All right, everybody. Welcome back to

the number one podcast in the world, the

All-In podcast with me again, the core

four, the original quartet, David Sacks,

David Friedberg, Chamath Palihapitiya,

I'm Jason Calacanis, and we have a very

full docket today. All right, topic one,

gentlemen, AI acceleration. It was a big

week for AI.

New study published on Monday, February

9th in the HBR, Harvard Business Review,

suggesting that AI tools intensify work

but do not reduce it. Two UC Berkeley

researchers spent eight months embedded

at a 200-person tech company. So, this

is one company's experience. What they

found, employees who use AI worked at a

faster pace, took a broader scope of

tasks, and extended work into more hours

of the day. Workers reported feeling

more productive, but they also felt a

little more stress and burnout. Sacks,

your your hot take here, your quick take

on this study. Obviously, it's just a

one company, but it does track, I think,

some of my experiences.

All right. Well, a few points here.

Number one,

as you may recall on the prediction show

for this year, my most contrarian belief

is that AI would increase demand for

knowledge workers, not put them out of

business. And I think you see in this UC

Berkeley study the reason why that might

be the case is because the employees who

use these tools, like you said, they

worked faster, they took on a broader

scope of tasks, they actually ended up

working more hours in the day, so they

did more work, not less, and even more

effort rather than less, not because

they were required to, but just because

they were more motivated. And I think

they were more motivated because their

work was getting up-leveled, right?

They're kind of able to offload uh more

medial tasks to AI, and it made their

work more purposeful and meaningful. So,

I think we're kind of moving from what

some people I think maybe Jensen has

called um task-based jobs to

purpose-based jobs. And I think a key

skill of employees is going to be the

ability to structure work for themselves

and their AI agents. And the employees

who can do that are going to be far more

productive than those who can't.

That kind of brings me to point number

two, which is that I think there's a

tremendous opportunity this year for

employees who are early adopters of

these tools or you know, so-called AI

natives to demonstrate their value to

their employers.

They're going to be able to get a lot

more done. They're going to appear to

have superpowers. They're going to be

the people in meetings who can take an

assignment that would have taken days

before and get it done in two hours.

Whether it's a presentation or a

spreadsheet, people are going to be

shocked at how quickly they can get

these things done because they're going

to be fast out at working with AI. So, I

think there's a big opportunity there.

And there was an article that went viral

this week by Matt Schumer called

something big is happening where he

talked about this career opportunity

that's going to be available to kind of

AI early adopters. And I think that

brings me to my third point, which is I

think that you're going to see massive

enterprise adoption of AI, not just

chatbots, but agents this year. But I

think it's going to be driven by the

bottom up. It's going to be driven by

these early adopter employees coming in

to their workplaces, bringing in these

kind of consumerized AI tools, start

using them at work as opposed to

top-down initiatives. I think there's a

lot of top-down company transformation

initiatives that are happening in large

enterprises where the CEO has tasked a

team with figuring out how to use AI,

how to transform their business with AI.

Those initiatives are going to take

months. They're going to be studying

what tools they should use. They're

going to be doing RFPs. And I think it's

ultimately going to be very slow. And

while those things are trudging along, I

think there's going to be these early

adopter employees who just make the

transformation a fait accompli by again

bringing these tools into their

workplace in the bottom up. So, I think

in the same way that you saw

consumerized SaaS tools spread from the

bottom up in enterprises, I think you're

going to see consumerized AI tools

spread from the bottom up in

enterprises. And I think it'll

ultimately be one of the big themes this

year. Couldn't concur or agree more.

Nick throw up that tweet I did. I I did

a tweet and it got 2 million views.

Basically, I said, "Listen, if you got

laid off by Amazon or Microsoft over the

last two years, just learn open claw and

automate your previous job. Show you

know how to use these tools. Go back to

your boss and say, 'Hey, I want to come

back and automate everything.' Or go to

startups. Every startup I know is hiring

for this position, which is somebody who

knows how to build and manage agents.

There is no

job wreck for this yet or a title. We

should come up with what this person

does, but it it used to be called prompt

engineer. It's no longer just prompt

engineering. It's managing and educating

and offloading work to an agent and then

making sure they're actually doing it.

And right now it feels like the people

in my organization, I have four of them

who are focused on this out of 20. I

would say that their leverage is between

10 and 20 X the other 16. So, now I'm

going down the slope of employees from,

you know, most technical,

you know, to least and trying to get

each one of them to adopt and create an

agent for them. We'll pro- It's still

probably take 6 months, but when we do,

I think our leverage versus a competing

firm is going to be 10 X. As an example

in the podcasting space, X, we now have

it going through podcasts looking for

the best moments or you can just give it

a moment and it will clip the clip for

you and put it in the Google Drive. So,

imagine we're all in, I don't know, our

little group chat and you said, "Oh,

from the last episode, can you get me a

clip of minute three to minute six?" And

then it's just on your iPhone. It's just

in the group chat. Boom.

Nobody has to go find it. It just clips

it. That's the kind of work it's doing.

And then we have it looking at our

YouTube stats, we have it looking at our

Instagram or TikTok stats, and then

trying to tell us which clips are going

the most viral, which ones have the most

comments, and then giving us strategies

to how to make them go more viral. It's

really weird because it's coming up with

really great suggestions and taking

eliminating all the reporting work that

knowledge workers do. Chamath, do you

have a take on this? I know you've

deployed the software factory, which is,

I think, uh

you know, aligned with obviously this

revolution happening in real time. Last

couple of weeks have been pretty big

with Claude Opus 4.6 coming out, uh

ChatGPT Codex coming out, lot of

advances, and obviously the open Claude

revolution that I've now done seven

podcasts on in a row.

What are your thoughts, Chamath?

I think there are two open questions

that I find really interesting

right now. The first question

is, I tweeted that this morning, but is

on-prem the new cloud?

Which is weird to think that that could

even be possible, but we've spent since

2008

migrating everything to cloud because

there were these economies of scale, and

it created better margin and lower OpEx

and lower CapEx because you could

essentially share infrastructure with

other companies, and that's how

AWS and GCP have built such gargantuan

businesses.

The counterpoint to that though is that

in the AI revolution, companies I

suspect will be fighting for their

lives.

And I think it's very much unclear

whether it makes sense for a company to

allow the natural leakage

of their edge and their confidential and

proprietary information out into the

wild

versus the control that they would get

if they ran on-prem. That's a really

important question. What do I mean by

all that?

Once you use these tools, it is is

difficult for a company to be able to

control how their data

is used subsequently thereafter.

Meaning,

if I give you Jason a PDF of some really

important strategy document or a

PowerPoint deck or a really critical

model,

and you're interrogating it with one of

these models,

if you're just using

Chat GPT, the main line instance of it,

you're leaking all of that prompt and

response metadata back to Chat GPT.

Back to Gemini. Back to Claude.

And there's nothing a company can do

about that.

If you're using a set of agents to act

on all that information, all those agent

traces

are going back to these model builders.

That may or may not be a problem for

some, but I suspect it is a deep problem

for others and they just haven't

uncovered it yet. When they realize that

that is a problem,

the enterprise will have to decide, do I

just give up

and keep running all of this stuff in

the cloud in the shared experience, or

do I bear the incremental cost

of running this stuff

in a more coordinated manner that I

control on prem? And that would be a

crazy shift just to completely go back

to where we were 20 and 30 years ago.

That's a not so obvious thing that may

happen. So, that's number one.

And then number two,

I also tweeted this, there was this

really interesting ruling

around what happens inside these cloud

environments, which was

a judge saying there is no attorney

client privilege and confirming that

once you start to use those tools,

all of that stuff is complete public

domain material. If you put these two

things together, it creates a very

interesting set of questions for

enterprises. You will need AI to

survive.

But if you use the tools as they exist

today at a public endpoint,

you will give up all control,

all security, all confidentiality that

you today have. And the ability to

follow through and control what your

employees do with it. The only solution

is to have the pendulum swing all the

way back and have private provision

networks, which

increases cost, but then if you save a

bunch of money because of AI,

maybe it all balances out. That is the

big question that I'm wrestling with

right now. Good insights there. And I

have some thoughts on the

on-prem, because I'm actually doing it

right now. Freeberg, your thoughts on

this moment in time when we have people

saying it's happening faster and it's

become recursive. Recursive, obviously

fancy word for those in the audience who

haven't heard it before, just these

models and these agents can go out and

improve their own work. So, after they

do some work or a job for you, you can

have another agent say, "Hey, here's how

to do it better." Or go learn these new

skills, go use this skill last 30 days

to go find

the last 7 days or 30 days of best

practices with this tool and make

yourself better. And do that every night

at 1:00 a.m. What are your thoughts,

Freeberg, on the moment in time we are

in right now? Well, I think the thinking

historically was that it was going to be

about recursive model development, where

we were going to

continuously improve the actual model.

And we were waiting for a context window

where you could feed the model

back to itself. You're effectively

retraining the model continuously.

And it may be the case that the output

is what's recursive. And that turns out

is having the effect that everyone was

waiting for. So, it's kind of a

surprise. I saw a lot of computer

scientists that have worked in AI for

some time, I think be a little bit

surprised about this moment that we're

in, that we're seeing such incredible

strides in model performance just by

making the output recursive. So, let's

see how far it goes. Are you still

obsessed with Open Claw, Jcal?

I am.

We have now seen that every week 5 to

10% of the work we're doing inside of

our venture firm is being moved over to

Open Claw. We call them replicants. You

can think of them as personas. So, we

now have three or four of these. Uh we

give them a notion account, a Slack

account,

and we give them a Google Docs account.

They have their own email. And

I think all of this technology was here

all along. It was really or maybe for

the last 6 months, let's say. Really

good models out there, but no company

would give the keys to the kingdom

to allow these agents to actually act on

your behalf. Why? Because they don't

want to be responsible if it ships your

Bitcoin keys or your passwords to

somebody else. So, in order to use

these, you have to trust them. And if

you trust them, and then you are

monitoring them,

the results are

unbelievable.

We uh have also, to your point, Chamath,

fired up Mac Studios. We have Kimmy on

them.

We are moving all of the work onto

these. And then, they'll use Kimmy for

most of their easy jobs, which is free.

Then, they will use Claude 4.6 Opus to

orchestrate things. We also, now that we

have four of them, Friedberg,

we've created Open Claw Ultron, which is

one

meta

replicant that is managing the other

four.

And it checks their work. It talks to

them all day long about what they're

doing, and then summarizes it. And we're

building skills into each one of these.

So, one of the skills is like doing deep

research. One of the skills is being

able to go into our sales database,

which is in Pipedrive. The gains we're

getting, I was able to go through

everything my Athena assistant was

doing, and I was able to take about and

I You know, Chamath, you have an Athena

assistant, too. I was able to take maybe

30% of the Athena assistant's work and

give it to the replicant. That let the

Athena assistant work on higher-level

stuff.

I would say on the average investment

team individual, we now have probably

20% of their work being done by agents

in real time. And the best part about it

is they don't forget to do work. They

don't make mistakes. So once you put

this in,

you don't need to have checklists. They

just do it perfectly every single time.

Crazy.

>> And It's crazy.

It's nuts, Chamath. So now I'm building

and I've been talking to Benioff a lot

cuz he's got Slack bot.

Claude's got Coda. But none of them have

the keys to the kingdom. So what I'm

doing is I'm upgrading to the enterprise

version of Slack, Chamath. You're I

think probably your number two

investment in your career. What an

amazing investment that was. Um

It's number four.

Number four. Okay, listen.

Keep grinding. Top five investment for

you.

I'm upgrading to the highest level and

I'm ingesting every single Slack message

and then I'm upgrading and giving the

API key for every single email in our

organization to Altron. They will know

everything going on in the organization.

It is mind-blowing how fast this is

going. And then finally, just a plug,

I'm investing in

10 startups in open claw space, 125k

each to come to the accelerator. If

you're doing work on this open claw at

launch.co, email me what you're doing

cuz we want to invest in in at least a

10 or 20 of these companies right now.

Uh this is the 100% focus of our firm.

It is insane.

When do you guys think enterprises have

a huge freak out

around all of this and say, "Wow, we're

leaking all of our most important

information out into the wild." But

Sachs, to your point, the industrious

person trying to get ahead all of a

sudden is using an open endpoint

to like make a deck better and somehow

all of that stuff is out in the wild.

They find out. People are going to have

a freak out moment here soon.

I think there's a big opportunity to

take something like open claw and make

it enterprise grade and secure and all

that kind of stuff. One of my partners

at Craft actually created a new tool

called Lobster Tank

which is a version of open claw that's

got some enterprise security wrapped

around it.

>> what I mean. On prem is back. It's going

to happen. It's going to happen. It's

cost savings plus do I want to give all

of the secrets in our organization,

every piece of intellectual property to

Sam Altman who's got to make a billion

dollars a year to keep up with his

spend, right? He's going to build every

application. Let's not make it about

Sam. Do I, if I'm Geico,

want to have

all of my actuaries

using all of our private and

confidential data on risk pricing in an

open instance of an LLM? The answer is

no. That's obvious.

Yeah. So now the question is how do you

adapt to that? How do you actually

generate tokens in that kind of a

situation? How do you reason in that

kind of a situation? That is a very

expensive technical problem. It's not

necessarily complicated, but it is

technical. That will bloat the op-ex

because you're going back

to a place that you had said didn't make

sense anymore. It felt very antiquated

if you ever heard a company was on prem.

But AI may be the reason where you can't

afford to be not on prem.

Yeah, and it's it's going to be on your

desktop, too, because

one of the solutions to this is just

giving each employee

a really powerful

desktop that is capable of running a

local large language model, which right

now takes a Mac Studio with 512 gig or

or daisy chaining

two of them. And

>> I think that's what people are doing.

Remember these VAX terminals? I think

that you could actually see a resurgence

of that idea. So you have a centralized

computer and you have a bunch of dumb

terminals. Yep. And you have a CLI and

so you can interact with it that way,

but again, it keeps everything inside

the But you could also fire up You could

also fire up your own instance in the

cloud and just run it.

>> Too expensive at scale. Like for

example, 80 90 is a top 20 customer of

Bedrock.

It's too expensive. Already as it is

because of all this overhead. Because of

their margin.

Because of all the nonsense that's

inside of AWS that you have to pay for

in order to just get access to bare

metal. So then you go to CoreWeave.

Okay, fine. But what does CoreWeave tell

you? They're an excellent business. A,

it's all training. B, you have this

situation where too much of what you

have has to be guaranteed into the

future because for them it makes no

sense to price it on spot.

And if you buy on spot, you just get

these surges you can't deal with it. So

there is no solution today that makes

any sense.

It's absolutely correct, Chamath. I'll

just put some numbers behind it briefly.

We, with our agents, hit $300 a day per

agent

using the cloud API like instantly. And

that was like doing maybe 10 or 20%.

That's a hundred thousand a year per

agent. We're getting to a place where we

have to basically now say what is the

token budget that we're willing to give

our best devs.

And then if you aggregate it across all

people, you can clearly see a trend

where you're like, well, hold on a

second. Now they need to be at least 2x

as productive as another employee. That

is actively happening inside my business

because otherwise I'll run out of money.

Yeah, this is a very interesting trend

that I you you're not going to hear

anybody else talk about, but when do

tokens

outpace the salary of the employee?

Because you're about to hit it. I'm

about to hit it. I think superstar

developers are already there.

Yeah. I think the rank and file is

probably 10, 20% max. More than likely

they're spending a few thousand.

The average

non-technical employees probably in the

hundreds to low thousands.

But to your point, the trend is what

matters. Yeah. So unless we have some

gigantic leap forward in generating

output tokens at 1/10 the cost of what

they are today, which I suspect we will

have, so

bear with everybody for a while because

I think Nvidia and Grok and Google and

AMD, they're all incentivized to

massively ramp up the the density and

massively push down the token cost.

That's going to happen.

But it doesn't change the trend and it

doesn't change the incentives on

confidentiality. Let's talk about

prediction markets, gentlemen.

They hit critical mass this past weekend

at the Super Bowl. More than a billion

bet on Kalshi, 700 million on

Polymarket, almost $2 billion

in wagering.

The media has been obsessing a bit about

market manipulation, insider trading,

and all these issues

that are totally valid to discuss around

prediction markets, which are something

new in the world

at least at this scale. Two specific

examples from the halftime show.

A day-old anonymous Polymarket account

correctly predicted 17 out of 20

halftime show bets, including the

special appearances by Lady Gaga, Ricky

Martin, but it only profited 17K, a tiny

amount. And then another account created

less than 24 hours before the game

correctly bet on Bad Bunny's set list.

Wall Street Journal this morning with an

article titled Israeli soldiers accused

of using Polymarket to bet on strikes.

Israel arrested several people,

including army reservists, for allegedly

using classified information to place

bets on Israeli military operations.

Quote, the account in question raked in

more than 150,000 in winnings before

going dormant for 6 months. It resumed

trading last month betting on when

Israel would strike Iran, Polymarket

data shows. The name of the account,

Rico Suave 666.

>> Okay, Rico Suave. Rico Suave, the name

of the account, Rico Suave 666. I think

that's also the alias that you were

using in Vegas for a little while there

at your hotel. Rico Suave 666. The

platforms are regulated, of course, by

the CFTC.

But, you know, questions here about

society getting used to this new

platform. Here's Kalshi's CEO

talking about this on CNBC. Let's say

there is a a cameraman happens to be in

the stadium during the rehearsals. You

could argue that would be like somebody

at a at a hotel who sees a rehearsal of

a CEO giving a presentation prior. Those

guys would have normally probably had to

sign NDAs by the company because they

would be worried about these issues. But

in the context of this, they probably

wouldn't.

>> It's either one of two cases. Either

this information can be public

and that's okay.

Or it's an information that cannot be

public beforehand and that's

communicated to the staff, right? The

cameraman or the dancer. The reason why

you don't know what song is going to be

played first is you think that's not

public and not everybody knows

beforehand. It's a little bit of a

surprise at Super Bowl.

>> Yeah, but but it's not non-material it's

not it's not material information that

can't be shared. You're making it that

by putting it on this betting platform,

but they have no obligation to say we're

not going to tell anybody our opening

lineup because there might be money made

on this other place that's now betting

on this. It's not the The responsibility

is not on them.

Brinkberg, your thoughts just broadly on

what I consider society getting used to

these new platforms and what they

represent in the marketplace of ideas.

I think the question is is it really

insider trading

if you and I were making a side bet and

I knew something about you and I had

some edge or some advantage and I made a

bet with you.

Is that fair? Should the government have

a role in regulating that? This kind of

goes back to securities regulation that

everything needs to be registered.

And then there's this concept of insider

information. It's a real challenge and a

real question on

keeping the open platform

of opportunity for trading on anything

while also trying to mitigate the risk

of what people call insider information

in these trades. There's a good chart

that we I think we talked about in our

group chat

that shows the

distribution of accounts. There's a few

accounts that have a huge amount of

money and make almost all the profits

and then a lot of accounts that have

very little amount of money and they get

burned through very quickly. They

actually don't have an edge. So the the

accounts that have a lot of money, they

generally only trade in things where

they have an edge where they make

markets where they actually have an

arbitrage or yeah, sharps and they eat

up all of the the capital. So if you're

a marketplace like this,

you probably also want to be thoughtful

about the fact that over time you could

burn and churn through all of your

customers, all of the users on the

platform if they're constantly going to

be making trades where they simply don't

have an edge and all the capital, all

the liquidity is coming from the

accounts that do have an edge and

effectively trade off of inside

information. So just be that these

things end up eating themselves up. I

don't Chamath, man, we had InTrade, I'm

sure you remember that and I don't know

if that was in the early 2000s. This

idea's been out there, but it has

clicked right now for some reason. Uh

what are your thoughts broadly speaking

on the value of these platforms to

society? Let's define some terms first.

So in betting, there are two kinds of

people. There are the sharps who know

what's actually going to happen with a

better edge

and then there are the squares,

which is everybody else and they are

grist for the mill.

And in a traditional market, like a

sports betting market,

there have been edge cases

where you try to throw a game or throw a

fight or shave points

and the sharps are involved in that,

but it's increasingly harder and harder

to do because the sports leagues

analytically are studying these things

so closely to make sure that that never

happens.

But what you get are people with a

smarter sense of what's going to happen

and people with less of a smart sense of

what's going to happen.

The thing with prediction markets is

it's not just that. There will be those

things,

but then there are going to be these

fundamental markets that are purely

about inside information."

And the question is, what can

a regulatory body or a society do about

that? And I think the answer is not

much. And the reason is is that if you

try to regulate this, it looks like a

securities market.

And I think the problem there is that

these things are too fluid and too

dynamic and too ephemeral for them to be

legislated like a security. And so, why

are these things happening? It's because

there's too many of these prediction

markets that can be manipulated this

way. Somebody knows something that

somebody else doesn't know, and there's

no way to arbitrate that.

This used to exist in the securities

market, too. And this is where now I'm

going to get a lot of people really

upset with me.

In 2000, we introduced the law called

Reg FD. And what was the point of Reg

FD? It was basically that

if you're a CFO, you cannot talk

to an individual stock manager and tell

him something that you then don't tell

everybody else. Essentially, inside

information.

That used to be not illegal. I won't say

that it was legal, I would just say it

that used to be not illegal.

You call your buddy, he says, "Hey, how

you doing?" He goes, "Man, quarter was a

blockbuster."

You would go and buy the stock.

And starting in the 2000s, it became

illegal. And there used to be these

networks of information arbitrage that

that took advantage of this. Now, this

is an example of Warren Buffett's

returns pre and post Reg FD. Now, what

do you see?

His returns were double the market

returns

when this kind of information sharing

was legal.

And the minute that it became illegal

and you had to basically act on the same

edge as everybody else,

his returns went to the market return.

He generated zero alpha. In fact, he

probably on the margins lost a little

bit.

So, this is the single best investor in

the world. This is what happens when you

have information symmetry.

So, it's just meant to explain that

markets thrive when there's asymmetry.

Billions and billions of dollars will be

made in asymmetry. The prediction

markets today, unless they are regulated

out of existence or shut down,

will look like the stock market pre-Reg

FD. And there's nothing we can do except

choose not to bet it. Because otherwise,

what you're going to have are a ton of

sharps taking advantage of a ton of

squares. And I think that's the end

state. Chamath, why is it good or bad

for society that these exist? Do you

have a take on that?

>> There are a certain percentage of these

prediction markets

that are about the well-functioning of

society

and

the use of inside information gets to

the truth faster.

And I think

that has value, especially if it

uncovers corruption or misdeeds.

And so, if people make money along the

way, and that's the incentive that it

takes

for folks to work around what would

otherwise be whistleblower laws or

something else

to get to the truth and get it out there

faster,

that probably benefits society.

Now, there's a bunch of other things

where some people will just set up a

market that they know about and that

they can control that other people

aren't unaware of.

That's not good.

But unfortunately, there's no way to

discern when a prediction market gets

created whether it's A or B.

And so, you have to decide whether it's

more important that you can understand

these current events faster with more

accuracy or not. And I think that's

where this decision has to come to, and

that's what politicians need to decide

and society needs to decide. All right,

we're really excited that we're doing

another event. Yes, a new event from

your friends at All-In. The Besties are

hosting a new conference, uh a retreat,

a summit in

wine country May 31st through June 3rd.

It's called Liquidity. This is for

capital allocators and LPs and GPs.

Chamath, maybe you could talk a little

bit about the vision we have here for

the event.

There are

a handful of conferences that happen

every year where money is made. I'll

give you a couple of examples. All the

top

market traders have been invited to this

thing called Ira Sohn every year

where you go in front of a large

audience,

present your best long or short idea,

and you can be a debt trader, a credit

trader, you can be

an equities trader.

I've done it several times. Ackman has

done it. David Einhorn has done it.

Cliff Robbins has done it. These are

incredible places, and you pay like

$10,000 a ticket, and if you take those

portfolios, they tend to do really well.

Separately, there are conferences that

investment banks organize that are off

the record, not publicly accessible,

where they ask their biggest traders

to come to a room,

and they'll give them each a few minutes

to present their best long and short

ideas of public stocks. Then, there are

these equivalent conferences

that investment banks do for private

companies where the best fast-growing

private companies show up, and the CEOs

get on stage, and they give

presentations.

All of these things have been closed.

I would like to blow that wide open.

So, what will we do?

We will convene

the best

investors

in public markets,

the best hedge fund managers, the best

private market investors, the best

growth investors, the best credit

investors, and

the largest cohort of LPs representing

trillions of dollars of capital,

and the CEOs of the fastest-growing and

most important companies in technology.

And what we will do over the course of a

few days is we'll have some

presentations, we'll have best ideas,

we'll build relationships.

There may be some investments that may

happen as a result of that. We're going

to shut down all of Yountville.

We're going to shut down the French

Laundry. We're going to shut down all of

it and it'll be ours for a two-day

playground where we will build

relationships, allocate capital,

and maybe make some money as a result.

So, you need to apply. We will

make some allocations to some folks that

may not otherwise get in.

We'll make some allocations to emerging

managers who may need to raise capital

and scale up, but can show us good

returns.

And over time we'll find a way to

increase a lot of this and make it more

and more publicly accessible. We have

what we are going to essentially take

all of these things that I've been a

part of that have been in closed rooms,

and we're going to put them together and

open it up.

Yeah, well said. Well said, it's going

to be a wonderful event. Freeberg, uh

anything you're excited about in terms

of the event?

No, I love Yountville. We're going to

Yountville, so I'm looking forward to

that. It's going to be great.

>> I mean, beautiful location and I think

there's going to be ample time for

meetings, networking. J Cal, if you're

an investor, you can go to the website

to allin.com/events

and you can submit your application. We

can't have everybody there and this is

not like a general admission type event.

It is specifically for this group of

people. capital allocators. So, apply at

the website allin.com/events.

It's going to be wonderful and Chamath

is putting his focus on it. I can tell

you because

I brought him my first five ideas and he

was like, "No, no, no. Yes, but better.

Yes. Yes." So, he is engaged and he's

going to make it super tight and tight

>> Judging. I'm I'm being judgy.

Good, I like it. I like it. You know,

all great events, all great art is has

some perspective behind it and we're

excited to have your sharp perspective

behind this one. Liquidity May 31st to

June 3rd. allin.com/events. Okay, let's

move on to our next topic. The new CBO

report is out. Freeberg, you said we are

in a debt death spiral. The

Congressional Budget Office released its

long-term budget forecast on Wednesday,

February 11th. Here are the numbers.

2026

deficit is 1.9 trillion. That's nearly

6% of GDP. Much higher than the 3% GDP

target we heard from uh Scott Bessent on

this podcast. Social Security, talking

about that before, Freeberg. Trust runs

out in 2032.

Uh 1 year earlier than previously

expected. That's obviously going to

trigger all kinds of discussions around

austerity measures that folks will not

like. The debt will now grow from 31

trillion today to 56 trillion in 2036.

So, it is not stopping, folks. We are

looking at an average of 2.5 trillion

per year from 2026 to

2036.

Also,

currently we're at 120% debt to GDP.

House Committee on Budget expects it to

be 135%. So, slightly up in 2036. For

comparison, Japan is 237, Singapore 176,

Venezuela 164. The Greeks 154, UK 94. 20

years ago, our debt to GDP was but 60%.

Here's a direct quote from the report.

The fiscal trajectory is not

sustainable.

Okay.

Doctor Doom.

Pom pom pom. What do you think,

Freeberg? This is your story, your

chance to shine. Well, there's no

outlook to 3% deficit to GDP.

>> [laughter]

>> There is.

And if you look at the assumptions, one

of the key assumptions is that the

short-term interest rate,

which is largely how a lot of the debt

is getting refinanced, is

modeled to be around 3.1%.

But if rates climb closer to 5% as I

mentioned in the past, just using the

current debt levels, it adds another

$650 billion a year of interest expense,

which takes interest expense almost up

to $2 trillion a year, just paying the

interest on the past debt.

And because we're running a deficit,

that new interest expense increases the

debt every year. So, the debt goes up

and up and up just by adding interest on

past debt.

And so, this becomes the debt spiral

that we've kind of

highlighted many times. So, there's

nothing in this report that I think

changes the outlook. It's pretty scary.

Um I'll say that the trigger point that

I'm getting more and more concerned

about, if the Democrats win the midterms

and you end up with a Democrat in the

White House in 2028,

I think that there's a bigger problem at

foot, which is all of

the state

and local obligations. We've talked

about Social Security looks like it's

going to run out of money in a few years

here. And so, they're going to need to

print a lot more money to fund Social

Security obligations.

Uh it's very unlikely they're going to

make a massive cut to Social Security

cuz no one will get elected if they did

that. And no one will get elected if

they promise to do that.

Um and there's a similar problem at the

state and local level, which is that

there's pension obligations. We've

talked about this extensively.

California has nearly a trillion dollars

of unfunded pension obligations

to its public retirees or public

employees that are going to retire.

If you end up with a Democrat-controlled

House and a Democrat president

in 2028, you'll very likely see a

federalization of that obligation,

meaning that the federal government will

step in to bail out or support those

state and local governments

because otherwise, there's going to be a

real kind of economic crisis at foot.

So, when you add that liability coming

to hit this CBO report, which doesn't

include any of that, in the next 5 to 10

years. I think that could be not just

the straw that they breaks the camel's

back, but the concrete that breaks the

camel's back. And that's the thing I'm

most worried about. There is a deep

connection between what's going on with

the socialist movements at a city level

and now increasingly the state level

and what we should expect to happen with

the US dollar

and how it relates to federal spending

and federal deficits and federal debt

and these are going to be dragging each

other into a bad place in the next

couple of years one way or the other.

So, you know, that's kind of what I'm

more worried about at this point. It

seems if it's very hard to cut spending

or get Congress to approve budget cuts

that we need

to save ourselves from this debt death

spiral, imagine how much worse it's

going to be

in the next couple of years if we have

to bail out or federalize state and

local debt and state and local pension

obligations. It's going to be really

nasty. So, that's the thing I worry

about the most Yeah. in my Dr. Dr. Doom

hat. Yeah, and I think that that's one

of the things that no one talks about at

the federal level and everyone ignores

it because they assume it's a state and

local problem.

As we've talked about and I'll bring it

up again and I'll ask my colleague who

works in the administration

to think about this idea that, you know,

if we can find a way to declare

bankruptcy, to restructure the the

fiscal obligations or the the pension

obligations that sit at the state and

local level, we may have a way out. But

short of that, uh that's going to pile

onto this this federal problem.

Sachs, your thoughts on the CBO report

and this uh

death spiral debt death spiral. Well, we

all agree about the problem of federal

spending and the deficit and the debt.

We're all concerned about that. With

respect to the CBO study, however, I'll

just note that one of the key

assumptions here

is that CBO projects that real GDP will

only grow by 2.2%

this year in 2026. That's a very low

assumption given that we grew by over 4%

in Q3 last year and the preliminary

number for Q4 was over 5% and I think

all of our predictions for GDP growth

this year when we did our predictions

episode was 5% plus. So, 2.2% is a

pretty low number and then

they predict that it's going to slow to

1.8%

after 2026. So again, these are very

meager, anemic growth assumptions and if

you believe that all of this CapEx is

being invested in AI infrastructure is

going to have a payoff

then growth rates could be a lot higher

and that ultimately, I think, is the way

to get

out of the debt spiral is we need strong

growth. Without that, we're not going to

get out of this problem. So, look, I

think that if you believe in growth,

then the situation is not quite as dire.

You know, what would I do? Well, I mean,

if I could wave a magic wand

the two key charts you want to look at

are federal net outlays as a percentage

of GDP. This is from Fred, right? And

then you want to look at

federal receipts, which is tax receipts

as a percentage of GDP

and you just don't want those lines to

be more than, call it, 3% apart. I think

that's what Secretary Yellen said is try

to reduce federal deficits to 3% of GDP.

Historically

tax receipts have bounced around 17%

and the federal net outlays have bounced

around 20%. So, if you get back to that,

we'd be in pretty good shape. And we

were. Before COVID our federal net

outlays, which means spending as a

percentage of GDP, was around 20%. But

then with COVID, it bounced all the way

up to 30% in 2020 because of both the

function of all the stimulus, but then

also the fact that the economy shrank

because of COVID and we've never quite

gotten back to that magic 20% number.

Right now, it's trending around 23%. So,

we're doing a lot better than we did

under COVID, but it's still just a few

percent higher.

I mean, if it was up to me, I would just

freeze federal spending until the

economy grew to the point where

federal spending as a percentage of GDP

is 20%, and then you could let federal

spending continue to grow

as the economy grows. And we're not even

talking about cuts here. We're not even

talking about shrinking the size of the

government. We're just talking about

limiting the rate of growth

until the overall size of the economy

can catch up with it. But look, as we

know, it's very hard to get Washington

to go along with that because there is

just a lot of

spending pressure in Washington. One

thing I will say, though, I mean, just

to give some credit to the

administration here, is that the level

of federal employment is at the lowest

level since 1966. So,

during

uh President Trump's second term here,

we've gone from roughly 3 million

federal employees to a little bit under

2.7 million. So, you know, over 300,000

federal employees have been cut. I think

that is a good start. I mean, you've

seen

>> 10% is a good start for you?

>> Well, by the way, I think that's I think

that's really important to just pause

on, just [snorts] so people understand

this isn't like some hurtful thing about

firing people, they lose their jobs. But

when people move from the government

workforce into the private workforce,

they become productive. They're making

things that grow the economy, and

theoretically they should also make more

money. So, this is positive from an

economic point of view to move the

workforce from public to private. It

also, to my point, historically, I think

it's very important to avoid the

socialist spiral, that if you have too

many people employed by the government,

it becomes impossible to not employ

people by the government. That becomes

ultimately de facto socialism. Chamath,

your thoughts here?

Obviously, great thing that

we're shrinking the size of the

government. Those people are becoming

more productive, going into the private

sector. That's a big win, we all agree.

10% great job in the first year. Hey,

maybe 5% the next two or three years

would be even better.

But, the debt continues to be a problem.

Uh are you worried? Do you think there's

a solution here? What would you do if

you were

running the show?

I think you have to

take a broader historical context to

this.

Does debt to GDP matter?

It depends

on many things, but mostly I would say

it doesn't matter.

And it's very easy for people to get

agitated about that.

Now, there are things that matter when

you print too much money,

which is the value of the dollar, the

value of exports, the cost of imports,

and how to actually protect your

earnings and your wealth. That's a

different question.

This is a historical look back from

about 300 years of debt to GDP of the

largest functioning economies in the

world. Now, what do you see?

What you see is the trend

where you you know, if you smooth it out

for wars, which by the way has this

weird effect of first escalating the

debt to GDP, but then severely impacting

it in a positive way. The Napoleonic

War, the Franco-Prussian War, World War

II,

these things all had positive effects

on bringing debt to GDP once the war was

over. But, the general trend since 1700

to now

is up and to the right.

And the key observation is that it moves

in unison.

That these things are relative problems.

So, if the entire world moves in unison

like this, there is an argument to be

made,

which is that you could end up at 300,

250, 200% of debt to GDP, but if

everybody is there,

nothing really changes that much.

The real question is if one country is

able to decouple itself and its economic

output is so meaningfully different than

everybody else's. So, my first take on

this whole debt-to-GDP thing is I think

you have to look at it together as a

group.

Separately,

is it important to contain the debt?

Absolutely, but for these other reasons.

For earnings, for inflation, for all of

those very practical reasons that impact

your daily lived life.

And what do we know there?

We know that President Trump was elected

on a massive mandate.

To secure the border on one hand, but to

look at waste, fraud, and abuse on the

other.

And on that side, what did he do? He

drafted the most important and prolific

private businessman in the history of

the world to be his tip of the spear.

And what happened? They identified

hundreds of billions of dollars, but

when it came down to it in Congress had

to act to solidify these cuts, they

haven't done much of anything.

Which is a way of saying that if the

most conservative Congress in the

history of the United States has not

done much

to solidify these cuts that were

identified by the White House and DOJ,

then as Freeburg said, it'll only get

worse if there's ever a Democratic House

and Democratic control.

So, what do we have to do? I think we

have to just acknowledge that

if debt-to-GDP continually moves in

unison,

the music isn't up for a very long time.

That's just an observation. I'm not

saying it's right or wrong, it's just

the observation. But, you got to find

ways of hedging and owning real durable

assets because the underlying currency

that is used in these economies,

even on a relative basis, will fluctuate

wildly and just fall off of a cliff,

which will mean that it will erode the

value that you have created for yourself

and your family. That, I think, is the

most important takeaway from all of

this, which is

we probably see

things like

gold

do much, much better over time because

people will be afraid about the

durability of their dollar denominated

resources. But it will also be true for

all these other denominated resources.

But I think that the GDP, quite

honestly, if I had to be a betting man,

will trend into the two, three, four,

five, 600 on a relative basis for all

countries because I just think the

governments of these countries are

addicted to spending

and there is no reason to stop safe of

some other planetary species invading

planet Earth. Yeah.

A a black swan event, yes. Yeah. There's

also a question of what

Fed action will do to the capacity for

excess deficit spending.

So, if Kevin Warsh

really does want to tighten the Fed's

balance sheet and the Fed is effectively

the first-in-line buyer of Treasuries,

meaning they are printing money to fund

the government spending and they slow

down or actively slow down and stop

doing that,

then there is a real um kind of question

on what action will Congress and the

administration need to take because what

what will happen, as you know, if

the Fed stops buying Treasuries,

Treasury yields will go up. And if

Treasury yields go up, that means the

interest on the existing debt will start

to go up. And if that lasts for a period

of time and you start going from three

and a half to four to four and a half to

5% on the short end of the the yield

curve, then it starts to become way too

expensive

to fund this level of deficit spending

because the interest expense will just

start to climb and eat it all up. So, I

think like the Kevin Warsh question is

if he really is going to reduce the

balance sheet, what's that going to do

to rates, what's that going to

ultimately force Congress, force the

administration to do with spending?

Jason, what do you think?

Uh

you know, we are in a consumer-driven

economy and the employment rate in this

country is absolutely

fantastic. So, just three quick charts

here. You know, this is

the number of job openings we still have

even after we burned off

in 2022 from 12 million to 7 million

jobs. We still have a ton of jobs

available. Then, if you look at our

unemployment rate, it's still at

historical lows for our lifetime. If you

were born in 1970, this is as good as it

gets. 4.456

is what it's been. It's ticking up

modestly, but still lowest of our

lifetimes. And then finally, the

employment participation rate, number of

people in our society who are working

and able to work. It peaked at 68% or so

during the Clinton years.

And this is still low, 62%.

We still have people who could be

participating. So, all of these problems

will be solved if more people were to

participate and take those jobs. Why

don't they take those jobs? Sometimes

it's a geographic mismatch.

Sometimes

it is a skills mismatch, but very often

it is the jobs are not paying enough.

So, if you want to give Trump his

flowers, by closing the border, you've

reduced the number of people taking the

jobs off the books, and then you have

the businesses are going to have to

raise their minimum wage. They're going

to have to raise their offering wage,

which then might get the 7% or so that

are sitting on the sidelines to take

their jobs.

Crazy prediction. I wouldn't be

surprised if we see Trump, who is

obviously a populist, and I tweeted

about this the other day, got almost a

half a million views or 400,000 views.

What if

Trump decides he's going to raise the

minimum wage? Not saying I endorse this

or not, but it's incredibly low at seven

bucks an hour. Obviously, in different

cities and states, it's 15 to 20.

But what if Trump said we're going to

add a dollar to it or two dollars to it

over each year of the next three? This

would be incredibly popular, and it

would get some of those people off the

sidelines and maybe take these jobs. So,

just a crazy prediction there, but I

think it's a possibility and I think

they're going to lose the midterms as it

stands right now. It looks like

I think that's the consensus opinion.

And they haven't been able to do

something with this affordability. Well,

I think most Americans would say if you

raise the minimum wage, uh that that

would increase affordability. You can

make the counter argument it's going to

just be inflationary, but I think most

Americans are going to believe in that.

So, I wouldn't be surprised if you see

Trump take action there because he does

take populist actions like this from

time to time. You actually

mean the economic literature on what

raising the minimum wage does?

Yes, it can increase inflation and it

could lower the It can raise inflation

and it can lower the profitability of

businesses, yeah. And move stuff

offshore, yeah. No, what it does is it

makes it illegal to hire someone whose

labor is worth less than the minimum

wage. And so, it is shown to create

higher unemployment in those segments of

the economy. It's like one of those core

findings of economists. So, yeah, it's

true that some people will be a

beneficiary of getting a higher minimum

wage, but then there'll be other people

who just lose their jobs.

And it creates an incentive for those

employers to shift more labor towards

automation. So, if you're already

worried about those people losing their

jobs to automation, that's a downside.

So, anyway, if the minimum wage were a

panacea and it just increased everyone's

living standards without having

downsides, why wouldn't you make the

minimum wage $100 an hour? You know, why

wouldn't you you know, everyone would

just keep raising it infinitely.

Obviously, it doesn't work because if

you raise the minimum wage too much,

which is to say more than the value of

someone's labor, then they just get

unemployed. Looking at what happened in

the different cities or in Australia or

other countries, they have a much higher

minimum wage and they have much more

happiness. Businesses and prices go up

about 20% 10 to 20%. So in Australia, if

you go to a restaurant or if you go to a

Scandinavian country, things might cost

10% 20% more, but you have a happier

population and yes, it could lead to

more you know, automation. We got rid of

cashiers because it became too expensive

in New York to pay 15 to 20 bucks for a

cashier. Sure, but we have really low

minimum we have very low unemployment

now and the businesses can clearly

afford to pay an extra buck an hour or

two bucks an hour. So there's the

theoretical academic argument which you

are correct on and I understand it fully

well and then there's the reality on the

field which is Seattle, San Francisco,

New York, Los Angeles, Australia, other

places have a much higher minimum wage,

they have higher happiness in the

population. I don't actually think it

will have any impact because I think

it's artificially low.

But that's just one man's opinion. I

think it would change the game here in

America. And I think it would actually

do something to your concern Freeberg

about socialism.

I think that if people felt that there

was a you know, kind of a backstop

against this low low cost of labor, it

might actually make people pretty

stoked, you know, that they could get a

higher paying hourly job and it might

take some of that edge off in the same

way universal health care might do that.

But again, just one man's opinion. I got

to say on all this economic data that I

I think we're kind of missing the lead

here which is we are at the beginning of

an economic boom. Again, we saw it in

the GDP growth rates in Q3 and Q4 last

year. Over 4% Q3, over 5% Q4. We just

had a January job report where the

economy added 172,000

new private sector jobs. This blew away

the expectation which was around 70,000.

At the same time, the government shed

42,000 jobs.

The net of this was to bring the

unemployment rate down to 4.3%. So I

remember a few months ago J Cal, you

were ringing your hands about the fact

that the unemployment rate had ticked

up. Well, now it's back down.

And you're seeing a lot of jobs being

created in construction, especially

non-residential construction. Has to do

with the data centers, the AI boom

that's going on. 33,000 new construction

jobs in January.

You've seen in President Trump's second

term, you've had 615,000

new private sector jobs have been

created. While, again, like we talked

about, over 300,000 government jobs have

been cut, which increases the

productivity of the economy, and it does

what Secretary Bassin says, which is

re-privatize the economy. So, I just

think that the overall economic news is

really good. Again, we have this AI boom

going on. There's a new chart showing

that the CapEx for this year that's

expected just from the four leading

hyperscalers is $600 billion. Just from

four companies. That's a roughly 2%

tailwind to GDP growth right there.

That is just the CapEx. That doesn't

include all the ROI that you might get

from that infrastructure, on the

software side, on the application side,

the productivity side. So, we have a

boom going on, and I feel like

everyone's kind of black-pilling about

this.

Uh you know, they're focusing on this I

agree. CBO report that has

unrealistically low growth rates.

>> We're going to print 6%. Right. Or

they're doom-scrolling about Epstein or

what have you. And I just think when we

look back on this period, it could end

up being a little bit like the late

'90s. Remember when we had you know, we

look back on the late '90s, we're like,

"Wow, we had like phenomenal economic

growth."

>> Golden age. Golden age, economic boom.

>> Labor participation peaks. It's not

happening there, too. Right. But

remember what politics were like at that

time period. All anyone talked about was

whether Bill Clinton got a blow job from

Lewinsky. So, my point is just, again,

I'm not sure we're focused on the right

things. I suspect we'll look back on

this time period as the beginning of a

new golden age. I agree.

I think you're correct. And just in

terms of the hand-wringing comment,

anytime a a statistic is 10, 15%, I

highlight it. I wouldn't use

hand-wringing. I would just say, we

generally look at that when we went from

4.1%, which is where Trump inherited it,

went up to 4.5, it's about a 10%

increase in 1 year. If that trend were

to continue, that would be notable, but

to your point, it's gone down. And that

is because the border, I believe, the

southern border is closed. And as you're

pointing out, we've got a lot of good

news in the economy, so people are

hiring still. And uh so we are in really

good economic shape. I would say it's

hard to deny that. Yeah. All the job

creation has been enjoyed by native-born

Americans as well. All the job loss has

been on non-native born Americans, which

is pretty remarkable. So, that I think

is also going to accrue to the benefit

of of more Americans. By the way, just

on the unemployment thing, there was a

slight tick up

in October because of the October 1

buyouts. Remember DOJ created the the

buyout program? And they were in

September or October? When did they have

It was October 1st was the deadline for

that, and so we had a tick up in

unemployment related to that. But

remember, all of those were voluntary

buyouts. They all chose the DOJ option.

That's what created the tick up in

unemployment, but again, it was all

I think a good and voluntary tick up.

And now, the unemployment rate has

ticked down. So, again, the job creation

right now is strong.

And to just put a finer point on it, the

top two areas where illegal aliens are

working in the United States, most

people don't know this, construction,

number one. And the second one is

leisure and hospitality. So, you got two

and a half million people working in

those two categories, which is why I

said, if you want to see more Americans

take jobs, and you want to see wages go

up, if you went to those businesses and

you find those businesses for hiring

illegal aliens, which is the easiest

thing in the world to do, you just show

up at a construction site, you take

pictures of everybody who is working

illegally, which is what they used to do

in the ICE agency. They would then do,

um, you know, surveillance of

construction sites, and then they would

go and find the construction person, and

then they had to hire Americans, or that

construction company would get in

serious trouble. There's been

multi-million dollar fines done over the

last 20 years, specifically on

construction sites, and that would drive

more people to raise the wages of

construction workers, which would even

lower unemployment more, and increase

labor participation. That's where the

big win is. Go to construction sites, go

to hotels. So, you want ICE to randomly

raid

employers, construction sites, and

hotels.

>> Raid is, no, I surveil.

>> And just check everyone's papers. You

want You want ICE showing up everywhere

checking all the papers. Okay, number

one, they're doing this already,

gentlemen. This is well within their

purview. Look up the legal. They have

been doing this for 30 years. This is

actually the technique they used before

raiding cities in a chaotic way. They

went, they surveilled, which is their

right to do.

They have the right to do that. I didn't

say raid, I said surveil. That is a

peaceful, quiet thing to do, and then

they find business owners. The business

owners are the people who are causing

this problem. The If there was not a job

available in construction for 20, 30, 40

bucks an hour off the books and not

paying taxes, those

immigrants who are crossing illegally

would not be here. If they couldn't get

a $30 an hour off the books job working

at a hotel or as a dishwasher, they

would not come. And the businesses need

to stop hiring them.

Explain surveil. Explain surveil.

Explain surveil. So, what is what How do

they How do they With a camera figure

out if someone's illegal? What's the

camera figuring out?

>> Okay, so, you guys, it's very simple. I

And I'll

explain first. No, so then you'll know

who's a citizen. No, I want to hear I

want to hear I want to hear the surveil.

misinformed the three of you are and

biased, I will tell you. You're all

misinformed and biased. This is what

happens when someone is out they're

You go to the construction site.

Everybody checks in there morning. They

have a truck. This has been done for

decades, gentlemen. They take pictures

of everybody. Then they go in at the end

of the day after surveilling for weeks,

Chamath. And it's they have done this

already. This is all facts. They have

had multiple cases where they go to the

construction site. They take pictures.

They take a video. Then they go to the

business owner and say, "Show us these

people's pay stubs." And the business

owner goes, "I don't have pay stubs for

these people."

And they say, "Okay, here's a video of

them working for 8 hours a day. Where's

their pay stub? Show us their taxes."

The businesses are

paying people off the books. That is tax

evasion. And then they got multi-million

dollar fines. Here's a very important

case. This is from back in 2017. The

Justice Department and ICE went after a

group

which was hiring illegal aliens. This is

the largest payment ever in an

immigration case. 95 million recovered,

80 million criminal forfeiture, 15

million in civil payments. That

represented, according to our Justice

Department in 2017, the largest ever

levied immigration case. We can solve

almost all of the immigration issues

with the exception of maybe criminal

gangs.

Just by

doing basic surveillance, basic

you know, detective work, asking these

businesses to show the pay stubs of the

people working for them. And ICE has

been doing this. They've already been

doing this. Your suggestion is to do

this for every company in America?

Okay, so again, you're being hyperbolic

and you're not in You're not debating in

good faith.

>> do you choose? I said. I said this at

the top. You pick the number one

employer of illegal aliens. 2.5 million

people working in construction. You

start with the largest construction

sites, and then you work backwards. Then

you start with the largest restaurant

and hotel chains and the world. If

Stephen

>> doing this, you'd say he's not

compassionate enough. You'd call him a

fascist.

>> No, incorrect. Once again, incorrect. I

have stated publicly here on the pod and

I have stated publicly on Twitter that

this is actually what Stephen Miller

should do. Because this would

go after the people who are causing the

immigration problem. The people causing

the immigration problem are the people

who are causing the Let me finish. Let

me finish, Sachs. The people causing

this problem are the business owners.

They are providing the incentive to come

here. Stephen Miller

should stop doing the crazy raids and he

should go and just

>> You don't think it's the government

benefits that are incentivizing people

to come?

I think that's like far down the list,

two, three, four.

>> Far down the list? Yes. Is the free

health care and the free food and the

free housing

>> statistics. I can give you statistics on

it. According to this LA Times survey,

75%

of immigrants come here for better job

opportunities. People coming to America

illegally are coming here for economic

reasons. They are not coming here to

commit crimes. They are not coming here

to get benefits. That is way down the

list. That is a small percentage. How is

this going to

deport all the gangbangers, the rapists,

the murderers, the ones who aren't

working on a farm? They're not doing

>> That's a totally separate issue. They

should go do that. That's a separate

issue. They should go do those and go

after anybody

>> ICE was doing. They're trying to round

up the known criminals

for whom they get warrants and then they

capture them and deport them.

That's a separate problem.

Yeah, that Those are two separate

problems. I'm not talking about the

problem Okay, but yeah, but we're not

going to

>> You can do gangbangers. I'm talking

about If you actually want to move big

numbers, the gangbangers are small

number. The people working in

construction, the people working in

hotels are the big number. Yeah, they're

both equally important, Sachs. We're in

agreement. Okay.

Yeah. The The thing we're not doing at

scale

is going after

the businesses that are creating the

incentive for the majority of people who

come here. Ferrari

has a new car coming out. It's going to

be their first

all electric vehicle, very polarizing.

Here's an illustration of the vehicle

from Car and Driver. This is not

the accurate one because it's going to

be revealed in May, but this is what

they think it's going to look like. A

thousand plus horsepower, four electric

motors, zero to 60 in under 2.5 seconds,

a 330-mi range. It's the heaviest

Ferrari ever.

5100 lb compared to the iconic F40,

which was but 3000 lb. It's going to

launch in May of 2026.

But,

we got to see the interior, and this is

what everybody's buzzing about. It's

gone viral on the interwebs. Former

Apple design chief Jony Ive, uh on his

team with his partner Marc Newson, who

also designed the iconic Ford 021C

concept car, were involved in this.

Wait, what is that?

Uh it's This is like if you're a car

nerd, this was like this incredibly

innovative moment in design that never

happened that Ford did. It It looks very

similar to an Apple product.

Here's the key

for the new Ferrari.

>> an animated character in Cars and things

like that, you know. You You have this

beautiful square glass key, like an

iPhone. You put it in, and the yellow

Ferrari yellow drains out and goes into

the shifter. That was one nuance that

people thought was very beautiful. The

screen looks very Mac inspired, except

unlike Tesla, which is no buttons and

removing buttons,

they're adding buttons here and making

the buttons very tactile.

All the sports car enthusiasts love

tactile memory-based buttons that you

can just have fun with and flip and feel

like you're a fighter pilot. Finally,

the uh turning the car on

is like starting up a jet. You have a

launch button, you twist and press, and

it makes the whole car turn Ferrari

orange or red. And uh yeah, that's the

inside. Sacks, you buying one?

You like it? I saw I saw everyone just,

you know, [ __ ] all over this design

and I thought it was a little bit unfair

in the sense that I actually overall

like the interior. I thought it found a

compromise between you know, let's call

it the all-glass cockpit of a Tesla

versus

a totally analog old Ferrari interior.

Like you said, it it had a combination

of screens, but then also buttons and

they made a point of showing that

the buttons were not only nicely

tactile, but they also made pleasing

sounds and that kind of stuff. It seemed

very heavy-duty.

So, I thought the interior actually was

pretty good. Again, nice balance between

kind of the interior of a race car, the

simplicity of for that iPad screen, but

also having enough sort of buttons that

you develop muscle memory around where

all the controls are. You don't have to

go hunting for them through a menu.

I thought the miss here wasn't on the

inside. I thought it was on the outside.

I hate the look of the outside of this

car. It looks to me like

>> that look is what people are projecting.

It's not the final version.

>> this is terrible. This to me looks like

a Corvette, maybe or even like a Trans

Am. I mean, It looks like a Model 3. I

don't I don't like the What's that? Like

the black part of the front or and even

the the grill, it looks terrible and the

things going on the sides and then the

back almost looks like a hatchback or

something. It's just, you know, a

Ferrari should look swoopier. It should

look curvier and there should be fewer

different pieces to it.

100%.

>> So, I don't know, it doesn't look right

to me as a Ferrari, but I thought the

inside actually was was fine.

I like it. Yeah. Chamath, you buyer?

When's the last time you actually

drove yourself, Sachs? Have you

actually used a steering wheel in the

last decade? When's the last time you

actually used a steering wheel?

Full self-driving has made me a driver

again cuz I just set the full

self-driving. Wow. You driving yourself?

Well, with with FSD.

Yeah. Okay, so you're now driving around

Texas. I like it. With FSD.

Okay. Because they Uber takes forever,

so now I'm just like, you know. You you

like uh you voice like to drive Chamath,

I think. You you driving yourself these

days or you uh I drive myself in a Model

Y with FSD or I take a Waymo, one of the

two. Yeah, Waymo's in the valley now,

yeah, on the peninsula. I've had a

Ferrari.

What I would tell you is that there's

just something that's very unique.

There's a Ferrari experience that's

different from every other car.

And I think that the new CEO, Benedetto

Vigna,

is a very talented executive and I think