Marc Andreessen: Trump, Power, Tech, AI, Immigration & Future of America | Lex Fridman Podcast #458

1. 0:00 – 1:09

   Introduction

   1. MAMarc Andreessen0:00

      I mean, look, we're adding a trillion dollars to the national debt every 100 days right now, and it's now passing the size of the Defense Department budget. And it's compounding, and it's, pretty soon, it's gonna be adding a trillion dollars every 90 days, and then it's gonna be adding a trillion dollars every 80 days, and then it's gonna be a trillion dollars every 70 days. And then, if this doesn't get fixed, at some point we enter a hyperinflationary spiral and we become Argentina or Brazil and...

   2. LFLex Fridman0:22

      The following is a conversation with Marc Andreessen, his second time on the podcast. Marc is a visionary tech leader and investor who fundamentally shaped the development of the internet and the tech industry, in general, over the past 30 years. He's the co-creator of Mosaic, the first widely used web browser, co-founder of Netscape, co-founder of the legendary Silicon Valley venture capital firm, Andreessen Horowitz, and is one of the most influential voices in the tech world, including at the intersection of technology and politics. This is a Lex Fridman podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Marc Andreessen.

2. 1:09 – 10:32

   Best possible future

   1. LFLex Fridman1:09

      All right, let's start with optimism. If you were to imagine the best possible one to two years, 2025, '26, for tech, for both big tech and small tech, what would it be? What would it look like? Lay out your vision for the best possible scenario trajectory for America.

   2. MAMarc Andreessen1:28

      The Roaring 20s.

   3. LFLex Fridman1:29

      Roaring 20s.

   4. MAMarc Andreessen1:30

      The Roaring 20s. I mean, look, a couple things. It is remarkable over the last several years with all of the issues, including, you know, every- not just everything in politics, but also COVID and every other thing that's happened. It's really amazing, United States just kept growing. If you just look at economic growth charts, the US just kept growing. And very significantly, many other countries stopped growing. So Canada has stopped growing, the UK has stopped growing, Germany has stopped growing. And, you know, some of those countries may be actually going backwards at this point. And there's a very long (laughs) discussion to be had about what's wrong with those countries, and there's, of course, plenty of things that are wrong with our country. But, um, th- the US is just flat-out primed for growth, um, and I think that's a consequence of many factors. Um, you know, some of which we're, we are lucky and some of which through hard work. And so, the lucky part is just, you know, number one, you know, we just have, like, incredible physical security by being our own continent. Um, you know, we have incredible natural resources, right? There's, there's, there's this running joke now that, like, whenever it looks like the US is gonna run out of some, like, rare earth material, you know, some farmer in North Dakota, like, kicks over a hay bale and finds, like, a two trillion dollar deposit.

   5. LFLex Fridman2:28

      Mm-hmm.

   6. MAMarc Andreessen2:29

      Right? I mean, we're j- we're just, like, blessed, you know, with, with, with geography and with natural resources. Um, energy, you know, we can be energy independent anytime we want. Um, this last administration decided they didn't want to be, they wanted to turn off American energy. This new administration has declared that they have a goal of turning it on in a dramatic way. There's no question we can be energy independent. We could be a giant net energy exporter. It's purely a question of choice, um, and I think the, the new administration's going to do that. Um, and so we ... and the ... oh, and then I would say two other things. One is, um, you know, we, we are the beneficiaries and, you know, you're an example of this, we're a beneficiary. We're the beneficiary of, you know, 50, 100, 200 years of, like, the basically most aggressive, driven, smartest people in the world, most capable people, you know, moving to the US and raising their kids here. Um, and so we just have, you know, by far the most dynamic ... You know, we're by far the most dynamic population, most aggressive, um, you know ... We're the most aggressive set of characters in a- c- certainly in any We- in any Western country and have been for a long time, and certainly are today. Um, and then finally, I would just say, look, we are overwhelmingly the advanced technology leader. Um, you know, we ha- we have our issues and we have a, I would say, particular issue with manufacturing, which we could talk about, but for, you know, anything in software, anything in AI, anything in, um, you know, all these in, you know, advanced biotech, uh, all these advanced areas of technology, like, we're, we're by far the leader. Again, in part, 'cause many of the best scientists and engineers in those fields, you know, c- y- you know, come to the US. Um, and so we, we, we just, we have all of the pre-conditions for a, uh, for a, just a monster, um, boom. You know, I could see economic growth going way up. I could see productivity growth going way up, rate of technology adoption going way up. And then we could, we can do a global tour if you like, but like, basically all of our competitors have, like, profound issues and, you know, we could kind of go through them one by one, but, uh, the, the competitive landscape just is l- it's like it's, it's remarkable how, um, how, how much better positioned we are for growth.

   7. LFLex Fridman4:13

      What about the humans themselves? Almost a, uh, philosophical questions. You know, I travel across the world and there's something about the American spirit, the entrepreneurial spirit, that's uniquely intense in America. I don't know what that is. Uh, I- I've talked to, uh, Saga who claims it might be the Scots-Irish blood that runs through, uh, the, the history of America. What is it? You, at the heart of Silicon Valley, is there something in the water? Why is there this entrepreneurial spirit?

   8. MAMarc Andreessen4:42

      Yeah. So, is this a family show or am I allowed to swear?

   9. LFLex Fridman4:44

      You, you can say whatever the fuck you want.

   10. MAMarc Andreessen4:46

       (laughs) Okay. So, the t- the great TV show Succession, the show of course that wh- with which you were intended to root for exactly zero of the characters.

   11. LFLex Fridman4:53

       Yes.

   12. MAMarc Andreessen4:53

       The best line from Succession was in the final episode of the first season when the whole family's over in, uh, s- uh, Logan Roy's ancestral, uh, homeland of Scotland and they're at this castle, you know, for some wedding. And Logan is just, like, completely miserable after having to ... you know, 'cause he's been in New York for 50 years, he's totally miserable being back in, in, um, in Scotland. And he gets in some argument with somebody and he's like, "My g-" he says finally, he just says, "My God, I cannot wait to get out of here and go back to America where we can fuck without condoms."

   13. LFLex Fridman5:20

       (laughs)

   14. MAMarc Andreessen5:20

       (laughs)

   15. LFLex Fridman5:21

       Uh, was that a metaphor or ... Okay. (laughs)

   16. MAMarc Andreessen5:23

       Exactly, right? And, and so, no, but it's exactly the thing. And then everybody instantly knows what the- like n-

   17. LFLex Fridman5:27

       Yeah.

   18. MAMarc Andreessen5:27

       ... everybody watching that instantly starts laughing 'cause you know what it means, which is- i- it's exactly this. I think there's, like, an ethnographic, you know, way of a ... There's a bunch of books on like all the, like you said, the Scots-Irish, like all the different derivations of all the different ethnic groups that have come to the US over the course of the last 400 years. Right? But it's, it'd been in... What b- what we have is this sort of amalgamation of like, you know, the, you know, the, the Northeast, you know, Yankees who were like (laughs) super tough and hardcore. Yeah, the Scots-Irish are super aggressive. You know, we've got the, you know, the Southerners and the Texans, uh, you know, and the, and, you know, the sort of, you know, whole kind of blended, you know, kind of Anglo-Hispanic thing with, you know, super incredibly tough, strong, driven, you know, capable characters.... you know, the Texas rangers (laughs) . Um, you know, we've got the... Yeah, we've got the California, you know, we've got the, you know, the wild, we've got the incredibly, you know, inventive hippies, but we also have the hardcore engineers. We've got, you know, the best, you know, rocket scientists in the world. We've got the best, you know, artists in the world. You know, creative professionals, uh, you know, the best movies. Um, and so yeah, there, there, there is, you know, the, the, the, you know... Uh, say, all of our problems I think are basically, you know, in my view to some extent, you know, attempts to basically sand all that off and make everything basically boring and mediocre. But there is something in the national spirit that basically keeps bouncing back and it... And, and basically what we discover over time is we, we basically just need people to stand up at a certain point and say, you know, "It's time to..." You know, (laughs) "It's time to build, it's time to grow. You know, it's time to do things." Um, and so... And there's something in the American spirit that just, like, roars right back to life and I... And I've seen it before. I actually s-... You know, I, I saw it as a kid here in the, in the early '80s, um, you know, 'cause the, the, the '70s were, like, horribly depressing, right? In the, in the US. like, it was... They were a nightmare, uh, on many fronts and in a lot of ways, the last decade to me has felt a lot like the '70s. Just being mired in misery, um, and just this self-defeating, you know, negative attitude and everybody's upset about everything and, you know... And then by the way, like, energy crisis and hostage crisis and foreign wars and just demoralization, right? Um, you know, the, the low point for... In the '70s was, you know, Jimmy Carter who had just passed away. He went on TV and he gave this speech known as the Malaise Speech and it was, like, the weakest possible trying to, like, rouse people back to a sense of, like, passion. It completely failed and, you know, we had the, you know, the hostages in, you know, Iran for I think 440 days and every night on the nightly news it was, you know, lines around the block, energy crisis, depression, inflation. And then, you know, Reagan came in and, you know, Reagan was a very controversial character at the time and, you know, he came in and he's like, "Yep. Nope. It's morning in America. And we're the shiny city on the hill and we're gonna do it." And he did it, and we did it, and the national spirit came roaring back and, you know, worked really hard for a full decade. And I, and I think that's exactly what... Uh, I think, you know... We'll see, but I think that's what could happen here.

   19. LFLex Fridman7:57

       And I just did a super long podcast on Milton Friedman with Jennifer Burns, who's this incredible professor at Stanford. And he was part of the Reagan... So some-... There's a bunch of components to that, one of which is economic.

   20. MAMarc Andreessen8:09

       Yes.

   21. LFLex Fridman8:09

       And one of which maybe you can put a word on it of... Not to be romantic or anything, but freedom. Uh, individual freedom, economic freedom, political freedom, and just in general, individualism.

   22. MAMarc Andreessen8:22

       Yeah, that's right. Yeah, and I mean-... And as you know, America has this incredible streak of individualism, you know. In- individualism in America probably peaked I think between roughly call it the end of the Civil War, 1865, through to probably... Call it 1931 or something. Um, you know, and there was this, like, incredible ru-... I mean, that period, you know, we now know that period as the second Industrial Revolution, and it's when the United States basically assumed global leadership and basically took, took over technological and economic leadership from, from England. Um, and then, you know, that, that led to, you know, ultimately then therefore being able to, you know, not only industrialize the world but also win World War II and then win the Cold War. Um, and yeah, there, you know, there's a massive industrial-... You know, massive, uh, uh, individualistic streak. Um, by the way, you know Milton Freed-... Milton Friedman's old, old videos are all on YouTube. They are every bit-

   23. LFLex Fridman9:03

       Yeah.

   24. MAMarc Andreessen9:03

       ... as compelling and inspiring-

   25. LFLex Fridman9:04

       Yeah.

   26. MAMarc Andreessen9:05

       ... um, as they, uh, uh, as they were then. Um, you know, he's this... He's this singular figure and many of us, you know, have, you know... I, I never knew him, but, um, uh, he was at, uh, actually at, at Stanford for many years, at, at the Hoover Institution, but, uh, I never met him but I know a lot of people who worked with him and, you know, that it, that... You know, he was, he was a singular figure but his, his... All, all of his lessons, you know, live on or are fully available. Um, but I would also say it's not just individualism and this is, you know, one of... This is one of the big things that's, like, playing out in a lot of our culture and kind of political fights right now which is, uh, you know, basically this feeling-

   27. LFLex Fridman9:34

       Mm.

   28. MAMarc Andreessen9:34

       ... you know, certainly that I have and I share, uh, with a lot of people which is: I- it's not enough for America to just be an economic zone, um, and it's not enough for us to just be individuals, and it's not enough to just have line go up, and it's not enough to just have economic success. There are deeper questions, uh, at play and, and also, you know, there- there's more to our country, uh, than just that and, and, you know, quite fr-... Quite frankly a lot of it is intangible, um, a lot of it is... You know, involves spirit, um, and, and passion and, you know, like I said, we, we have more of it than anybody else, um, but, um, you know, we, we have to choose to want it. The, the, the way I look at it is, like, all of our problems are self-inflicted. Like, they're... You know, decline is a choice. You know, all of our problems are basically demoralization campaigns. You know, basically people telling us... People in positions of authority telling us that we should, you know... We shouldn't, you know, stand out, we shouldn't be a- adventurous, we shouldn't be exciting, we shouldn't be exploratory. You know, we shouldn't, you know, this, that, and the other thing and we should feel bad about everything that we do. And I think we've lived through a decade where that's been the prevailing theme and I, I think quite honestly as of November, I think people are done with it.

3. 10:32 – 19:51

   History of Western Civilization

   1. LFLex Fridman10:33

      If we could go on a tangent of a tangent since we're talking about individualism, and that's not all that it takes. You've mentioned in the past the book The Ancient City-

   2. MAMarc Andreessen10:42

      Yes.

   3. LFLex Fridman10:42

      ... by, if I can only pronounce the name, French historian, Numa Denis Fustel de Couler... I don't know.

   4. MAMarc Andreessen10:48

      That was amazing.

   5. LFLex Fridman10:49

      Okay, all right. From the 19th century. Anyway, you said this is an important book to understand who we are and where we come from.

   6. MAMarc Andreessen10:54

      So what that book does... It's actually quite a striking book. Um, so that book is written by this guy, um, as, uh, profuse-... (laughs) You, you say... I'm gonna let Lex do the pronunciations, the foreign language pronunciations for the day. Um, he was a, uh, professor of classics, um, at, uh, the Sorbonne in, um, in, uh, Paris, the... You know, the top university, uh, at, um... In the- in the... Actually in 1860s, so actually right, right around after the US Civil War. And he was a savant of a particular kind which is he... Uh, and you can see this in the book, is he had apparently read and, you know, sort of absorbed and memorized every possible scrap of Greek and, and, um, Roman literature. Um, and this was like a walking, like, index on basically Greek and Roman... Everything we know about Greek and Roman culture, and that's significant. The reason this matters is because basically none of that has changed, right? And so he, he, he had access to the exact same written materials that we have, we have access to, and so there... You know, we, we've learned nothing. And then specifically what he did is he talked about the Greeks and the Romans, but specifically what he did is he went back further. He reconstructed the people who came before the Greeks and the Romans and what their life in society was like, and these were the people who are now known as the, as the Indo-Europeans. And these were very... You may have heard of these. These are the people who came down from the steppes, and so they, they, they came out of what's now, like, Eastern Europe. Like, around sort of the outskirts of what's now Russia.Um, and then they sort of swept through, uh, Europe. They ultimately took over all of Europe. By the way, you know, almost, uh, many of the ethnicities in the Americas in the hundreds of years that follow, you know, were, were, are Indo-European. And so like, you know, they were this, basically this warrior, basically class that, like, came down and swept through and, and, um, and, and, you know, essentially, um, uh, you know, populated much of the world. Um, and there's a whole interesting saga there. But what he does ... And then they basically, they, they, from there came basically what we know as the Greeks and the Romans, were kind of evolutions off of that. Um, and so what he reconstructs is sort of what life was like, what life was like, at least in the West for people in their kind of original social state. And the, the significance of that is, is the original social state is this, is living in the state of the absolute imperative for survival with absolutely no technology (laughs) , right? Like, no modern systems, no nothing, right? You've got the clothes on your back. You've got your, you know, you've, you've got whatever you can build with your bare hands, right? This is a, you know, predates basically all concepts of, of, uh, of technologies we understand of today. And so the- these are people under, like, maximum levels of physical survival pressure. And so what, what social patterns did they evolve to be able to do that? And, and the social pattern basically was as follows. Um, is a, is a three-part social structure. Uh, family, um, uh, tribe, and city. Um, and, um, zero concept of individual rights. Um, and essentially no concept of individualism. And so you were not an individual. You were a member of your family, and then y- a set of families would aggregate into a tribe, and then a set of tribes would aggregate into a, um, uh, into a city. Um, and then the morality was completely ... It was actually what Nietzsche talks, Nietzsche talks about. It, the, the morality was entirely master morality, not slave morality. And so in their morality, anything that was strong was good, and anything that was weak was bad, and it's very (laughs) clear why that is, right? It's 'cause strong equals good equals survive. Weak equals bad equals die. And that led to what became known later as the master-slave dialectic, which is ... Y- is it more important for you to live on your feet as a master even at the risk of dying? Or are you willing to, um, you know, live as a slave on your knees in order to not die? And this is sort of the, the derivation of that moral framework. Christianity later inverted that moral framework, but it, you know, the r- the original, uh, framework lasted for, you know, many, many thousands of years. No concept of individualism. The head of the family had total life and death control over the, over, over the family. The head of the tribe, same thing. Head of the city, same thing. And then you were morally obligated to kill members of the oth- of the other cities on, on contact. (laughs) Right? Right? You were morally required to. Like, if you didn't do it, you were a bad person. Um, and then the form of the society was basically maximum fascism combined with maximum communism. Right? And so it was maximum fascism in the form of this, like, absolute top-down control where the head of the family, tribe, or city could kill other members of the community at any time with no repercussions at all. Sorry, so maximum hierarchy, but combined with maximum communism, which is no market economy. And so everything gets shared, right? And the, and sort of the point of being in one of these collectives is that it's a collective and, and, and, you know, and, and, and people are sharing. And of course, that limited how big they could get, 'cause, you know, the problem with communism (laughs) is it doesn't scale. Right? It works at the level of a family. It's much harder to make it work at the level of a country. Impossible. Maximum, uh, fascism, maximum communism, and then th- and then it was all intric- intricately, uh, uh, tied into their religion. And their, their religion was, uh, it was in two parts. It was, uh, veneration of ancestors- Mm-hmm. Um, and it was veneration of nature. And the veneration of ancestors ex- is extremely important because it was basically like, the, th- basically the ancestors were the people who got you to where you were. The ancestors were the people who had everything to teach you, right? And then it was veneration of nature 'cause of course nature is the thing that's trying to kill you. Um, and then you had your ancestor ... Every family, tribe, or city had their ancestor gods, and then they had their, um, they had their nature gods. Okay, so fast forward to today. Like, we live in a world that is, like, radically different. But what you, when you ... And the, and the book takes you through kind of what happened from that through the Greeks and Romans through to Christianity. And so the, uh, but it, but it's very helpful to kind of think in these terms because the conventional view of the progress through time is that we are, you know, the, the cliché is the arc of the uni- moral universe, you know, bends towards justice, right? Or, or so-called Whig history, which is, you know, that the arc of progress is positive, right? And so we, we, you know, wh- which you hear all the time, y- which you're taught in school and everything is e- you know, every year that goes by, we get better and better and more and more moral and more and more pure and a better version of ou- of ourselves. Our Indo-European ancestors would say, "Oh, no. Like, you people have, like, fallen to shit. Like, you people took all of the principles of basically your civilization, and you have diluted them down to the point where they barely even matter, you know? And you're having, you know, children out of wedlock and you're, you know, you regularly encounter people of other cities and you don't try to kill them, and, like, how crazy is that?" And, and they would basically consider us to be living, like, an incredibly diluted version of this sort of highly religious, highly cult-like, right? Highly organized, highly fascist co- fascist communist society. I can't resist noting (laughs) that as a consequence of basically going through all the transitions we've been through, going all the way through Christianity, coming out the other end of Christianity, Nietzsche declares God as dead. We are in a secular society, you know, that still has, you know, tinges of Christianity, but you know, largely prides itself on no longer being religious in that way. Um, you know, we being the sort of most fully-evolved, modern, secular, you know, expert scientists and so forth have basically re-evolved or fallen back on the exact same religious structure, uh, that the Indo-Europeans had. Uh, specifically ancestor worship, which is identity politics, um, and nature worship, which is environmentalism. Um, and so we have actually, like, worked our way all the way back to their cult religions without realizing it. And, and, and it just goes to show that like, you know, in some ways we have fallen far from the, far from the family tree. But in s- in, in so- in some cases, we're, we're exactly the same. You kind of described this progressive idea of wokeism and so on as, uh, worshiping ancestors. Identity politics is worshiping ancestors, right? Yeah. It's, it's, it's tagging newborn infants with either, you know, benefits or responsibilities or, you know, levels of condemnation based on who their ancestors were. The, the Indo-Europeans would have recognized it on sight. We somehow think it's, like, super socially progressive. Yeah. And it is not. I mean, it, I, I would say obviously not. Those, you know, get, get nuanced, which is where I think you're headed, which is look, like ... It is the idea that you can, like, completely reinvent society every generation and have no regard whatsoever for what came before you. Like, that, that seems like a really bad idea, right? That's like the Cambodians with Year Zero under Pol Pot and, you know, death, you know, follows its ... Obviously the Soviets tried that. Um, you know, the, the, you know, the, the utopian-... fantasists who think that they can just rip up everything that came before and create something new, in the human condition. And human society have a very bad history of, of causing, you know, enormous destruction. So, on the one hand, it's like, okay, there, there is, like, a deeply important role for tradition. And, and, n- and the way I think about that is it's, it ... the process of evolutionary learning, right? Which is what, what tradition ought to be is the distilled wisdom of all. And, and, you know, this is how the new Europeans thought about it. It should be the distilled wisdom of everybody who came before even.

   7. LFLex Fridman18:26

      Mm-hmm.

   8. MAMarc Andreessen18:27

      Right? All, all those important and powerful lessons learned. Um, and that's, that's why I think it's fascinating to go back and study how these people lived, is 'cause that's, that's part of the history and, you know, part of the learning that got us to where, where we are today. Having said that, there are many cultures around the world that are, you know, mired in tradition to the point of not being able to progress (clears throat) . Um, and in fact, you might even say globally, that's the default human condition, which is, you know, a lot of people are in societies in which, you know, there's, like, absolute seniority by age. You know, kids are completely ... You know, like in the US, like, for some reason, we decided kids are in charge (laughs) of everything, right? And like, you know, they're the trendsetters and they're allowed to, like, set all the agendas and, like, set, set all the politics and set all the culture, and maybe that's a little bit crazy. But, like, in a lot of other cultures, kids have no voice at all, no role at all, 'cause it's the old people who are in charge of everything. You know, they're gerontocracies and it's all a bunch of 80-year-olds running everything, which, by the way, we have a little bit of that too, right? (laughs) Um, and so I, what I would say is, like, there's a down- there's a, there's a real downside. You know, f- full traditionalism is communitarianism. You know, it's ethnic particularism, um, you know, it's ethnic chauvinism. It's, um, you know, this incredible level of, of resistance to change. Um, I ... You know, that's, uh, yeah, I mean, that ... it just doesn't get you anywhere. Like, it, it, it may be good and fine at the level of an individual tribe, but as a socie- society living in the modern world, it, it ... you, you can't evolve. You can't a- you can't advance. You can't participate in all the good things that, you know, that a- that, that have happened. And so I ... You know, I think it probably ... this is one of those things where extremeness on either side is probably a bad idea. Um, and I ... But, you know, but, but this needs to be approached in a sophisticated and nuanced way.

4. 19:51 – 27:32

   Trump in 2025

   1. MAMarc Andreessen19:52

   2. LFLex Fridman19:52

      So the beautiful picture you painted of the roaring 20s. How can the Trump administration play a part in making that future happen?

   3. MAMarc Andreessen20:00

      Yeah. So look, a big part of this is getting the government boot off the neck of the American economy, the American technology industry, the American people. Um, you know, and then, and again, this is a replay of what happened in the '60s and '70s, which is, you know, for what started out looking like, you know, I'm sure good and virtuous purposes, you know, we, we ended up both then and now with this, you know, what I, what I describe as sort of a form of soft authoritarianism. You know, the, the good news is it's not like a military dictatorship. It's not like, you know, you get thrown into Lubyanka (laughs) , you know, for the most part. I'm not (laughs) ... it's not coming at four in the morning. You're not getting dragged off to a cell. So it's not hard authoritarianism, but yet a soft authoritarianism. And so it's this, you know, incredible suppressive blanket of regulation, rules, you know, this concept of a vetocracy, right? What's required to get anything done? You know, you need to get 40 people to sign off on anything. Any one of them can veto it. It's, you know, it's a lot of how our now political system works. Um, and then, you know, just this general idea of, you know, progress is bad and technology is bad and capitalism is bad, and building businesses is bad, and success is bad. Um, you know, tall poppy syndrome. You know, w- basically anybody who sticks their head up, you know, deserves to get it, you know, chopped off. Anybody who's wrong about anything deserves to get condemned forever. You know, just this, this very kind of, you know, grinding, you know, repression.

   4. LFLex Fridman21:11

      Mm-hmm.

   5. MAMarc Andreessen21:12

      And then coupled with specific government actions, such as censorship regimes, right? And debanking, right? Um, and, you know, draconian, you know, deliberately kneecapping, you know, critical American industries. Um, and then, you know, congratulating yourselves in the back for doing it, or, you know, having these horrible social policies, like let's let all the criminals outta jail and see what happens, right? Um, and so, like, we, we've just been through this period. I, you know, I call it a demoralization campaign. Like, we've just been through this period where, you know, whether it started that way or not, it ended up basically being this comprehensive message that says, "You're terrible, and if you try to do anything, you're terrible, and fuck you." Um, and the Biden administration reached kinda the full pinnacle of that in, in, in, in our time. They, they got really bad on, on many fronts at the same time. Um, and so just, like, relieving that, um, and getting kinda back to (laughs) a reasonably, you know, kind of optimistic, constructive, um, you know, pro-growth frame of mind, um ... There's just ... uh, there's so much pent-up energy and potential in the American system that that alone is gonna, I think, cause, you know, growth and, and, and, and, and spirit to take off. And then there's a lot of things proactively that ... Yeah. And then there's a lot of things proactively that could be done.

   6. LFLex Fridman22:13

      So, how do you relieve that? To what degree has the thing you describe ideologically permeated government and permeated big companies?

   7. MAMarc Andreessen22:24

      Disclaimer at first, which is I don't wanna predict anything on any of this stuff 'cause I've learned the hard way that I can't predict politics or Washington at all. Um, but I would just say the, the, the, the plans and intentions are clear and the staffing supports it. Um, and all the conversations are consistent, um, with the new administration in that they plan to take v- you know, very rapid action on a lot of these fronts very quickly. They're gonna do as much as they can through executive orders, and then they're gonna do legislation and, and regulatory changes for the rest. And so they're, they're gonna move, I think, quickly on a whole bunch of stuff. You can already feel, I think, a shift in the national spirit. Or at least let's put it this way. I feel it for sure (laughs) in, in Silicon Valley. Like, it, it ... Well, I mean, we s- we'd ... you know, we just saw a great example of this with what, you know, with what M- Mark Zuckerberg is doing. Um, you know, and obviously I'm in- I'm involved with, with his company, but, you know, we, we just saw it kind of in public. The scope of the ... and speed of the changes, you know, are, are reflective of, of sort of this ... o- of a lot of these shifts. But I would say that, that same conversation, those same kinds of things are happening throughout the industry, right? And so the, the, the tech industry itself, whether people were pro-Trump or anti-Trump, like, there is just, like, a giant vibe shift, mood shift that's, like, kicked in already. And then I was with a group of Hollywood people about two weeks ago, um, and they were still, you know, people who at least ... l- at least vocally were still very anti-Trump, but I said, you know, "Has anything changed since, since November 6th?" And they, they immediately said, "Oh, it's completely different. Um, it feels like the ice has thawed. Um, you know, woke is over." Um, you know, they said that all kinds of projects are gonna be able to get made now they couldn't before, that, you know, Hollywood's gonna start making comedies again. (laughs) You know? Like, it's, it j- they were just like, it, it's, it's, like, a ... it's, like, a ... just, like, an incredible immediate, uh, environmental change. And I'm ... A- a- as I talk to people kinda throughout... you know, certainly throughout the economy, people who run businesses, I h- I hear that all the time, which is just this, this last ten years of misery is just over. I mean (laughs) , the one that I'm watching that's really funny ... I mean, Facebook's getting a lot of ... Meta's getting a lot of attention, but the other funny one is BlackRock.

   8. LFLex Fridman24:03

      Mm-hmm.

   9. MAMarc Andreessen24:04

      Which I'm not ... which I ... You know, and I, I don't know him, but I've watched for a long time. And so, you know, the ... Larry Fink, who's the CEO of BlackRock, was, like, first in as a major, you know, investment CEO on, like, every dumb social trend and rule set. Like, every (laughs) ...... all right, I'm going for it. Every retard- (laughs)

   10. LFLex Fridman24:21

       (laughs)

   11. MAMarc Andreessen24:22

       Every retarded thing you can imagine.

   12. LFLex Fridman24:24

       Yeah.

   13. MAMarc Andreessen24:24

       Every ESG and every, like, every possible satellite companies with every aspect of just this, these crazed ideological positions. And, you know, he was coming in, he literally was, like ... had aggre- aggregated together trillions of dollars of, of, of, of, of shareholdings that he did not, that were, you know, that were his, his customer's rights. And he, you know, seized their voting control of their shares and was using it to force all these companies to do all of this, like, crazy ideological stuff. And he was like the Typhoid Mary of all this stuff in corporate America. And if, if ... and he, in the last year, has been, like, backpedaling from that stuff, like, as fast as he possibly can. And I saw ... just an example, last week, he pulled out of the, whatever, the Corporate Net Zero Alliance. You know, he pulled out of the crazy energy, energy, energy stuff. And so, like, you know, he's backing away as fast as he can. He, he's doing it ... remember the Richard Pryor, uh, backwards walk?

   14. LFLex Fridman25:07

       Mm-hmm.

   15. MAMarc Andreessen25:08

       Richard Pryor had this way where he could, he could back out of a room while looking like he was walking forward.

   16. LFLex Fridman25:12

       (laughs)

   17. MAMarc Andreessen25:13

       (laughs) Um, and so ... um, you know, even they're doing that. Um, and just the whole thing, I mean, this ... I don't know if you saw, the court recently ruled that NASDAQ had these crazy board of directors composition rules. One of the funniest moments of my life is when my friend, Peter Thiel, and I were on the, the, the Meta board. And these NASDAQ rules came down, mandated diversity on corporate boards. Um, and so we sat around the table and had to figure out, you know, which of us counted as diverse. And the, um, very professional m- attorneys at, at Meta explained with a 100% complete, um, straight face that Peter Thiel counts as diverse.

   18. LFLex Fridman25:44

       (laughs)

   19. MAMarc Andreessen25:44

       Uh, by virtue of being LGBT. (laughs) And, and-

   20. LFLex Fridman25:46

       Nice.

   21. MAMarc Andreessen25:46

       ... this is a guy who literally wrote a book called The Diversity Myth.

   22. LFLex Fridman25:49

       Yeah.

   23. MAMarc Andreessen25:49

       Um, and he literally looked like he'd swallowed a live goldfish. Um, and, and that-

   24. LFLex Fridman25:55

       Yeah.

   25. MAMarc Andreessen25:55

       And, and this was imposed ... I mean, this was, like, so incredibly offensive to him that, like, it just, like ... it was just absolutely appalling, and I felt terrible for him. But the look on his face was very funny.

   26. LFLex Fridman26:03

       (laughs)

   27. MAMarc Andreessen26:03

       Um, and it was imposed by NASDAQ, you know, your stock exchange im- imposing this stuff on you. And then the court, whatever, the court of, court of appeals just nuked that. And so, like, the- these things basically are being, like, ripped down one by one. And, and what's on the other side of it is basically, you know, finally being able to get back to, you know, everything that, you know, everybody always wanted to do, which is, like, run their companies, have great products, have happy customers, you know, like succeed, like succeed, achieve, outperform, um, and, you know, work with the best and the brightest and not f- and not be made to feel bad about it. And I th- I think that's happening in many areas of American society.

   28. LFLex Fridman26:34

       It's great to hear that Peter Thiel is fundamentally a diversity hire.

   29. MAMarc Andreessen26:38

       Well, so it was very ... you know, there was a moment. So, so Peter, you know, Peter, of course, um, you know, is, is, uh, you know, is, is, is publicly gay, has been for a long time. You know, but, you know, there were other men on the board, right? And, you know, we're sitting there and we're all looking at him, and we're like, "All right, like, okay, LGBT," and we just, we keep coming back to the B, right? Um, and it's like-

   30. LFLex Fridman26:56

       (laughs)
5. 27:32 – 40:19

   TDS in tech

   1. LFLex Fridman27:32

      So you mentioned the, the Hollywood folks, maybe people in Silicon Valley, and the vibe shift. Maybe you can speak to, um, uh, preference, falsification. What do they actually believe? How many of them actually hate Trump? What, like, what percent of them are, uh, feeling this vibe shift and are interested in, uh, creating the Roaring '20s in the way that you've described?

   2. MAMarc Andreessen27:57

      So first, we should maybe talk popul- population. So there's like all of Silicon Valley, (laughs) um, and the, and the way to just measure that is just look at voting records, right? And, and, and what that shows consistently is Silicon Valley's just a, you know, at least historically, my entire time there, has been overwhelmingly a majority of just straight up Democrat. Um, uh, the other way to look at that is political donation records. And again, you know, the political donations in the Valley, you know, range from 90 to 99%, you know, to one side. Um, and so, you know, we'll, we'll ... I just bring it up 'cause, like, we'll see what happens with the voting and with donations going forward. Um, i- uh, we can maybe talk about the fire later, but I can tell you there is a very big question of what's happening in Los Angeles right now. Um, the, uh ... I don't wanna get into the fire, but, like, it's catastrophic, and, you know, there was already a rightward shift in the big cities in California, and I think a lot of people in LA are really thinking about things right now as they're trying to, you know, literally save their houses and save their families. Um, but, you know, even in San Francisco, there was a big right, there was a big shift to the right in the voting, um, in, um, in '24. So we'll, we'll see where, we'll see where that goes. But, you know, you observe that by just looking at, looking at the numbers over time. Um, the part that I'm more focused on is, uh, you know, and I don't know how to exactly describe this, but it's like the top 1,000 or the top 10,000 people, right? Um, and, um, you know, and I don't have a list, but like it's the, you know, it's all the top founders, top CEOs, top executives, top engineers, top VCs, you know, and then kind of in- in- into the ranks, um, you know, the people who kind of build and run the companies. Um, and they're, uh, they're, you know, I don't have numbers but I have a much more tactile feel, you know, for, for, for what's happening. Um, so I th- the big thing I th- I have now come to believe is that the idea that people have beliefs is mostly wrong. Um, I think that most people just go along. Um, and I think even most high-status people just go along, and I think maybe the most high-status people are the most prone to just go along because they're the most focused on status. Um, and the way I would describe that is, um, you know, one of the great (laughs) forbidden philosophers of our time is, uh, the Unabomber, uh, Ted Kaczynski. And amidst his madness, he had this extremely interesting articulation. You know, he was a, he was a, he was an insane lunatic murderer, but he was also a, you know, a Harvard super genius. Um, not that those are in conflict. Um ... (laughs)

   3. LFLex Fridman30:02

      (laughs)

   4. MAMarc Andreessen30:02

      But, um ...

   5. LFLex Fridman30:03

      Shots fired, man.

   6. MAMarc Andreessen30:04

      But, uh, he, uh, was a very bright guy and he, he did this whole thing, um, where he talked about ... basically, he wa- he was very right wing and ta- talked about leftism a lot. Um, and he had this great concept that's just stuck in my mind ever since I read it, which is, he had this concept he just called over social- over-socialization.Um, and so, you know, most people are sociali- m- uh, most people are socialized. Like, most people are, you know... We live in a society, most people learn how to be part of a society, they give some difference to the society. There's something about modern Western elites where they're Over-socialized, um, and they're just, like, overly oriented towards what other people like themselves, you know, think, um, and believe. And y- you can get a real sense of that if you have a little bit of an outside perspective, which I just do, I think, as a consequence of where I grew up. Um, like even before I had the views that I have today, there, there was always just this weird thing where it's like, "Why does every dinner party have the exact same conversation? Why does everybody agree on every single issue? Why is that agreement precisely what was in The New York Times today?" (laughs) Um, "Why are these positions not the same as they were five years ago?" (laughs) Right? Uh, "But why does everybody, like, snap into agreement every step of the way?" And that was true when I came to Silicon Valley, and it's just as true today, 30 years later. And so I, I think most people are just literally take- I think they're taking their cues from s- it's some combination of the press, the universities, the big foundations, yeah, so it's like basically, it's like The New York Times, uh, Harvard, the Ford Foundation, and, you know, I don't know, um, you know, a few CEOs, um, and a few public figures, and, you know, maybe the, you know, maybe the president of your parties in power. And, like, whatever that is, everybody just d- everybody who's sort of good and proper and elite and good standing and in charge of things and a sort of correct member of, you know, let's call it coastal American society, everybody just believes those things. And then, you know, the two interesting things about that is, number one, there's no divergence among the, the, the organs of power, right? So Harvard and Yale believe the exact same thing. (laughs) The New York Times and The Washington Post believe the exact same thing. The Ford Foundation and The Rockefeller Foundation believe the exact same thing. Google and, you know, whatever, you know, Microsoft believe the exact same thing. Um, but those things change over time, (laughs) b- but there's never conflict in the moment, right? Um, and so, you know, The New York Times and the Wa- and the Washington Post agreed on exactly everything in 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020. Despite the fact that the specifics changed radically, the, the lockstep was what mattered. Um, and so I, I think basically, we, we in the Valley, we're, we're on the tail end of that in the same way Hollywood's on the tail end of that, in the same way New York's on the tail end of that, the same way the media is on the tail end of that. It's, it's like some sort of collective hive mind thing. A- and I just go through that to say, like, I don't think most people in my orbit, or, you know, let's say the te- top 10,000 people in the Valley or the top 10,000 people in LA, I don't think they're sitting there thinking, "Uh, basically, I have Rox-" I mean, they probably think (laughs) they have Roxana beliefs, but they don't actually have like some inner core of Roxana beliefs and then they kind of watch reality change around them and try to figure out how to keep their beliefs, like, correct. I don't think that's what happens. I think what happens is they conform to the belief system around them. And, and I think most of the time, they're not even aware, th- th- that, that they're basically part of a herd.

   7. LFLex Fridman33:01

      Is it possible that the surface chatter of dinner parties, underneath that, there is a turmoil of ideas and thoughts and beliefs that's going on, but you're just talking to people really close to you or in your own mind, and then the socialization happens at the dinner parties? Like, uh, when you go outside the inner circle of one, two, three, four people who you really trust, then you start to conform. But inside there, inside the mind, there is an actual belief or a struggle, a tension with The New York Times or with the (laughs) with the, with the s- (laughs) uh, for the listener, there's a, there's a slow smile that overtook Marc Andreessen's face.

   8. MAMarc Andreessen33:41

      So, look, I, I'll just tell you what I think, which is at, at, at the dinner parties and at the conferences, no, there's none of that. Um, it's wha- what there is is that all of the heretical conversations ha- anything that challenges the status quo, um, any heretical ideas, and any new idea, you know, is a heretical idea, um, any deviation, it, the, is either discussed, uh, one-on-one, face-to-face. It's, it's like a whisper network (laughs) or it's like a real-life social network. There's a secret handshake, which is like, okay, you meet somebody and you, like, know each other a little bit, but, like, not well, and, like, you're both trying to figure out if you can, like, talk to the other person openly or whether you have to, like, be fully conformist. It's a joke.

   9. LFLex Fridman34:15

      Oh, yeah. Humor, 100%.

   10. MAMarc Andreessen34:16

       Somebody cracks a joke.

   11. LFLex Fridman34:17

       Yeah.

   12. MAMarc Andreessen34:17

       Right? Somebody cracks a joke.

   13. LFLex Fridman34:18

       Yep.

   14. MAMarc Andreessen34:19

       If the other person laughs, the conversation is on.

   15. LFLex Fridman34:21

       Yeah, yeah.

   16. MAMarc Andreessen34:22

       If the other person doesn't laugh, back slowly away from the scene. (laughs) Yeah, I didn't mean anything by it. Right?

   17. LFLex Fridman34:30

       Yeah.

   18. MAMarc Andreessen34:30

       And, and by the way, it doesn't have to be like a super offensive joke. It just has to be a joke that's just up against the edge of one of the, to use the Sam Bankman-Fried term, one of the Shibboleths. You know, it has to be up against one of the things, um, of, um, you know, o- one of the things that you're absolutely required to, to believe to be at the dinner parties. And then, and then at that point what happens is you have a peer-to-peer network, right? You have, you have, you have a- a one-to-one connection with somebody, and then you, you have your, you have your own, your ov- your little conspiracy of, of thar- thought criminality. Um, and then you have your net- and you've probably been through this. You have your network of thought criminals, and then they have their network of thought criminals. And then you have this, like, delicate mating dance as to whether you should bring the thought criminals together.

   19. LFLex Fridman35:03

       Mm-hmm.

   20. MAMarc Andreessen35:04

       Right? Um-

   21. LFLex Fridman35:05

       And the dance, the fundamental, uh, mechanism of the dance is humor.

   22. MAMarc Andreessen35:09

       Yeah, it's humor.

   23. LFLex Fridman35:09

       (laughs)

   24. MAMarc Andreessen35:09

       Like, it's... Right. Well, of course.

   25. LFLex Fridman35:11

       Memes. Yeah.

   26. MAMarc Andreessen35:12

       Well, for t- for two reasons. Number one-

   27. LFLex Fridman35:13

       It's true.

   28. MAMarc Andreessen35:13

       Number one, humor is a way to have deniability, right? Hu- humor is a way to discuss-

   29. LFLex Fridman35:16

       Yeah.

   30. MAMarc Andreessen35:16

       ... serious things without, without, without... with having deniability. "Oh, I'm sorry, it was just a joke," right? So th- so that's part of it, which is one of the reasons why comedians can get away with saying things the rest of us can't.
6. 40:19 – 56:15

   Preference falsification

   1. MAMarc Andreessen40:19

   2. LFLex Fridman40:19

      I mean, to, to push back-

   3. MAMarc Andreessen40:21

      Mm-hmm.

   4. LFLex Fridman40:21

      ... to come back to this idea that we're talking about, I do believe that people have beliefs and thoughts that are heretical, like, a lot of people. I wonder what fraction of people have that. To me, this is... the preference falsification is really interesting. What is the landscape of ideas that human civilization has in private as compared to what's out in public? Because like that... the, the dynamical system that is the difference between those two is fascinating. Like there's... throughout history, the fall of communism in multiple regimes throughout Europe is really interesting because everybody was following, you know, the line until not.

   5. MAMarc Andreessen41:01

      Right.

   6. LFLex Fridman41:02

      But you better... for sure, privately, there was a huge number of boiling conversations happening where like this is... this... the bureaucracy of communism, the corruption of communism, all of that was really bothering people more and more and more and more. And all of a sudden there's a trigger that allows the vibe shift to happen.

   7. MAMarc Andreessen41:22

      That's right.

   8. LFLex Fridman41:22

      To me like the in-... the interesting question here is, what is the landscape of private thoughts and ideas and conversations that are happening under the surface of, uh, of, of Americans? Especially my question is, how much dormant energy is there for this roaring '20s where people are like, "No more bullshit, let's get shit done"?

   9. MAMarc Andreessen41:43

      Yeah. So let's go through the... we'll go through the theory of preference falsification, just, just to-

   10. LFLex Fridman41:46

       By the way, amazing. The book

   11. is fascinating.

   12. MAMarc Andreessen41:49

       Yeah, yeah. So this is... this is exactly... this is one of the all-time great books. Incredibly, it's about 20, 30-year-old book, but it's very... it's completely modern and current, um, in what it talks about, uh, as well as very deeply historically informed. Um, so it's called Private Truths, Public Lies, and it's written by uh, uh, as- uh, a social science professor named Timur Kuran, um, at I think Duke. Um, and it's his definitive work on this. And so he, he has this concept he calls preference falsification. And so preference falsification is two things. Preference falsification... and, and you get it from the title of the book, Private Truths, Public Lies. So preference falsification is when you believe something and you can't say it, or (laughs) and this is very important, you don't believe something and you must say it, right? Um, and, and, and the commonality there is in both cases you're lying. You, you, you, you believe, you believe something internally and then, and then you're lying about it in public. Um, and so the, the thing... you know, the... and there's sort of two, two classic forms of it. There's the... you know, for example, there's the "I believe communism is rotten but I can't say it" version of it, um, but then there's also the, the, the famous parable of the real-life example, but, um, the thing that Vaclav Havel talks about in the other good book on this topic, which is The Power of the Powerless-... um, you know, who was an anti-Communist resistance fighter, who ultimately became the, you know, the, the president of Czechoslovakia after the fall of the wall. But he wrote this book and he, he describes the other side of this, which is, um, (laughs) w- workers of the world unite (laughs) , right? And so, he, he describes what he calls the parable of the green grocer, which is, you're a green grocer in Prague in 1985, um, and for the last 70 years it has been ... or s- 50 years, it's been absolutely mandatory to have a sign in the window of your store that says, "Workers of the world, unite." (laughs) Right? Um, and it's 1985, it is, like, crystal clear that the world, the workers of the world are not going to unite. Like (laughs) -

   13. LFLex Fridman43:28

       (laughs)

   14. MAMarc Andreessen43:28

       ... like, of all the things that could happen in the world, that is not going to happen. The Commies have been at that for 70 years, it is not happening. But that slogan had better be in your window every morning, because if it's not in your window every morning, you are not a good Communist. The secret police are gonna come by and they're gonna, they're gonna get you. Um, and so the first thing you do when you get to the store is you put that slogan in the window, and you make sure that it stays in the window all day long. And, but he says, the thing is, every single person ... the green grocer knows the slogan is fake. He knows it's a lie. Every single person walking past the slogan knows that it's a lie. Every single person walking past the store knows that the green grocer is only putting it up there because he has to lie in public. Um, and the green grocer has to go through the humiliation of knowing that everybody knows that he's caving into the system and lying in public. And so, it, it, it turns into demoralization campaign. It, it, it, it's, it's, it's not just ideological enforcement. I- in fact, it's not ideological enforcement anymore, because everybody knows it's fake. The authorities know it's fake. Everybody knows it's fake. It's not that they're enforcing the actual ideology of the world's, workers of the world uniting, it's that they are enforcing compliance, right?

   15. LFLex Fridman44:26

       Mm-hmm.

   16. MAMarc Andreessen44:26

       And compliance with the regime and ... fuck you (laughs) , you will comply. Right? Uh, and so, so anyway, that, that, that's the other side of that. And, and of course, we have lived in the last decade through a lot of both of those. Um, I think anybody listening to this could name a series of slogans that we've all been forced to chant for the last decade, that everybody knows at this point are just, like, simply not true. I'll, I'll let the audience, you know, speculate on those o- o- on their own group chats. Um ... (laughs)

   17. LFLex Fridman44:50

       (laughs)

   18. MAMarc Andreessen44:50

       But-

   19. LFLex Fridman44:50

       Send Mark your memes online as well, please.

   20. MAMarc Andreessen44:52

       Yes, yes, exactly. But, okay, so anyway, so it's the two sides of that, right? So, it's, it's pu- it's, it's, it's private truths, public lies. Um, uh, so then what preference falsification does is it talks about e- extending that from the idea of the individual experiencing that to the idea of the entire society experiencing that, right? And this gets to your percentages question, which is like, okay, what happens in a society in which people are forced to lie in public about what they truly believe? What happens, number one, is that individually they're lying in public, and that's bad. But the other thing that happens is they no longer have an accurate gauge at all or any way to estimate how many people agree with them. A- a- a- and this is how you ... and again, this, this, this literally is, like, how you get something like, like the Communist system, which is like, okay, it, it ... you, you, you end up in a situation in which 80 or 90 or 99% of a society can actually all be thinking individually, "I really don't buy this anymore, and if anybody would just stand up and say it, I would be willing to go along with it, but I'm not gonna be the first one to put my head on the chopping block." But you have no w- because of the suppression, censorship, you have no way of knowing how many other people agree with you. And if the people who, if the people who agree with you are 10% of the population, and you become part of a movement, you're gonna get killed. If 90% of the people agree with you, you're gonna win the revolution (laughs) , right? And so, the, the question of, like, what the percentage actually is is, like, a really critical question and then, and then basically in any sort of authoritarian system, you ca- you can't, like, run a survey, right, to get an accurate result. And so you actually can't know until you put it to the test. And then what he describes in the book is, it's always put to the test in the same way, and this is exactly what's happened for the last two years. Like, 100% of exactly what's happened. It's, like, straight out of this book, which is, somebody (coughs) , Elon-

   21. LFLex Fridman46:18

       Mm-hmm.

   22. MAMarc Andreessen46:19

       ... sticks his hand up (laughs) and says, "The workers of the world are not going to unite."

   23. LFLex Fridman46:23

       Yeah.

   24. MAMarc Andreessen46:24

       Right? Or the emperor is actually wearing no clothes, right? You know, that famous parable, right? Um, so one person stands up and does it. And, and literally that person is standing there by themselves, and everybody e- else in the audience is like, "Ooh."

   25. LFLex Fridman46:34

       Mm-hmm.

   26. MAMarc Andreessen46:34

       "I wonder what's gonna happen to that guy." Right? But again, nobody knows. Elon doesn't know, the first guy doesn't know, other people don't know. Like, which way is this gonna go? And it may be that that's the minority position and that's a way to get yourself killed. Or it may be that that's the majority position and that, and you are now the, the leader of a revolution. And then basically, of course, what happens is, okay, the first guy does that, doesn't get killed (laughs) . The second guy does ... well, a lot of the time that guy does get killed. But when the guy doesn't get killed, then a second guy pops his head up, says the same thing, all right? Now you've got two. Two leads to four, four leads to eight, eight leads to 16. And then as we saw with the fall of the Berlin Wall, th- this is what happened in Russia and Eastern Europe in '89. You, you ... when it, when it goes, it can go, right? And then it rips. And then what happens is very, very quickly ... i- if, if it turns out that you had a large percentage of the population that actually believed a different thing, it turns out all of a sudden everybody has this giant epiphany that says, "Oh, I'm actually part of the majority (laughs) ." And at that point, like, you are on the freight train to revolution, right? Like, it is rolling, right? Now, the other part of this is the distinction between the role of the elites and the masses. Um, and here, and here the best book is called The True Believer (laughs) , which is the, the Eric Hoffer book. Um, and so the, the, the nuance you have to put on this is the, the, the elites play a giant role in this, 'cause the, uh, the, the elites do idea formation and communication. But the, uh, el- el- elites by definition are a small minority, and so there's also this giant role played by the masses. And the masses are not necessarily thinking these things through in the same intel- intellectualized, formal way that the elites are. But they are for sure experiencing these things in their daily lives, and they f- for sure have at least very strong emotional views on them. And so when you, when you really get the revolution, it's when you get the elites lined up with ... or, or, or, or a new s- either the current elites change or the new set of elites, a new set of counter-elites, um, basically come along and say, "No, there's actually a different and better way to live." And then the p- the people basically decide to follow the, you know, to follow the counter-elite. So that, that, that's the other dimension to it. And of course, that part is also happening right now. Um, and again, case study number one of that would be Elon and his, you know, it turns out, you know, truly massive following.

   27. LFLex Fridman48:26

       And he has done that over and over in different industries. Not just saying crazy shit online, but saying crazy shit in the, uh, uh, in the realm of space, in the realm of autonomous driving, in the realm of AI. Just over and over and over again. Turns out saying crazy shit is one of the ways to do a revolution and to actually make progress.

   28. MAMarc Andreessen48:43

       Yeah, and it's like, well ... and the, but then there's the test. Is it crazy shit or is it the truth?

   29. LFLex Fridman48:46

       Yeah.

   30. MAMarc Andreessen48:47

       Right? And, and, and you know, and this is where, you know, e- th- many, there are many m- specific things about Elon's genius, but one of the, one of the really core ones is an absolute dedication to the truth. Um, and so when Elon says something, it sounds like crazy shit, but in his mind it's true. Now, is he always right? No.... sometimes the rock is crashed. Like, you know, there, you know, sometimes he's wrong on th- eh, ev- he's human, he's like any, anybody else. He's not right all the time. But it, at least my, my through line with him, both in what he says in public and what he says in private, which by the way are the exact same things, he, he does not do this. He doesn't lie in public about what he believes in private, or at least he doesn't do that anymore. Like, he, he's 100% consistent in my, in my experience. (laughs) By the way, there's two guys who are 100% consistent like that, that I know, um, (laughs) T- Elon and Trump.
7. 56:15 – 1:11:18

   Self-censorship

   1. MAMarc Andreessen56:15

      fight.

   2. LFLex Fridman56:15

      If I could tell you a little personal story that breaks my heart a little bit. There's a, there's a professor, a historian, I won't say who, who I admire deeply, love his work. He's a kind of a heretical thinker, and we were talking about having a podcast or doing a podcast, and he eventually said that, "You know what? At this time, given your guest list, I just don't want the headache of being in the faculty meetings in my particular institution." And I ask, "Who are the particular figures in this guest list?" He said, "Trump." And the second one, he said that you announced your interest to talk to Vladimir Putin. So, "I just don't want the headache." Now, I, I fully believe he, uh... it would surprise a lot of people if I said who it is, but, uh, you know, this is a person who's not bothered by the, uh, the guest list. And I should also say that 80-plus percent of the guest list is left-wing, okay? Uh, nevertheless, he just doesn't want the headache, and that speaks to the, the thing that you've kind of mentioned, that you just don't, don't want the headache. You just wanna just have a pleasant morning with some coffee and talk to your, uh, fellow professors, and I think a lot of people are feeling that in universities and in other contexts in tech companies. And I wonder if that shifts, how quickly that shifts, and there, the percentages you mentioned, 20-60-20, matters, and the, and the, the contents of the private groups matters, and the dynamics of how that shifts matters 'cause it's very possible nothing really changes in u- universities and in major tech companies, or just there's a kind of, um, excitement right now for po- potential revolution and these new ideas, this new vibes to reverberate through these companies and universities, but it's possible the, the (laughs) the wall will hold.

   3. MAMarc Andreessen58:14

      Yeah. So he's a friend of yours. I respect that you don't wanna name him. I also respect you don't wanna beat on him, so I would like to beat on him on your behalf.

   4. LFLex Fridman58:21

      Mm-hmm.

   5. MAMarc Andreessen58:21

      Um, does he have tenure?

   6. LFLex Fridman58:23

      Yes. He should use it.

   7. MAMarc Andreessen58:27

      So, this is the thing, right? This is the ultimate indictment of the corruption and the rot at the heart of our education system, uh, at the heart of these universities, and it's... by the way, it's, like, across the board. It's, like, all the, all the top universities. It's like the... 'cause the, the siren song for, right? What has been for 70 years, whatever, the tenure system, peer review system, tenure system, um, which is like, yeah, you work your butt off as an academic to get a professorship and then to get tenure because then you can say what you actually think, right? Then you can do your work and your research and your speaking and your teaching without fear of being fired, right? Without fear of being canceled. Um, like, academic freedom. I mean, think, think of the term "academic freedom," and then think of what these people have done to it. Like, it's gone. Like, that entire thing was fake and is completely rotten, and these people are completely, completely giving up the entire moral foundation of the system that's been built for them, which, by the way, is paid for virtually 100% by taxpayer money.

   8. LFLex Fridman59:34

      What's the... what's the inkling of hope in this? Like, what... uh, this particular person and others who hear this, what can give them strength, inspiration, and courage?

   9. MAMarc Andreessen59:44

      Um, that the population at large is gonna realize the corruption in their industry and it's going to withdraw all the funding.

   10. LFLex Fridman59:49

       (laughs) Okay, so desperation. (laughs)

   11. MAMarc Andreessen59:52

       No, no, no, no, no. Think about what happens next. Okay, so let's go, let's go through it. So the, the, the universities, the univer- the universities are funded by f- four primary sources of federal funding. Th- the big one is the Federal Student Loan Program, which is, you know, in the many trillions of dollars at this point and, and o- only spiraling, you know, way faster than, than inflation. Um, that's number one. Number two is federal research funding, which is also very large, and you probably know that, um, um, when a scientist at university gets a f- a research grant, the university rakes as much as 70% of the money, uh, for central (laughs) uses.

   12. LFLex Fridman1:00:19

       Yeah.

   13. MAMarc Andreessen1:00:20

       Uh, number three is tax exemption at the operating level, which is based on the idea that these are nonprofit institutions as opposed to, let's say, political institutions. Um, and then number four is tax, uh, exemptions at the endowment level, um, you know, which is the financial buffer that these places have. Um, hy- hypotheti... A- anybody who's been close to a university budget will basically see that what would happen if you withdrew those sources of federal taxpayer money, and then for the state schools, the state money. They, they'd all instantly go bankrupt, and then you could rebuild. Then you could rebuild 'cause the problem right now... and, you know, like, the folks at University of Boston are, like, mounting a very valiant effort, and I hope that they succeed, and I'm che- I'm cheering for them. But the problem is you're, you're now inserting... You... suppose we... suppose you and I wanna start a new university and we wanna hire all the freethinking professors and we wanna have the place that fixes all this. Practically speaking, we can't do it.... because we can't get access to that money. I'll, uh, I'll give you the most direct reason we can't get access to that money. Uh, we can't get access to Federal Student Funding ... Do you know how universities are accredited, uh, for the purpose of getting access to Federal Student Funding, federal student loans? Th- th- they're accredited by the government, but not directly, indirectly. Th- they're not accredited by the Department of Education. Instead, what happens is the Department of Education accredits accreditation bureaus (laughs) that are nonprofits that do the accreditation. Guess what the composition of the accreditation bureaus is? The existing universities. Th- they are in complete control, the incumbents are in complete control as to who gets, um, a- as, as to who gets access to federal student loan money. Guess how enthusiastic they are about a c- accrediting a new university? R- right. And so we, we have a government-funded and -supported cartel, um, that has gone ... I mean, it's just obvious now. It's just gone like sideways and basically any possible way it could go sideways, including, I mean, literally, as you know, students getting beaten up in the, on campus for being, you know, of the wrong religion. I mean, it's just... Th- they're just wrong in every possible way at this point, um, and, and they're, they're ... it's all on the federal taxpayer back. Um, and there is no way, I, I mean, I ... in my opinion, there is no way to fix these things without, without replacing them. Um, and, and there's no way to replace them without letting them fail. A- and by the way, it's like everything else in life. I mean, in a sense, this is like the most obvious conclusion of all time, which is wh- what, what happens in, in the business world when a company does a bad job is they go bankrupt, and another, another company takes its place, right? And that, that's how you get progress. Um, and of course below that is what happens is this is the process of evolution, right? Why does, why does anything ever get better? Well, it's 'cause things are tested and tried and then you, uh, you know, the things that, the things that are good survive. And so these places have cut themselves off. Th- they've been allowed to cut themselves off from, both from evolution at the institutional level and evolution at the individual level, uh, as shown by the, the, the, the, the just widespread abuse of tenure. Um, and so the ... we've, we've just stalled out. We, we built a, we built an ossified system, an ossified, centralized, corrupt system. We're, we're surprised by the results. They are not fixable in their current form.

Episode duration: 3:45:44