Where you at, Jama?

>> Look at those cabinets. I know exactly

where he is.

>> I'm here.

>> I can tell by the cabinets.

>> We'll beep that out.

>> Tomorrow I leave for

>> and then I come home a week from Friday.

>> So that means you're going to be leaving

this week. So it's open next week. So

>> I think you're about to get a house

guest.

>> Wait a second. The house is open. I like

late season.

>> Ko Kalin's about to make an appearance.

>> I mean Ko Kalin's about to bless the

host.

>> Oh, I'm going to bless that house. You

can be sure. I'm going for a little

Indian summer on the Italian.

[Music]

>> Let your winners ride.

[Music]

>> We open source it to the fans and

they've just gone crazy with it. Love

you.

[Music]

>> All right, everybody. Welcome back to

the number one podcast in the world, the

AllIn podcast. were back and you got

your original crew. Some people were

wondering, are people losing their

commitment to excellence? Are people out

gallivanting? Would we ever see the core

four back? August 14th. We're taping.

You'll be listening on August 15th. But

gentlemen, we're back. How are you

doing, Chimath? You look well rested.

>> The Core Four.

>> The Core Four.

>> That's new.

>> Who could ask for anything more?

>> Would you say that the Core Four could

be fantastic?

>> I think On their best days, I would say

they are exceptional. Perhaps even

tipping into fantastic. Did you see it

yet, Sax?

>> Yeah,

>> it's pretty great. I think they did a

great job. Yeah,

>> it's it's like one of those weird, you

know, superhero groups that it's like a

real throwback and I don't think a lot

of people get the aesthetic or what

they're trying to do there, but I I

think you're going to love it. Freeberg,

you didn't see it yet. Fantastic 4.

>> No,

>> you're going to love it for the science.

It's It's really got like a real

throwback to the ' 50s60s science kind

of aesthetic. Wrapping up summer months

here. In a couple of weeks, we'll be in

LA for the All-In Summit. Couple of

tickets still available.

Allin.com/events

or yada yada yada for the Jcal discount.

Freeberg, how's your summer going? You

doing okay over there, buddy? You showed

up last week.

>> I show up.

>> You showed up last week. No weeks off

for you. had a beautiful mountain bike

ride yesterday with Xander. We ended up

>> Oh, how nice. going on for quite a

while. Having a birthday dinner with

Jason tonight. Happy birthday.

>> Happy birthday, Jason.

>> Happy birthday to Jason I mean,

>> what a privilege for us to play with a

professional poker player so regularly

like Jason in the home game. We've

always wanted to. We've been playing

this home game for two decades and we

never had a pro there. We never had

somebody who truly had achieved

excellence in the field and so it's like

getting to be on the court with like

Michael Jordan or something. It's like a

real thrill for

>> Phil Helited too. Yeah. Did Phil get a

second with him or an autograph?

>> Cut it out. Phil's going to get mad.

>> Oh no. We're going to have to do another

apology. Do another apology letter. Do

the apology now. JL do the

>> I'll just do a pre-apper

Saxy Poo. How are you? Are are you uh a

little rest and um a little rest and

relaxation for you?

>> Yeah, we just got back from Diego's

birthday party in the UK.

>> Oh, very nice.

>> One of those destination birthdays.

>> I mean, so many of those things. Oh,

God. You know, it's like three of summer

retirement parties. John Herring's

having a retirement party. I don't know

what kind of flex that is. The kid's

like 31 years old. He's like, "Ah, I got

into SpaceX. I retired." I was like,

"I'm an Uber. I'm still working."

What are you going to do for the next 60

years? Our lifespans are going double.

You got to keep busy, folks. All right.

Listen,

what a stacked lineup we have. Oh my

god. Alex Karp from Palenteer's coming.

You got Alex Karp?

Yes,

>> Freeberg. I like that guy.

>> Did you get any of the people on my

list?

>> You had some good names at the last

minute. Yeah, thanks for coming in 8

days.

>> When we send you notes months and months

in advance of the summit, when we

actually invite people and plan the

event and you don't respond, we move

forward. And then 8 days before the

event, you're like, "Oh, here's my list

of who I'd like to invite to the summit.

Can you guys figure out how to get them

there?"

>> Oh, YouTube CEO Neil um is coming.

That's great. Neil Mo. Get his name,

just so you know.

>> I was looking up his name. I know his

name's Neil, but I didn't know his last

name. Neil Mo. Oh, and oh, look at that.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright is back

for round two with Jal. I love it. What

a great lineup.

All right, let's get started, folks. I

think the story of the week is this AI

psychosis. This is a crazy story. People

call it chat GPT psychosis as well.

We'll get into that. But if you're an ex

user, you've seen this discussion over

and over again. It's called being

oneshotted. Okay, that's like uh you get

sniped in a video game or something.

People are starting to have delusions

that are being triggered by or enhanced

by AI chat bots. The core of the issue

seems to be that these chat bots, as you

know, are sickopantic. They confirm your

beliefs. They agree with you. They're

refusive in their praise. And it's so

believable that now people are starting

to believe they're in a relationship

with AI. Okay. And uh OpenAI saw this

becoming an issue and uh they made some

healthy use updates to chat GBT. It's no

longer going to tell you whether or not

to break up with your boyfriend, to

leave your spouse. It prompts you to

take a break after long sessions.

And they also admitted that their 40

model had been creating some of these

psychosis scenarios. quote, "There have

been instances where our 40 model fell

short in recognizing signs of delusion

or emotional dependency. Psychology

Today had a story uh just recently of

the emerging problem of AI psychosis.

Man, people are falling into romantic

relationships. They have godlike

delusions and a prominent investor, you

may have seen this, seems to be

undergoing some AI psychosis according

to people who may be near it. I'm not

going to say his name, but it's pretty

clear who it is. but he released a video

where he started talking about

recursion, all this crazy stuff. You may

have um even witnessed a little bit of

this when uh Travis was on the program a

couple weeks ago and he said he was like

spending his time on the fringes or the

edges of

>> physics. Yeah. And like hitting like it

really can take you down the rabbit

hole. There's a really interesting

subre.

>> Sorry. Are you saying Travis is

suffering from AI psychosis?

>> I'm saying we may need to do a health

check. We may need to do a health check

because smart people can get involved

with these AI. So, we may have to do a

um a little welfare check on our boy TK.

>> Can you just tee this up and hand it off

so that the rest of us can talk, please?

>> I'm about to do that. I'm about to do

that. Okay, Chimath, you seem to be

raring to go

with this AI psychosis issue. Go ahead,

enlighten us with your hot take.

>> Go ahead. I miss you, too. You're the

best.

>> You're the best. Hold on. Wait. My

phone's ringing.

>> Oh, great. Hey, listen, Andrew. I was

I'm going to send you a link to a Zoom

chat. I'm just hoping you

>> Yeah, make me an offer. Sure, I'm in.

Yeah, they just these idiots just paid

me $50 million to come join your podcast

and make it higher rated than yours.

Okay, great. Yeah. Okay, I'll see you on

your boat.

>> Like in the major leagues when like a

double trade happens.

>> So, we get Andrew Ross Sorcin and then

Gerser and Gurley get Calcanis. That

would be really interesting.

>> It's a three- team deal. It's a three-

team deal. You're also getting

>> Let us know in the comments if you would

like to see that trade.

>> Okay, Shimoff, you got any thoughts on

this? You seem to be raring to go on

this issue.

>> I don't really have much thoughts on

this AI psychosis issue per se, but I do

think that it's part of a bigger trend,

meaning these things aren't created

overnight and out of nowhere. I think

we've known for a while that

what is Scott Galloway calls it the

loneliness epidemic. Is that

>> which I tend to agree with. I mean I

think that there is a profound shift in

how young people connect with each other

and with the world at large. And I think

that they are becoming more isolated.

And I think the dangerous part of AI is

that it can replace whatever flimsy

connection that people have left to

their real world community. So if you

think about like how much influence

is shaped and generated in places like

Instagram by real people and then go to

the limit of a very useful AI that

replaces those people with fake people

and fake pictures you can't discern.

but they're willing to be responsive to

you and engage with you and talk with

you, on the one hand, it's incredibly

interesting. On the other hand, that

person is ultimately not real.

>> Yeah.

>> And so I think whatever it is that

people are going through right now, and

you can see it in all kinds of data,

right? You see it in marriage rates, you

see it in household formation rates, you

see it in childbearing rates. Something

is broken. It has been for a while in

society. I think all these tools have

exacerbated it and I think this is just

yet another step in that direction.

>> Freeberg, what's your take here?

>> Sorry, I apologize. I I'll say one more

thing. I was talking to somebody about

this and he mentioned it. He framed it

this way and I thought it was really

interesting. If you look at online

services, their primary mechanism of

action is via dopamine. And they're

trying to find mechanisms to trigger the

release of dopamine. And that's what

gives you that stimulative sensation,

right? But if you think about real world

relationships,

having a wife, having a long-term

girlfriend, those are fundamentally

about serotonin, not dopamine. The

dopamine wears off very quickly. And

what are you left with? You're left with

establishing a long-term structural

relationship with somebody and the ups

and downs of that. And it's not always

peachy keen. That's the same thing with

friends. And so I think the other thing

that's really interesting to note is

that we are sort of all in on dopamine,

dopamine, dopamine. And young people,

particularly the ones that are the most

susceptible to this, I'm going to guess,

have not had enough structural

interactions and the kinds of

relationships that actually create these

long-term serotonin-like behaviors so

that you can actually balance this stuff

out. And so, I suspect that this thing

is going to catch on like wildfire in

part because it's taking advantage of a

trend, I think.

>> Yeah, it's a it's a quick hit as opposed

to the long-term gain of of deep

friendship. Free, what are your

thoughts?

>> I was in the college dorms in 1996.

There was this woman who was in the room

next to me and she was on AOL and she

got stuck on AOL

like 24 hours a day. She failed out of

college. She was completely addicted to

it. She like disappeared into this

rabbit hole of doing imming with random

people online. It was the craziest

thing. I don't think that that chat is

necessarily revealing. I think it's just

at a much larger scale this challenge

with this psychosis where you get drawn

into these holes. There's a study by a

researcher called Julian Holt Lunat who

took 148 other studies, psychological

studies to identify the relationship

between social interaction and mortality

and strong social relationships

increased survival odds in humans by 50%

which is equivalent to quitting smoking

more impactful than obesity or

physical inactivity. I think that

there's a real struggle that people have

with loneliness

that

manifest in a bunch of different ways.

But psych studies have shown that some

of the key motivators for going online

to engage with social interaction

systems is self-expression, recognition,

curiosity, emotional regulation. You can

test ideas. You can engage cognitively

in ways that you can't or you don't have

access to in real life. So, there's a

whole lot of motivating factors for

people to go deep in social engagement

online. And there's never been an

infinite social engagement system until

I AI came along, these chat interfaces

came along, right?

>> So rather than have to go find someone

on the AOL im or find someone in a chat

group or find someone on a bulletin

board, you have this infinite

personality you can engage with. So I

actually asked chat GPT like this

morning,

>> would you be my friend? And it was like,

>> well, I think I think I think the

challenge is once you end up in these

deep rabbit holes with a chat interface,

there are things that happen with the

way LLMs operate that can drive you into

this warped reality because you're now

so fully engaged and fully captivated by

this reality with the chat interface,

but the chat is not a human. So, it

doesn't have the same wiring, the same

triggers as a human might have to

realize it's going down a a wrong place.

So when I asked chat GPT what drives

some of the psychotic breaks that happen

in in people that overuse chat and end

up in these deep rabbit holes number one

it said feedback loops in training or

operation. So if the AI is trained in

its own outputs without safeguards then

small inaccuracies in the training

system can actually compound and so over

time this causes responses that it says

spiral away from factual grounding

similar to a human stuck in a

self-reinforcing delusional loop. So

suddenly the AI becomes delusional and

you become delusional with it because

you get taken on it. And the second is

this product.

>> What is that called? Folly do is that

the um the term for the second Joker

movie where like the psychological

phenomena of two crazy people

reinforcing it and spiraling out of

control.

>> It may be but I think this is just like

the AI can take you on this journey on

like a one-sided basis because you as a

user just get you know the AI is

compounding away from reality. Crazy.

And the second is what's called context

poisoning where long conversations or

poorly controlled inputs in those

conversations can actually push the

model's internal representation away

from its starting state. And so this

causes like offtrack reasoning, but you

if you're deeply in it, you're 16 hours,

80 hours into a dialogue with the AI,

you go with it. And so I think that

these are these things that are causing

these breaks. But I don't think that the

motive for human social contact is new.

I don't think that digital interface is

new. But I do think that there are two

things that are new, which is the

infinite engagement you get with a chat

interface and second is the way that the

LLM operate that can actually cause

these breaks that take people with them.

And I have personally seen it. This is

not some like New York Times report.

I've actually personally seen it with

people I know that have got caught in

these loops that get broken mentally.

It's it's really sad and so it's

definitely an issue and I think they're

going to need to put safeguards. Sax,

you have any advice for these losers?

Um, and who are

creating relationships with their GBG?

Could you could you just break the um

ridiculousness of this, please, with

some sax wisdom?

>> Well, yeah. I mean, look, this whole

idea of AI psychosis, I think I've got

to call on the whole concept. I

mean, what are we talking about here?

People are doing too much research.

I mean, they're stuck in a loop doing 12

hours of research on on AI. Okay, look,

this feels just like the moral panic

that was created over social media, but

updated for AI. And the media is going

to love it because they're afraid that

AI is going to do to them on the

creative side, what social media did on

the distribution side, which is replace

them. So, the media is going to love

this concept and promote it. And then

the trial lawyers are going to love it

because it gives them a new basis for

suing all these companies. And then

there's going to be individuals out

there who are like, "Oh, I have that."

and they're going to glom on to this

message and you're going to see more and

more people claiming they have this

because it's gonna draw attention to

them. But the reality is that if you

look at that Time magazine story which

is trying to brand this concept of AI

psychosis, the game is given away by

this doctor who says, "I don't think

using a chatbot itself is likely to

induce psychosis if there's no other

genetic, social, or other risk factors

at play." This was Dr. Dr. John Taus, a

psychiatrist at Beth Israel Medical

Center. Okay. So, what he's saying there

is that if you don't already have a

predisposition to some psychosis and

you're not suffering from extreme

isolation or loneliness, then you're not

going to get this, right? So, in other

words, this is just a manifestation or

outlet for pre-existing problems. And I

I think it's fair to say that we're in

the midst of a me mental health crisis

in this country. But if you look at the

charts on this, it began long before

chat GPT kicked off the AI race at the

end of 2022 and you can see that the

mental health decline is affecting all

ages, but it's most acute among the

young. So Nick, if you could pull up

those FT charts, what you'll see is that

there's been a big drop in

conscientiousness among young people, a

big increase in neuroticism,

big decrease in

extraversion, for example. But where

this really took off was starting around

2020. So in other words,

>> happened then,

>> right? So correlating with COVID and the

lockdowns and that whole huge societal

disruption that we now want to kind of

forget and paper over. That's what seems

to have triggered a lot of these mental

health declines, which kind of makes

sense that if people couldn't go to

school for a couple of years and they

were in these lockdowns and it disrupted

social formation and the development of

young people, obviously that's going to

have a bigger impact. So, I think this

AI psychosis thing, it's going to get a

lot of play. The media is going to love

it. There's a lot of other groups that

are going to love it because they're

going to hope to profit from it in some

way. But ultimately, I think that it's

if the only thing that's happening is

that people are just going on chat bots

and researching to their heart's

content, it's probably a relatively

benign outlet for

pre-existing conditions that were there

in society.

>> Well, and you did mention the social

media psychosis. There's a lot of people

who have social media psychosis and they

spend 20, 30, 40, 50 Twitter posts a

day. And that's probably three of the

four of us here on this program uh who

are super engaged with that platform. It

may not be as much of a psychosis, but

it is an addiction. Sure.

>> Well, I think the whole moral panic over

social media was also overblown, but I I

do think that if you compare

>> and there was video games before that

and it was before that and you know on

>> violent movies before that and you know

there's always

rap lyrics.

>> Yeah.

>> Rap lyrics. Yeah.

>> Yeah. Or what was the the lyrics where

they were accused of being demonic?

Judas Priest.

>> Twisted Sister. Yeah. Judas Priest or

Twisted Sister.

>> Marilyn Manson. All of them. So there's

there's always something. But but I will

say

>> even the beat the Beatles were

outlandish and they were a threat to

societal fabrics back in the day. But

but even just comparing AI psychosis to

the moral panic over social media, I I

do think that it's probably undeniable

that social media has had an influence

on society because what happens is you

get on Instagram, people are posting

this best version of their lives. And so

it creates maybe a distorted sense of

reality and and people can sort of buy

into that. it gets that,

>> you know, and and there is something to

X being addictive and

>> and blue sky now and people spend too

much time on it, right?

>> Yeah. So, look, I'm not I'm not saying

that these things don't have any

negative consequences. I just think that

the panic about them is overblown. But

if you just compare this so-called AI

psychosis to the effects of social

media, again, I think it's relatively

benign because it's something that

people are doing to inform themselves

about things and they can go down rabbit

holes, but it doesn't really trigger

feelings of envy or inadequatess in the

same way that social media can. I think

>> it seems to be hitting like two groups

of people. It's the same group of people

who get catfished like lonely people who

are looking for a connection and then

it's like the conspiracy theorist

delusion of grandeur maybe they're like

on the borderline with mental illness

seem to be the two groups that are

getting sucked into this but it is

related you know you were talking about

the social fabric chimoth maybe in our

group chat earlier and you had some

thoughts on that and maybe we'll just

pivot into the the social fabric story.

So here, this went viral. Estimated

percentage of 30 year olds who are both

married and homeowners. So two of the

American dreams, dare I say, getting

married and starting a family, having

kids, and um in the 50s that was, you

know, half of 30 year olds already were

married and already had homes and now

we're down to 12%. There's a lot of

factors here, obviously, Chimoth, but

your thoughts generally on this. you

were

>> I sort of

>> I started to do some research on this

and

it's really sad actually what's

happening right now.

>> So I think if I had to kind of frame

this that chart that you showed is more

of the outcome and so you have to go all

the way back and try to explore what are

the potential root causes that causes

this kind of an outcome and there there

are a bunch of them.

I think one of the first ones that we

have to look at is what has happened to

young men. And I think what's happened

to young men is

a little concerning. So I don't think

it's our generation, but I do think if

you talk to people 30 and under, you

start to hear a consistent theme from

guys, which is one, it's they don't

really have the social skills to really

talk to girls. It starts with that. And

so what happens is they go to these

different outlets. They go to video

games.

They kind of communicate more online.

As a result, they tend to have brittle

or fragile emotional relationships and

social relationships. They don't date

the same way that they used to.

Then a lot of guys just feel like they

also don't want to get caught into being

perceived,

you know, post the me too movement in

any way, shape, or form as being

untowart. You take all of these factors

and you put it together and there's a

lot of guys that have just opted out and

they just kind of move in a direction of

parasocial relationships instead. Then I

started to look at like the the data on

porn usage. It's out of control. I had

no idea. But do you guys know what the

average age now of a porn watching

>> male is?

>> That's scary to think. The average age.

>> Yeah.

>> Would it be the average age of an

American man or does it skew younger? I

would assume skews younger.

>> It's gone. It's gone from 20 down to 16.

There are more than 50% of 12y old boys

now that watch porn.

>> I was shocked. I was like, "What are you

even talking about?" I was a teenager,

late teenager, I think, when I like I

mean, we had like you found a magazine

here or there, whatever.

>> They got a girly magazine. Yeah.

>> But can you imagine what it does to a

12-year-old boy when they start to get

instant gratification and you compound

that all through high school and they

don't have quote unquote what we would

call gain, right? The ability to just

talk and just kind of like carry on a

conversation. What do you think happens?

And then you go into the dating pool and

what are these dating sites optimized

for? These dating sites are optimized to

keep people there, not for you to find a

relationship and for you to churn,

right? And so the gamification and the

and the dynamics of those systems are

where many young men and women now look

to to find a relationship. And so you

have lonely young men that creates

lonely young women. a small cohort of

very eligible men and women that

everybody's chasing and fighting over.

Everybody else kind of left on the

sideline.

And so what do you think happens over 15

or 20 years of this activity? It's what

you see in this data. People aren't

coupling up. They're not having

long-term committed relationships. So

obviously as a byproduct, they're not

getting married more. Obviously, as a

byproduct of that, then you're not

combining two incomes. You're still with

one income. At the same time, Nick, I

just pulled this data. You can show it.

What has happened to the underlying

things that people would look to as

satisfying

markers of progress in life? A home, a

good education, those are way out of

reach, right? So, if you look at this

chart, the price to income ratio of a

home from 1980 to now has effectively

made it so that

you have to make an enormous amount of

money as a single individual to afford a

home today. M

>> and then if you only have a small

percentage of people actually getting

married and bringing two incomes

together, you see what you're seeing

today in that chart. So I don't know. I

think that we have a an issue in the

American fabric we need to figure out. I

don't exactly know what the solution is,

but it's taken me this long and maybe

this is what all these young people have

been screaming about and I have ignored.

So I apologize for not really

understanding the gravity of it. But I

think that this is a big problem and I

think we need to start talking about it

a lot more

>> and here's a manifestation of it. If you

look past year prevalence of major

depressive episodes US adults 2021

pretty recent data and that 18 to 25

spike look at that Shimoth and then 26

to 49 and then the older generations

maybe not having these massive

depression episodes. Frey any thoughts

on the American dream changing and young

men? Yeah, I think there's a lot of

conflated factors here. They can

certainly be related, but there's just a

lot to unpack in all that. I mean, I can

I can comment on the one piece. I I

think we talked a little bit about, you

know, getting lost online. I mentioned

when I was in college that year, 1996,

when that that woman got lost in AOL, we

had dialup internet. It was, you know, a

very different world where we're all

connected 24/7 on our phones. I'm sure

we all have average phone usage of 7

hours a day today. So, there's a lot

more rabbit holes to fall into that

reinforce this isolation. It doesn't

actually solve your isolation or

loneliness problem when you get stuck on

a phone or stuck on the internet. It

actually magnifies it, makes it worse

because you start to see all the things

you don't have and you start to feel

worse about yourself and that leads to

all of these kind of I would say

difficult social context that Simon's

talking about. With respect to

affordability, as you know, I think that

that's a distinct point which is related

to our expectation that the government

can and should always solve our problems

for us. And as a result, we created the

federal home loan program. Much like we

created the federal student loan

program, both of which I believe created

bubbles in those markets. We created

this concept that every American family

should be able to afford a home. And our

solution was to pump a bunch of money

into homes through the federal home loan

program. And that ultimately led to

bubbles of inaffordability for for

homes. If we really want to solve this

today, besides solving the government

spending problem and inflation problem

and dollar devaluation problem, which

obviously require cutting spending, I

think it's going to need to be some sort

of set of rules around making sure that

homes are not being bought up by

institutions. That that's one that I

think is going to be a pretty popular

point that's going to come up in the

next year or two, particularly in the

next election cycle. So, you know,

there's two sides to that to that one. I

think you you're kind of dancing around

the the issue there and I think it's

very real which is the financial piece

of this Freedberg boomers have just

absolutely this these couple of

generations if you look at the cost of

homes like you mentioned the cost of

education and then you just look at real

wage growth I don't know if I sent you a

chart Nick if you can take a look at

this you know the big problem in the

United States is wages have not grown

except for people who have a lot of

money already and so if you wanted to

start a family and you're in $100,000 in

debt for your student loans and homes

have double, triple, quadrupled in price

when compared to your income and we

don't have real wage growth. That's an

issue and I think this will become the

issue of the next election. We see

Mandami and the socialist movement we

talked about it last week. If you really

want to make a compelling argument for

the next election cycle, I think it's

real wage growth. And if you look at

something like minimum wage and this

disparity between what top earners make

and minimum wage, here's a chart of

where minimum wage is in the United

States versus other developed countries.

There is a real argument here even

though we might all be free market.

>> Well, there's a very different approach.

There's a very different approach to

higher education in literally all of

those countries except for ours.

>> It's affordable. Yeah.

>> Well, yeah. And and I think that we have

to call a spade paid. There was an

entire generation, if not two

generations of young men and women

younger than us, right? So, not in their

late 40s, early 50s who were told that

they must, not should, not it's nice to,

they must go to university. And these

folks took out an enormous amount of

financial support to do so. And part of

the underlying reason was that they were

told and it sounds very credible,

technology is coming and there's going

to be so much automation of all of the

other kinds of jobs that you may do in a

trade school. You should go to

university and protect yourself. Well,

lo and behold, it's turned out to be the

exact opposite. So, could you imagine

where, you know, you could have gone to

trade school, been an electrician, been

a plumber, build, done something,

welder,

made a couple hundred grand, married

somebody, you know, she does a good job.

Now, all of a sudden, she also makes

$150, $200,000 a year. You're making

$400,000 and you have no debt. That is

the key. You have no debt.

>> When you make 400K and have no debt, I'm

sorry, but that is probably actually

better than being the doctor making a

million bucks. And then there are all of

these other jobs that aren't a doctor

where you're still saddled with the

300,000 and you have no way of paying it

back. So I think that that's also a

really important issue that we have to

figure out at some point. There was a

framing of the issue for an entire

generation.

That was probably wrong. If I had to

bet, I would bet that engineers are more

likely to have their jobs replaced in

the short term than welders and

plumbers.

>> Okay, Saxs. I mean, we're talking here

just about the American dream. Is it

broken for these next generations, low

wages, high debt, no ability to buy a

home? And uh this came out of New York

this week. Pull up that chart. Slow

gains in jobs in New York City for the

first half of 2025. Feels like

something's happening here with jobs. We

talked to Vice President J. D. Vance

about this. He had some concerns about

uh jobs for recent grads. This is New

York City. Only about a thousand jobs

were added in the first half of this

year. Don't know if that's specific to

New York, but we had two months of uh

data revised where we we clearly have uh

some issues with jobs here and young

people are clearly having a problem

economically. They might be upside down.

What are your thoughts here? Sachs

>> possibly different things here. I'm not

sure how a specific data point around a

few months of jobs reports in New York

City is really relevant to a trend that

started in 1950. I mean, are we talking

about this? I mean, this is the chart

that went viral on X over the weekend

and a lot of a lot of people are

commenting on why this is, which is

starting in the 1950s, you had

about 50% of 30-year-olds were both

married and homeowners. And by the early

2020s, that number is about 10%. So

that's that's the big societal change

that's happened over especially the last

30 years. And the question is why? And I

think there's both economic factors and

social factors. And I think you guys

touched on some of the big economic

factors. I mean, one is the

affordability of housing, which I think

is mostly due to the fact that we're not

building enough. And that's due to the

fact that in large urban areas, I mean,

in these blue cities,

you can't build anything because the

cities have tied everything up in legal

and regulatory red tape. And that's the

whole point of Ezra Klein's book on

abundance is to try and get liberals to

change their point of view on that. So,

you've kind of got the affordability of

of housing and then you've also got the

college scam, which is you got these

kids graduating from college with, I

don't know, two $200,000 $300,000 of

debt because the cost of college has

skyrocketed over the last few decades,

which, you know, that was not true 30 or

40 years ago. You could get a decent

college education without graduating so

mired in debt that obviously there's no

way you're going to be able to buy a

house and start a family and that whole

thing. So I think there are these

important economic factors, but at the

same time there are a lot of these

social factors that you're talking

about. It it does seem like young men

are less self-sufficient. I mean, you've

got these data points around isolation

and loneliness, but you've also got

these data points around lack of

self-sufficiency. If you could put up

the FT charts where they talk about the

ability of of people to make plans and

follow through.

>> Exactly.

>> Look at this. I mean, so there's been a

big change among the 16 to 39 year olds

in their ability to make plans and

follow through, in their perseverance,

in how easily distracted they are, how

careless they are. And so I I do think

that there is there is a sense that

a lot of these young people just aren't

ready to be the head of a household, to

own their own homes, to start a family.

And I think there's some good questions

about why this is. And I wouldn't rule

out the effect of woke poison running

through the school system here for the

last 20 or 30 years. I mean, if you if

you raise white males since kindergarten

to believe that there's something wrong

with them. They're the evil group in

this morality tale of woke that's been

told,

>> they're going to internalize that in

some way and

>> maybe check out, maybe opt out.

>> I think I think it plays out in a lot of

different ways.

>> Yeah, they opt out.

>> But but I wouldn't I wouldn't rule that

out either. But it's hard to say

exactly. You know, look, I think that

Jamathy mentioned the online dating

sites. I mean I think there is something

to that where the dating sites have made

the dating market more efficient in a

way and more globalized but

>> but is that a good thing? I mean you

used to have a lot of hyper local dating

markets and maybe it was inefficient but

maybe that was more conducive to average

people hooking up whereas

>> I mean another thing remember think of

the number of people you guys know that

met either a long-term boyfriend or

girlfriend or a spouse at work.

>> Yep. But if you ask young people today,

is that even allowed? That is so

verboten. It is like so off the

>> it's not allowed. You're not allowed to

do any of that because of this latent

fear, as you said, of there could be an

accusation. How do I defend myself? And

so there's a there's a fear that has, I

think, seized a large part of our youth.

>> Yeah. What a great platform this is for

either party or a new party to pick up

just double the minimum wage, take out

all these regulations, build more homes,

and make a college affordable. Those

three things are such a winning

platform. Freeberg, you think that we

should What do you do with the mortgage

market? You

>> God, it's so difficult. I don't know.

>> Do you just basically privatize Freddy

and Fanny and let them underwrite?

>> I 100% think you got to privatize Freddy

and Fanny as a first step. And then you

have to stop underwriting student debt

so that you don't underwrite the

$200,000 degrees.

>> I believe 100% in ending the federal

student loan program. And I think that

it will force a restructuring of the of

the entire higher education system in

the United States, which no one wants to

hear, no one wants to do, and everyone's

against. But I think it is the only path

forward. We have the chancellor of UC

Berkeley and the president of Dartmouth

coming to the all-in summit to talk

about the future of higher education. I

think this is probably in my book one of

the top three most important issues we

should be discussing right now. We have

to get rid of the federal student loan

program and we have to force a right

sizing of uh higher education and a

restructuring of higher education such

that the access to education becomes

more ubiquitous. It's not this $300,000

debt load that everyone is forced to

take on. And it enables a more fair

market and a more free market where

people get what they pay for. And

ultimately people are going to have to

make decisions about what majors they're

getting and whether or not to pay for

these colleges

>> or whe at all to have a major social

have the social acceptability to to not

do that.

>> And and another tactical thing for is to

just this accreditation scam where only

certain people can give college degrees.

If you allowed, you know, entrepreneurs

to create schools like Joe Londale is

doing here. He had to buy an accredited

university to kind of back into it. But

if you asked a bunch of entrepreneurs,

hey, lower the cost of this degree from

250K to 50K, they would figure out a way

to do it. And it's already happening.

People are now using Chat GPT, using

online tools to get their education and

doing that around the existing system.

So, you know, life finds a way. These

young people are finding a way. They're

finding ways. I'll be honest, I really

like Trump's attack on Colombia,

UCLA, and Harvard

because I think that th those were these

sacred cows that were always left alone.

They were meant to be these signaling

mechanisms of

elitism and quality and future

prospects. And those institutions ran

totally a muck. Totally.

>> They started to do things that just made

absolutely no sense. to your point,

there was a a really good article, I

think it was in the Atlantic this

weekend about how the humanities

captured science. So, basically, these

universities get a large amount of their

federal funding by getting research

grants allocated to the university and

then they get an administrative topper

on top of the research grant.

Historically, at Harvard, that

administrative topper is 60%. So, if a

if a researcher gets a $3 million grant

at Harvard to work on cancer research,

$1.8 8 million of administrative fees

are paid to Harvard University.

Ridiculous.

>> So, a lot of the universities use those

fees to expand and grow out their

administrative staffing and also to

expand and grow out their humanities.

These aren't bad programs per se, but it

basically meant that the science funding

was being used to kind of create what

some people are now calling social

engineering that these universities been

engaged in over a several year period.

One of the other key questions about the

future of higher education is should

science and engineering

be coupled with the humanities from a

funding perspective or should those

institutions be

>> Peter Teal has a very funny saying about

this which is anytime you have a a

concept that you want to fund that has

the word science after it. It's not a

science. So just kick it to the curb.

>> Yeah. Physics is physics. Social science

>> political science or social science.

What is that? Yeah,

>> in China, in Germany, in Russia, there

are science and engineering institutions

that are separated from universities

where you can go and learn the

humanities. And I'm not discrediting the

the value of learning the humanities. If

you can afford it, if you think that

there's value in doing that for yourself

in your career, yada yada, go for it.

Good luck, etc. If you're wealthy and

you want to engage in that because

that's something you want to pursue,

society needs that, we value it. Great,

go for it. But the problem is the

research being separated from the

humanities is critical. Sachs, if you

want federal funding, shouldn't we put

and you want nonprofit status for your

giant endowment, why not require these

schools to increase the number of

Americans that they're educating and to

lower the price of the education? Now,

if you want to do it privately, fine.

But if you want federal funding, if you

want taxpayers to underwrite these

incredible institutions,

double the number of people you're

teaching, triple the number of Americans

you're teaching, and lower the cost 10%

a year till more people can afford it.

like we we have to hold them to some

standard here for increasing the number

of Americans who are educated because

those institutions now are global

institutions. There's very few Americans

going to them.

>> Listen, we've seen with all sorts of uh

goods and products that when the

government is paying the bill, the price

always rises. You always get inflation

because the government is relatively

insensitive to cost. Whereas, if you

look at technology products, the price

keeps going down over time. There's a

really good chart on this, right? where

like all the sectors of the economy that

are experiencing massive inflation,

they're all they're all funded by the

government.

>> Yeah. Healthare, housing, education,

where it is.

>> So look, that's what's going on with

higher education. But I want to bring

one other thing into this, which is, you

know, we spend a lot of time talking

about higher education. We don't really

spend that much time talking about the

quality of K through 12 education. M

>> and my sense on this is that over the

past 30 years or so, there's been a

shocking decline in the quality of

American

elementary and high school education. I

think it's so bad.

>> So bad.

>> If you look at the performance on

standardized tests, the extent they even

do testing anymore, you see pretty sharp

declines in the quality of education.

But there's a lot of places now where

they're trying to abolish testing.

They're abolishing gifted programs, math

programs. This is like a big issue in

California, San Francisco. They tried to

get rid of those gifted schools because

of of so-called equity. In other words,

they want to define the standards down

to the to the lowest because it would be

supposedly unfair for some kids to

experience the advancement of being in a

gifted program. And then of course, you

get into the behavioral standards. We've

all seen these viral videos of fights

happening in schools where, you know,

sometimes the teachers are in the fight,

sometimes the kids are in the fights.

This has been a total decline of

behavioral standards in schools. You

know, I remember back in the 1990s, Bill

Clinton got a standing ovation in the

State of the Union because he said that

they should have school uniforms and

there's a sense that you should have

discipline in schools and high standards

and now like I mean I actually think

that's a good idea. I mean I actually

think that

>> 100% uniforms and no and have phone

lockers, no phones in the school. You

you you check your devices. A lot of

things that could be done to to uh to

raise the the bar.

>> What is this fighting in Brooklyn in a

school?

>> This is what goes on in China.

>> Oh, look at that. Team work.

>> Teamwork.

>> We should do that at the summit. The

four of us should bounce basketballs and

show that we're a team. This be a good

team building exercise for the all-in

retreat.

>> Remember like you know the the the the

schools are in America, the public

schools are not run for the benefit of

the kids. They're run for the benefit of

the teachers unions. And we saw this

during co where Randy Weingarten

insisted that the schools stay locked

down and closed far longer than was

necessary when everybody else had

already realized that these lockdowns

did not make sense that putting the desk

5T apart was absurd. It was a placebo.

Who who

statement Sax? Because I remember this

happening. I remember the union guys

>> fought against reopening the schools.

>> Absolutely. Who was like there was a guy

you met?

>> It was Randy. It was Randy Weingard and

the teachers unions that were fighting

the school reopening and they kept it

closed for a year longer than necessary.

I mean in California it was closed for

roughly 2 years. You know there's

absolutely no justification for that

second year. Even if there was for the

first one I don't which was highly

questionable. And then the way they were

having you know 5-year-olds wear masks

to school.

>> Yeah.

>> I mean even in our schools. No, I mean I

had my 5-year-old was like they're

trying to like put this like mask on him

and

>> it's so sad. And then it was absurd

>> when when I he was falling off and

>> they never it was always like the nose

was out and you're like okay so this is

so performative when I

>> was taught in any way. It was

>> but I mean we talked about this during

co like what is the damage going to be

to these kids and we're seeing it now in

a range of things. I remember when I got

rid of the masks, my 9-year-old, who was

maybe five, maybe 6 years old at the

time, she refused to take it off and she

was scared. She's like, "No, Dad. I

can't take this mask off. I don't want

to die." And I'm like, "What are they

telling you at school? You're not going

to die. Nobody's wearing a mask

anymore." Unless you're at like the

Socialism 2025 conference where

everybody's I don't know if you saw

that, but Socialism 2025, they're

literally like after they do their land

acknowledgements, they mask up. So, it's

a panel of people in 2025 wearing masks.

>> Wait, is there really a socialism 2025

conference?

>> We have to go next year. I think we

should host an all-in panel at this. We

should definitely do some programming at

the 2026 socialism. It's amazing. It's

like the Democratic Socialist Party.

It's incredible. It's incredible.

>> Register for the party to get the

invite.

>> We should totally go undercover. We

should wear like we should get goatees

and suspenders and go as baristas like

and just talk about how we're going to

seize the memes of production.

>> Here's um it would be so great all in

undercover. If you look at the red bar

here, just in current dollars, the

average uh tuition fees, you know, when

we went to school it was 2 to 3,000 a

year on average and then now it's at 10

and that's an inflation at dollars. If

you put entrepreneurs on this and just

said

>> the problem is the socialist mindset is

that the way to solve that is to get the

government to do more and make it more

free. And the reality is that the reason

this happened is because the government

began to provide student loans unlimited

to everyone that got

>> running education in the administration.

Let's talk to them about accreditation

and cracking that open issue. We could

invest in a company to do this.

>> There was plenty of private

universities and private schools out

there. The problem is they all get

access to the capital. It's not about

accreditation. Sure, like make make

accreditation more easy, but at the end

of the day, you need to make capital

more efficient. You need to get the

government out of the role of allocating

capital to education. That's right.

There's there's actually a really simple

fix to this.

>> Somebody needs to close the loop so that

when you say you want to go and get an

art history degree, the answer is you

can do it, but you need to pay for it.

>> And no longer. In other words, what what

you're saying is there needs to be a

restoration of underwriting criteria,

correct for this type of

>> I said this forever. That's right.

Exactly right.

>> But also, I mean, if you do the next

prize, you said, "What's the least

amount of money you could spend to

educate somebody to be a lawyer?" You

would get entrepreneurs who like, "Oh,

that's a great business." Entrepreneurs

don't go after this because the

accreditation process is decades long.

It's impossible to do because of

regulation. civil servant David Saxs.

Let's let's put this on.

>> AI is going to be an accelerant here,

David, because I do think that with AI,

it's a great equalizer. There was a

company I was talking to the other day

that does AI education and they are

having an absolute liftoff in their

business in South uh America and in

South Asia. And in these markets,

there's a der of qualified teachers to

stand in front of a class and teach

folks. And so by using AI, these kids

are now getting ahead of American kids.

In other words, they're they're

advancing through AI psychosis because

they're spending 12 hours a day on AI,

>> right? Well, probably two hours a day.

>> I mean, that's probably what's going to

happen is the AI is a great leveler

because you can basically get all the

world's information at your fingertips

in a way that's fully interactive,

>> personalized education, personalized

ting, that's it.

>> But then some trial lawyer is going to

end your ability to get that because

they're going to call that AI psychosis.

>> The technical term is adaptive learning.

And I don't know if you guys drive your

own cars anymore, but in the Tesla, they

just added Grock to the dashboard. If

you long hold the like um

Siri version in there, it turns into

Grock. And I did a thing where I said,

"Hey, test my vocabulary." And it

started giving me words. It would ask

for my definition. I give it the

definition. It say, "You're close. This

is a better definition." And on my rides

to and from the office now, I'm doing

like vocabulary tests and it's

increasing my vocabulary and testing me

on higher and higher. So, you're now

like third or fourth grade or like what?

>> I mean, my vocabulary has already been

off the charts. I guarantee my verbal

score would be higher than the three of

you. Guaranteed. Guaranteed.

>> What does AI say about the correct way

to pronounce monetization?

>> Well, I've been working on that. And you

know what? I'm It's I'm I'm correcting

that. Uh, don't you? But but make fun of

me because of my dyslexia. I need an

accommodation.

>> I I actually personally I prefer JCL's

version. I like it a lot better.

>> Monetization is monetization. into it,

folks. All right, listen. Let's give

some red meat to Sachs. He took the time

to show up. Trump sent the National

Guard to DC. Folks seem to be generally

in support of it. Two weeks ago, Doge

staffer Big Balls was badly beaten by a

group of 8 to 10 teenagers in an

attempted carjacking.

And he truly has big balls cuz he tried

to protect his woman uh and just fought

hard. Trump posted a bloody picture of

my truth social

saying in DC that crime is totally out

of control. And uh he decided if DC,

this is what he said, if DC doesn't get

its act together and quickly, we will

have no choice but to take federal

control of the city and run this city

how it should be run and put criminals

on notice that they're not going to get

away with it anymore. Well, he did just

that. On Monday, Trump invoked section

740 of the DC Home Rule Act of 1973.

Allows the president to take control of

the District of Columbia and uh for up

to 30 days. So, daddy's home and 800

National Guard troops are in the city. I

mean, if you told me you could send 800

National Guard to the Tenderloin and get

rid of the fentinol dealers, I'd be like

all for it. Saxs, your thoughts on this

move? Obviously, some media elites or

people are hand ringing, oh, this is

Trump trying to be emperor king, but

he's legally in the right, right? He has

the right to do this in DC specifically.

What are your thoughts generally? Is he

going to go roll into New York, San

Francisco, and LA next? That seems to be

the hand ringing. Or is this an isolated

kind of DC specific?

>> Well, no. The the federal government has

the right to run DC. And I think they it

did until the 1960s and then you had

this experiment in home rule and I think

you'd have to say that the experiment

has not worked out that well. So last

year Washington DC had the fourth

highest homicide rate in the US. Its

homicide rate was nearly six times

higher than New York City which wasn't

great. The homicide rate exceeded

Atlanta, Chicago, and Compton. It also

has one of the highest robbery and

murder rates among US cities. And

there's been numerous assaults and

robberies on congressional staffers and

members of Congress. In May, you had two

embassy staffers were murdered. In June,

a congressional intern was fatally shot

just a short distance from the White

House. And then, of course, just um a

week or two ago, you had that uh attack

on the the Doge staffer. I think his

real name is uh Edward Constantine,

aka Big Balls, who was mercily beaten by

a group of of I think teens. And that's

been a big issue is that juvenile crime

is a huge issue in DC because there's

just no punishment. I mean, they're

they're caught and then they're

released. DC's had a policy of zero

bail, which we've seen in many cities.

But what that basically does is create a

revolving door at the jail. As soon as

someone's caught, they're released. And

then you've also got vehicle theft in

the districts over three times the

national average again because even when

they catch someone, they just let them

go. You've got repeated armed

carjackings and violence again by

teenage gangs. And the liberal media's

favorite talking point on this is that

somehow violent crime is down in in DC,

which is the exact same thing we heard

about San Francisco. Remember when Chase

Budin implemented the zero bail policy

and crime was going through the roof and

>> CVS and Target were shutting down. All

the stores were basically locking up the

toothpaste. I mean, people could feel

the crime, but no one was reporting it

because they just knew that nothing

would happen. So, I think this is the

typical gaslighting we've seen before,

and no one really can trust these stats.

I think they they all have stories about

about crime. There's a bunch of um

commentators on CNN and MSNBC who've

been trying to make this argument about

the crime being fictitious, and they've

been bringing DC residents on the air as

guests. And every time they try to Dude,

man, it blows up in their lap.

>> Yeah. They they try to get these um DC

residents to support this this crime is

down narrative. And then every time the

the DC residents start telling stories

about them or their their friends being

victimized, it's like, oh yeah, I know

this person got this friend of mine got

shot or this person got carjacked.

>> And it's become comical now. And a lot

of these these videos are going are

going.

>> This is what's good about the murder

statistic is that you can't make that

one up. Murder

>> harder, too. Right. Exactly. you you

can't cover up somebody getting shot.

You know, we had the same exact thing

that happened in New York. My brother

was a cop in the '90s. We had stop

question frisk. People call it stop

frisk. People were overwhelming

uh in favor of this. Now listen, people

shouldn't be randomly stopped and and we

we all have concerns about that. But

crime was so bad in the 80s in New York

when I grew up there that in the '9s

people are like, "Yes,

>> stop question and frisk anybody hopping

a turn style." And that's how we got all

the guns off the street. And then New

York became incredibly safe under

Giuliani 1.0 and Bloomberg and

we got Dinkens 2.0, Delasio.

>> So if you remember the theory back in

the '9s of how you reduce crime was the

the broken windows theory.

>> Yeah. which is that you get rid of the

entry- level crimes and you get rid of

the visible manifestations of

lawlessness and chaos because when you

create an environment in which it

appears that those things are tolerated

then you will end up getting more of it

especially I think by by juveniles. So

that was the theory in the '90s and

absolutely worked and what you've got in

DC is the opposite of it. And I think

what President Trump has said is look

first of all we're going to get rid of

the homeless encampments. So, that's

being removed. You're going to get rid

of the graffiti. We're going to stop the

zero bail. So, once people get locked

up, they're going to stay in jail. And

we're going to start treating these um

teenage criminals as you we're going to

punish them. We're not going to let them

off the hook. If they're committing

adult crimes, there's going to be adult

punishments. I mean, this is the right

direction to go if you want to reverse

this wall in DC. And I think it's going

to have an impact very, very quickly. I

think it's going to work very quickly.

And I think that Democrats who are

denouncing this are falling into this

trap that I think we saw on the border

as well where they appear to be

supporting criminals and gang members

just like they did on,

>> you know, with the deportations where

they start resisting the deportations of

MS-13 gang members. They fell into a

trap there. I think they're going to

fall into a similar trap here in DC

because I think this is going to work

and I think it's going to provide

Republicans with

a very important counterpoint because I

think one of the problems with crime is

that is a local problem and the truth is

that it's been very bad in blue cities

and Republicans just haven't had power

there in order to effectuate a change

that they could point to as a solution.

And I think that DC provides that

opportunity. If Trump's plan works, I

think it'll show that Republicans have

the solution on on crime and it'll

hopefully help provide an alternative in

these deep blue cities.

>> And here's a chart just to put some

numbers behind it. This is gun assault

rates in Washington DC. You can see it

spiked under Biden, went up a bit, 2024,

came down at the end of his term, and

then it's lower this year in 2025. That

black bar is the first half. So, it is

trending in the right direction, but

it's still not acceptable. Saxs, I guess

the question is,

>> I just don't know if we can believe all

these statistics. So, just last month,

there was a DC police commander was

suspended for manipulating crime data to

make it seem lower than it actually is.

And the DC police union says this

practice is widespread. In the TV show

The Wire, remember they called this uh

juking the stats.

>> So, first of all, you got the people in

charge. Uh the way that lieutenants

become colonels is by manipulating the

crime data. Then you've got the learned

helplessness that we saw in San

Francisco, which is once people realize

that the jails are a revolving door and

nothing's going to happen, they stop

reporting this stuff. Yeah.

>> Now, you're right that the murders, I

think, are hard to cover up. I think

those probably are are accurate. But the

things like carjackings or or assaults,

things like that or shoplifting or or

theft, I think a lot of that stuff just

goes unreported.

>> It has become a partisan issue. And if

you look at the partisan stats, every

time it flips, just like the economy,

Republicans think it's a disaster,

Democrats think it's fine, and then when

a Democrat's in office, it flips. But I

guess the question Sachs is that um I

think people have a a reasonable

argument here. Is this going to

be a strategy by the Trump

administration to go into New York City

next, LA next, San Francisco next? And

would you agree with that or not?

>> The question is what would the legal

basis for doing that be? I mean, in the

case of DC, this is a long-standing

situation where the federal government

has the right to run DC and did run DC

for many, many decades, and it was only

more recently that this changed to this

experiment in home rule. So there's

clear federal authority for President

Trump to do what he's doing, but I don't

know if it would be the same for New

York and LA. So I tend to think that

whole issue is is a red herring.

>> Yeah, I agree.

>> Yeah,

>> strongly agree. Here's the Gallup

Freeberg. I'll let you comment on this,

but this is partisan's perceptions of

local crime. As you see,

you can see Trump's term in pink and

then Biden's in blue and then before

that Obama's. And uh Republicans think

under Biden it was like a massive issue

crime and Democrats thought it was no

issue. And then you go to Trump's it

reverses slightly more Democrats think

crime is an issue under Trump.

Republicans think crime is gone under

Trump. Then you go to Obama. Republicans

think that crime is a disaster under

Obama. Democrats think it's so you just

have to look at the raw numbers. But the

fact is homelessness is a major issue

here Freeberg. So, I'm curious what you

think about what should our policy be

on, you know, let's call it what it is,

junkies. It's not home, it's not a

homeless issue. These are people

addicted to super drugs. Should they be

allowed to be on the street? Should they

be round up and put either in a mental

hospital, in jail, or

just generally not allowed to be on the

streets in a major city like San

Francisco? What do you think? I don't

think that we should allow people to

live on the streets because it's

community property. It's not for

individual use. And you know, I can't

leave my stuff on my sidewalk. The city

will come and clear it away. Why can

someone choose to live on the sidewalk?

I think, you know, that's just the rule

of law is just, you know, enforce it.

>> What should happen to those people

addicted to fentinol when they get

picked up? What should happen next?

>> There was a case that led to shutting

down many of the mental hospitals in the

United States.

>> Yes. people were being abused in them.

So then we had

>> and so the response was get rid of the

mental hospitals. But unfortunately like

the mental health crisis is real. We

talked about it. The drug addiction

crisis is real.

>> And I do think that for the sake of the

community, the sake of the social

fabric, that is a very good way to spend

taxpayer dollars is to create treatment

centers and mental health facilities to

take care of people in need. Uh in that

particular context, I think that it is a

heartless thing to leave people living

on the street like that and they should

be cared for. So, I would be all in

favor of I don't use the term round them

up, Jason, but I would say provide like

a access to care and effectively move

them if they're not going to move

voluntarily, move them into those care

facilities to create recovery for them.

I don't think that we should have

homelessness on the street.

>> I I am 100% agree with you. It's totally

compassionate to take them off the

street and not subject them to life on

the street. Now, they are not in a

mental state to make their own decision

is the key issue. them off. So if you

had, god forbid, a family member who was

on the street doing fentinel, you

yourself, I I think all of us would say,

"Yeah, pick the person up, don't let

them live on the street, and if they

won't go to the facility, then they have

to go to jail." Like, I mean, it's just

the nature.

>> Some of you, some of you know this, but

some somebody in my family has struggled

with mental health

>> pretty severely, has been in jail, and

>> you can't do anything. You can't force

them to take their antiscychotics. You

can't you can't do anything.

>> Yeah.

>> So I I unless the rules change, you

know, these things are like but for our

ability to intervene, this person would

be on the street is my guess.

>> Yeah.

Well, I mean, I agree with what Freeberg

said about this. And just another case

is city of Austin, which is a deep blue

city within a very red state, but they

had a very permissive policy towards

letting people camp out on the sidewalks

and

>> and it ruined the downtown and then they

passed a ballot initiative there and

they moved

>> the I guess you call them homeless

people to a campground. So yeah, I mean

the best solution would be to move them

into treatment or some sort of mental

institution. But if they won't go to

that and they insist on living outside,

then at least if they're going to insist

on camping, put them in a campground.

You don't put them in the middle of the

sidewalk in public places where it's

extremely disruptive and threatening to

the safety of everyone else. I mean,

obviously having people camping outside

our national monuments has to be the

worst possible place for these people to

be.

>> I they have been relocating homeless

people to campsites and uh there's

plenty of land here to do that. And

>> when will the National Guard

>> Yeah.

>> be in DC?

>> They're there.

>> Oh, this is perfect cuz I have to be

there in September. Nick, I sent you a

picture of what I'm going to wear.

This is what I intend to wear in DC when

I go. That's what I'll be wearing.

>> Your mom's going to wear his gold chains

again. You feel safe enough to to bust

out the bling?

>> You look good in that photo. I like the

mustache. I don't know why you shaved

it. I was all in favor of it, my friend.

>> Thank you.

>> Anyways, I'm going to break this out in

September.

>> Well, here here's the thing is if you

actually spend time in DC, then you're

very happy about these changes. is

you're very happy about the National

Guard coming in and making it safer.

You're happy about the homeless being

moved out. And this is why Mayor Bowser,

who's the DC mayor, is playing it very

carefully. I mean, she's a Democrat, so

of course she's denouncing the takeover

as authoritarian. That's not a surprise.

But she's also acknowledging the the

legality of this by the Trump

administration and she's been pledging

to cooperate. So, she knows that

cleaning up DC is going to be popular

with the residents even if it offends

the groups. So I I think that's pretty

interesting.

>> Yeah.

>> That she sees that this is going to be

po it's popular enough that she has to

play it carefully. And I think that just

politically speaking that if Democrats

keep opposing this, I think they're

falling into a trap that Trump has laid

for them

>> 100%. I mean, if you asked, and I tried

to find some statistic like this, it'd

be great if somebody would do this one,

but if you ask people with families,

let's say, who live in DC, are you in

favor of this or not? people will

actually have to live under these

conditions. I'm guessing 80 90% are like

absolutely this has to end and if this

is the quickest way to end it, sure,

send in the National Guard. It'll be a

good deterrent and get a little extra

support. I don't understand why the

Democrats don't do anything other than

say, "Yeah, this situation is untenable.

We'll take all the support you can give

us." That's the right answer.

Well, the Democrats, you know, one of

the problems here is that the the DC

Metro Police Department is one of the

most dysfunctional in the country. And a

big part of the reason why is because of

DEI.

>> The person who leads the department, the

chief of the Metro Police,

>> she had spent 23 years on the US Park

Police Force and then spent one year as

DC Metro's chief equity officer and then

was promoted to being the whole chief of

police. So basically they promoted the

the DEI person to being the chief of

police for the whole department. And

when she was asked about what the

implications would be for the chain of

command, she didn't know what chain of

command meant.

>> Oh yeah, that was a weird moment.

>> This is an interview that's going viral

right now.

>> It's Karen Mass kind of moment. Yeah.

Like maybe this person isn't um Yeah. up

for the job, let's say.

All right. Listen, it feels like a bit

of a a distraction of an issue. feels

like just good policing and yeah, if the

place

>> I don't think it's a distraction. I

think it's core. I mean, look, it

>> No, I'm saying the media's reaction to

it with like, oh my god, Trump's going

to be god king and he's going to go into

every city and do martial law. I think

that piece is the distraction. I think

this is probably just good policy. If

they has the right to do it and the

place is out of control,

>> clean it up.

>> Let's go on to our next topic. We got we

got a one or two more topics we want to

hit here unless anybody has something

they have to get to. Chimath, you wanted

to talk about VC returns versus public

markets. I know Freeberg, you brought

this up in a previous issue that you

could just set it and forget it in the

MAG 7 back in the day. So, we're going

to revisit this topic. Public markets,

here we go. They've been on a tear. 2023

up 24%. 2024 23%. 2025, we're at 10% so

far. Here's just a chart of it. We had

one down year obviously 2022

and it's been on a tear. And it's only

happened one other time before that the

uh we've had three straight years of

this kind of 15% performance. Very rare.

You see we highlighted them there on the

chart. Um the dotcom bubble in the late

90s

and then before and after like peak zer

and then now uh now you can compare that

to the private markets

venture capital and uh here's a chart

from 2022. And the reason I'm going to

show these is when you looked at venture

as a category versus say the S&P or a

couple of lines up from that you see the

NASDAQ venture was extremely extremely

attractive according to Cambridge

Associates which tracks us. They have

the best data because they've been doing

it the longest. Then we go and we look

at the same chart in 2018. Hey, look,

the NASDAQ's doing pretty well when

compared to venture in large part

because we had some of these mega hits,

the Googles and Facebooks and Amazon the

world, you know, coming to fruition and

just going on a tear. And then here we

are in 2018, public markets really start

to rip. Same chart, just different time

period. Here's 2020. And maybe venture

isn't doing as good when you look at it

compared to the markets. Of course, you

can't do this for the last 5 years or 6

years of venture because they're in the

J curve. When you do venture investing,

you're expecting it to pay off 7, 8, 9

years. But the trend here, I think,

Chamont, that you were pointing out is

public markets, liquid,

no fees, low fees, minuscule fees when

compared to venture and maybe a better

bet for investors and that's challenged

the venture industry. Was that your sort

of point in bringing this up? I think

the venture model is broken but it's

broken for two different reasons not not

totally correlated to each other. The

the first is purely mathematical which

is when the public markets provide a

consistent rate of return. It doesn't

matter what that is but let's just say

you know you average it out it's 15%.

The question is what is a private