go. There's more rockets going off in a month now than there are days in the month for the, for the entire country, and he's got rockets going up every two or three days. You can just basically hop on a SpaceX flight and get to space. Maybe you could just use your vision there to tell the audience what could things look like in another 20 years if SpaceX continues at this cadence or even, you know, goes faster because of AI?

   22. DFDavid Friedberg7:33

       Well, this week's a pretty important milestone for that point because we just launched Artemis II yesterday, which is man's returning to the Moon. So the United States shipped this rocket with four astronauts on board. They're gonna do an orbit around the Earth, head to the Moon, come back around, and come back to Earth in anticipation of landing on the Moon in about two years. And getting to the Moon, I think, is gonna be very important, not just because there's this important social milestone and race happening on right now with China, but I think the Moon could end up being kind of the next industrial frontier for humanity. And the reason is if you can get to the Moon, the Moon has an extraordinary abundance of material that we can mine, process, and manufacture into goods, and ultimately, the cost to ship those goods back to the Earth is zero. It will cost less to move goods, manufactured goods, processed ore, m- uh, s- precious metals from the Moon to a specific point on Earth. It will cost less to do that than to ship it using any other terrestrial conventional method, whether that's a boat, an airplane, or a railroad. And the reason is that on the Moon, you can take advantage of the low gravity. It's about one-sixth the gravity, and the complete lack of an atmosphere, meaning that it's frictionless to move material off of the Moon and very low energy to move it off of the Moon. You do not need to use a rocket propellant with high energy like we have to do to move things off of the Earth. In fact, the design for moving material off of the Moon is to use what's called a mass driver, which is like a, a train track, like a rail, like an electric rail. You kinda see these in, you know, high-speed trains that work on kind of magnetic levitation, and you could put a package on that rail and use electricity to accelerate that package to a hundred G-force, shoot it back to the Earth, or theoretically shoot it to Mars, and it will go to the exact point on the Earth you want it to go to, reenters the atmosphere, and lands with a, a simple parachute where you want it to go. So we could run continuous mining, continuous manufacturing processes on the Moon at a fraction of the cost of what it would take to do it here on Earth. The biggest limiting factor, getting people to the Moon, and that is largely solved or will be solved in the next few years by robotics. So I think that there's this pretty profound intersection with what's going on in robotics with this moment for space industrialization and moving to the Moon. So, you know, Tesla, I think 20 years from now is actually a more interesting story, whether they're the same, uh, independent company or the same company. I think we're gonna look back one day and have this kind of laughing observation that Tesla started out as an electric car company-

   23. JCJason Calacanis10:19

       Hundred percent

   24. DFDavid Friedberg10:20

       ... ended up, ended up becoming an autonomous car company, and the autonomous competency is what led to the robotics revolution. And the robotics revolution, even if the socialists ban robotics on Earth and tell us, "No robots allowed. They're taking all the jobs" -

   25. JCJason Calacanis10:33

       [laughs]

   26. DFDavid Friedberg10:33

       ... you could ship all those robots to the Moon, and they could get to work and create an entirely new manufacturing frontier for our civilization, for humanity. That frontier can manufacture precious metals and other goods and ship 'em back. You could manufacture semiconductors on the Moon. All that's missing is the robots. So moving the robots to the Moon or setting up the materials for robots to build themselves on the Moon is kind of the first phase of this transition, you know, asking about 20 years from now, and then the next phase is building this all out. So look, I mean, I think that this may not be, and it certainly won't be limited to just SpaceX, but SpaceX is demonstrating its capacity at being effectively the railroads. You know, what the railroads were to the West and to the frontier in the West, you know, in the last generation, SpaceX will be to the Moon and ultimately to Mars, and there's gonna be an extraordinary abundance of production that's gonna come out of the Moon. The Moon has everything, by the way, and I'll say one more thing about SpaceX. SpaceX has also created, and this is gonna be a, a big part of the valuation analysis that many are doing. They've created a backup to the internet. You know, the internet is fundamentally limited by all of the nodes on the network and the connectivity amongst all those nodes, and that connectivity is largely driven by copper and fiber optic cable. So in space, with the number of satellites going up with Starlink and to actually deploy data centers that can output data on those nodes on that network, SpaceX has largely built a backup internet. And that backup internet can coincide with the Earth's internet, but it creates this extraterrestrial communication network that gives us theoretically the ability to think about, hey, if governments collapse, if there's civilizational upheaval, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. This becomes, I think, a fundamentally kind of important technology infrastructure that's gonna exist in parallel. So I'm pretty excited about, like, these two separate paths for SpaceX and where they intersect with Tesla.I think it's pretty profound at the moment.

   27. JCJason Calacanis12:21

       Yeah, and it, it can't be understated what lowering the cost per kilogram to get to space has done to entrepreneurs around the company. There's multiple entrepreneurs who are now doing asteroid mining, or Varda doing experimentation in space, and I have, um, I have been doing some late stage stuff, Chamath, with my syndicate, and one of the interesting companies we syndicated... We, we did Zipline, which is a great company, but we also did this company called Vast, Vast Space. Uh, Jed is the founder. He, he created, uh, Ripple, and, uh, and, and some other crypto projects, and he put a lot of his money, hundreds of millions of dollars, into this company, Vast Space, and they're designing a space station. How did they do it? Well, they just bought carriage on SpaceX rockets, and they paid in advance, they have their slot, and now they're doing this massive innovation to make modular space station components.

   28. SPSpeaker13:14

       Here's what I'll, here's what I'll say.

   29. JCJason Calacanis13:15

       And the thesis is, hey, what if Google or Amazon want to have a space station in space? You know, it's completely possible they may want that.

   30. SPSpeaker13:23

       Here's what I'll say. I think-
3. 21:00 – 36:33

   2026 IPO explosion, OpenAI down round?

   1. SPSpeaker21:00

      I love it. Hey, 2026 could be an all-time record for IPOs. Looks like it will be. Anthropic, OpenAI, Databricks. I mean, these are all nine and possibly ten-figure IPOs in terms of the valuations. Long tail of other companies, uh, Stripe, Cerebras, Canva, Discord, lots of people waiting. Here's your Polymarket. SpaceX 94%, obviously. That looks like it's, uh, we just talked about that for 20 minutes. Anthropic 41%, and, and people were saying 70% in February. OpenAI 38%, Databricks 32%. People are wondering what could, um, derail this. Uh, obviously we, we, we have a, a very pro-business group of people in Washington, D.C., but you have potentially this, uh, Iran war, and we'll talk about that later in the program, could potentially push us back if, God forbid, it was to spiral or there was a recession, uh, maybe the Democrats, you know, taking control of Congress, Senate, et cetera. W- what are your thoughts here on the flurry of potential IPOs? We're talking about trillions of dollars of companies, Chamath. And if that does happen, let's start talking second and third order impact, uh, of, of that kind of distribution chain that could happen for LPs, and then just also all these employees, uh, you know, and then a, a currency for these companies. W- We go from a mag seven to a mag 17 it looks like. I think that we have a bit of a risk problem, and I think this is why it makes so much sense for Elon to get out first. If you think about appetite as equivalent to, like, a person at a Thanksgiving dinner, when you first come in and you see all of this stuff, it's so plentiful, your eyes are bigger than your stomach. And I think in a moment like that, you wanna be the one that is consumed first.

   2. DFDavid Friedberg22:53

      Hmm.

   3. SPSpeaker22:53

      And I think the risk increases when you are at the tail end because the risk is that the diners will run out of space. And if you use that-

   4. DFDavid Friedberg23:01

      Plate fills up. Yeah

   5. SPSpeaker23:02

      ... and if you use that analogy, I think th- the reason why people's plates will get full are probably twofold and maybe threefold. The first and most important thing is there's enough tactical event risk that people generally wanna be risk-off and have more margin of safety. I think the Iran thing is kind of in there, but I think the big tactical event risk is that we have a lot of these really important financial moments tied to this concept of AGI, ASI. I don't know if you saw the OpenAI announcement on their final terms, but, you know, a huge slug of Amazon's capital is tied to a 2028 IPO or a moment that calls for this. Then there was a bunch of leaked text messages or whatever that said that there's a version of some AGI running inside of Anthropic. Then there was the fact that, you know, the leak of Claude code basically demonstrated that they had feature flagged away a bunch of improvements, so if you stack up all these improvements, they're actually much further ahead than the models realize. If you take all of that as a basket, it goes back to what I said last week, which is we have a real pricing problem. If AGI is real, the durability of most companies is slim to none. If AGI is not real, then the fundraising capacity of these companies that are now raising hundreds of billions of dollars needs to get questioned and inspected thoroughly.History will sort out which one is right, but both cannot be right. So in that vein, I actually think, JCal, I don't think we're gonna have, like, these, quote-unquote, "blockbuster stream of IPOs." I think what happens is SpaceX is gonna get out. They're gonna do great. And then maybe the next one does good to great. Then the next one will do good. And then the appetite runs out because you just can't absorb incrementally trillions of dollars of new demand. And if you think about it, where is it gonna come from? Is it gonna come from the sidelines? I don't know. I think it's more of a reallocation exercise. But if you look at the S&P, well, most people are now defensively moving away from these kinds of things towards the things that are more protected, what the industry calls HALO, right? High asset, low obsolescence kind of businesses. Those things trade for zero today, Jason.

   6. JCJason Calacanis25:26

      Mm.

   7. SPSpeaker25:27

      You could buy hundreds of millions of dollars of year of cashflow for two to five times right now in the stock market. And so why are you gonna go way out on the risk curve and buy something at two hundred times revs, let alone earnings?

   8. JCJason Calacanis25:41

      Yeah. The, the-

   9. SPSpeaker25:42

      So I don't know

   10. JCJason Calacanis25:43

       ... the-

   11. SPSpeaker25:43

       I'm, I'm more in the camp of I think it's good to be first. It's pretty decent to be second. But if I were you, I would get the heck out and get public and get your money and fortify your balance sheet ASAP because I think the risk builds the further down the IPO chain you're in.

   12. JCJason Calacanis26:02

       Yeah, there's gonna be a competition for investor dollars, whether it's retail or it's institutional y- or sovereign wealth funds. They're gonna have a lot of choices here. Do you wanna be in Nvidia? Do you wanna be in SpaceX? Maybe you have to rotate out of Amazon or Google or Disney in order to take on those opportunities, and that's gonna be a, a great competition. Probably we could see a lot of these IPOs, Friedberg, trade below their IPO price in the year or two after they come out and get repriced, yeah? Like we've seen before.

   13. DFDavid Friedberg26:34

       I think the market's gonna need to find a price. Remember, the, the share owners in a lot of these companies have held on to these shares for a long period of time, and the valuations are extraordinary. I mean, hundreds of billions of dollars in market value coming to market liquid for the first time. Some of these investors, depe- regardless of whatever their entry price was, are gonna be looking for liquidity. So there's only so much capital to absorb those shares on the buy side, meaning if the buyers and the bid is not there to fulfill all of the selling, then you're gonna see the share price decline, and the market's gonna find a price. And so I, I think this idea that, like, an IPO is, you know, just a step in driving the price or value of a company up is a pretty false sense. And, and I think we'll realize it's pretty false as some of these IPOs take place because there is so much pent-up selling demand.

   14. JCJason Calacanis27:26

       Yes.

   15. DFDavid Friedberg27:26

       There is so much value that's been created. There's gonna be so much selling pressure, and then there's gonna be very little buying activity on some of these because anyone that could have bought at scale on the buy side post-public were already in a lot of these companies pre-public as private companies. And so I don't know who the big buyers are that everyone's expecting are to show up. They're probably thinking-

   16. JCJason Calacanis27:48

       Re- retail

   17. DFDavid Friedberg27:48

       ... it's gonna be retail. Retail?

   18. JCJason Calacanis27:49

       [laughs] Retail.

   19. DFDavid Friedberg27:49

       Yeah, I mean, it's like, you know-

   20. JCJason Calacanis27:50

       Yeah, but how much money does retail have left? I mean, you... if you look at retail investors, they have a certain amount of powder, and it's probably deployed. It's not like they have unlimited places to look for that. And, you know, there's some evidence of this. Bloombur- Bloomberg ran an article on Wednesday. We tape on Thursday, folks, and you get to listen to the pod on Fridays. OpenAI is falling out of favor with secondary buyers. According to a report, OpenAI investors can't find buyers at the new eight hundred fifty billion dollar valuation that Chamath referenced earlier. Investors Bloomberg spoke to are looking to sell six hundred million dollars' worth of shares. People are looking for liquidity and said they were institutional investors. Anthropic, currently valued at three hundred billion, is seeing major secondary bids at a six hundred billion dollar valuation. So I think, Chamath, what this shows us is you're correct. They're... You know, OpenAI and Anthropic are the two next cards. That's your turn in river, folks, if SpaceX is the flop. And maybe they're massively overvalued right now. Maybe they're three, four, five hundred million do- billion dollar companies, not trillion dollar companies. And if you look at the amount of revenue, twenty-four billion for, uh, OpenAI at eight hundred fifty-two billion, that's thirty-five times price to sales ratio, and that [laughs] is a absurd price to sales ratio, depending on if the growth keeps happening. And as you referenced, Chamath, what if we are at artificial general intelligence, AGI, and the moats on these things is de minimis or, or there is no moat. Anthropic just got hacked. All their secrets are out. [laughs] Somebody transmuted the code into another language, posted it on GitHub. Can't be stopped. I don't know if you saw that story, Friedberg, but this was kind of mind-blowing. Somebody took the Anthropic code, I don't know what it was written in, and then basically just put it into another language, reposted it. If Anthropic comes and says, "Hey, you can't do that," well, that negates their argument, Chamath, that they're allowed to train on other people's data and then spit out a different output. So this is a very weird moment in time, right?

   21. SPSpeaker29:55

       It is. I think you're, you're bringing up a bunch of different points, so let me just sort them out in the order-

   22. JCJason Calacanis30:00

       Yeah

   23. SPSpeaker30:00

       ... that I think is important. Is there a market for OpenAI at eight hundred billion? Yes, and there should be. When I read that press release, my mind was blown. This is a... I've never seen a business like this. And I'd say the same thing of Anthropic. What an incredible thing that both of these two companies have been able to create. Nobody in the history of the world has ever seen two businesses like this at this scale, okay? It's unbelievable. These are trillion dollar companies. They both are, and they both deserve to be. How profitable they are, I don't know. What their terminal valuation is, I don't know. What will people pay for an IPO?I don't know. But Nick, I just shared something with you. These two companies need to get out as quickly as possible, and the reason is every single company that comes after it, all those companies that you just named, Jason, are not nearly as important and do not need the money nearly as badly as these guys do. And where will it come from? The specific answer to your question when you look at this chart is the tech sector PE is going to shrink faster, in my opinion, than the non-tech PE. And the reason is because as these companies come out, the combination of SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic, all three are baking an AI technology that first and foremost will go after the tech sector. It will eliminate and it will cannibalize and it will erode most of the moats that support this differential trading. So if I were a betting man, my first bet is as those three companies come out, these software businesses are going to approach the rest of the non-tech PE. Okay? That's the first step that has to happen. So the rate of change of, of the multiple erosion will basically say to the world, "Hey, these tech companies are... I don't know. I'll buy the first five or six years of this story, but I'm not buying year 15 of this anymore because these three guys are gonna build something." So that's where the money comes from. That's why I think after SpaceX, these two guys need to get their act together, file quickly, get out, and just get the money, fortify their balance sheets, and be in a position.

   24. DFDavid Friedberg32:16

       Friedberg, I'll-

   25. SPSpeaker32:17

       Everything, everything that happens after that is a total coin toss because once these three companies are public, I think the blue line will converge to the orange line, and it's gonna be nasty.

   26. DFDavid Friedberg32:26

       Yeah. And Friedberg, just looking at this, do you believe that secondary market is a canary in the coal mine here with OpenAI? Because if we... We've... And we've gone through this year after year here. These are exceptional businesses. They've grown incredible. Customers love their products, but the burn is brutal. The circular financing problem is still out there, like what's reality here? The... And that's gonna all come out when these S1s get filed and they're publicly traded companies and they have quarterly earnings reports. Market share for these could be flipping, Anthropic and, and Gemini, other players coming into the market. What are your thoughts here on, uh, Anthropic and OpenAI post the SpaceX IPO? Like I said, there's only so much capital in the world. So I, I do think one of the things that's probably being underestimated at the moment is the liquidity crunch that's ahead for capital-intensive technology businesses given the conflict in the Middle East. I don't think that Qatar and certain Saudi offices and certain offices in UAE and Oman are as eager as they were or, you know, have been to provide large slugs of capital to support these initiatives. And remember, that capital moves its way through the markets, whether it's through JP Morgan and a loan to SoftBank, which then gets paid to OpenAI. At the end of the day, there has to be unencumbered debt-free capital that's being provided to these systems from somewhere in the world. And the... If you trace all of it back, like a large chunk of it has historically in the last couple of years come from Middle East sovereigns and family offices.

   27. SPSpeaker34:05

       Mm.

   28. DFDavid Friedberg34:05

       And I think that those are likely gonna tighten up in the near term. That being the case, there's probably less demand. I do think that there's a lot of secondary demand coming from family offices in Europe and Singapore, places like that, that, that generally have not had great access or early stage access to private companies. But at some point, there's only so much demand there.

   29. SPSpeaker34:23

       Mm.

   30. DFDavid Friedberg34:24

       So I don't know, like, how far this is gonna go or when this capital crunch that's gonna emerge, I think from the Middle East. I don't think we've really felt the shockwave yet on what's happening because remember, a lot of these Middle East capital commitments were made in the last cycle as LP commitments or whatever. And, you know, if they stop, if they downscale LP commitments or they stop doing primary and secondary transactions, you know, it takes a little bit of time before the market feels that, and then it's like, "Oh, the reliable go-to are gone."
4. 36:33 – 49:58

   Iran War costs, fertilizer crisis, downstream impacts

   1. SPSpeaker36:33

      Today is day 34 of the Iran war/military operation. Trump addressed the nation Wednesday night for a brisk 18 minutes. Here's a 40-second clip.

   2. DSDavid Sacks36:43

      We're now

   3. SPSpeaker36:45

      Totally independent of the Middle East, and yet we are there to help. We don't have to be there. We don't need their oil. We don't need anything they have, but we're there to help our allies. For years, everyone has said that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons, but in the end, those are just words if you're not willing to take action when the time comes. Our objectives are very simple and clear. We are systematically dismantling the regime's ability to threaten America or project power outside of their borders. And tonight, I'm pleased to say that these core strategic objectives are nearing completion.

   4. JCJason Calacanis37:24

      All right. The costs here are mounting. Uh, war is a very serious business. Thirteen American service members have tragically died. Over two hundred have been injured. On the other side of the ledger, thirty-five hundred Iranians have died, including sixteen hundred civilians and over two hundred children. Twelve hundred people in Lebanon have died from Israeli strikes, and we now have fifty thousand troops deployed to the Middle East. Chances of a ground invasion are increasing. War has cost seventy billion dollars so far. That's assuming two billion dollars a day, which there seems to be consensus on via the Department of War. Pentagon has asked Congress for another two hundred billion dollars. To put that in context, the war in Ukraine was a hundred and thirteen billion dollars in the first year. This could quickly exceed it when we hit fifty days. This isn't cheap. There are lots of costs. Here's, uh, your polymarket on a ceasefire. Twenty-five percent chance of a ceasefire by the end of April. Forty-seven chance by the end of May. The sharps are thinking this could wrap up, but ground invasion, which would be just really impactful, I think, sixty-three percent chance by the end of April, seventy-one chance by the end of December. We're gonna get into the second order effects, but what do you think, Chamath? Uh, this obviously is super unpopular war.

   5. SPSpeaker38:55

      I think two things, and the president kind of alluded to one that I think is very important, which is if you are not energy independent, you are at risk. And I don't know how many more examples now that world leaders need to be shown to get their acts together. So if the Ukraine-Russian conflict didn't show Europe, then this should show not just Europe, but the rest of the world. You need to be in control of your own energy infrastructure and energy independence because stuff happens in the world, and you're not always in control or can shape how that stuff can indirectly or directly affect you. The United States has energy independence. It's an incredible situation. What was interesting to me is if you look at Europe, you know, they gutted a couple of their energy markets, and they essentially ceded control to a combination of very expensive imports and China. They did that in markets like nuclear, where they just went out of it. They did that in things like nat gas, where, again, we can debate, but where, where did Nord Stream two go? We don't know. And they did that in things like solar, where they just gutted all of the credits. But what's interesting is they're starting to turn that around. I think Italy just reintroduced effectively what's called investment tax credits. Spain just did as well. Germany is restarting nuclear. So if you just look at the, the last few months, just that change is incredibly important because our largest ally, Europe, should be fundamentally energy independent so that they preserve complete and total optionality, like we do, in how we respond to these situations. That I think, I think is a, is a critical thing that is a positive outcome of what's happening. And then the second, Jason, which I think is a huge question mark, and it builds on what Friedberg said before, the Middle Eastern states, specifically the UAE and Saudi, Qatar, Kuwait, they are our most important financing and banking partner in the future. And I think we need to see a conclusive end to this war because they need to be in a position to monetize these critical assets. Because at the same time, if you see these big pools of demand start to become energy independent by either accelerating nuclear, but I... Again, that's just problematic and slow. But frankly, they're just gonna ramp up solar. That's the only way that you can dispatch energy quickly. I think what that does is it decreases hydrocarbon demand over the long run. That then decreases the monetization capacity for these countries. So if you put these two things together, all of these folks in the region want safety, security, and they need a quick end to this thing now.

   6. JCJason Calacanis41:43

      Okay.

   7. SPSpeaker41:44

      And I think that they're more incentivized to put boots on the ground, Jason, than America is. That's the point I was trying to make.

   8. JCJason Calacanis41:49

      Friedberg, let's talk a little bit about fertilizer. You had brought up when we had the start of the Ukraine war, "Hey, this is the breadbasket. We could have a massive famine." Thankfully, that was avoided. There were carve-outs for getting wheat and, and other crops out of Ukraine. But here we are again with a significant amount of fertilizer comes out of that region, and it's not flowing right now. Do you have concerns this time around that we could see something similar?

   9. SPSpeaker42:23

      Fertilizer is made up of three elements. There's different fertilizers. The one element is N for nitrogen, P for phosphorus, and K for potassium. Ukraine is the largest producer of the K, the potassium, the potash. But the N in fertilizer is nitrogen, and that is about sixty percent of what goes into the ground. That sixty to sixty-five percent of global fertilizer is the nitrogen. That's what really drives

   10. DFDavid Friedberg42:51

       ... agricultural productivity. And we need nitrogen fertilizer to grow crops everywhere on Earth that we're growing crops to feed people at scale. That nitrogen is primarily made where natural gas is produced and processed, and the reason is that they use the natural gas as an input to the production process. They get the, the carbon, the hydrogen, the oxygen, and then they compress... Remember, 70% of our atmosphere is made up of nitrogen gas, and so they compress the nitrogen in the air to 200 times atmospheric pressure, run it over a electrical current with a metal catalyst, and you break apart the N2s. You have just single nitrogen atoms, and then you combine it back, and you end up getting ammonia out of the other end. That's h- why nitrogen fertilizers are produced where natural gas is processed. So the Middle East obviously is a massive producer, particularly in Qatar, of natural gas, and that's why so much of the world's nitrogen fertilizer is made in the Middle East. In fact, about 35% of the world's nitrogen fertilizer goes through the Strait of Hormuz, and it is then shipped to countries around the world that farm and that need it to grow their crops. The swing producer in the world is China. China historically makes about 15% of the world's nitrogen fertilizer, and when the war started, a few days after it began, China shut down exports of their nitrogen fertilizer. And so they basically choked out the rest of the world, and so when the Strait of Hormuz shut, the nitrogen stopped flowing. Here you can see the price spike that happened. So as the, the war began, this is urea. Urea is the solid form of nitrogen fertilizer. So urea was trading at about 350 bucks a ton before the, the conflict kind of took off, and it continues to spike up. Uh, it reached over $700 a ton in the last two days. And this is really, really, really impactful. It's not just like, "Oh, the price has double." Number one, there's a supply deficiency, so farmers in places like Africa and South Asia are not getting the urea that they need to farm. That is going to have a massive follow-on problem. And in markets where they have access because the price has spiked, like in the United States, our biggest crop is corn. You need about 200 pounds of that urea per acre for corn, and that cost basically makes you unprofitable. There is no way you can make a profitable crop of corn. The other thing that China did at the same time is they stopped buying corn. So corn prices would normally spike up, and corn prices have remained low while the input prices have spiked for American farmers. So American farmers are in a real pickle. Fortunately for this spring planting, which is happening right now, about two-thirds of American farmers had already secured their fertilizer before the, this began, but a third did not, and they're switching crops, typically to soybeans. But we have a fall planting coming up in a couple of months here, and the choke points on production is gonna keep prices very high. In the United States, we make a lot of our own ammonia at our natural gas facilities in places like Oklahoma and Texas and Wyoming and other places, and then it ships directly to the farms. But the cost is so high because of the global market that it's gonna become very hard for farmers to make a profit. And around the world, there are many farmers, millions and millions of farmers, that can't access this fertilizer now. So the choke point in the Strait of Hormuz is turning out to be a real critical global food supply crisis yet again, similar to Ukraine. And remember, there was about 400 million people following the Ukraine war globally that we saw enter into a state of malnourishment. This means more than one year of 1,200 calories or less per day for a year. 400 million people after Ukraine. So coming out of this crisis, it could be even more severe given the criticality of nitrogen-based fertilizers and the shutdown of the strait. Let me make two more points on this. You would think, "Okay, we'll make more nitrogen fertilizer." The facilities take at least three to five years to fix when they break, which is what just happened in Qatar. That facility got damaged, the w- the main facility that's being used to make fertilizer. So that is the largest producer of urea in the world that's now gonna be incapacitated for three to five years. And if you want to build a new facility, it takes about seven years. All the facilities around the world that make urea and ammonia, these nitrogen fertilizers, typically run 24/7, 365 at full capacity. There is no downtime where you can just turn on excess production in the world. So, you know, the world is very delicate in its balance of inputs and food production outputs. The whole world has, like, less than 30 days of food, of calories stored up. So as these kind of supply chain problems start to percolate, there's shock waves that start to get felt around the world. So it's a pretty serious crisis ahead, and it'll take a few months before it'll be fully realized. In the meantime, US farmers are getting their asses handed to them. They can't make money, and China is using this as a moment for extraordinary leverage over America and taking advantage of the situation by shutting down exports of their fertilizer and, at the same time, not buying American production of corn.

   11. JCJason Calacanis47:47

       We probably need Friedberg to have some sort of resiliency here and address this like we did with pharmaceuticals, PPE, all these other things. Yeah, we should have some sort of stockpile of fertilizer.

   12. DFDavid Friedberg47:59

       Chamath's point is absolutely correct. Natural gas reservoirs exist around the world, and we've been loathe to exploit them or develop them because of the climate change carbon risks and issues. But I think what we're realizing is that those are luxury beliefs to an extent. You can only say, "Let's not exploit carbon resources," until you hit a shock wave like this, and then people are like, "Wait a second. We really-

   13. JCJason Calacanis48:24

       Yeah

   14. DFDavid Friedberg48:24

       ... do need to have these systems up and running, and we need to have excess capacity and local capacity in the system because single points of failure for the whole world's food supply is not gonna cut it anymore. Particularly as the world is becoming more fragmented and multipolar and there's less US policing of the world that's gonna happen and so on, it's gonna be very critical that everyone starts to think about doubling down not just on energy production but some of these other critical inputs like fertilizer. And another output, just as a quick side storyon nat gas production is when you pull nat gas out of the ground, that's the primary place we find helium. And helium, we're all waking up to the fact, you know, we never really think about helium. We think about kids' balloons at birthday parties.

   15. JCJason Calacanis49:03

       Yes.

   16. DFDavid Friedberg49:03

       But helium goes into MRI machines. Helium goes into semiconductor manufacturing. Helium goes into mass spec machines that are used in chemical analysis with a lot of applications around the world. Helium is a critical input to medical equipment, to manufacturing equipment, and all of a sudden, a third of the world's helium coming out of Qatar is not making it out. And so we're g- now we're gonna have a helium supply shock that's gonna affect the world. So we're starting to wake up to the fact that perhaps these nat gas fields that we've allowed to kind of turn a blind eye and say let one country exploit them and let them make all the nat gas. The US is actively developing. You know, I went down and visited that Cheniere facility in Louisiana with Doug Burgum a couple months ago, which was an amazing sight to see, where we do all the LNG, uh, exporting. But the US has extraordinary nat gas reserves. So do many other places in the world that have failed to take advantage of developing them, and I think we're realizing the criticality of doing

5. 49:58 – 1:04:18

   Trump's Iran messaging problems, Bondi out, why the US is in Iran

   1. DFDavid Friedberg49:58

      so at this moment.

   2. JCJason Calacanis49:59

      Looking at this, I think we'll have Trump pivot extremely soon. I've brought this chart up now. This will be the fourth time I've brought it up.

   3. DFDavid Friedberg50:06

      Is this, is that your prediction, J Cal, you think he's gonna wrap this up? I mean...

   4. JCJason Calacanis50:09

      He's 100% gonna wrap this up, and I, and I, and I can show why. I mean, this... Just basically look at the history of this. You guys remember I brought up this chart with Trump's a- net approval rating, and you, you look at how this has changed over the three times I brought it up, first time in June last year, then October, uh, and again, I'm gonna bring it up here. The stuff with ICE, the, you know, the Epstein files, and just going right down the line of unpopular decisions, Trump's net [laughs] approval rating now has just plummeted to s- negative 17. This is the least popular he's ever been, and he's had to pivot here. Pam Bondi at the time we are, uh, recording this, as I predicted on a previous episode that Kristi Noem and Pam Bondi would be fired, uh, or, in, I guess, Trump's terms, he likes to, uh, get them a new job [laughs] and give them a window seat. This is absolutely going to result in a quick pivot. Who knows what the downstream effects are? But the inflation three handle is coming back according to Polymarket. Gas is over $4 a gallon. And then, you know, it's easy to mock like we did earlier, these, like, no kings protests, but eight million people came out for that. That's a large number, and if you look at the Polymarket for what's gonna happen in the midterms, 51% chance now that the Dems take the Senate, 86% that they take the House, and, you know, what you're gonna take from that is-

   5. DFDavid Friedberg51:41

      Wait, sorry. Polymarket is now showing the Democrats winning both houses?

   6. JCJason Calacanis51:45

      Yeah. Pull it up, Nick. Significant chance of that. And, you know, when this happens-

   7. DFDavid Friedberg51:49

      How much money is being bet on that? Let's just see.

   8. JCJason Calacanis51:52

      51% they take the Senate, 86% they take the House, and four and a half million volume.

   9. DFDavid Friedberg51:56

      There's four and, four and a half million dollars on this? Oh, gosh.

   10. JCJason Calacanis52:01

       Yeah. [laughs] And so-

   11. DFDavid Friedberg52:01

       I tend to, I tend to filter how seriously I take Polymarket just based on the total quantum, but w- this is a big number.

   12. JCJason Calacanis52:08

       Yeah, and, and, I... You know, listen, I... This is not me trying to dunk on Trump and my personal beliefs. I think when you lose Tucker, when you lose Megyn Kelly, when you lose Joe Rogan, you know, and people are looking at who Trump surrounded him with, there's really just two groups. You have these super highly qualified people, Bessent, Lutnick, obviously David Sacks. You got, you got really highly qualified people, JD, you know, who I, who I think the world of. I think these people are great. But then he put some people in positions that I think weren't up to the task, Pam Bondi, Kristi, I'll put Stephen Miller and Kash in that as well. It's my personal belief in that case. And those people have not served him well, and they need to get this presidency back on track because what's gonna happen is we're gonna have two more years of impeachments and investigations, and the whole thing's gonna be derided. A- and we really need to start thinking about what... who's making these decisions. Who, who made this decision to go into Iran and why? Who made these decisions to have ICE go into Minnesota and why? And I think a lot of it goes back to Stephen Miller. I got mocked a bit here on the pod for, like, blaming him, but you can correlate Stephen Miller, Kristi Noem, Kash Patel, and Pam Bondi with all of the downside of this presidency and the plummeting ratings. Trump's gonna need to clear house. He's cleared out two of four. I predict he'll clear out the other two and get great leadership in there and turn this presidency around because listen, w- this is gonna be s- socialism now m- and AOC is gonna win. Th- this is gonna cause massive chaos if he doesn't get out of Iran and do it soon. Just my handicapping of the situation. Uh, Hegseth, I'm not so sure. I'm not sure if I, uh, you know, what I think of him yet, but, you know, we don't have information on why Trump did this. That's gonna be the next shoe to drop.

   13. DFDavid Friedberg53:57

       On why, why he did it?

   14. JCJason Calacanis53:59

       Freeburg, I think, you know, this is the point I made the second this war happened, or military operation. I mean, let's, let's call it what it is. This is a war [laughs] when you kill the top 100 people, it's a war. I said, "I don't have the information of why he did this." Like, he might have information, Freeburg, that we don't have that made this an absolute must for us to do, but we haven't revealed that information.

   15. DFDavid Friedberg54:20

       Let, let me, let me-

   16. JCJason Calacanis54:20

       He hasn't explained it well to the American people.

   17. DFDavid Friedberg54:22

       Did you see the Marco-

   18. JCJason Calacanis54:23

       I think that's why the ratings are... You know, and I don't wanna make the ratings like a TV ratings. I-

   19. DFDavid Friedberg54:28

       Okay

   20. JCJason Calacanis54:28

       ... his, his popularity is getting crushed here. The way this was explained to Americans, and again, I'm not inserting my position here, I'm just talking about the disconnect right now, is that Operation Midnight Hammer was supposed to, uh, have just decimated this. So why did we do this again? And we don't have the information. This is why I s- try to stay humble in this and say, like, "What information does Trump have of-That we don't have. Some people seem to think, Chamath, this was overconfidence. Uh, there's obviously this debate, did we get baited into this by Israel and get pushed into it, and is he a Manchurian Candidate, et cetera? I- That's above my pay grade, too. I, I don't have any information on that. I'm not in the CIA. It's hard to be a, an armchair critic on this stuff i- in both senses. Like, I think it's hard to say, "Hey, this guy got talked into doing this. Israel manipulated him into it." It, you know, sorry, it's easy to say that. It's also easy to say, "Hey, we should go get rid of the country that's made all the nuclear weapons." Both of those are easy to say without all of the texture of the relationships and the details and what really went on. None of us know [beep] is the truth. That's literally the point I, you know- Yeah ... I've been trying to make here. I mean, you're right. And like- Yeah ... h-how do... And same thing with Venezuela. Like, how do we know? We don't have any intelligence, Chamath. We, we're not in the CIA. We don't have any of these insights that Mossad or the Israeli intelligence services have. How do we know how this was gonna go down and, you know, that's all gonna come out, I think, when this all gets investigated. Yeah.

   21. SPSpeaker55:56

       I think Trump is, and has been, the most consistent anti-war president of modern history.

   22. JCJason Calacanis56:03

       Yes.

   23. SPSpeaker56:04

       And I think that it's fair to say that he has, and has had, and has demonstrated enormous restraint, and has the highest bar thus far of folks for actually getting into conflict. So I do think that what Friedberg says is very important. There's just so much we don't know, and I think that he doesn't want to stain his legacy with a typical American, you know, conflict.

   24. JCJason Calacanis56:32

       Forever war. Yeah.

   25. SPSpeaker56:33

       He doesn't want that. I don't think he doesn't need to be anywhere near that. So there is obviously stuff that we don't know. I still think that there's a short-term problem, which is not just the threat that Iran poses to Israel, but there's a threat that Iran poses to the rest of the Middle Eastern community.

   26. JCJason Calacanis56:52

       Yeah.

   27. SPSpeaker56:52

       That neighborhood is a complicated place. There was an interview that MBS did on Saudi television. Nick, maybe, maybe you can find it. It's in Arabic, but there's a good version of it that I saw with subtitles. And if you hear the MBS's telling of what the Iranian threat is, it's not dissimilar to how the Israelis would characterize the threat. And so I think it's important to understand that unpredictable actors should not be given an opportunity to have a cataclysmic weapon that can just completely destroy the Earth as we know it. That just doesn't make sense, and I think if you can intervene to prevent that, we're now aware of the damages of what this can do to enough of a degree where there should be enough of nuclear disarmament from here on out.

   28. JCJason Calacanis57:48

       Hmm.

   29. SPSpeaker57:48

       The six, seven, eight, nine countries that have it, okay, there's all kinds of reasons why maybe we could have remade those decisions over the intervening 70 years. Maybe there's some that we never should have let have it. The Pakistan-India thing is a good example of one. But we are where we are, and I think we can all agree no more countries should incrementally get access to this thing.

   30. JCJason Calacanis58:08

       Absolutely not. And this regime specifically believes that anybody who is not part of this spec- specific religion needs to die [laughs] and the whole of- Well, that, the Islam needs to be reunited in order to take on anybody who's not part of- Well, I, and I would encourage you- ... their version of radical Islam. Like, it's a, it's a, it, this is a religious lunacy in that country that believes- I think, I think everybody else should be murdered if they don't convert.
6. 1:04:18 – 1:20:28

   Quantum Bitcoin hack possibilities, how crypto should react

   1. SPSpeaker1:04:18

      The Bitcoin thing was interesting because I think in the last couple of months, what we've started to see is an increasing amount of research that says that the scheduled eventuality of a quantum chip, a functional chip, is probably not 25 or 30 years away. It's probably now in the next five to seven years, if I had to guess.

   2. JCJason Calacanis1:04:49

      Hmm.

   3. SPSpeaker1:04:50

      And I think that because that event horizon has moved in, in these next five to seven years, for those that follow Bitcoin and care about it, my only advice on this topic is that the leaders of the Bitcoin ecosystem need to organize themselves and need to make sure that they have an answer to the question of is this stuff quantum resistant? Because if the answer is no, they are a very visible and obvious honeypot. Now, there is the answer that then a lot of the Bitcoin community gives, which is, well, everything is screwed, and my only advice is possibly, but if a non-state actor gets ahold of quantum technology that can defeat crypto as we know it today, SHA-256, you know, ECDSA, like the elliptical curve stuff, the run-of-the-mill stuff that we all rely on, a non-state actor's incentive will first be to drain the obvious honeypots and then tell everybody that it's broken so that then everything goes to [beep] all the prices go to zero, and then they have all the money, and then they can buy stuff. That would be the sequence of events if you were a non-state actor. So yes, you're right, the banks get hacked. Yes, you're right, all this other stuff goes kaput, but I think you first go and you exploit the obvious places, and I think crypto is the most obvious honeypot in a world where you can defeat encryption. Now, in fairness, the crypto community, this was much, much earlier, had to deal with this. They had to migrate from different encryption schemes in the early parts of Bitcoin, and they were able to self-organize. The difficulty here is you're talking about a big technological lift. You're talking about all the wallets being rearchitected. You're talking about all the transactional flows, all the processing nodes. These are complicated things that need to happen, and I would just tell the crypto community, you have five to seven years to get your [beep] in order.

   4. JCJason Calacanis1:06:44

      Hmm.

   5. SPSpeaker1:06:45

      That's it.

   6. JCJason Calacanis1:06:46

      Friedberg, quantum computing, just generally speaking, you feel it's gonna have a major impact in the short term? Do you think it's actually going to become viable in the midterm?

   7. SPSpeaker1:06:58

      W-w-where do you think about it? 'Cause it's always been 10 years out, but it feels like we're making-

   8. DFDavid Friedberg1:07:03

      Mm

   9. SPSpeaker1:07:03

      ... some progress.

   10. DFDavid Friedberg1:07:04

       Well, there's... Yeah, there's a lot that's changed. I mean, r- so the, the primary mechanism of modern encryption standards, uh, relates to factoring primes of a, an integer. Discovering the prime factors of an integer would give you the ability to theoretically crack encryption. There was an algorithm that was theorized by a guy named Peter Shor, I think I talked about this on a prior episode, back in 1994, called Shor's algorithm. Today, it's kind of the commonly well-known model for how you could do this, and it's a... You could watch a YouTube video on it. There's some YouTube videos that explain it pretty clearly. Takes a bit of time to understand it. And then a couple years ago, I think in 2023, there was another computer scientist named Oded Regev from NYU, who published another paper that showed a faster, different approach to Shor's algorithm. It was an improvement on Shor's algorithm that basically reduced the number of quantum operations required to factor a, a large integer significantly. So there's kind of-

   11. SPSpeaker1:08:06

       Yeah, we... Sorry, we went from 28 million of those operations down to 500,000.

   12. DFDavid Friedberg1:08:11

       Yeah. And so there's this, a lot of work going on right now, even before we have industrial scale quantum computers, a lot of work going on in quantum computing theory and building models and algorithms. And a lot of this is rooted in, in pure mathematics and statistics and whatnot. That work is making progress in building better algorithms even before the compute comes online. And then there's the separate set of things that you can track, but, you know, the market, if you wanna trust the market, is betting that we are within spitting distance of quantum computers reaching an industrial scale at this moment. So those two things intersect at some moment in the near term where you have algorithms that are low demand, low latency, that can crack modern encryption standards, and then the computing comes online, and someone is gonna execute. The, the real thing is what do you do about it? There's a whole bunch of research that's been going on for 20-plus years on quantum algorithms, uh, quantum encryption standards. And so the... to Chamath's point, these things exist. It's just a heavy lift. And so there's gonna be this heavy lift, probably, you know, pretty good business to be made in the next couple of years, and, uh, all of the changes are gonna need to happen across all encryption standards, across the whole internet, across how we do communications and so on.

   13. SPSpeaker1:09:30

       In a crazy way, Friedberg, crypto's in the same place as all these software stocks, meaning if AGI and ASI are real, these software companies are not what we thought they were.

   14. DFDavid Friedberg1:09:39

       Yeah.

   15. SPSpeaker1:09:40

       If quantum is real, a bunch of these crypto projects are [laughs] not what we thought they were. And so you can't have both, guys.

   16. DFDavid Friedberg1:09:47

       Yeah.

   17. SPSpeaker1:09:47

       You gotta choose.

   18. DFDavid Friedberg1:09:48

       Hmm. Yeah.

   19. SPSpeaker1:09:48

       Pick one.

   20. DFDavid Friedberg1:09:50

       Yeah.

   21. SPSpeaker1:09:51

       All right, everybody. This is Ben. Oh, hey, listen, um, you know, I have an incredible EA, executive assistant. It's really been like, you know, everybody talks about, like, agents, agents, agents, agents.

   22. DFDavid Friedberg1:10:04

       Yeah.

   23. SPSpeaker1:10:04

       And this was the pre-agent agent.

   24. DFDavid Friedberg1:10:07

       Hmm.

   25. SPSpeaker1:10:08

       You know, my, my EAs averaged around 188 to 200K a year.

   26. DFDavid Friedberg1:10:14

       [laughs]

   27. SPSpeaker1:10:15

       And then-

   28. DFDavid Friedberg1:10:15

       People right now, their heads are exploding in middle America. [laughs]

   29. SPSpeaker1:10:18

       Let's tell the truth. I was paying $188 to $200000 a year. They were wonderful, okay?

   30. DFDavid Friedberg1:10:23

       Right.

Episode duration: 1:20:31