All right, Saxs, how you doing, brother?

Wait, wait, what's this? Why are you

wearing a tie?

>> I'm in DC today, so it's a it's a

government day.

>> Ah, so you suited up with the ties. You

suited up with ties. Well, maybe I'll

join you. Maybe I'll join you. Oh, look.

Oh, look. What is this box I just got?

Oh, that's for my guy Tom. Oh, just for

JCAL, Mr. Jason Calakas. Let's see

what's in the box here.

>> Oh, what's going on here?

>> Tom Ford sent you something.

>> Oh, Tom sent me a nice tie. And you

don't go

>> I uh I heard that Moose ate your

invitation to the White House.

>> He did. He did.

>> Sorry about that.

>> Sorry about that.

[Music]

>> Let your winners ride.

>> Rainman David.

>> We open sources to the fans and they've

just gone crazy with it.

>> All right, everybody. Welcome back to

the number one podcast in the universe

in the universe. It's been proven time

and time again. Oh, this I'm not putting

the tie up. Ah, it. It's just It's

enough already. I I guess Friday. We We

moved the show to Friday. Sorry you're

getting this on Saturday.

>> You can't come to the White House. You

can't figure out a tie.

>> Yeah. Well, maybe you could show me how

to do this next time I'm in town. I got

to practice with you. We'll go in the

mirror. You could. That'd be great. Bit

you behind me. Show me how to do a tie.

We didn't have ties in Brooklyn. What do

you want me to do? All right. Well, it

was an eventful week. Some of our

besties,

some, not all, were invited apparently

to a uh a little suare at the White

House with the president, Saxs and Cham.

Here's a photo. Some pretty good seeing

arrangement here. Looks like Zuckerberg

got the pole position on the right hand

of the father followed by Saxi Pooh and

Chimath and Amo sitting right across

from Sam Alman and Tim Cook. What a

crowd. What a crowd. What was the um

what was the uh impetus for this dinner?

Sachs, tell us.

>> Well, this was a tech dinner at the

White House. I think it originally

started with a group that Chimath

organized in Silicon Valley and they

were kind of the core nucleus of this

and then more and more people just

wanted to come and try to get in and the

president invited some of the top tech

leaders and pretty soon it turned into

the room that you saw there. I mean it's

really pretty amazing President Trump's

ability to convene all these people. You

normally don't get these people in a

room together. Many of them are

competitors and it's remarkable. You

pretty much had I'd say like maybe half

the tech industry was there

>> by market cap. Certainly.

>> By market cap for sure.

>> Yeah. And uh Chimath, you obviously were

involved here and you got a pretty good

seat. Any uh great inside stories? Any

inside baseball? What did they serve? By

the way, I'm curious what gets served at

a dinner like this.

>> That was a very elegant menu.

And they they try to keep it light so

that it's not overwhelming, which I

think can get in the way. So it was like

>> So no prime rib, right? There was a

barata salad and then there was a a

fillet and then a nice raspberry

dessert.

>> Okay,

>> here's what I'll tell you. Sax said it

well. What was incredible

for me just to frankly be in the room

felt very surreal. You're seeing the

leaders of the most important companies

in the world sitting together

and I just felt like there was a sense

of alignment and cooperation and that

was really cool. I think none of those

folks have to really show up anywhere

that they don't have to. I think they're

at a place in their career and the

importance of the businesses that they

run. But the fact that the president can

convene them, I think says a lot about

him and the agenda. And then they to a

one were incredibly supportive of what

he has done and clearing the way and

allowing them to build their businesses

with a lot more clarity. It was just

very clear the juxtaposition of what it

was like and the difficulty under Biden

versus what it was now. And you saw some

very truly hard cast liberals who have

now completely embraced President Trump.

Folks like Tim Cook, folks like Bill

Gates. And I think that that's an

incredible testament to him and his

agenda. And then the second thing, which

is more personal, is I was so proud of

Sachs. Every single one of these guys,

and you're talking like the Titans of

Titans, they took a moment to say that

he was just doing an incredible job and

the president was really proud of it. It

was like as a brother. It's like you're

seeing your brother just get completely

It was It was great. So, that was really

special. Freeberg, any any take on this?

I I noticed you didn't make it. You

didn't make the cut. My invite got eaten

by moose obviously as we heard earlier,

but uh I thought you for sure would get

a seat. What happened for you? bring no

seat for you.

>> I work in agriculture, Jay Cal. So,

we're doing the agriculture dinner next

month. It's going to be great. The

president and I are arranging a round

table. It's going to be fantastic. Yeah,

just kidding.

>> No, but I was in DC.

>> So, if I eat my vegetables, I can come

to them.

>> No, no, I was in DC with the guys. I

actually did an interview with Senator

Rand Paul, which you'll which I think is

out on YouTube now and on our podcast

channels. It was great to sit down with

the Senator.

>> What was the highlight of the uh of the

the Paul interview? I didn't get to

watch it yet. Apologies. as I was

getting ready for the summit. But did

you have a highlight or two you want to

share with us?

>> I mean he he's an interesting guy. A lot

of people have challenged him because

he's an independent thinker. He really

is true kind of libertarian views and

libertarian beliefs and he's held firm

to them despite bucking with the party

which he did recently on the big

beautiful bill. You know he was one of

three Republicans to vote against it. So

he's criticized and chastised and, you

know, ousted in a lot of different

circles in DC because he doesn't kind of

fall in line. But I do think that

dissent and debate is critical and

important for us to find the better path

forward. And I I like the role that he

plays. And I think he's very first

principled. And I think his talking

about his ability to get elected despite

not being willing to always fall in line

with the party is a really important

point. and he hopes it will inspire

other politicians to follow the same

path and for voters to see that there is

a role for independent thinkers in

Congress.

>> Yeah, I mean that is something we need.

It seems like these parties just get

locked step. They're expected to vote

the same. They're vote on party lines

and sachs that is definitely a weakness

I think of the two-party system. your

thoughts on uh Ran Paul and his you know

being a bit of an agitator maybe like

Mansion was that there's a role for

this. Yeah. In our democracy.

>> Well, I think it's good to hear from a

libertarian voice once in a while

they're going to have a different sort

of conservative

>> once in a while. I caught that too.

>> They're going to have a different sort

of viewpoint that could be called

conservative. So, I like grandp. But can

we just go back to the the dinner? I

want to just yeah

>> build on a point that Chimath made about

the level of sort of comey in in the

room.

>> I think that the the people in the room

there it was remarkable even though a

lot of these companies are competing

with each other they were largely on the

same page with respect to what was

happening in the economy and the world

and with the kind of support they needed

for the tech industry to do well and for

the US economy to do well. And I think

the reason why they were largely happy

with the Trump administration is because

the Trump administration has been pro-

innovation, pro- infrastructure, which

includes being pro- energy, pro- export,

so these companies can sell their

products internationally. And then also

the thing that's been very important to

the Trump administration is proworker.

And you heard the president make all of

those points in his

critical AI speech that he gave on July

23rd at the AI summit that we

co-sponsored with Hill and Valley. So I

think a lot of the compliments that we

received were due to the agenda that the

president articulated so well at the AI

summit and the people in that room are

largely supportive of that policy. So, I

don't know if I would call it a love

fest, but I think it was an opportunity

for these tech leaders to articulate

their concerns where they could use

help. And I think the president, he's a

great listener, and he wanted to take in

their feedback and figure out how to

make the economy grow even faster.

>> I had so many questions from, you know,

behind the scenes, etc., like seating

arrangement, how's that discussed? The

first thing I'll say is the president

takes tremendous

control over these details. So I've said

this before about how conscientious he

is, but one of the things that he

noticed before was it was very difficult

to host press conferences or world

leaders outside in the Rose Garden. So

the way that it started was around 4:00

what happened was that David, and I'll

tell you because there was a joke about

this at dinner. David asked the

president, "Can we do a tour of the Oval

for all of the fans of Allin?" And the

president said, "Absolutely." So me,

Freeberg,

Sachs,

>> we went and Caroline Levit meets us and

walks us in. By the way, if you want to

see a star of stars,

like I've I've met few people like this

who exudes this level of competence. I

mean, I think it was the first thing

that Freeberg said after maybe like two

minutes of interacting with her. It's

like, "Wow, this may be the most

competent person I've ever spoken to.

She's outrageously good." So, she gets

us all, she cleans up some stuff that

had to be cleaned up, walks us in, and

the president gave us this tour. And the

beautiful thing about the tour, if you

are a student of American history, is

the history is on the walls. I mean from

George Washington to Abe Lincoln to even

Ben Franklin and the Declaration of

Independence Jason. And so we were able

to see all of that and and see all of

that in detail and he was able to talk

about it and then

>> as it kind of always does it veers where

you know he does the weave and he's like

guys what do we want to talk about and

free was able to ask some questions and

saxs and I and then it just became a

little bit more freewheeling like

>> well it turned into like a hang

>> a hang. Yeah. We we hung with the

president and then after we hung we

turned the cameras off and then we hung

like another half hour 45 minutes with

him. People are coming in the oval

but it's literally like an episode of

West Wing meets VEP meets like you know

it was like everyone's just chatting

going in and out. You meet all the

characters.

>> So then that ends and Sax had to do some

meetings in the oval with the president.

So we all leave and we're escorted into

>> I think it's the Roosevelt room. Sax, is

that right? Is that So when we get into

the Roosevelt room, this is where it

becomes surreal.

>> You're seeing the most powerful

people that have built these incredible

businesses. I think there's 30 people,

but the table can only fit like 15

people. And so you have like Tim and Sam

and Satia sitting on the couch over here

by these two chairs just like Dylan

Field and Alan Wag. And it's like the

funniest scene because everybody at that

moment all the ears are gone because

they know the context in which they're

they're there.

>> Yeah. In their own worlds, they're like

kings. But in the White House, you're

back.

>> You're sharing the backbench.

>> You're an American citizen who's there

to meet the president, right? But there

were some incredible people there. Some

people I I'd not really met before.

Safatz, lovely, and her husband. And

then there were some other people that

were just amazing. Jared Isaacman, which

is wonderful to see him. There was a

whole group of folks that were there.

And then

they say, "Hey guys, can you just get

into a single file line?" And so again,

it's like a it's like a surreal scene

where it's like Sundar Satya, Bill

Gates, survey

these people in a single file line.

>> I mean, you guys sound like you went

backstage at a Zeppelin concert.

Incredible.

>> No, dude. And then we're we're escorted

into the oval and this is like what's so

kind about what he does. He sits at the

at the Resolute desk and Mirith Or who's

incredible, she introduces everybody one

by one so that they hear their name. I

don't I it may sound like a a weird

thing, Jason, but like to hear your name

called

>> in the oval and then you stand beside

the president. He's seated and they have

a photo. They take this beautiful photo

and then the first person was Saffra and

her husband and her husband says, "Could

I take a pen?" I swear. So the president

says, "Of course, that's what they're

there for." So he gives him a challenge

coin and a pen.

Everybody takes one. So again, you're

seeing the leaders of these incredible

businesses. One by one, they get

announced. They go stand by the

president. They take a beautiful picture

and they take a coin and a pen. And then

we're all just kind of milling in the

oval after that's all done. And he says,

"Well, guys, we're going to talk at

dinner, but do you want to just start?"

And it was amazing because Sergey,

>> does he sit behind the desk then?

>> He's still sitting at the he's still

sitting. So anyways, Sergey asks a few

questions, really starts to get the

conversation going, which I which I

think was really good. And then he says,

"Okay guys, let's continue this

conversation at dinner." And so we exit

into the rose garden and this is where

our friend Sunonny Madro says on the way

like as we're walking says sir I hear

you have a playlist. Can we hear the

music? And so he takes the iPad turns

the music on and he apparently had been

tuning it and so now it's like he's got

a great playlist by the way. It's like

Fleetwood Mac. I mean like you're

hearing like all the classics and it's

just blasting in the Rose. I mean

blasting. Lisa Sue posted one of the

photos. You can see them all because

like the oval is small. Okay. So, just

to be clear. So, then

>> that's dinner.

>> Oh, wow. There you go.

>> It's stuffed. I mean, I'm right to the

left of Tim and Jamie Simmonoff is right

at the end. I And I think it's VC Rana

Dbe who's the owner of the Kings is

right there of the Sacramento Kings

started typical and then I think it's

me. I think I was standing kind of more

in the front there. Anyways, so we

leave. So, so if you just pause there.

So that window that's Sham Sankar who's

the CTO of Palanteer and behind him is

Dave Limp and then you can see Dylan

Field the founder and CEO of Figma.

That's the door you exit. You go into

the Rose Garden and then you walk

through and we walk down the hallway.

You guys have seen that before. And we

go into the to the east wing and they

say want to introduce the first lady.

So what happens is you walk into the

east wing, you walk upstairs and there's

a very elegant seating chart that they

make. It's actually a really good way of

doing it because normally what you would

do is you would walk around the table.

>> Yeah.

>> No, this is a much better system. So you

actually have a small model of the table

and so what happens is you go you you

can see where everybody is sitting and

then you see where you're sitting and

then there's an escort that takes you to

your seat. So, it's a really it's it's

done really well. I mean, for

>> it's very thoughtful. Yeah,

>> it's very thoughtful.

>> It was in the East Room where we also

did the crypto summit at the White House

and there's been other events there. But

let me just give a shout out to the

first lady, Melania Trump. She's very

interested in this topic of AI. And in

fact, earlier that day, we did an event

at the White House with the AI education

task force, which she's chairing. and

she's very passionate about making sure

that every school child in America has

access to AI so they can get AI

education. And we had dozens of

companies there at the White House

making pledges of resources to make sure

that teachers and students and families

will be able to have everything they

need for kids to learn AI so they have

the skills for this critical tool. So

this is a topic she's very interested

in. So she wanted to be at that dinner.

So then we get seated and people are

talking a little bit and he goes, "Guys,

if it's okay with you, we're just going

to let the press in." And I thought what

that meant was a few people, I mean,

I've never seen anything like this

before. It It's like a zoo entered

>> the East Wing like cameras, boom,

microphones.

>> Oh, the gaggle.

>> The gaggle. They start screaming because

like everybody's trying to shout over

each other to try to be able to ask

questions. But then, you know, the

president kind of imposes control and

says, "Guys, hold on." And then he

allowed the CEOs of the of the big

companies to say something and then

Gates said something

and then that kind of set the tone and

obviously he said something and then he

said, "Anybody have any questions?" And

then they just start screaming. I mean,

and there are people running around with

mics. I don't know

how you pick who gets to say something

quite honestly because the question

procedure it's out of control.

>> No, but but you know what's crazy is the

questions are so all over the place. I

don't know how you can be prepared like

he knows what he's saying. He's very

purposeful with what he's saying. I

don't know how you do that because the

questions are all over the place and you

could tell like cuz one of them asked

Zuck questions. Zuck was like what's

going on Zuck? Zuck Zuck what about your

12 houses in Palo Alto Zuck?

I mean, no, it was a tougher question.

>> What was that? I

>> It was about free speech and the UK and

he did a pretty good job.

>> Zach, my Instagram account's locked. Can

you help me? My Instagram.

>> Anyway, so then so then they leave and

then

>> Well, by the way, they have to be like

thrown out, you know. They don't just

leave. They're out of control. They make

coral, you know.

>> Yeah. And then we had this lovely three

course dinner and then right after the

appetizer, I think like he starts going

around and people just start talking and

saying things and things that are on

their mind. And I'm I'm not going to

share anything from that from that. But

I thought I thought that was pretty

illuminating and pretty awesome.

>> Let me ask you a candid question.

>> And challenge him on any topics. Were

there any I mean we saw there's a lot of

agilation. People thank you Mr.

President. There's a lot of difference.

Anybody throw him a fastball, curveball?

Was there any challenging question in

that format?

>> It's not about asking him questions like

you're interviewing him. But there are

people that brought up challenging

things that they are dealing with.

>> Yeah, that's what I mean.

>> But that No, that is not what you said.

So,

>> no, no, it's something that maybe is not

aligned with maybe how the

administration is doing things. That's

what I'm sort of getting at.

>> Okay. No, but that's again you're trying

to like Nobody's there to gotcha. People

are like, "Sir, I'm dealing with this

specific issue in this specific country.

Can you help?"

>> Ah, got it. Well, I was thinking like

immigration, high skilled in

immigration. That seems like a topic

everybody cares about in our industry.

I'll

>> tell you what we talked about. The

issues that they had are many and they

have to deal with how American companies

can build businesses in a seamless,

straightforward way. And what they said

is since Biden, what Trump has done is

clean the decks and allowed them. They

all said that. They didn't they weren't

forced to say that. They all said it,

which I thought was really cool. This is

again why I said earlier, super proud of

what David has done. Like it was

palpable the respect that all these guys

had for him, which is awesome. But then

what the president says is, I could take

care of this. I can do that. That's not

going to stand. He's like what you see

is you have these American titans of

industry. I've said this before, Jason.

The whole premise of the American dream,

I think, rests on economic and military

supremacy. That is derived from

technical supremacy.

That group of people are

the geniuses that create the technical

supremacy for the world. And he is their

biggest advocate. And that's inspiring

because it's like they are like sir

here's what we need and he's like great

I'm going to go to that for you and try

to get what you need. And so there was

that conversation and then there was a

joke and he said at the end something to

along the lines of ah you know I had to

it's a tough day or something like I had

to I had to film a segment for David's

dumb podcast. Just said it like as a

joke. So everybody everybody everybody

starts laughing

>> and then Zuck piles on. He goes, "Well,

the only dumb parts are Chimat's parts

and

everybody else starts laughing." But

when Zuck said it, he's leaning back.

>> And then he loses his balance.

>> Sax Saxs with the tism is just looking

straight ahead at Timco.

>> I I am like I don't know what to do. Nat

caught Zuck. Nat pulls her arm. I don't

know how she got there. It was a really

sweet moment. And then

>> I had a favorite moment actually. It

occurred after you guys left the White

House. Here it is. This is Chimat's

greatest moment.

>> There is a Chimat super fan. As you can

see there,

>> that's a Chimat super fan. And he's

signing multiple pictures from all

different eras. Those will be on eBay

later.

>> Look at this guy. I just want to back up

and say one of the reasons why I thought

it would be cool for us to kind of do

this interview in the Oval where the

president kind of gave us a tour of the

changes he had made to the White House

is I was getting a tour with my family

one weekend of the White House and the

guides who do these tours were telling

us about how much care the president

takes in the condition of the White

House and all the upgrades that he's

made. And they've seen him walking

around and he'll pick out paintings and

art. they'll move things around. He got

a whole bunch of paintings out of

storage. All the paintings that are now

in the Oval Office are ones that he

directly picked out. And they also said

that when he sees something wrong, like

with the landscaping or, you know, he'll

call a gardener over and give him notes

on how to make it look better. And the

president himself posted a truth a few

days ago where the new pavers on the

Rose Garden patio got damaged. There was

like a big scratch and see that video.

He caught them online. He caught the He

caught he caught the delivery guys.

>> He went to the tape to figure out who

did it. Yeah.

>> Yeah. That's That's a New York

developer. And not only that, he fired

them and he's making them pay for it and

they got to buff it or something. Yeah.

>> It's funny. He told us the story at the

dinner that the the contractor who got

fired was devastated. So, he's probably

going to have to hire them back cuz, you

know, he's

>> he's too nice. And

>> he asked everybody. He's like, "Do you

guys think I should hire him back?"

We're like, "Yes, I heard the guy." He's

like, "I'll probably hire him back."

>> It started as a tour. It was supposed to

be a tour. We were going to see the Rose

Garden and other things. And then it

rained and so we just stayed in the oval

and then it became like more of like a

hang.

>> Oh, wow. You guys are going to make that

into an episode. That's going to be an

episode. Oh, that's incredible.

>> Okay. So, Jason, like look, you see the

couple days before and the president

tweeted about this, Nick. I sent that to

you. You have India, Russia and China

kind of like fratinizing and then one or

two days later the president convenes

this dinner of I think you know some

incredible entrepreneurs building a lot

of the really important things that the

world needs in the future. I don't know

what your reaction is when you see the

kind of like

>> I mean yeah there's a legion of doom

there the uh Putin and she and uh not

Modi maybe but he he's obviously making

a point but you know overall I had a lot

of thoughts about it. But I did a I did

a press hit.

Of the 20 people there or so, I'm not

sure what the exact number was. I'm just

eyeballing it here.

>> I think we're at 2930.

>> I think about 19 of them are lifelong

Democrats who have switched to this

party. And and I I think the Democrats

need to look at this. This opportunity

was always there for the Democrats. But

what did they choose? They chose to take

the position of ban the billionaires and

an agenda that makes no sense. And if

you had invited this group of people, if

you were Biden or Kamla and you invited

this group of people to come to the

White House, they would have come as

well and you could have a really

thoughtful conversation about them. What

the Democratic positions might be, you

know, wages, healthcare, and and this

same group of people would have engaged,

but they were not allowed to access the

White House. They were not allowed to

have a dialogue. And I think they

pursued, you know, very weird agenda.

And you got Nancy Pelosi out there day

trading. got AOC and the socialists, you

know, pursuing some crazy agenda. What

do you expect people to do if you tell

them we don't want to hear your

concerns? We don't want to engage with

you in debate. You can have all kinds of

differences with Trump on style. I do.

You could have policy issues. I do. But

as a moderate, when I see something like

this, I just got to give, you know, you

a lot of credit, Saxs, for being able to

give access to the president and give

the president access to these

individuals and let an all these

important discussions happen and then

the group can act as one in the American

people's interest. And I think it's very

important for the Democrats to learn

something here, which is 90% of

Americans aspire to be billionaires. and

10% maybe they're you know socialists

moon communists whatever they are it's

fine they can pick and choose what they

believe is important in the world but

Americans love these individuals they

love these products and services and 70%

of the top 50 companies in the world by

market cap are American companies this

is the best of America this is the best

of the American dream and it's great

that they can go and have debates with

the president that was you know to my

earlier question like I know a lot of

these guys have some issues with the

president or certain issues tariffs etc.

This is an important I think moment in

time to just say Trump 2.0 I know is

engaging the business community and

meeting them where they are and saying

how can I help you grow faster? How can

we compete? America is not the only game

in town. Now, as you saw with Modi, you

know, creating this alliance with she

and Putin, it's imperative for the

American companies to excel and create

jobs. And we have the lowest

unemployment. We'll talk about

employment today. There's some new

statistics. We have the lowest

unemployment of our lifetimes. It's for

a reason. It's not because of any

president. It's because of these great

companies. We should be celebrating

them. And the president's done an

exceptional job of doing what all

Americans do. We celebrate these

companies. We love the iPhone. We love

Teslas. We We love these products and

services people are building. People

love Google. They love chat GBT. It's

fantastic. And so it's easy to be

cynical,

you know, about business or business

leaders, but uh this was really, I

think, a great show of force and it

shows the country's getting in sync on

what matters and that has it should be

independent of political parties. So I

was very proud of you, David, that you

built this bridge and you built it brick

by brick and I think yet to come. Well,

I mean, just to be clear, I mean,

obviously the president already had

access to all these people and in fact,

many of them were already on speed dial

and he already knew them and he he's the

one who convened them at the White

House. I've just been helping with

policy. So, I don't want to just be

clear about that. Well, I'm not

overstating it, but I'm I'm I'm even

going back six months when you guys held

the fundraiser and then just, you know,

you see like a very close friend of

mine, Mark Pinkis, lifelong Democrat,

has donated, you know, probably eight

figures to the Dems in total over the

years and he got frustrated at a certain

point that he couldn't get his calls

returned or he couldn't have important

discussions. Well, here we are. He was

at that dinner. I think that's a very

important lesson. The Democrats need to

feel moderates, business leaders. They

got their Bob Igor, they got Jamie

Diamond, they got a bunch of people who

could help, you know, build an agenda

that's not lunacy.

>> Yeah. And what I would say is is look,

maybe half the people at the dinner have

actually moved to the center or to the

right relative to where they were. And I

think Mark Pinkis has basically put

himself in that category. So there's

people who have like been red pilling

and moving over to our side. And then

I'd say the other half people in the

room haven't necessarily changed their

politics and they're just there to do

business. They want to have a good

relationship with the government. But

the same is true on the part of the

president. You I saw some conservative

influencers saying, "How can the

president meet with this person or that

person? He's been such an opponent in

the past." I mean, look, the president

is doing business as well. He asks all

the attendees of the dinner, "How much

are you investing in America?" You know,

what do you need to invest more? He

wants to see the infrastructure

investment. Why? Because it benefits all

Americans, not just software companies.

It benefits the construction industry,

the trades, the electricians, the

carpenters, the energy companies,

fracking and so on. So he he's there

representing the interests of the

country and then many of those CEOs are

representing the interests of their

companies and there's a dialogue going

on and it doesn't mean that everyone has

to like suddenly become a Republican or

change their politics. But it's

constructive and this is all in

furtherance of having the US economy

grow better.

>> All right, perfect segue. We got lots to

talk about in terms of the economy. And

uh first story here, Trump's tariffs got

overturned in court. Federal appeals

court ruled 74 that Trump exceeded his

authority when it comes to the Emergency

Economic Powers Act. Okay, we'll get

into the details here. Historically,

Congress was in charge of tariffs, but

under an emergency, a national

emergency, the president can get

involved with tariffs. and they cited

the 47th administration fentinyl crisis

at the borders, Mexico, Canada, China,

etc., and the trade deficits. Well, the

White House got sued by a group

representing small businesses. In May,

two federal courts ruled that he

wrongfully uh invoked the EA and the

White House appealed that. They've now

lost and Trump's tariffs will remain in

effect until October 14th allowing the

Supreme Court to appeal this. These

tariffs have been tremendously unpopular

in the business sector. Uh I think maybe

70 80% of business leaders in a recent

survey sack said that they don't they're

not crazy about them. But they have on

the other side generated over $150

billion in revenue in a couple of short

months. So they could generate trillions

of dollars in the next decade according

to estimates. I guess the question I

have for you Sachs is you guys are

moving uh at the White House there in

this administration, the executive

branch at startup speed, moving fast and

break things is something we talk about

doing in our industry and uh is this

just the natural extension of that? The

president is doing a lot of aggressive

things and sometimes they're going to be

allowed, sometimes they're not. What's

your take? Well, I'm not concerned about

the fate of tariffs at the Supreme

Court, even though it's probably a coin

flip, whether the Supreme Court's going

to allow the tariffs under AIPA,

but there are five different laws under

which the president has the authority to

impose these tariffs. So, there's a

chart here that we can throw up on the

screen. There's section 232, there's

section 2011, section 301, section 122,

section 338. There are at least five

different bases for the president's

authority to impose tariffs. So, at the

end of the day, I think it's actually

quite unlikely that the Supreme Court's

going to force a change in tariff

policy. And I don't think the Supreme

Court sees it as this urgent matter that

requires a a quick resolution. So, I'm

not particularly worried about it. In

terms of the popularity of the tariffs,

my guess is that they're not going to be

reversed in the future by a future

president because I think they actually

are quite popular with the country, with

workers. Among the business elite, it's

more mixed. I'll grant you that. But if

you change the way you ask the question

from are you in favor of these tariffs

to are you in favor of raising 4

trillion in revenue over the next decade

through tariffs to fund a tax cut like

we had in the big beautiful bill then

that might change people's perception of

it. So that's really the question is is

how do you want to raise revenue for the

government? And between big beautiful

bill and the tariffs, what you see is a

substitution from taxing Americans to

taxing foreign companies unless those

foreign companies then make a big

investment in America. So look, there's

no great way to extract revenue from the

private sector. all taxation is is

unfortunate and undesirable and be

better if we didn't have to tax so much.

But the reality is I think that if you

have a choice between taxing American

people or imposing tariffs, I think

tariffs may be the better way to do it.

And I just want to note that the CBO

has now increased their projection of

what tariffs will raise to 4 trillion

over the next decade. So

>> 400 billion a year. It's pretty

significant,

>> right? And initially it started as a

lower number and it completely pays for

the one big beautiful bill.

>> Chimoth, here's the chart. Tar Trump's

tariffs were meant to help

manufacturers. Do manufacturing firms

think they're helping? Has your business

been impacted by higher tariffs this

year? And uh here negative impact 72% of

manufacturers. 3.7% think it helped and

uh 17% said no impact. 7% don't know

yet. Your thoughts on tariffs? are

obviously unpopular with people in

retail manufacturing in those

businesses, but as Axe points out, hey,

maybe the American people like them and

they like the idea of a new revenue

stream. What are your thoughts, Shiman?

>> I think that the tariffs on balance are

a pretty smart master stroke of

strategy. I think that we did not

understand

what the impact of tariffs would be

except for

hypothetical

econ wonk talk.

And so that hypothetical econ wonk talk

basically said that tariffs were always

going to be a disaster. And if you ask

them, well, what is the actual practical

data that you would point to? They

didn't have any. It was just more

hypothesis.

But what is the practical data now? I

think that the United States is going to

book

probably close to half a trillion of of

incremental revenue.

It's actually forced a stabilization in

the dollar,

which I think that people were always

very concerned with. What's going to

happen to the dollar complex? Everybody

always screams like with a like their

hair is on fire.

But the dollar complex has stabilized, I

think, because of tariffs. So, there's

been some real positives. And what Sax

says is right, which is whoever is

president over the next, you know, 5,

10, 15, 20, 30 years, there'll be some

Democrats, there'll be some Republicans.

It's going to be very hard to justify

why you would undo this now because this

source of revenue is going to be an

incredibly important one.

>> Well, and also it's not just the fact

that the revenue is very important. You

rais a great point, which is the US

government's going to become dependent

on that revenue, but also just workers.

I think the tariffs are very popular

with bluecollar workers.

auto workers really like it.

>> Well, here's what I was going to this

the the pie chart that you showed

is not accurate. And the reason it's not

accurate is that the investment cases

that you would underwrite because of

tariffs and the big beautiful bill

haven't happened. So, I'll give you an

example. I am a person that started a

business that is building a factory to

make batteries in my specific example in

Michigan. So to delever away from China

for the battery supply chain and what I

will tell you Jason is after the big

beautiful bill and because of tariffs it

is much easier now for me to underwrite.

Why? Because I have 100% depreciation

across all my capex it's a complete

changer on the IRRa of these projects.

So before where I would have to raise

billions of dollars from outsiders, I

can subsidize a lot more of it

internally because I can actually

underwrite to a better gain because the

the tax savings are so meaningful. Same

thing for this data center that I'm

building in Arizona. So in all of these

cases, I think that a you have this

uptick in revenue because of tariffs on

the short term and b the important thing

is to redo this pie chart in probably a

year. Like for example, our

groundbreaking in Michigan will be in

July of next year for that factory.

It'll be online 2 years after that. The

real story, Jason, of all of this will

be really known in that period. But

right now, what I'll tell you is the

underwriting case for putting a ton of

money into the United States has changed

to the positive because of these

>> because that 100% depreciation.

>> It's a huge deal.

>> Yeah. Whether you're buying plane,

>> yum yum. All in aviation. Freeberg,

here's your poly market. Will tariffs

generate greater than 250 billion? It's

uh peaked at like 30%, it's come back

down to five. Most people are betting.

So, this could be a case of free money

if people want to go get it on poly

market because it has a pretty good

chance of hitting that. But

>> well, the number the number I said,

Jason, is like a yearly run rate. So,

technically, if you just look at the

calendar 25, you you only get a stub of

eight months because it starts April

1st.

>> 8 months, 50k a month, 50 uh billion a

month to get to 400 billion. So they

should be able actually think they're

going to hit that bogey. But Freeberg,

the

reports from people who have been

impacted by tariffs. Obviously these

could become inflationary, but the

people who are being impacted said

they've been eating them to date, but

they're not going to be able to eat them

forever. So it could become

inflationary. What are your thoughts on

the tariff kfluffle here and and the

legal battle over them as well as the

impact it might have on inflation which

is something we do not want to see come

back and we have been teetering just

under that 3% number which then puts the

Fed obviously in difficult position with

their mandate to get to two Freeberg

>> I'll address the legal kurfuffle point

which I think is a good one because I do

think that the great debate that's going

to happen from this presidency

and will likely shape the next set of

presidencies

will be the right for presidents to

declare emergencies to move forward

their legislative agenda

and arguably the tariff

institution by many members of Congress

should have gone through a congressional

process. In the meeting I did with Ran

Paul this week which has now been

posted, he talked about the challenge

that they have had with Democratic

presidents Biden and prior to that using

emergency authorization vested to them

under the National Emergencies Act which

is a 1976 statutory authority to take

action and then in order for the

emergency powers to be turned off,

Congress actually has to vote and they

can only do so after 30 days. And when

Congress makes that vote, the president

can veto their vote. So the president

can then say, "Send it back." So then

they have to get a two-third

supermajority to get it to pass. So it

creates a system whereby the president

can have this emergency authorization to

progress much of their legislative

agenda under the guise of emergency

powers, which you know, for many people

they would say is not the right way to

do it. So, Senator Paul and others have

proposed bills, for example, that the

president has to get any emergency power

reauthorized after 30 days

and then it can only be a maximum of 90

days without Congress enacting a a

renewal. And so, it requires actual

congressional action to continue the

authority of that emergency power

depending on what the Supreme Court does

or doesn't do. I think it is going to

catalyze a legislative push and the

Republicans are likely not going to

embrace it this presidency or this term

because President Trump is in office.

But I think the conversation that some,

you know, out of the box Republicans

like Senator Paul and others are saying

is, well, what's going to happen next

time? What's going to happen when

there's a Democrat president and we

don't

>> AOC is going to emergency powers to do

something you might not like, right? Is

that your point?

>> Yeah. And so as it relates to both the

AIPA of 1977, which is the act that this

case is about, but also the National

Emergencies Act of 1976, should they go

back and pass a new law that basically

forces the president to have to get

congressional approval for any emergency

to last longer than 30 days? So I do

think that's going to be the big debate

that's going to come out of this. As it

relates to the tariff revenue, I am most

worried about the fact that we use the

tariff revenue, as I said before, to

offset spending and basically keep a

baseline of spending without actually

getting ourselves to that deficit

target. Right now, we are going to

vaporize and create debt of $2 trillion

this fiscal year. So, we're using the

the tariff revenue under the CDO scoring

to basically say, "Hey, we can do these

tax cuts because it's offset." But the

goal shouldn't be to offset. The goal

should be to get cuts to actually reduce

the deficit. And so, that's the biggest

concern I have with respect to the

tariffs long term is it's now a new

revenue source that we don't actually

treat as incremental to reduce deficit.

We just use it as a way to introduce new

spending or continue spending. Sachs,

just to um you know talk about the three

branches of government, wouldn't it also

be an option for the president just to

go to Congress with some of these

tariffs and say, "Hey, can I get these

approved?" Would that be the worst thing

in the world? Wouldn't they vote for it?

>> I mean, but yeah, things take time. Do

you have concerns that President AOC

might do some things with executive

powers that the Republican party might

be opposed to if she winds up winning in

2028? That's an important question, Sax,

is if AOCC's president and then she uses

her emergency authorization to do things

that you disagree with, wouldn't the

Republicans then feel regret that they

didn't pass one of these acts that

limits emergency authorization and

power?

>> Well, look, I I think that in general,

when you have a policy that you want to

last for a long time, the best thing to

do is to codify it into law because

executive orders obviously only last

until the next president decides they

don't want them anymore. So yeah, it may

make sense after the administration

hopefully wins its case to seek to

codify these things into law. We have a

few years to do that, but I don't think

it makes sense to wait for Congress to

act because they may never act. And in

fact, it was President Trump who shifted

the whole debate on this topic. I mean,

the whole establishment of both the

Republican and Democrat parties were

very against tariffs and it's pretty

obvious that nothing would have happened

on this issue and he's completely moved

the debate. So, this is just one where I

think he's acted unilaterally because he

had to. But I think that once these

tariffs are in place for a few years, I

don't think they're going to get pulled

back by a future president because I

think they're going to

>> it's too much money

>> become quite popular.

>> It's too much money.

>> Okay. In the other cases, two more lower

courts have ruled against Trump. One

said the deployment of the Marines and

the National Guard were illegal. One

said he can't freeze research funds for

Harvard. So, again, back to moving fast

and breaking things.

These cases are making their way through

the courts and there has been some

resistance

to sending in the National Guard which

is something there's been a bit of saber

rattling chimoth about maybe going into

Chicago next. What are your thoughts on

the National Guard issue?

>> They should look here's the thing. Who

is against safety and security?

Who

and why? I don't understand. So if you

can't do your job, look, you have to

remember Jason, let's take where we live

in California, where you used to live.

>> Yep. Not anymore.

>> 13% of our income goes towards state

coffers

and then we pay real estate taxes and

all of the stuff that goes to local

municipalities. What are you doing with

that money if you're not making the

places we live safe? And then the second

thing would be making the schools good.

And so if you can't do it, if you can't

do it, of course somebody else should

step in. And frankly, what I have heard

consistently is even though the talking

point has to be, "Oh my god, woe is me.

We can do the job." Everybody behind the

scenes like, "Oh, thank God they're

here." Anybody who is being impacted by

crime would like to see the National

Guard come in and remove encampments or

drug dealers or get drugs off the

streets. Saxs, you know, you're a um my

perception would be that you think that

there should be separations between the

executive branch and uh maybe the states

and that this rule breaking of sending

in the national guard that would go

against the rules of the sovereignty of

the states. So, putting aside Chamat's

point, which is completely valid, that

they haven't done a good job here and it

it is illegal as the judges are pointing

out, do you have concerns about that?

>> Okay. Well, first of all, I reject this

characterization that it's the Trump

administration that's moved fast and

breaking things. If you recall

>> fast, let's just say moving fast.

>> Well, I think the president is taking

swift executive actions that are

popular. And you see this actually in

his poll ratings. He got the highest

approval rating he's ever had just in

the last week. And a big part of it is

because of the reduction in crime in DC.

I think he got to 55% approval on poll

rating. And even in DC, by the way, the

mayor and her staff have said all sorts

of positive things about the help

they've received now from the National

Guard and from the federal government.

And the citizens are extremely happy.

Crime is down. I think we had the first

two weeks where there was no murders in

the capital in a long time. The

residents are very happy. So, this is

definitely working. Now, with respect to

California, let me just point out that

the National Guard wasn't called in

specifically to enforce laws on the

street. What happened was that you had

ICE and Homeland Security agents and

workers were doing their job and they

were conducting some deportations and

then you had protests turn into riots

and those protesters were threatening to

burn down their headquarters and that's

why the National Guard had to be sent

in. So, it wasn't the Trump

administration breaking things. It was

riers who were breaking things. I can't

understand for the life of me why the

administration wouldn't be able to send

in the National Guard to protect federal

workers against riers, but apparently

that's the case. So, look, I think the

court reached a very specific decision

about what happened in California. We

still haven't had a case adjudicating

the question of whether the proposed

interventions in in these blue states to

clean up crime will be allowed over the

objections of Democrat governors. We

don't know.

>> I think it's pretty clear that the DC

intervention will be allowed and it's

extremely popular. And look,

>> the DC one he's legally allowed to do.

So yeah, he's got he's got his what was

it? A 30-day mandate. He can take it

over. And so here's your popularity from

the economist. It is ticking up, but um

Trump uh and the country still seems

pretty divided. 41% approved, 55%

disapproved, 3% unsure, but he has moved

up significantly in the last week.

Today, some big news came out Friday

with the uh soft jobs report. Pretty

much bad across the board. Jobs came in

super light, 22,000 added versus 75,000

expected. Most of the gains came from

part-time jobs. US lost 357 full-time

jobs while gaining 597,000 part-time

jobs last month. And uh this is after a

bunch of revisions. You guys remember we

talked about here a couple of times with

these revisions. And we'll show up some

uh charts with long-term revisions. July

revised up slightly by 6K, 73,000 to 79.

In June was revised down significantly.

Remember that impacted the market by

27,000. This makes June the first month

with a net loss of jobs since July of

2021.

So there's an account on XCOV letter and

they did this uh revisions chart. It's

pretty crazy as you can see.

May and June revisions were in the six

figures and they're constantly revising

these down it seems. All right. Uh free

break had some internet connectivity

issues apparently. But Shimoth, let's

talk about the revisions here and the

softness in the job market concerning.

Did maybe the Fed take too long to uh

get towards cuts in September? Uh what

what is what's your read on this and the

endless revisions?

>> Look, I think that I've said this yes

last week, I think, right? So I'll just

say it again this week. You can't run

the most sophisticated economy in the

world if you have data that is

completely unreliable in either

direction.

>> And so the problem with this jobs report

is there are already two competing

versions of the truth.

One group of people are trying to paint

the jobs report as

everything is working. There's nothing

to see here. Another group of people are

saying, "Oh, well, hold on. there's a

birth stats number where if you extract

that out the jobs numbers is actually

negative.

I don't know

which one is actually better in terms of

where we want to be right now going into

a rate cut cycle. So my general

commentary is the following. The BLS

and their approach is incredibly

brittle.

It doesn't work.

I think commerce has taken the first

right step which is to start publishing

useful economic data into the

blockchain.

I think we need to figure out a way and

this is where Congress should get their

act together and pass an incentive or a

requirement for certain parts of the

critical economic infrastructure of

America to report their data in an

anonymized way into a broad set of

blockchains.

And the reason is that you will have

very astute and precise pricing oracles

help distill that information. So if

you're ADP, if you're American Express,

if you're Stripe, there's an imperative

now for you to contribute the

information you have into a broad

collection of information so that we

have an accurate sense of what the hell

is actually going on. Because I can't

react to this number because I don't

know how it's going to change. It could

literally swing by 200,000 in either

direction. Jason,

>> this is a I think a really good point.

Here's some research. I had my uh put

one of my researchers at launch on this.

Here's 2021

and the initial reading first revision

and we did this for the year sach. So,

as you can see in 2021, they missed it

by 1.9 million uh which was about 15%.

2022 they miraculously nailed it. 2023

they were off by 10%. 2024 it looks like

they were off again by 10%. All this is

revising down by the way. in the first

half of this year. Let me just finish

the chart.

>> First half of this year,

>> initial reading 985, first revision 732,

second revision 497. So they were off by

50% so far this year alone.

This chart is itself inaccurate. The

table is

>> and and it's because it's coming from

the same people that measured. So you're

asking the people that measured to grade

themselves and I suspect that the answer

is actually much worse than all of this.

Now, what is the implication of it? The

implication of it is if you take the

most positive view possible, it's that

the people that then control the levers

of the economy don't actually have

accurate data. So, they'll be hesitant

to act until the data is overwhelming.

The most important lens of that will be

the Fed and what they do with rates. And

so, everybody's like, "Oh, wow. There's

a 99% chance of a 25 basis point cut."

That may be wildly wildly wildly

conservative in terms of the the total

amount that they need to be thinking

about and how they should phase that in.

But how would I actually prove that to

you? I can point to a whole litany of

private data,

>> but the problem is the federal actors

use public data and this data is not

useful.

And I think that when you get private

data into your hands, which I know that

other folks have, hedge funds, banks,

the White House, what they see is

different

than what the Fed sees. So what I would

tell you from this jobs report is it's

going to start again this clamor of what

is your plan?

>> Clapping is not a strategy. So a 25

basis point cut to a $32 trillion

economy is not a strategy. And I think

that the reason they don't know what to

do exactly is because they have

extremely faulty data. Again, this is

not I'm I'm not taking a position on

this or framing it as if I'm taking a

position. I'm just reporting the data

here as they've reported it. So I'm I'm

just doing that here just to be clear

here that I'm not endorsing any side of

this. I'm an independent. I'm a

moderate. I'm just giving you the data

as it stands. Here's the Fred chart just

so we can zoom out and see unemployment

since the 50s. We're still at historic

lows and there's a slight uptick 4.3%

which is the highest unemployment since

2021 but it's absurdly low historically.

So even we're looking historically sachs

we're still at very low but do you have

concerns that the economy could be

slowing and that we could have a jobs

issue? That I guess is the question that

is filling the airwaves on CNBC and that

everybody's talking about in group

chats. Are we uh maybe didn't make the

Fed cuts in time for what clearly is

some amount of slowing? Now, we could

argue over if they're getting the data

right or not. The Fed says they look at

all data, not just this data. They say

they look at the private data as well.

But what are your thoughts here, Sachs?

>> Well, we had 22,000 jobs added in

August. And yet, while the number of

jobs went up, unemployment rose, like

you said, from 4.2 to 4.3%.

Which is a little bit of a

contradiction, but that happened because

more people started looking for jobs.

>> Yeah.

>> But there are huge error bars around

this data. Like Jamal said, I mean, like

you showed, there's roughly 50%

revisions to all of this data over time

over the course of a year. So, we don't

really have great visibility in what's

going on. And that's why you see such

huge disparities in how people are

interpreting this data. So if you want

to look at some of the people who are

pessimistic, you've got coobe letter,

but they're pessimistic about

everything. You've got Moody's economist

Mark Xandandy. He says we're on the

precipice of a recession and he has a

bunch of reasons why. But then if you

look at Poly Market, people on Poly

Market are strongly betting against a

recession this year. I think the number

is at about 8%. So, it appears that most

people still feel like the economy is

doing well. And remember, we just had a

3.3%

GDP growth rate for Q2. So, I I'd be

surprised if if there's a recession. I

think there's a lot of factors against

it. I guess I would also note that if

there's any weakness in the job numbers,

it's coming from foreignb born workers

more than native born workers. Around 2

million more Americanborn workers have

jobs in 2025 so far. And I think

meanwhile about a million foreignb born

workers roughly have lost jobs. So the

net increase is about a million. But

what you're seeing is a repatriation in

a way of jobs within the economy. The

other thing that's happening is a

reprivatization of the economy. So in

August the federal government shed about

15,000 jobs and there's been 100,000

federal jobs lost over the course of the

whole year. So that makes the overall

numbers look worse than they are. But I

a lot of us would argue that having

fewer federal workers is a good thing

for the economy. So you've got those

factors. Then you've got blue collar

real wages are rising the second fastest

in history. You had 3.7% wage growth

this year versus 2.7% average inflation.

So you have a net 1% wage growth during

most of the Biden presidency. It was

negative.

And then I would also point to I think

several factors which would make me

optimistic about the economy moving

ahead. You've had massive investment in

the US by both private companies and

foreign governments. You know, according

to these new trade deals, I think

roughly $8 trillion of new investment.

You've got this AI boom you're seeing.

>> And that's going to land over the next

year, right? That hasn't actually been

dumped in. So we should see that in

2027,

maybe late 2026. Yeah.

>> Yeah. This is the outlook for 2026 and

beyond. I mean, this would be the bull

case is number one, $8 trillion of of

new investment in the US economy by

private companies and by foreign

governments. Number two, the AI boom.

You've got this massive buildout of data

centers and AI infrastructure underway.

And that includes energy and the

manufacturing sectors are going to boom

alongside tech. Number three, this has

been the most affordable summer at the

pump since 2021,

and low gas prices don't seem to be

going anywhere anytime soon. So, lowest

gas prices since 2021. Number four, you

have these huge new tax incentives for

business expansion. You've got the

accelerated depreciation on equipment

purchases, on R&D. I think those are

going to kick in once the big beautiful

bill goes into effect. And then the last

thing I would say is that interest rate

cuts are coming. I would say that now in

light of the latest jobs report, Pal

should really cut 50 basis points. I

doubt he will in September 25.

>> Yeah, I doubt he will. It's probably be

25 and then hopefully another 25. But I

think you can make the case that they

should do 50 now and then 25 after that.

But regardless of what it is, I think

that most people think interest rates

are coming and that's going to juice the

economy and further improve our fiscal

position. So look for 26, I think

there's a lot of bullish factors here.

All right, just before we wrap here,

Google, uh, as we know, was found liable

in this antitrust case, but the

sanctions seem to not be as harsh as

people thought they would be. Judge Meta

rejected the request that Google have to

spin off Chrome, Android,

and pointed out that Google is uh having

massive competition. So we had four

years of Lena Khan, you know, in these

aggressive cases. There were there were

tactical things we talked about here

like uh dark patterns, etc. that we all

agreed with. I think there was consensus

there, but this one we found a little

confusing because gosh, Google's under

so much pressure. What are your thoughts

on I thought this was

>> excellent.

>> Unpack it all. Essentially, the crux of

the ruling was look, there are some

restrictions that Google has to live by.

don't get me wrong, but the most

punitive remedies that were suggested

were thrown out. And the reason they

were thrown out was because the judge

very eloquently cited competition in a

fair and free and open market. And that

is incredibly refreshing because the

real question is would this judge have

had the wherewithal and the courage to

actually be able to rule this way

a few years ago when there would have

been an enormous amount of political

pressure. They probably would have found

a way to to run this case in a in a

different place etc etc. But now what

you saw was just very simple logic

intervene. And at the core of it was,

you know, when we started this lawsuit,

things like OpenAI and Chat GPT didn't

exist. And when you fast forward, it's

incredibly fastm moving. We are

reallocating hundreds of millions or

billions of users intentions. As a

byproduct, we're reallocating tens of

maybe hundreds of billions of dollars of

revenue. And so the judge said the most

severe remedies aren't necessary because

the free market is doing its job.

>> Yes.

>> So I I just think that's incredibly

refreshing because we forget

>> that if the market is left to deal with

these issues on its own, they do a very

good job of cleaning things up. And it's

because as you said earlier, Jason,

consumers want creative destruction.

They want the next best thing. They want

to be

>> better prices better services. It's it

happens by the free market. They're

willing they're willing to reward better

companies and better products. So I

think the the great news for Google is

that this takes an enormous

risk off the table. And now I think that

they probably have even more

ambition and energy to just go for it

and try to compete because they're not

going to be worried about everybody on

the outside and probably some percentage

of employees on the inside who are

always trying to slow things down.

>> Yeah. and and it out correctly and I'll

let you comment on this Sachs is that

they did get some tactical,

>> you know, penalties here. Uh, and they

make sense doing deals that are

exclusive when you are a Monopoly

player, like getting Firefox and Apple

to only do an exclusive deal with you.

They're not going to be allowed to do

that. And man, that would change the

game on the field if somebody like

Duck.Go or Bing or a new entrant,

Proplexity, whoever who's doing search

would be able to say to Apple, we will

outbid Google for 10% of the searches.

We'd like to buy 5% of the searches from

the Safari browser going to Firefox and

saying, "Hey, we'd like to one up and

we'd like some percentage of that." So,

that seemed like a good part of the

ruling. Your thoughts overall about

this? So on this podcast, I think it was

two or three years ago when this case

first came up. I think I took the

position that Google Street broken up

into two or three companies because I

thought it was this invulnerable

monopoly and I don't think monopolies

are great for the SAR ecosystem. And

what I mean by that is they had the

Google search monopoly and that YouTube

business which is basically a monopoly

and so forth and so on. So, I I was in

favor of breaking this up, but I've got

to admit I was wrong about that for the

reasons that the judge said, which is

Google for the first time in a long

while, is existentially threatened by

what's happened with AI. I mean, their

cash cow, the core of their business is

search, and people are starting to

substitute in droves from traditional

Google search, which they own, or

keyword search, where they have this

monopoly or dominant share to AI. And if

you look at AI revenue, I think

something like 90% of it is going to

open AI. I mean, they have the dominant

position among consumers

>> for now for now. And there's, let's say,

five major AI companies that are hot on

their heels and very competitive

>> and performing equally if not better on

performance benchmarks. So the point is

just I think everyone can now see that

the search business is either going away

or transforming into something else

which is it's basically merging with the

it's called AI chatbot business.

>> It's an answers business now. It's not a

like give me links. It's just give me

the damn answer,

>> right? And we've been talking about this

for a while where it's so obvious that

having AI just give you the answer is

better than 20 blue links. especially as

the quality improves and it gets better

at synthesizing those 20 blue links into

the exact right answer and the speed

improves. One of the things that

Google's really good at is just fast

responses. You they've always shown you

in milliseconds how long it takes to

give you the search result. And

obviously if you're looking for

something quick and an AI chatbot's

going to take 30 seconds, you're going

to go with Google. But that's going to

get better, too. So I think Google is

kind of in the fight of its life right

now. And I think this is why Sergey's

come back. You know, we saw him at the

>> at the dinner at the White House

yesterday and he said he's very involved

in Google Deep Mind.

>> He's going to the office all the time.

Yeah.

>> Right. And so you're seeing that founder

involvement again because they know that

they've got a real existential threat to

their business. And this is the argument

that opponents of strong antitrust

enforcement have always made, which is

that the free market will eventually

break up, even the strongest monopolies,

if you just give it the chance to do it.

And that's what appears to be in motion

right now. By the way, I'm not saying

that Google's going to get destroyed.

I'm not saying it's going away. I'm just

saying that they have to pivot here in a

big way. their business is being

disrupted and they suddenly have

competition I think in their core

business like they've never had before.

So I do think that we don't need to

bring the hammer down on them in the

same way that maybe we did a few years

ago. I still would not let them pursue

anti-competitive tactics against say

applications in the Android store where

they basically have a duopoly. So I'm

not saying I would let them do anything

but I certainly agree with this judge

that we don't need to break up that

company right now.

>> Yeah. Yeah. And there's there's rules in

the field that need to be adjudicated.

So having a very simple approach with

the FTC of saying, "Hey, these exclusive

deals when you have 90% market share,

that's not allowable. But you can

compete and you can fight versus the

five new entrance and uh have at it and

and give consumers a better product at a

cheaper price." That's really the goal

of the FTC is to to have some basic

rules of the field. We saw it in the

media business as well. We spend a

decade or two trying to fight the

consolidation of media companies and

then Netflix has trounced them all and

YouTube as well in terms of viewership.

Netflix and YouTube are crushing the

cable monopolies that we spend all this

time trying to regulate. All right

everybody, there's your episode. We have

to get back to work and get to Los

Angeles for the amazing fourth edition

of the Allin Summit. It's going to be

amazing and all the great content

including some surprise speakers that'll

be released over the next week or two

after the event. So, you're going to get

massive amounts of content. Make sure

you go to the YouTube channel,

subscribe, and click that bell so you

get alerts. Go to allin.com, put your

email in. We'll invite you to more

events. Chamath and I might be doing

something in the poker space. That could

be a lot of fun. My guy TK and I, we

might be doing a little back gammon uh

tournament. All right, everybody. Thanks

for tuning in to the All-In podcast.

We're finished. Bye-bye, besties. Love

you. Love you guys.

>> Let your winners ride.

[Music]

>> We open sourced it to the fans and

they've just gone crazy with it. Love

you.

[Music]

>> Besties are gone.

>> That is my dog taking a notice in your

driveway.

>> Oh man, my dasher will meet.

>> We should all just get a room and just

have like one big huge orgy cuz they're

all just useless. It's like this like

sexual tension that they just need to

release somehow.

Wet your feet.

>> We need to get merch.

[Music]

>> I'm going all in.