All right, everybody. Welcome back to

the number one podcast in the world.

That's right. It's your favorite

podcast. It's your podcasters's favorite

podcast, the All-In podcast. We're back,

baby. Chimath Paul Aatia is here. Our

chairman, our dictator.

How you doing, brother?

>> Great. Yeah.

Fantastic. You know, you put the

Uber stock price and the Robin Hood

stock price together, 150.

I'm annoying. 200 I'm insufferable. And

250 we just hit.

I am off the reservation officially

hopping the fence. So yeah, life's good.

All right. With us again, David Sachs,

the ZAR.

>> By the way, what's the reason why your

Robin Hood stock is through the roof?

Because of the crypto policies of the

Trump administration.

>> Yeah, that's fair. Fair. That's half of

it.

>> That's why it's gone from what is it

like $3 to1 130 billion.

>> Two $2. I paid less than a penny for my

shares, but yes, it went from 13.

>> Well, this is a typical liberal. You

benefit from our policies and then you

trash them.

>> I'm a moderate, independent moderate.

Here we go. Now it's it's starting

already. It's going to be a great week.

Everybody buckle up.

>> And he puts the namaste in your payday.

Our fifth bestie is back. Brad, welcome

home.

>> It's great to be here. Great to be I

went out and got a haircut.

>> Welcome back into the fold.

>> Welcome back. I got a haircut on the

occasion. I mean, Jason Jason,

>> do you know how long it's been since I

was last on this pod?

>> I don't know. I've invited you like 12

times, but I think the emails there's

something going on with email. I didn't

get any of my White House invitations.

You didn't get any all-in invitations.

>> I mean, it's been so long since it's

been so long since I was on this pod. I

went back and listened. The last show I

was on,

>> we were still talking about how great

Chamas spacks were before they crashed

the entire market and it was already

back. I mean, it was before Saxy Poo

saved the entire crypto industry from

prison and certain bankruptcy. And

Jason, it was before you got so tilted

with Democrats that you went completely

off- grid, moved to Texas, and bought a

bunch of guns.

>> There it is. It's been a minute. So much

changed in a Fortnite.

>> My god. Wow.

>> Here we are. Well, we're all back and

we're having some fun. We'll have a

little fun with our fifth bestie who's

here.

>> Only a $5 billion draw down for me

between those memories and

Who's complaining?

>> Who's counting

for a certain number?

[Music]

>> We'll let your winners ride.

[Music]

>> We open sourced it to the fans and

they've just gone crazy with it. Love

you.

>> We got to start off with the Israel

Hamas ceasefire deal thanks to President

Trump who announced it just yesterday.

We tape on Thursdays. He announced it on

Wednesday. You'll listen to this on

Friday hopefully. And he announced the

first phase of a multi-stage peace deal.

Notably, it was on the day after the

2-year anniversary of the horrific

October 7th attacks which led obviously

to the invasion of Gaza. And this war

has been particularly devastating for

Gaza. Most of the region's been

destroyed. 2.3 million residents have

been displaced. And according to the

Gaza Health Ministry, which I know some

people will debate, uh over 67,000

Palestinians have been killed. The deal

is based off of Trump's 20point peace

plan, which the White House published

last week, and the Israeli government

will vote on the deal today, maybe even

before the show comes out. Even with all

this tragedy, something has gone

tremendously right when it comes to

these peace negotiations and the peace

talks. So, Saxs, tell us what went so

right here in those negotiations.

>> I mean, right now, it looks like both

sides have agreed to this deal. And the

first phase of the deal is for there to

be a ceasefire to end active fighting.

It's going to allow unrestricted aid

into Gaza. It's going to allow the

release of all remaining Israeli

hostages. and Israel is going to release

2,000 Palestinian prisoners and start

withdrawing Israeli troops. So that that

is what apparently has been agreed to.

And the Middle East has a way of

disappointing you. Sometimes these deals

don't stick, but based on everything we

understand to be the case right now,

this appears to be a big breakthrough in

terms of the fighting will stop and the

all the hostages will be released. And I

do think it is a big accomplishment by

the president in terms of how this

happened is because the president was

willing to both cajol and coersse and

use pressure with respect to both sides

of the conflict. Longtime diplomat Aaron

David Miller who advised both Republican

and Democrat administrations on Middle

East peace negotiations for the last

three decades. He said that, I'll quote

here, "Donald Trump has demonstrated a

degree of will unlike any other

president, Republican or Democrat. He

has pressed an Israeli prime minister in

a way that none of his predecessors have

ever done on an issue that that prime

minister considers vital to his

political survival and the way he would

define Israeli security requirements."

So that was Aaron David Miller who again

was the US negotiator in Middle East

peace negotiations for a quarter

century. And in fact, he wrote a very

interesting article in 2005 called

Israel's lawyer in which he was a little

bit self-critical of the US's previous

efforts and his own efforts saying that

in the past the US saw its role as being

to represent Israel as opposed to being

an objective negotiator. And he he

critiqued the US's efforts saying that

we might be able to get more done if the

US was perceived as more of an honest

broker and perceived as willing to be a

little bit more neutral in the

negotiations. And I think what he's

seems to be saying here is that Trump

was willing to do that. He was willing

to pressure Netanyahu as well as Hamas.

I mean, obviously you saw in the last

few days that he said that if Hamas did

not agree to this, all all hell would

break loose. So, he was willing to

basically pressure both sides into

accepting this deal. And you have to

give him credit for it for where things

stand right now. And you are seeing, it

seems like virtually everyone's giving

him credit. even the New York Times,

even John Meechum was on MSNBC this

morning giving President Trump credit

for doing the seemingly impossible. And

the reason I say even John Mechum is

because Meechum is frequently

criticizing President Trump as being a

fascist or having authoritarian

tendencies. And even he had to

acknowledge that Trump had pulled off

the seemingly impossible here today.

>> All right, Shamath, obviously this is

going to have a pretty positive impact

on the region. So, as we look at, you

know, if this does uh and again, you

know, we got to be cautious here because

as Saxs pointed out correctly in the

Middle East, you know, sometimes these

things fall apart and they're delicate.

But let's assume that this uh peace deal

does make its way to fruition and we

what is it going to look like in the

region post peace between these two

nations?

>> I mean, I don't know. So, let's start

with that. Nobody knows.

>> Nobody knows. Yeah,

>> I think it's been a very unpredictable

place for a very long time. That being

said, what is the rational thing that

has to happen?

I think that most of these countries are

facing a very obvious

problem which is they have a resource

that is becoming increasingly less

valuable. That resource is oil. And so

the practical reality is you want peace

so that you can focus on the forward

monetization of your reserves. So when

that oil sits in the ground, the longer

it sits in the ground, the less valuable

it is to you because it doesn't actually

add to your balance sheet. The faster

you can monetize the oil, then the

faster you can deploy it into other

things, including services for your own

citizens.

Now the longer you wait to do that, the

problem that we are seeing is that other

solutions come around the corner.

Eventually in the 10 or 15 or 20 year

time frame, you'll have an abundance of

electrons from nuclear. In the meantime,

you have an abundance of electrons from

that gas. You have an abundance of

electrons, frankly, from solar. And all

of these things will ultimately diminish

the net long bid to oil.

So if there's instability, you can't

focus 100% on monetization. If there's

stability, then the entire focus needs

to be on the monetization of of the oil

asset. And I think that that's a very

healthy thing because it starts to

create market driven incentives that

will only accelerate all the positive

things that are happening.

>> By the way, and the other thing I just

want to say which is personal is shout

out to a friend of the pod, Jared

Kushner. Aman tweeted this which I think

is just so superb. But in one week,

Jared did the largest LBO ever and then

also helped negotiate Middle East peace.

It's unbelievable. It's really

incredible what these guys pulled off

and it allows that region to be a real

pillar of what happens in the next 50 to

100 years.

>> All right. And I I think it's well said,

Brad, that some stability in the region

will help them with the transition from

an oil-based economy to what you and I

learned in our trips there and some of

them together that they're looking to

transition to private equity, solar,

renewables, AI,

owning sports teams,

venture capital, and so many uh and

tourism, building new cities. All of

that is hard to do and then also getting

investments if people feel the region's

unstable andor dangerous. You know, it's

not a good place to uh invest capital.

So, let's um let's keep pulling the

string as to what the best case scenario

is here if we have true stability in

that region.

>> Well, that I mean you you you nailed it.

The conditions for all of those things

economic, right, are safety and

security. you don't have any economic

growth in the region unless you have

that you know and I think you guys

covered it pretty well but maybe just

highlight a broader feature I think of

this presidency right I think we might

call Trump like the moonshot presidency

if you think about everything he's

trying to accomplish even Hillary

Clinton said if he pulls off peace

between Ukraine and Russia which is also

going on simultaneous to these efforts

that she herself will nominate him for a

Nobel Peace Prize right I look at the

presidency there are moonshots going on

everywhere China, AI,

re-industrialization,

India, Pakistan, Ukraine, you know, in

Russia, what he's doing in the Middle

East. And if you think about moonshots,

we all do these in Silicon Valley. These

are high-risk, highreward efforts. We

want to back people who go for

moonshots, but the reality is most

people don't have the courage to go for

moonshots because there's a high

probability that it won't work. But if

you think about this for a second, after

the horror of the October 7th attacks,

the chaos in Syria, the attacks by

Yemen, the escalations fueled by Iran,

the idea that the president, Witoff, and

you're right, Shamath, our friend Jared

Kushner, could have overcome all of

that, right? And that could have been

all out war across the Middle East. It

could have plunged the entire Middle

East into utter chaos. But instead, he

decapitated Iran. We brought Syria into

the fold. We're on the verge of

expanding the Abraham Accords. And now

you have this historic signing. You

know, we saw it with our own eyes when

Sax and I were over there on the

president's visit. You know, he is

respected as a strong leader and liked

in every one of these capitals that you

go to, you know, and it's paying off. If

this happens, Wickoff Kushner and the

president all deserve the Nobel Peace

Prize. If even 80% of it works out, I

think it's worthy of a peace prize.

Well, and not to mention, we're probably

going to have, at least the rumors are,

that there could be a China deal coming

up at the end of this month or into next

month. And if we could resolve the

issues with Taiwan, even something like

strategic ambiguity, and if there's a

chance of uh Ukraine and Russia being

settled, now you've got the trifecta.

You know, you got the three biggest hot

spots taken off the table. If you can

get two of those, it'd be great for

humanity. poly market showing a 90%

chance 90% chance that all Israeli

hostages will be returned by the end of

the month which would be just

tremendous. Um and then also getting aid

to these poor people suffering in Gaza

would also be nice to see. Anybody else

have any thoughts as we as we move on to

our next story?

>> I'll just say that the funny part here

is just there's anything funny about the

story is watching the entire global left

that's been demanding a ceasefire in

Gaza for almost two years. they've

suddenly gone strangely silent now that

President Trump has seemingly engineered

that ceasefire and uh I guess the the

Nobel committee is they are announcing

this Friday. I do think that a record

like this would absolutely win any other

president the Nobel Prize or at least

get him a nomination. President Trump

has ended seven wars in seven months

before this one. This would be the

eighth if he pulls it off. So

>> seven Obama Obama won with nothing.

Obama won just for being elected.

>> He just got elected and he got a Nobel

Prize. It was just kind of like a gold

star.

>> Yeah. Okay. Well, let's move on to our

next topic. The National Guard has

deployed troops into Chicago to protect

ICE agents and Portland might be next.

Obviously, a bunch of protests have

broken out in Chicago after a number of

these ICE raids have occurred. And over

the last month, DHS has been executing

something called Operation Midway Blitz

in the city. 800 illegal aliens have

been arrested. And there was a notable

raid on September 30th by Border Patrol

and FBI agents in Chicago's Southshore

neighborhood where 37 illegal aliens

were arrested in an apartment complex.

Wow. And uh this included flashbangs and

a Blackhawk helicopter, similar to what

we saw in LA back in June. Trump has 500

National Guard troops standing by from

Illinois and Texas and uh in case any

protests get out of hand. Trump says

they are needed to protect ICE agents

who are being targeted. Illinois

Governor JB Pritsker and Chicago Mayor

Brandon Johnson are obviously opposed to

ICE actions and they are calling Trump

an authoritarian and uh fighting for

state rights in this regard. They filed

a lawsuit to try to stop it and a

hearing is scheduled for Thursday.

Obviously, the president had some losses

in um a number of these National Guard

activities, and we can get into the

details of those. Mayor Johnson also

signed a couple of executive orders

aimed at slowing down ICE agents. Uh

they've established some ice-free zones

across the city that prohibit ICE agents

from using any city-owned property. And

another one bans city employees from

aiding ICE unless required by a criminal

warrant. The White House called this a

quote unquote disgusting betrayal and

said Johnson was prioritizing illegals

over US citizens. Your thoughts, Sachs?

>> Well, I think the place starts with the

Democrat attitude towards crime. We've

seen many examples this recently. You

had the murder of that young Ukrainian

woman, Ireina, in a a subway by D.

Carlos Brown. He was arrested 14 times

and still left his judges and

prosecutors refused to punish him or

keep him off the streets. There was a

testimony of Steven Federico before a

congressional subcommittee who recounted

how his daughter Logan was murdered by

Alexander Dicki, a man with over 25

felony arrests in San Francisco. Here

you got leftists are still trying to get

diversion for Troy Mallister who killed

Hana Abbe and Elizabeth Plat on New

Year's Eve 2020. That was the case that

activated all of us to get Chase Bodí

recalled successfully. So look, you have

here so many examples of leftist

prosecutors and judges and activists

always trying to get repeat felons off

trying to get them diversion, never

prosecuting them. They're in favor of

zero bail. They've turned the jails into

revolving door. And that's why you see

in places like Chicago or Washington DC

enormous amounts of of violent crime.

Now in DC, the president had the ability

to clean up the streets, to clean up the

homeless encampments, make the streets

safer. No one denied the feds had a

right to go in and they did. And there

have been immediate positive results.

Homicides and carjackings and so forth

have fallen dramatically. Everyone who

actually lives in DC is very happy about

this situation. and the restaurants are

full again, people feel safe to go out.

So the question is where else can the

president basically help these cities

and go in in Memphis?

They have been invited by the Republican

governor to go in and help and so they

will. Now with Portland and Chicago, the

problem here is that frankly you've got

mayors and governors who are opposed to

doing anything about the crime problem.

And moreover, they refuse to support ICE

and DHS in their mission to enforce

immigration laws. And then finally,

you've got violent leftist protesters

like Antifa who've taken to the streets

and they are trying to thwart

deportations of violent aliens by ICE

and DHS. In response to that, the

president has sent somewhere between, I

think, 300 and 500 National Guardsmen to

support ICE in Chicago. It's not a

broad-based mission to clean up the

streets because, you know, we still have

to figure out what the legal authority

to do that is. They're just there to

support ICE. And yet, you see all this

hysterical bluster and rhetoric by JB

Pritsker and other Democrats basically

claiming this is authoritarian. It's

not. It's a very limited operation to

support IS and DHS in their lawful

mission to enforce immigration laws. And

there's no question that the president

has this authority. Both Eisenhower and

JFK sent federal troops into the South

to enforce federal desegregation laws.

For example, when James Meredith was

barred from attending Miss University of

Mississippi, JFK sent in 30,000 federal

troops to bust open the doors of Miss.

And by the way, they were not National

Guardsmen. These were the Army. So,

presidents have sent in troops. They

have sent a national guardsman to

enforce the law in American cities. He

absolutely has the right and power to do

this. But like I said, this is somewhere

between 300 and 500 guardsmen sent to

back up ICE who is being assaulted by

violent protests and riders by Antifa.

And what you're seeing by the mainstream

media and by liberals is an attempt to

mischaracterize the situation. All

right, just to put some numbers on that

for the DC National Guard being called

out. Obviously, Trump uh and the

president, whatever president is,

clearly has the rights to do that for a

certain period of time. And um if you

look at this Washington Post story, I'll

send it to you for post, 61% of people

said in DC, according to the Washington

Post survey, that the people in

Washington DC said the military police

present has made them feel less safe.

79% of people pled in DC in the same

survey said they don't want the National

Guard in the city. So there is a lot of

conflicting data here. But

overwhelmingly in DC data that's an

opinion.

>> No, it's an emotional

>> a survey. I give you a different surve.

>> If we're going to do surveys

>> Yeah. Yeah. Sure.

>> There was a poll last week from TIP

Insights which showed that Trump

>> What's Tip Insights? I've never heard of

it.

>> Tip. It's This was cited by Newsweek. I

can put the link on the screen.

>> Okay. Yeah, I never heard of it.

>> Well, they're a pollster.

>> Well, Washington Post was one I cited.

Yeah.

>> Well, okay. And I'm sure they're

perfectly objective, right? Next, you're

going to be quoting the New York Times

to tell me how objective they are.

Here's Tip. They're a pollster. These

TIP Insight showed that Trump had a net

positive rating among voters in cities

47 to 44 and that his numbers have

improved recently. So, look, I think

this is tremendously popular with the

citizens of these crimeinfested cities.

We saw this with DC that the locals, the

residents, including among the black

population were very happy with the fact

that Trump sent in the National Guard

and crime has been massively reduced.

>> Sorry, can I say something? You know why

it's popular and it's working? Because

of what Wes Moore did. Wesmore is the

perfect example of what I think a

Democrat governor should be doing, which

is obviously he has to blather on with

his anti-Trump rhetoric, but what does

he do behind the scenes? He sends in

state troops and he makes sure that

there's a surge of policing in all of

these crimeridden areas because he knows

that the policy works. He just wants to

get the credit for it and he doesn't

necessarily want somebody else to get

the credit. This is where I think what's

happening in Illinois is a bit of a

headscratcher because if you see how

badly run and how crimeinfested Chicago

is and the state of Illinois is,

why wouldn't JB Pritsker do what Wes

Moore does? I think the honest thing

that they should be doing is to

recognize that the citizens on the

ground in these places want to live in a

safe and peaceful place. And with more

policing and with more troops, it's just

statistically true that crime comes

down. And I think at the end of the day,

probably the citizens of these places

care less whether they're National

Guards troops or whether they're state

troops, but they just care that they're

there. This is why I think asking

emotional reactions to me doesn't make

as much sense because I feel it's a very

partisan way of opining on the person

who gives you the resource because I

suspect if you ask the exact same

question inside of Baltimore to the

state troops that were sent in by West

Moore a Democrat, you probably get a

different response. But the outcome is

the same. Crime goes down. That's what

everybody wants.

>> Brad, any concerns about the

militarization

in the country that is occurring from

you? Well, I think listen, nobody wants

abusive tactics, but let me just give

you some numbers that cause me to

believe this feels more like, you know,

a bipartisan issue and and we have kind

of the pendulum swinging back more than,

you know, something that should cause us

concern. Court-ordered removals and

deportations

average 200,000 per year, 1997 to 2000.

That's under Clinton. 200,000 a year.

They averaged 300,000 a year, peaking at

400,000 under Obama, right? Deportations

plummeted under Biden. At the same time,

we know that illegal crossings into this

country kind of exploded higher. And now

they estimate that Trump is back to the

trend line of 300 to 400,000 illegal,

you know, deportations and removals.

These are court-ordered removals. So, I

might have expected the Trump number to

be way higher given that we just went

through this massive step up in illegal

crossings, but I think it's really

important to point out that this has

been a bipartisan consistent thing that

has happened in this country for 30

years. I'm not talking about tactics

exactly how it's going on, but the

deportations have been going on by both

parties and we never it hasn't been an

issue before. And so, it is curious that

it is more of an issue now. And then the

other thing I would just underscore is

if you look at what Daniel Lur is doing

in the city of San Francisco, he is live

blogging on Twitter and Instagram the

arrests of a 100 fugitives per night. I

think he's had three or four of these

nights now in San Francisco to take

these people off the street following a

mayor that wouldn't even arrest people

and no prosecutions because he

understands as a Democrat what citizens

expect first is safety. They want the

ability to walk their kids to school, to

walk to dinner, to play in a park, and

not have to worry about being safe. So,

I think I, you know, I build on what

Chamas said. I think the smart Democrats

are realizing this is a bipartisan

issue. This is what people want. It it

it's not inconsistent with what, you

know, Presidents Obama and Clinton did

in their administrations in terms of

deportations. And so, I don't think this

is the hill that they want to die on.

JCL, I'd love to hear your thoughts on

on on what's going on with these

deportations.

>> Well, I've been very vocal that I don't

agree with the violent nature of the

deportations and what ICE is doing. Uh,

but obviously I am very much since Sax

and I work together on the ouster of

Chesine, obviously I care coming from a

law enforcement family about law and

order. I think it's super important and

I obviously agree, but I want to level

the conversation up a little bit and

maybe talk a little bit about the

president's approval ratings and how

this all connects. So, got a couple of

charts I'll share with you guys here and

I'll get your reactions. It's not pretty

for Trump right now. His polling is at

an all-time low. It's worse than the

last couple of seasons of The

Apprentice, in fact. And when you look

at this chart here of Donald Trump's

approval rating, you'll see there are

four dips here. And this is the net

approval rating. And what you'll see is

liberation day when he did the tariffs.

Obviously, he went a little too far on

the tariffs. And uh that was pretty

shocking. Went down to a -10. That's

taking his approval minusing the

disapproval. And that's how you get the

net approval. Then the LA protest.

remember the violent protests and the

ICE agents chasing people down in fields

and Americans didn't like that either.

Not releasing the Epstein files in July,

another dip down to his lowest of his

presidency, about 10%. And then now

we're uh with these Chicago ICE raids

and the violent nature of him, I

believe, is the cause of this. And going

on a little bit even from here, if you

look at his wheelhouse, this is where

Trump won the election. I think we all

agree in the Trump 2.0 platform, which

won a lot of moderates like myself. I

know on this show people like to say I'm

a Democrat. I've voted actually now

Republican almost exactly as much as

I've uh voted Democrat and I am a strong

moderate. If you look at immigration,

his net approval rating has plummeted

from plus 10% down to minus about 5%.

The economy, he's down 15%. He was up 5%

at the start start. Trade, he's

rebounded a little bit. And inflation,

he's down 27%.

And so this is his wheelhouse. And if

you look at from Bari Weiss's,

you know, organization CBS News,

congratulations to Bari on her taking it

over and her sale to the free press to

CBS. Only 17% of Americans believe Trump

is making them better. This came out

this week and 58% don't want the

National Guard in our cities. People

oppose what Trump is doing right now and

he is at an all-time low. So, you have

to ask yourself why. And uh I think this

is because he's drifted from the 2.0

policies. Closing the border, very

popular, lower taxes, no taxes on tips,

extremely popular, pro business, pro-

innovation. Thank you, Saxs. You're

correct. This all is the best of Trump.

Doge reducing spending. The best of

Trump and relentlessly trying to stop

wars and apparently on the cusp of

succeeding with the one in Gaza right

now. This is what Americans, including

myself, moderates, really like about

Trump. What don't we like about the

Trump 1.0 platform, the violence of

January 6th, ICE agents in masks,

beating powerless hardworking

immigrants, sending in the National

Guards, if you remember from the first

administration, the kids in cages, the

Muslim immigration ban, pardoning all

the January 6 riders who beat police

savagely trying to overturn election

results. This is what people don't like.

They don't like the chaos. And what

Americans do love is they love the

Constitution. And uh you know they they

love the rule of law. This is where he

can do really well. 85% of Americans

have a favorable opinion of the

Constitution and 94% say it's really

important to protect liberty and

freedom. And what these actions and when

you see Pam Bondi and you see Steven

Miller, Trump's ratings go down. when

you see Lutnik, you see Bessant, you see

Sachs, you see Elon and Doge, his

approval ratings go up. And so I would

like to lobby my friends who are in the

administration or around it and the

people I know in the administration to

think through this because what's at

stake is the midterms. The Democrats are

going to shellac the Republicans in the

midterms if this continues. Nobody wants

this type of violence. Nobody wants to

see people beaten. Nobody wants to see

mothers thrown on the ground as their

children are crying just because they

came here 20 years ago, 10 years ago

when Republicans Republicans who were

the biggest proponents of letting people

in from Mexico to work here because we

needed cheap labor. We as Americans have

an obligation to these people who we

brought into this country to treat them

with compassion and we're not doing

that. And that's my little monologue

here. You heard from Brad that the

deportations have basically mean

reverted.

So do you think that there were the same

category of people being deported before

as in now and that there's just less

press coverage and it was okay then and

it's not okay now or just explain this

idea of mean reversion and whether we're

getting the same and right people out of

the country that we've been doing for

the last 20 years.

>> Yeah. So what you're seeing is many

lawsuits now of people who are Americans

or who are properly documented now suing

ICE cuz the way they're pursuing this

with their masks and just randomly going

after people and racially profiling

people is resulting in the wrong people

being picked up. And that's really what

I find the the most offensive about it.

I don't mind obviously the border being

closed. I I said that many times here. I

don't mind criminals being deported. I

think that's a great idea. But I think

we should look at the economics of this

as well. We're spending $30 billion on

ICE now. We've tripled the budget. We're

spending $100,000

per person deported. Okay, that's a

large number. If we simply find that

79year-old

car wash owner $10,000 every time he

hires,

you know, an illegal alien, this would

stop. There are much better ways to

execute this. And so I have to ask

myself, what is the intent of this

violence? What is the intent of sending

the National Guard in? Is it actually a

pure intent of wanting safety and

security? I don't believe that's all

that's at work here.

>> And then a follow-up question. What do

you think is the difference between

>> Wes Moore, the governor of Maryland,

sending in state troops and Donald

Trump, the president of the United

States, sending in federal troops into a

state to help diminish crime?

>> Yeah. It would be the Constitution and

the United States of America, not a

federal government ruling over all 50

states. The way this was set up by the

founding fathers was that the states had

rights and amongst those rights is the

security of the people in that state.

It's a very rare situation.

>> So your your issue or not your issue but

your diagnosis would be what Wesmore is

doing is right. JB should probably do

that too. I

>> I would even take it a little further.

Yeah,

>> I I think actually the the best thing to

do if Trump is intent on saying, "Hey,

crime's out of control in San

Francisco," which we all experienced and

you guys continue to experience if

you're if you're in the city.

>> I don't live in the city. I find

>> you don't even But if people did go to

the city, I think what I would do if I

was the governor, I say, "You know what?

We could use your help and we're going

to call up the National Guard ourselves

and we could use some help in these 17

locations. We'd love to collaborate with

you."

>> So, it's not an outcome thing for you.

It's a procedural process that says it

needs to go through a different pathway.

>> It's the violence and the cruelty of it

that I object to and it's the

inefficiency in terms of the cost of it.

I don't believe that mothers should be

separated from their from their children

or their fathers should be separated

from their children. I don't believe it

should be done in a brutal way and

doesn't need to be. It could very easily

be done with other tactics. And that is

what I I take great offense to is both

of those things. The inefficiency of it

and then also I take offense to the

derailing of the Trump 2.0 0 agenda,

which I was in favor of, and I will call

balls and strikes when Trump tips back

into those authoritarian tendencies that

the Trump 1.0 agenda that I've talked

about. I'm not in favor of that. I don't

like it. I would much prefer to see us

be compassionate to immigrants. I would

much rather see us take a softer hand

and a path to these folks who've been

here for 20 or 30 years. I'd see I'd

like to see a path to them to become

citizens because I think immigr this

country was built by immigrants for

immigrants and I believe we should

continue that. But it should be legal

immigration and if people were here

illegally because Republicans and

Democrats who are super in favor of

NAFTA wanted them here, we should take

ownership of that and be kind and

compassionate to them and give them a

path if they're not criminals and if

they pay their taxes, which almost

universally they do, we should give them

a path to citizenship.

All right. Well, the first thing I want

to do is point out that you mentioned

that Doge was one of the most wonderful

and popular things that President Trump

did. And I agree that it was a great

thing that he did. Basically trying to

streamline the government and make it

more efficient. But it was not popular.

It was had only a 35% approval rating

while 57% disapproved. Why is that?

because the media pounded on Doge and

Elon and turned him into a villain and

tried to mischaracterize what he was

trying to do and blamed him for every

possible thing that was supposedly going

wrong in the federal government. So,

look, obviously the polling is not

always a great indicator

even when it is accurate and I remember

when Anne Seltzer told us that Trump was

going to lose Iowa by 10. So, obviously

these pollsters often have no idea what

they're talking about. In terms of the

merits of this, you're completely

ignoring the fact that there are lawless

mobs who are the ones creating the

violence. Not our law enforcement

officers, not ICE, not DHS. In the city

of downtown Portland, for example, you

have literal Antifa terrorists who are

extremely organized. They're aggressive

and they're well funded. This is not

just some sort of rag tag bunch. The

White House uncovered a bunch of

leftwing NOS's who are funding Antifa

along with other leftist protest groups.

These NOS's have laundered over hund00

million of our money to fund terrorist

violence in our streets. Antifa even has

a safe house near the epicenter of the

unrest in downtown Portland that local

cops and local media know about, but

nothing's being done. And it's this

group that has basically terrorized

downtown Portland and led to violent

assaults, not our law enforcement

officers. But when this violence breaks

out because of Antifa, then the media

blames the Trump administration for it.

So I'm not surprised that the polling

reflects that because that that's what

the media does. But look, the bottom

line here is what is the policy that the

Trump administration should pursue? And

previous administrations have pursued

deportations and so has the Trump

administration. I don't think you can

have 10 to 15 million illegal immigrants

allowed during the Biden years and then

just say there's going to be an amnesty.

I mean, what are we supposed to do? This

situation was not created by Trump. It

was created by Biden. They opened up the

border. There were holes in the border

walls. Millions of people streamed

through. They were bust all over the

country. Trump won on fixing that

problem and deportations were part of

the mandate. Now he's doing it. can't

just be a one-way ratchet. When the

Republicans are in power, they close the

border. And then when the Democrats are

in power, they open it up, allow 10, 15

million illegals in, and then we can do

nothing about it when we take power. No,

that's not the way this works. There has

to be a correction to what Biden did,

which was outrageous. And I remember

plenty of liberals while that was going

on, they were saying that the videos we

saw on Fox News were cherrypicked. They

said that there was no real situation at

the border. We were gas lit constantly

about it. Whereas every single person

who actually visited the border said the

same thing that it was outrageous that

Biden had opened up the border that

people are streaming through. They were

running through and Trump won on a

mandate of fixing this problem. And now

that he is fixing it, what we have

people do is claim that he's the source

of the violence. No. Antifa and leftwing

riers are the source of the violence.

You don't see this violence in red

cities and you don't even see it in in

the blue cities which have offered to

cooperate with Trump like Memphis or

like DC. So when you see cooperation

from these cities, they are actually

cleaning them up. But in Chicago and in

Portland, you have violent protesters

and that is the source of the problem.

And the media can blame it all on Trump

as much as they want, but fundamentally

that is what's going on.

>> Okay, let's move on to our next topic.

Anybody else? I'm surprised as someone

who normally supports law enforcement

that you're not backing these guys up.

>> Oh, I I support law enforcement. I do

not think they should um do it the way

they're doing it. It's the violence.

It's the cruelty that I object to.

>> Okay.

>> I don't mind people being held

accountable for crossing the border. I

don't mind the deportations.

>> I do think

>> How do you think it should be done,

Jacob?

>> Yeah. So a very simple method would be

if you went to people who are employing

and because the people who are here

illegal are here to build a better life

for their families and to live the

American dream. That's why they're here.

They're here to get a job and to have a

better life for their children if they

are working illegally. And so they're

here. These are the most industrious

people I've ever met in my life.

Immigrants, including the two of you.

Most industrious people are the

immigrants. Uh we know that. And so a

very simple way to do this if you wanted

to do it without cruelty and without

burning $100,000 per person is to go to

where they're being employed. And if you

saw this terrible video of a 79y old man

being tackled by two ICE agents and he's

suing the government for 50 million.

That's not the way to do it. You go to

that car wash. You say, "I'd like to see

everybody's paper." Everybody runs. They

show you the papers. whichever person is

not actually employed there legally and

who doesn't have their papers, you give

a $10,000 fine and then you come back

the next day and you give a $20,000

fine. And if you did that, this would be

incredibly effective and you wouldn't

have the brutality you have under no

circumstances. And I've talked to many

of my relatives who are cops and many of

my friends, they look at what ICE is

doing and they see it as being

unnecessarily brutal. All you have to do

is go to where they're working and give

the fines and then round people up who

are in fact criminals. No problem with

any gang members or any felons to be

taken down and to sometimes you have to

do that with force obviously if they're

criminals. But for everybody else, we

can do this compassionately and we can

do it much more efficiently. We could do

it by just paying people to self-deport

and we could increase that rate. And

actually that actually has been working.

The story hasn't been told yet. I think

we'll see that in the statistics that of

the three or 4 hundred thousand people

we wind up deporting probably a third of

them are going to be people who self-

deepported and we we'll we'll share

those statistics here as we go but it's

the violence

>> I'll just note that in DC DC is the city

where Trump was first able to basically

get involved in trying to stop the crime

because he was able to bring in the

National Guard and everyone understands

the feds run DC so he has a free hand.

Have we seen any of the problems that

we're talking about in DC? No, we

haven't. It's calm. People can go out at

night. They're going to restaurants

again. The citizens are happy. Why?

Because the things you're talking about

are the result of violent Antifa

protests in Chicago and Portland.

Because the local politicians like JB

Pritzkar have an incentive to blame

everything on Trump and they've been

turning a blind eye to these local gangs

who are creating all the problems. Yeah,

we're in a strong agreement that Antifa

and I'll add to it, the Proud Boys and

Oathkeepers,

who brought tons of guns to the capital

and uh who ran January 6. I agree with

you. All of those radical organizations

should be handled. Uh we're in strong

agreement. And just

>> the fact that you're bringing up the

nonsequator of January 6 tells me that

you've lost this debate.

>> I'm not looking to to win a debate with

you, Sex. I'm not in the debate club,

but you can win whatever debate you

want. I'm just giving my opinion. But

the more and just to give a little

nuance here with the Doge thing, I agree

that it was unpopular with the libs, but

what I what I was talking about was the

moderates who won Trump the election

this year, which you had a big part in,

David. You you turned a lot of the

moderates uh you know, the fiscally

conservative but socially liberals uh in

our community, the tech community,

you're directly responsible for that. I

might argue this podcast and you and

Chimamoth and your support of Trump and

the 2.0 agenda was a big part of him

getting elected. I've heard from people

in and around the administration, they

believe that that was a key part in

their success this time. So, when I say

that uh people were in support of Doge,

I'm talking specifically about moderates

and the people who backed the Trump 2.0

agenda just to clean that up. I do agree

with you

>> that uh yeah uh but you can roll your

eyes. Well, my point is

>> I'm not trying to win a debate with you.

I'm just telling you my my opinion.

>> Polls can give us interesting

information, but they're also a snapshot

in time. And what really matters is the

results of the policies.

>> And I think that if you look at DC, hold

on. You look at DC just a couple of

months ago before Trump went in, the

left was basically shrieking

hysterically that it was authoritarian,

that it was fascist and so forth and so

on. They had all these arguments. It's

going to be brutal the population. Trump

goes in there and it's worked amazingly

well.

>> I will let you have word and

>> I don't think we should be abandoning

the poor populations of these inner

cities to the predatory crime that

they've been subjected to for decades

that their Democrat politicians have

done absolutely nothing about. Quite

frankly, these cities are something like

9010 Democrat. If we can just make them

7525,

then I don't think Republicans will lose

elections anymore. So, I'm glad Trump is

trying to do this. We've seen these

examples over and over again.

>> This is why Wes Moore is doing what he's

doing.

>> Exactly.

>> I think the tactic works and I think

Jason, we are moving away from whether

the tactic works or not to who is trying

to frame themselves to take the credit.

And if you look at the Democratic path

to the presidency, we've heard this

before, but Wes is sort of at the front

of the line. And I think he's seen that

this is the right place to be on this

point.

>> So I think it's like he doesn't want the

success if it doesn't acrew to him.

That's why he sent in state troops in

Maryland into all the hot spots. I think

what will be interesting is in three or

four months from now when we see the

incremental crime stats data and whether

we see Wes wrap that up in a big bow and

say look what I did and I think if you

do see that then I think what you will

have seen is a successful policy that

was co-opted at the state level because

they want to take the credit for it and

>> you'll find an adequate number of

journalists who will want to paint that

as a oh wow look at this invention that

has happened But the artifact will be

that Trump initiated and instigated it.

>> Now, if people copy it, that's a smart

thing to do if it works.

>> Absolutely. You cannot deny that uh law

and order is at the top of everybody's

list in terms of just living a

productive life. All right, next up on

the agenda. Oh, Bestie Brad, you're

going to love this one. AMD and OpenAI

just closed a massive GPU deal. Could be

worth 60 billion or more over the next 5

years. Obviously, uh, two companies are

are run by friends of the pod. Lisa from

AMD and Sam from OpenAI, both been on

the pod. AMD stock rocketed up 35% since

the announcement. OpenAI committed to

purchasing six gawatts worth of AMD's

nextg GPUs. A little bit of an

interesting wrinkle here. AMD granted

OpenAI warrants. Okay, that's

interesting. For up to 160 million

shares or 10% of the companies. And with

that massive increase in their stock

price, Brad, I think this means that

OpenAI is going to get a lot of GPUs

essentially for free.

Big dialogue has started, Brad, around

these roundtpping conflicted party

transactions. Is that how some people

would describe them, specifically the

SEC? Do you have concerns about the AI

trade and the amount of circulation of

shares, GPUs, and cash that's going on

right now, and I know you're in the

thick of this.

>> Yeah. And and maybe before we get into

roundtpping and circular revenues, which

I do want to hit, I think it's super

important that we talk about that. Let's

just break down the deal a little bit

because there's a lot going on and I

think it I think it's important we put

context around it. So, first, this is a

bet the farm bet by Lisa Sue, right?

She's given away 10% of the company if

the compute gets deployed. She said a

couple weeks ago, we're in year two of

10 of a compute buildout across the

country. So, I I I have a couple charts

here. Why would she make a bet the farm

bet, Jason? Right, that's an important

question. Remember, Nvidia just did a

huge deal with OpenAI. They didn't give

away any of their company. In fact, they

got the right to buy

>> part of OpenAI. So, look at this chart.

This is pretty wild. Just in 22,

in 2022, two and a half years ago,

Nvidia and AMD had basically the same

revenue, $25 billion, right? This year,

Nvidia will do 10x that at roughly, you

know, 210, $230 billion, and AMD will do

33 billion, right? Not much more than

they were doing when the companies were

tied in 2022. So Nvidia's captured

nearly 100% of the incremental AI data

center revenues over the course of the

last 2 and 1/2 years. And I think

there's this notion that somehow Nvidia

just popped out this special AI chip.

But I think if you listen to Jensen,

understand study the company, it's

because they have this ecosystem of

software, networking, extreme code

design. The unit of compute is no longer

the chip, right? It's the entire data

center which is composed of, you know, 5

to 10 different chips. Performance per

watt, right? Power being the constrained

resource here is everything. And

Nvidia's just crushed the competition.

So now put yourself in the shoes of

Lisa, right? And she's clearly not on

the wave. This tsunami has come.

Jensen's riding it. He's capturing 100%

of the wave and she's not even yet on

the wave. Her MI350 was just not

competitive. And so they have one shot.

Either the MI450 gets adopted and they

get back into the game, right? Or or or

they're out. She's a total warrior. I

think she believes in the 450. She went

to her board and she said, "Listen, this

is we got to take the shot here. We got

to bet the farm. If it works, she's

going to get 150 billion of incremental

revenue just from OpenAI, right, for

building out 5 gawatt. And on top of

that, of course, it could unlock a lot

of the other market because now it will

have validated that they have a a a chip

that works. But it's far from a done

deal, far from a conclusion whether the

450 is going to work. Can it compete

against Vera Rubin? Can it compete

against uh Reuben Ultra? All super

important questions. So that's one you

you know that that's the AMD deal.

>> Why have we switched from saying oh

Colossus bought you know XAI's data

center 100,000 H100s 200,000 H100s to

now framing these in gigawatts. I think

it's important for people to understand

why that's now how deals are being

framed just in the last 3 months has

changed.

>> Yeah I think I think there are a couple

constraining features. Number one chips

change right? So 100,000 H100s is not,

you know, is not apples for apples with

the number of GB200s, you know, Grace

Blackwell 200s or GB300s. And so it's

hard to talk about them. You're

comparing apples and oranges when you're

comparing these data centers. So a

unifying metric of compare, right, is

the the the power that goes in.

Everything starts with the power. It's

the constrained resource. So we can

compare a gigawatt of power because it's

remember it's power in and it's tokens

out and we can compare that over time

and normalize across all these different

chips and it's not just these two

companies you got tranium by Amazon TPU

by Google Cerebrris Gro etc. there are a

lot of folks in this game. And so again,

I think what you saw this week in this

flurry of announcements, right, is that

you have the market leader that's

basically captured 90 to 100% of the

incremental demand for the biggest thing

that the the data center and the chip

market has ever seen. And every other

player is looking at what they have to

do to have a shot to capture part of

this wave, their high-risisk, highreward

bets. The other thing I would say is,

and again, shut me up and anybody can

jump in if they want to, but I want to

decompose. We're hearing these estimates

of 100 gawatt, four to five trillion of

buildout over the course of the next

four years. If you look at that same

chart I just showed you, that's not what

Wall Street estimates are, right? There

is a lot of disbelief on Wall Street as

to what's going to get built out. So if

you look at that estimate, you know,

starting in 2027, it basically flatlines

27 through 29 for Nvidia, right? Less

than 10% keger in terms of the growth

for Nvidia. They have by 2029 them doing

360 billion in revenue compared to 210

billion of revenue this year. To put it

in gigawatt perspectives, that means

going from four to five gigs per year in

25 to 9 gigs in 29. That's a big step

up, but a long way from the 100

gigawatts you were hearing, you know,

bantered about on CNBC this week.

>> That's for a different reason. Nick, put

this put this quote up there, which is

this famous quote from Nathan Rothschild

where he said, "I care not what puppet

is placed upon the throne of England to

rule the empire on which the sun never

sets. The man who controls Britain's

money supply controls the British

Empire, and I control the British money

supply."

Why is that quote so interesting as

applied to AI?

I think that what you're going to see

and you're seeing it in those revenue

graphs is that there is a traffic jam

that's happening in growth where it

won't be the ability to actually build

nextgen silicon,

but it'll be the energy inputs that will

constrain it and it will be the

ingredient inputs that constrain growth.

And so the companies that then control

those elements of the supply chain will

actually come into power and rise to

power. So what is one example of this?

One example of this is when you look at

the architecture of Nvidia's chips, one

of the things that they have made a huge

bet on is HBM. And this is a memory

structure. And what's so interesting

about that is when you look at the HBM

market, it is effectively Nvidia who

takes up the majority, the majority

majority and then Google.

And now AMD's next architecture actually

needs to sit on top of HBM. Now they're

going to have to go and step into that

supply chain and try to ask for share.

Where will that share come from? And

this is where the people that then

control that supply, SKH Highix and

Samsung will have leverage. Now, this is

what's interesting about a deal that

OpenAI announced two or three weeks ago.

Sam was in Korea and you saw him shaking

hands with SKHix and Samsung. And my

initial thought then was why is OpenAI

doing a deal with the memory maker and

then it occurred to me, wow, he's buying

forward capacity on HBM because now he

can allocate that share. So when I saw

that deal and I saw that equity, it

reminded me of this Rothschild quote.

Sam has allocation and now Sam can

allocate allocation and then as a result

get a tax and I believe that the

warrants and the equity are effectively

that. What's a different example? Brad

mentioned this before, but energy will

be the gating item beyond a shadow of a

doubt. And so if you control electrons,

any form of electrons, hydrocarbon to

electron, electron to electron, photon

to electron, doesn't matter, you will

then be in a position to start asking

for equity, upside, participation in

these companies in a way that you could

never do before. You would just have

been a linear member of the supply

chain, a low margin participant.

So when I look at where we are, I think

that the really interesting question now

is to ask what is the second and third

order degree inputs that are critical to

allowing the big foundational model

makers to allowing Nvidia to allowing

AMD Broadcom to thrive and that is where

I would start to look because those that

control those resources are going to

dictate the pace and the scale of this

AI expansion. Okay, coming around the

horn here to you, our Zar of AI, David

Saxs. When you see this massive amount

of deal making occurring, it's got to

warm your heart a bit. American

exceptionalism at work here, people

swinging for the fences. What's your

take on Brad and Chimat's

overview of where we're at here in the

fall of 2025 in the AI race?

Yeah, I I don't really like to take

sides on these deals for the obvious

reason that we want to be supportive of

everybody and just have a healthy

environment for competition. So, as long

as there's

>> investment going on and as long as

there's a lot of competition, those are

good things. That's what we want to see.

So, I tend to think this OpenAI AMD deal

is evidence of that. There was the

OpenAI Nvidia deal. There was the Nvidia

XAI deal. There's just a ton of

investment going on and that's what we

want to see. So that's all really good

news.

>> I was struck by Brad's chart about

Nvidia's revenue in the out years. The

amount of capex or investments going to

go into data centers and compute more

than a few years from now. I think

that's really hard to predict.

>> Impossible, right? Yeah,

>> very hard because on the demand side of

the compute, it's going to depend on new

applications that get created. So for

example, the demand for tokens depends

not just on AI chat bots, but on the new

agents that are coming along. You have

these new video generation models, Sora,

and now XAI's just released something.

So we don't really know what the demand

for tokens is going to be. I think it's

going to be huge. I think there's a lot

of applications that haven't even been

invented yet. We are in the very early

stages are going to drive demand. It's a

little bit like in the early days of the

internet, we had this dotcom bubble

where everyone thought there had been

too much fiber built out and then all

the fiber ended up being used because,

you know, social networking came along,

Facebook came along, YouTube came along.

When all that original fiber in the '90s

was built out, they didn't even know

that photos and videos were going to be

a thing. So, the bandwidth eventually

all got used up. I think in a similar

way, all of the compute will eventually

get used up by new applications. I guess

the thing we don't know is how much more

efficient will the infrastructure get at

producing these tokens. So that would be

the offsetting factor is yes the chips

are getting so much better. I mean

>> we're moving faster than Moore's law

here. Every year Nvidia is releasing a

new generation of chips

>> and it's doing inference at multiple

times the efficiency of the previous

year on I guess a token per watt basis

or whatever you want to measure it. So

that's an offsetting factor. And then

there could be um more efficiencies

created in the model architectures with

um sparser architectures. So those will

be offsetting factors as all the

efficiencies we get. But then you have

to you know if I'm kind of arguing with

myself then you've got the Jevans

paradox which is as the cost per token

comes down more and more that's going to

enable AI to be used in more and more

context where previously it wasn't

economically efficient now it will be.

So that's going to fuel the demand. I

mean, David, David, I think this is a

huge boom. Yeah.

>> Yeah. Your point is a your point is a

great one. Everybody's looking for the

bubble, right? We've got this pattern

recognition. Everybody's like, "What?

It's dark fiber. It's got to be dark

fiber. There's no way that you can 10x

your revenues at Nvidia without it

being, you know, a bubble." But the

reality today is Nvidia trades at a

lower price to earnings multiple than it

did when it was $200 a share. Think

about what the term dark fiber means. We

were laying fiber in the ground that

remained dark. We did not have the

demand for the fiber. There is not a

dark GPU in the world today.

>> There's not going to be a dark GPU in

the world next year.

>> Good point. There's no dark GPU.

>> I don't think that's the question. I

think the question is what is the ROI

on input and output tokens per use case?

What is the ROI of a random use of a

model? And I think that that is a very

good question. How many of those tokens

are generally gross margin negative? How

many of those are unprofitable? How many

of those are profitable? And I think

that's what they're trying to ask when

they ask that question. They may just

not know the technical intricacies to

ask it that way. But I think that's what

people are trying to debate when they're

trying to guess. And I don't think we

totally yet know.

>> And just two things I wanted to add

here. There are other solutions which

have not yet hit the ground. I mentioned

Bit Tensor. I think it's an open source

project that's worth looking into. I

started a little fund of my own with my

own capital to start exploring this

because there are going to be other

solutions that come to fill all of this

Javans paradox that's happening.

Chimach, your thoughts? Yeah.

>> Well, I think the thing to remember is

token generation is this very

complicated quadratic that just consumes

a ton of power.

>> Yeah.

And there really is no way to ignore the

fact that even with more complicated

capabilities,

the models are becoming much more

complicated. These context windows are

getting longer or bigger.

And so I just think that we are in this

massive massive capital race. And

unfortunately I think what that will

create is the need for all of these

other things. Like for example, there

may be architectures where you just have

to use SRAMM because you can't get HBM.

I don't think we know what that does to

a whole bunch of these use cases today

because it may just be completely

unperformant.

Separately, I think Meta was the one

that published this. There's a big

disconnect right now in the market

around the failure rates of certain

classes of hardware and not at the chip

level because at the chip level these

things are really performant but at the

server rack system level these things

are you know failing 9 to 20% of the

time

>> that's very complicated how do you deal

with all of that and how do you deal

with these cascading failures all these

things because we are pushing the

boundaries of physics we're at you know

two and three nanometer scale yields are

good not Okay. All of these things I

think have to get worked up

>> and that's what makes it such a great

opportunity and so exciting I think.

Brad, let's talk about the TAM. I've

been working a bit on what is the TAM of

this. And in the modern developed world,

what we used to call the first world,

you got about 500 million business

users. They spend on average, Brad,

about $3,000 on SAS products. So if you

were to just put those numbers together,

it it gets pretty large pretty quick.

trillions of dollars in revenue for

those users. And if you look at

consumers and just use an analogy maybe

Brad I think be interested if you think

this is a valid one. Consumers pay for

you know Netflix and Disney Plus

whatever it is probably a couple hundred

a year. So then you have a billion users

in the developed world. I'm not counting

frontier markets and the developing

world. We're talking about a TAM that's

going to be a couple of trillion dollars

a year. I think you would agree. So the

buildout of a trillion dollars doesn't

seem as farical if that is in fact the

prize. And I think I've set the tab very

well.

>> Wait, hold on. It's not it's not a

trillion. That's just the capex, then

you have to think of what the opex is.

The opex is probably the same multiplied

by the useful life, which is probably 20

years. So if you think there's a billion

of capex going in, you have to expect

that there's a trillion capex, sorry,

trillion of capex going in. There's tens

of trillions of opex over the useful

life of all of this stuff. upgrade

cycles, people, power, water. So, it's a

much bigger spend than we think. So, we

have to be careful that we're not

underestimating, frankly.

>> Absolutely. And then there's what the

life of these are, right, Brad? Like,

what is the use for like Corewave thinks

these things last four years?

>> Well, they six. They underwite to six.

>> They're at six. Other people are saying

four. So, that seems a little

challenged, too. Here's a rule of thumb

is that each gigawatt data center is

about $50 billion of investment roughly

between the chips, the land power shell.

It's about 50 billion per gigawatt. And

you have, you know, open AAI and Elon,

they're

>> talking about scaling to 10 gawatt data

centers. That's a $500 billion

investment.

>> I think that's right.

>> Per data center if it gets that big. I

mean to be clear they're still working

on the 1 gawatt data centers but from

there they're going to go to 2 or 3

gawatts next year and then from there

probably to five over the next couple of

years. So you could get to a 10 gawatt

in I don't know probably 5 years

something like that. Brad's kind of

convinced me that we should all be

taking the over on this as he usually

does.

>> Welcome home Brad. We appreciate you.

When I think about Nvidia's market, I

think the big question to me is I so I

would bet the over on demand because I

think that it's very hard to underwrite

demand for applications that don't exist

yet, but I'm confident they will be

there. The thing I don't know about

their business is whether the GPU market

bifurcates between training and

inference. I think everyone understands

that Nvidia has by far the best training

chips, but there's a lot of competitors

including Chimamath company Gro and

there's Cerebras and obviously AMD wants

to compete and then obviously Huawei is

is kind of a wild card there. We can

talk about that. And then obviously I

should mention all the the AS6 that the

big AI companies are. Yeah, using

Broadcom IP, you've got the Google TPUs

and you know, Brad, you mentioned

Tranium, which is Amazon's chip, and I

think Open AI wants to develop their own

chip. So, I think the question is given

that inference will be 99% of the market

and training is only 1%. Could Nvidia be

in a situation where they've got

training locked up, but when it comes to

inference, there's just a lot of other

alternatives because people have

developed cheaper inference chips. I'm

not saying that's going to happen. To

me, that would be the big question.

>> Well, I mean, listen, you know.

>> Yeah. You know, I think first I go back

to the point you made. We're at this

critical juncture in a global AI race

and we should all be celebrating the

fact that there is this level of

investment going on in the United

States. This is the definition of

creative destruction. It won't all work.

But the risk capital, the

entrepreneurial boldness of SAM and

Nvidia and Lisa, this is what's going to

keep us ahead in the global AI race.

None of this would be happening if

Washington had not unlocked power.

Jensen said this on on my podcast or our

podcast last week, you know, on this.

We've unlocked power. We've unlocked

capital. People are now able to

underwrite to these deals. So, first, I

just think that this is incredible. We

have this level of competition in terms

of Nvidia's ability to stay ahead um of

of everybody else. Listen, I think at

the end of the day, it's power in and

it's tokens out. It's perf per watt. If

I've talked to many CFOs of hyperscalers

and they said you could price the

competitor chips at zero. Jensen said

this publicly many times. Price the

competitor chips at zero and it's still

more effective and uh economic decision

to choose Nvidia. And I think that's

what it comes down to. They have to be

at perf per watt because power is the

constrained resource. Going back to what

Chimas said.

>> Okay. I want you to just give me a

number Brad. The total TAM of this in

five years. What's the in the modern

world? What's the spend going to be?

Just think about that for a second.

>> I think I think Jason, I think you made

a great point about about total TAM. We

see about a hundred billion already in

incremental generative AI revenue in

2026. That has to grow to well over a

trillion by 2030. If you look at it on a

top downs basis, $125 trillion global

GDP. If you get a 10% improvement in

productivity, that's 12 trillion a year

of productivity improvements. If you get

a 5%, that's five or six trillion.

That's what's leading MASA and Sam and

others to place these these heroic bets.

>> Okay, great. We just have to lightning

round this. Here is the roundtpping

discussion that people are obsessed

with. Nvidia at the center of this uh a

$4.5 trillion company, largest company

in the world. And as you can see here

between XAI, OpenAI making language

models, AMD, uh, Intel, Coreweave

standing up data centers,

you know, and so many other companies.

Oracle is obviously in the mix with

their cloud, Google with their cloud,

Gemini, uh, they have their own chips as

well. What do we take away from what we

all saw, Chimath and I, up close and

personal with AOL and and their

partnerships? And I guess I'll start

with you here, Chimoth. Is this

analogous to the roundtpping we saw on

the dotcom era? Are these conflicted

party transactions concerning to you at

any level? Is CNBC and everybody hand

ringing about this over their skis or is

it a legitimate concern? I'm not sure

that they're framing the concern

properly. There are a lot of industries

where these things are

standard practice and well accepted.

One example that was explained to me

this week was how the auto OEMs dealt

with car dealers, their car dealer

networks, where you would give what's

called the floor loan, where if you're

trying to sell a Ford F-150, you give

your dealership a loan. They then buy

the car, it pulls forward the revenue

for Ford, then the dealer goes and sells

the car to you, and you know, they take

the ARB and they pay the financing cost.

So, this kind of stuff has been

wellestablished for a long time. So I

think what I would rather ask is where

is the PCAOB expert that says this is

not good. I just think that these are

too complicated for me to understand.

They get into the vagaries of accounting

law. But I suspect that these companies

are well

advised and I think that there are other

industries that have been doing it for

many years and I think that if there was

a real issue it would have been exposed

much sooner quite honestly.

>> You say PCAOB

public company Accounting Oversight

Board. Yeah.

Like I mean I just think there there's

just and by the way there's all the

quarterly regulatory filings that are

required all the Sarbox compliance

that's required the numbers of auditors

that are looking at these things. I

think it does come down to the fact that

there are many industries that use this

forward flow agreements if you want to

call it factoring flowing agreements if

you want to call it that.

>> And I just think that it's newer in our

industry but it's important to

acknowledge that it's very well

established in many other legacy

industries

>> and there's a lot of it all of a sudden.

So I guess Brad, the uniqueness to our

industry is one piece or I'll give it to

you Sax. The the uniqueness to our

industry is one piece and the number of

these is just making people's heads spin

a little bit and makes their mind

wander. But conflicted party

transactions have to be very well

documented,

you know, in SEC filings, etc. And these

are largely public companies. But go

ahead, Sax.

>> Well, look, these companies all have

lots of very expensive lawyers and

accountants. So, I'm sure that from a,

you know, GAP standpoint or security

standpoint or compliance standpoint,

what they're doing is fine. Now, when

people talk about roundtpping, if you

want to talk about the the spirit of it,

the underlying concept behind it, I

think what it comes down to is that

Nvidia is effectively extending credit

to its buyers. Why do they need credit?

Because this buildout is so capital

intensive. I mean,

>> Elon, every model is quadratic. It gets

worse.

>> They're all running around the world

looking for capital. There was a photo

of Sam the other day. I forgot what

country he was in. Might have been UAE

or Saudi or something. In any event,

they're all looking for as much capital

as they can get to fund this buildout.

And in certain cases, obviously, Nvidia

is extending effectively credit in

exchange for equity or whatever it may

be. And I think the question you have to

ask is simply,

are these companies that are on the

receiving end of this credit effectively

creditw worthy? In other words, will

this investment yield economically

viable results? Right? Because if let's

say Nvidia extends credit to OpenAI and

then OpenAI then buys chips from Nvidia,

Nvidia recognizes that as revenue. The

question is is there economic substance

to that or is it basically a shell

transaction? And my my view on it is

that there is substance to the

transaction because there is downstream

demand for AI and the applications that

are eventually going to get built and

for the uh APIs that are being put out

there for basically the tokens that are

being generated. I mean Brad will have

the exact numbers but I think open AAI's

revenue ramp rate is it's something like

5 billion to 25 billion to 100 billion.

Brad what can you tell us the years on

that? I mean,

>> well, I don't want to get over my dis

skis about what's been disclosed, but I

think that

>> Yeah, they'll they'll they'll exit this

year at over 20 billion run rate. I

think there are a lot of people who

think they could hit uh 50 next year and

100 after that. So, this again gets back

to your point, David. There's no dark

GPUs in the world today. The tokens are

being consumed. Every consumer in the

world wants answers. They don't want to

use 10 blue links. Every enterprise

wants to deploy this to make their

enterprise better. National sovereigns

want to do this in order to advance

their military and other other things. I

want to come back to this very point. We

should be on the lookout for sham

transactions. When you have moments of

excitement like this, they of course

will lead to somebody on the edge doing

stuff that is a sham. What's a sham?

There's no economic substance. There's

no end buyer for your product. So I call

up Sachs. I say, "Saxs, I I've got a

bunch of inventory. Nobody wants to buy

it. I'm going to wire you a billion

dollars. buy a billion dollars of my

product, I'll post it to revenue and

we're good to go. It doesn't cost him

anything and I get to book a billion in

revenue. Clearly a sham, clearly

illegal. Not at all what's occurring in

the case with Nvidia. Just put it in

perspective. 25 through 27, Nvidia will

generate $450

billion, half a trillion dollar of cash

flow. What they're investing is mice

nuts. They are making equity investments

in companies that are mice nuts. It's

not credit to these companies. The

companies don't, in the case of Open AI,

they don't even have to use Nvidia

chips. They just told the world they

were going to buy all this AMD, right?

They're rumored to be building their own