All right, everybody. Chamath is here.

I'm here. Freeberg's here. But Saxi

Pooh, he was up late at the White House.

We'll show some pictures later. He

couldn't make it today. But let's get

started. We wanted to get you a show and

we wanted to get it to you on time for

your weekend. Let's start with Michael

Burin short. So, you guys know obviously

Michael Bur, he's the capital allocator

from the big short and uh he just

dregistered his firm with the SEC. He

made a big bet against AI and Palunteer.

He disclosed the shorts against

Palanteer a couple weeks ago. They

weren't huge. CNBC apparently reported

that the value was like 900 million. Bur

says CNBC was wrong that it was just 9

million. But he had a really interesting

accusation and it's related to what

we've been talking about here on the

show with the buildout of

>> can we I'm sorry but can we just talk

about the complete and total financial

illiteracy of the mainstream media?

>> How do you how do you confuse 9 million

and 900 million? How do you do that?

>> I think maybe it's the cost of the

shorts versus the value of the stock

that the shorts represent. No, it's

because there's a 100 shares per option.

So they were

>> Oh, I see. Yes, because the options have

100. Of course,

>> they applied a multiple and they got it

wrong. Got it. It was Yeah.

>> So the math the calculator

is they got calculator.

>> It's not that they got the calculator

wrong. It's just that they're so

uninvested

in assets that they don't know how asset

markets work, I think, is the more

logical explanation. Meaning, if you've

ever bought a home, you probably know

what people are talking about when

they're talking about financial elements

related to a home. But I guess if you've

never owned a stock or you've never

>> hedged a position or had an option, you

don't really know how any of it works.

But then the problem isn't the person

that wrote it. Then there's no facteing

and the whole thing just gets an entire

news cycle on its own. Which by the way

helped his short and it never should

have because if you heard that some

random dude had a $9 million bet against

the market, you would think nothing of

it. But then to manufacture a headline

about [clears throat]

>> somebody

>> That's a good point.

>> who had a moment. It was almost 20 years

ago, but whatever. He had a moment where

he was kind of right. is short the

market and you get it two orders of

magnitude wrong. That seems quite wrong.

>> Yeah. And to your point, there is a

ramification of it, which is it created

a headwind against the already AI bubble

which was deflating after Brad Gersonner

popped it.

>> I'll take a walk down conspiracy corner.

Maybe the actual person is not

economically illiterate but the exact

opposite and then writes the error on

purpose knowing that whoever has to

review it has absolutely no idea what

they're talking about and then they

themselves are short. So, I wonder if

CNBC should investigate

>> whether this person actually had a trade

on

>> Oh, there you go. Conspiracy corner.

Let's get our Tim File House.

>> The individual.

>> You're either a complete and you

don't know how the financial markets

work, in which case you probably should

be working at some other media outlet,

not CNBC, covering the markets, or you

know how well they work and you know the

people above you have no idea. And so,

you yourself shorts the market. You're

basically copying the Bur trade, but

then you rewrite the headline to look

like it's two orders of magnitude

bigger, which actually could have moved

the market if you saw a yard short. I

mean, yeah, like that would have

probably gotten my attention had I read

it. A billion dollars is, you know,

reasonable position to have. He was

accusing also, he's got the Palenter

short, but on the AI side, he was

saying, "Hey, Meta and Oracle have been

cooking the books with 176 billion in

hidden depreciation to inflate earnings

by over 20% in 2028." And so, here's the

chart. Basically, we've talked about

what is the the reasonable life of an

H100 of, you know, an Nvidia chip or

really an Nvidia server if you think of

it that way. You know, do do these

things have a threeyear lifespan, a

four, five, six year lifespan? core

weave might be putting them at six-year

um and that dramatically changes your

expenses which then of course given the

scale of the data buildout uh the data

center buildout could radically change

your earnings uh because dividing the

cost of a data center that cost 100

billion by six or three is you know 2x

so your thoughts free yeah so just to go

into accounting corner it's our most

favorite but least often visited a

corner here on the all-in podcast.

>> Get your pencils.

>> Yeah. So, in accounting, we need a we

need a jingle for accounting corner.

>> Sharpen your pencils. Get your

calculator.

>> Under GAP standards, these generally

accepted accounting principles.

When you report your operating expenses

every quarter as a public company or GAP

filer, you take your capex, anything

that you know you make a big investment

in and you depreciate it over some

lifetime. And there's an accounting

process by which you can do an internal

review and determine that if your

depreciation schedule doesn't actually

map to reality, you should make an

adjustment. And so there's a periodic

assessment that's done to do that. And

just to give you a sense to your point,

Jason, on the math, Google in the last

12 months made $120 billion in operating

profit. Okay? And let's assume they're

making 70 billion in capex this year.

That capex does not get deducted from

their operating profit when they report

earnings. You take the 70 billion and

you divide it by what's called its

useful life and you report that every

year. So if you do it over three years

to your point it's about 24 billion a

year versus 6 years it's 12 billion a

year. So that would impact the operating

profit by on the order of call it 10%.

if it the difference between three and

six years. And so what Michael Bur is

saying is that all of these hyperscalers

have extended their depreciation

schedule or the useful life of their

data centers by roughly 2x which cuts

the operating costs in half when they

report it in earnings and so it's making

their in earnings inflate. So he's

claiming they're cooking the books. But

if you go back to the chart that you

showed or I can just speak to this,

Google first made this change in Q1 of

21 where they said the servers are now

going from 3 to four years. The chart

shows the combination of servers and

networking equipment. Separately in

2021, Google took networking equipment

from 3 to 5 years and then in 2023 they

took it from 5 to 6 years. And so this

is a result of this effort where they

went in and did an analysis. So what

happened? What happened in the data

centers is that the data centers

transitioned from being primarily data

storage and data transfer systems where

you would use hard drives and RAM and

memory to store data and then transmit

it back out to being data processing

centers because of the AI boom. So as AI

became more important in the data

center, more of the dollars that are

going into data centers were allocated

towards chips from data storage which

initially was hard drives and you throw

away the hard drives every 18 or 36

months and then solid state memory.

Solid state memory would last 2 years,

four years, 6 years depending on the

type of memory you're using and RAM and

RAM had this kind of variable lifetime

as well. And then suddenly when you put

these processors in to process the data

to do AI, that's the majority of the

spend and the majority of the energy is

going towards the processors. So if you

pull up this clip, this is Google's head

of AI and infrastructure

speaking at a conference here recently.

>> Where are we do you think in the capex

spend cycle but more importantly what

are the signals that you guys use

internally right in your thinking? I

mean you have to plan data centers

whatever four five years in advance you

have to buy nuclear reactors and

whatnot. So how do you think about the

demand signals as well as your

technology signals and G2 same thing for

you but from the point of view of

enterprise and neo clouds etc.

uh we're early in the cycle is uh what

what I would say certainly relative to

the demand that we're seeing our

internal users are uh we've been

building TPUs for 10 years uh so we have

now seven generations in production for

internal and external use our seven and

8y old TPUs have 100% utilization

>> and I think that's the key part that's

been going on I've I I made some calls

and I checked around with some other

friends and everyone says the same thing

that these seven and 8year-old TPUs and

GPUs that are sitting in the data

centers are still being used and they're

being used at 100% utilization. So that

actually justifies and validates the

depreciation schedule being much longer

versus shorter. And I actually think

Michael Bur's got this wrong.

>> Jimoth, what do you think? You're

involved in obviously inference. How

long will the Grock inferences be out

there doing jobs? And it does seem like

to Freeberg's point and the gentleman in

the video that there are other jobs to

do, right? Like so as these things move

down the life cycle, there'll be

something for them to do. When would you

actually unplug them, I guess, is the

question, and stop using them.

>> The business models of these companies

are just far too good for them to get to

the point of having exhausted every

other operational

tactic that then they have to cook the

books. These are not the seven companies

that are going to cook the books.

>> Yeah. The practical thing that's

happening that Michael is not technical

enough to understand is that there are

meaningful iterations in how kernels are

working in how the intention mechanisms

of these models are being rewritten in

how people are swapping out HBM for

SRAMM in these designs in how they're

building in some cases really huge dies

in some cases much smaller chiplets all

of this creates more and more

utilization So these things last longer

and they also need more. I think that in

order to make these accusations, you

need to have some modeicum of technical

grounding that I don't think he has.

Here's the thing with shorts in general,

which I don't like shorting. So let me

just say this. There's supposed to be a

check on

financial malfeasants, but it's not

that. When you look at these

shortselling firms, for every one of

them

that actually uncovers malfeasants, what

it really is is them creating chaos and

innuendo

under the guise of their right to free

speech. And what they do is they put out

some screed that tries to move the

market. They're positioned against the

stock before it comes out and then they

hope to close the position out and make

some money. I think that's a just a

pretty sad and terrible way to live

one's life, but it's legal and so you're

allowed to do it. It almost makes no

sense for Michael to become technically

literate because he probably wouldn't

have written it. So, and to your point,

the fear, uncertainty, doubt you can

create if you're Michael Bur if you did

the big short and you shorted the

housing crisis correctly. Now, that took

two years for him to be correct. So,

these things are painful to execute on

in his defense. We don't make any money.

Look, outside of my venture fund, I ran

a hedge fund for I don't know 7 years, 8

years, and here are our longs, okay? We

And you can find these clips on the

internet, you know, Tesla in 2015,

Amazon 2016,

Salesforce 2018,

just tagged it. And you know how much

money I made on the short side? Because

we always felt like we had to hedge. And

so what we would do is we would bumble

around looking for shorts. Never made

any money. The one short we found was a

wireless telecom operator and it was a

legitimate fraud. Its company's

corporate address was a pizza parlor in

Barcelona.

>> Diversified revenue streams.

>> Otherwise, my point is it's just that

shorting is just somebody's ability to

cry fire in a theater. Quite honestly,

it's extremely hard to impossible to

commit financial fraud as a public

company in 2025.

I guess the other shirt we should take a

look at is the Palunteer one because

Palunteer is man it's way out there.

Alex Karp has been doing some great

interviews. He's a national treasure.

Incredibly entertaining. They obviously

have a great business. They're on a $3.5

billion run rate according to their last

quarter. But the valuation is $480

billion. This puts them at 137 times

their sales. It is extraordinary. It's

way out there. Data dog and snowflake.

Microsoft, you know, these are at uh 13

times their sales.

And I guess Cloudflare is out there at

37 and Crowd Strike at 30. So this is

truly an outlier. Freedberg. If you were

to give Palunteer the same price to

sales ratio as some of those highly

valued ones, probably be a 6070 billion

company, $29 a share instead of $170.

So,

what do you think of his Palunteer short

Freedberg?

>> Based on the statement you just made,

you're saying that a company is worth

their historical sales numbers. And I

don't think that that's how shareholders

often do or perhaps should think about

what they're buying, which is an

ownership interest in the future of the

enterprise that they're buying a piece

of. When you invest in a startup, you're

not saying, "Hey, that startup is worth

what the employees did last year before

they even started the company." You're

making a bet on the future potential of

the business and what you think the cash

generation over time will be. Your time

horizon may be different than mine. And

that's how a market finds a price. Uh as

a result, I think there's probably a

market trying to find a price for

Palunteer where folks have a great deal

of difference in opinion over what the

future potential of the business is and

as a result what the earnings generation

will be at different time scales in the

future and that's how they're getting to

the current market price. Who am I to

judge? I am the person who would make my

own decision of my own time scale and my

own estimation of the future of that

business if I were putting my own

capital into the business. I've not

studied the business well. I don't have

a strong point of view or opinion on the

value of the business relative to its

future earnings potential. That's how I

would look at it. I would make an

investment for the long term if I were

to buy the shares, not look at the last

year's numbers and say that there's a

valuation arbitrage opportunity and

that's what I'm buying. So, you know, to

each their own. Over time, the market

corrects itself as they say, you know,

it um it's a voting matter today and

it's a weighing matter in the future.

That's Warren Buffett's famous quote

that the actual earnings generation in

the future will determine whether

someone paid a good price or a bad price

depending on the point at which they

bought in the past. Meaning at 400

billion market cap, you could be getting

a steal or you could be significantly

overpaying.

That's going to be based on your

assessment, your judgment as an

investor. And I think people are looking

at like 30 to 45% year-over-year growth

Shimath and saying, "Yeah, it's got a

lot of to fill in that valuation would

just take a lot of growth. Maybe the

growth accelerates." We saw that with

Nvidia, right? They they started to have

unprecedented growth. Any thoughts on uh

Palunteer short while we move on to our

next subject?

>> Well, I think the Palunteer short is

stupid and I think that those people

will lose money. The thing with all of

these other companies, put your chart up

there. The thing that the people that

are shorting this company don't

understand is that all of these other

businesses that you put up there, there

is a viable competitor of some kind that

you can switch to.

And so what I would say is the opposite

of what they're saying, which is you

have a low multiple to sales when the

churn risk is higher.

So look at the one with the lowest

multiple to sales, MongoDB. There's 90

versions of what MongoDB does. I'm not

going to say whether MongoDB is good or

bad. It's actually a good company. It's

an extremely well-run business, but it's

not unique. It's just extremely

well-run.

Snowflake is not unique, but it is

wellrun. Palunteer is both unique and

well-run, and there's no clear

alternative. So there's no place to turn

to. And so I think the reason why it has

a premium valuation is because the

duration and the durability of these

cash flows are much longer than what you

typically see in any of these other

companies. And if people took 1,000th of

a second to actually use their brain,

they'd come to that conclusion.

>> Lack of competitors would be the reason

you think it's uh more defensible.

>> By the way, I'm neither long nor short.

I was long in the private markets. I I

was an investor in the series B pounder.

I'm not long anymore. I wish I was, but

I'm not. So it's not like I have a

vested interest in this being right. But

it's just so obvious that what they do

is completely unique and completely

differentiated. There is no alternative

in the market for it. That's why they

trade such a huge premium to sales. And

if you look in any market for any

product that is unique and is

effectively

where they are the only competitor for

what they offer, you will see an

equivalent market dynamic like this.

And there is no competitor to the

greatest holiday party ever happening

December 6th in San Francisco. Come with

your besties.

>> God, I'm such a bad mood. I have I've

gotten no sleep. I'm so tired.

>> I know. I'm cranky. You're cranky.

Spanky. You're in a bad mood.

>> I couldn't sleep. Sax goes in the back.

Sax sleeps. He's like fresh as a daisy.

When we land, by the way, when we

landed, the winds in San Francisco, I

don't know what's going on. We landed in

Oakland. Holy man. It was like a

category 4 hurricane going on in the

West Coast this week.

>> Unbelievable.

>> You were coming in, of course, from the

West Coast. You were uh I guess in DC

meeting with uh I don't know. Oh, you

had some business meetings there or some

uh political meetings.

>> Oh, you can you can Let's play Where's

Waldo? Here, Nick. Post the picture. You

can see you see Where's Waldo?

>> Here's the picture. Okay, we got a

picture here.

>> No, no, Nick. Zoom out. Zoom out.

>> Yeah, to the zoom out photo

>> there. Where's Waldo?

>> Oh, let's see. Okay, here's a bunch of

people in the White House.

>> Bill Aman. Bill Aman is right in the

back. You can see his hand right beside

Nats.

>> That's Ken Molus, obviously. Steve

Schwarzman, me

>> Bergam.

>> Look at you all the way.

>> Great guys. Will Mcdana. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah.

>> Well, one of these guys is not like the

other.

>> Yeah, it was awesome. What happened was

we were having dinner and then he said

at 9:45 I'm going to go down to the Oval

and sign the bill to reopen the

government. He said, "Do you guys want

to come?" So, we all came. All was just

>> when you say you were having dinner, you

and Nat were having dinner with the

president.

>> No, no, no. He was hosting a dinner for

financial leaders

>> and you were there.

>> We were invited. It was cool.

>> The dinner. Very nice. So, you went to

dinner with the president and um Yeah,

that will that looks like almost as

amazing and extravaganza as the

>> I got a cologne. You know the cologne

where he sprayed it on?

>> Yeah. He's spraying it on foreign

leaders. They come in, he sprays it on

them, and uh then they're allowed to

come in the White House. Me and Steve

Schwarzman got we got we got a push push

on both on both sides of the neck and we

got

>> Trump carrying the cologne with him and

spraying people at the dinners.

>> No, after the press conference was done

and he reopened government. He's like,

"Hey, you guys want to come back?"

>> I think they should have like a little

um gift shop at the White House with all

the Trump stuff, the stakes.

>> I will be honest with you, it smells

very good.

>> Oh. So anyway, come to the holiday

party. It's going to be a blast. There's

a couple of tickets left, not many. So,

we're going to burn it down this year

with our bestie Tony Hinch Cliff. Casino

night with poker. We got a celebrity DJ

coming. Freedberg's going to be on the

ones and twos.

Allin.com/events.allin.com/events.

And hey, the tequila has shipped. So, if

you bought tequila, we started shipping

the tequila bottles. Thank you to

everybody for your patience. We were

getting the bottles, but uh David, it

seems like um the bottles have uh

started to ship. Yeah, people are

feeling pretty good about it.

>> Yeah, it's exciting. I think

>> very exciting.

>> The world's greatest tequila is going to

be uh surprisingly wellreceived.

>> Okay, from the number one podcast in the

world with the world's greatest

moderator. All right, listen. There is

an affordability crisis. We talked about

it here for the last couple of weeks.

Last weekend, the Trump administration

floated a pretty wild idea of a 50year

mortgage that would ostensibly cut

payments, monthly payments by 20 30%.

And maybe theoretically uh boost home

ownership and we'll we'll discuss this

uh in depth here for young people. The

idea was slammed by many people in MAG

is saying, "Hey, this is debt slavery

and it's going to triple the lifetime

interest. you can just be paying through

the nose for your entire life and you'll

be an indentured uh servant. Politico

said the idea was brought about by FHFA

director Bill Py. Py tweeted that the

FHFA was quote actively evaluating

portable mortgages. Now, this is a

really good idea. That means you can

take your mortgage with you if you go

buy another home if you upgrade a home.

That would obviously get people out of

homes that maybe they've outgrown or

that their kids have left and there's

extra bedrooms and that is not happening

because people are afraid to unwind a 2

or 3% mortgage to upgrade it to a six or

7% one. And there's been some data going

viral on X. National Association of

Realers released a report last week. The

average age of a firsttime home buyer is

now 40 years old. That's up from 28

years old in 1991 when I was in college.

And in the 30 years from 1991 to 2021,

it only increased a modest 18% from 28

to 33 years old. So in the last four

years, it's jumped from 33 years old to

40 years old for the average firsttime

home buyer. Day clip of friend of the

pod Ben Shapiro went viral. Here's a 25

second clip and we'll talk about it

after.

>> If you're a young person and you can't

afford to live here, then maybe you

should not live here. I mean, that is a

real thing. Okay, I know that we've

we've now grown up in a society that

says that you deserve to live where you

grew up. But the reality is that the

history of America is almost literally

the opposite of that. The history of

America is you go to a place where there

is opportunity. And if the opportunities

are limited here and they're not

changing, then you really should try to

think about other places where you have

better opportunities.

>> Pretty obvious statement there from Ben

Shapiro.

Your thoughts generally on

affordability. Chima,

>> it's a real problem. I think that this

is the keystone topic that has to be

navigated correctly for the Republicans

to win the midterms. I think there are

three critical issues if I had to sort

of put my finger on it. Issue number one

is one of housing. So Ben is right

there. Specifically, the problem is that

older folks own all the homes and own

multiple homes and younger folks just

cannot get into the housing market and

cities and states do not do a good job

of creating incentives for new homes to

be built. That's one. The second I think

is still around healthcare. The emergent

data on the cost of Obamacare is

horrible.

Obamacare has been an unmititigated

failure. The concept of capping gross

margin, while it seemed good

theoretically, has really turned out to

be an incredibly stupid thing. So what

that meant, Jason, is in Obamacare,

there was this feature that said you can

only make a 15% gross margin, right? And

what the folks at the White House at the

time thought would happen is that costs

would go down because their gross margin

would be limited. Instead, what they did

was they just started to raise the gross

prices of everything so that the 15%

applied to a much bigger number. And so

you saw the president this week trying

to see if he could just take the health

incentives and give them directly to

people and put it in their HSA accounts

so that it didn't need to flow through

the healthcare infrastructure and the

insurance companies. So, that needs to

get fixed. And then the third is on the

student debt side. I said it last week,

I'll say it this week.

I'm sort of copying Peter Teal here, but

he's been saying for a while that we

have to be much more sympathetic to the

loan forgiveness

and I think he's right. So I think if we

get these three issues addressed,

something in housing, something in

healthcare, and something on the student

loan side, it is a transformational

domestic policy agenda that puts

affordability front and center that will

impact 50 to 75 million American

households.

>> Freeberg, your thoughts? If you pull up

this article from yesterday, yesterday,

uh, LA city council held a vote. The

vote was 12 to2. In this vote, they uh

limited the amount that a landlord can

increase the rent every year.

>> This is rent stabilization.

>> Yeah, rent control.

>> So, it limits what a landlord can charge

in rent. And basically, they passed the

vote 12 to2. And what they voted is that

the landlord cannot increase the rent on

an annual basis by more than 90% of CPI.

CPI is the consumer price index which is

published by a federal agency every year

as we know. It's the inflation index

number that we often talk about on the

show with a floor of 1%. So the landlord

regardless of CPI can increase rent by

1% and a cap of 4%. So if CPI spikes for

some reason which I don't think has

happened in recent times you can charge

four up to 4% increase. So it limits

what a landlord can charge in rent. And

fundamentally to think about this as an

investor. So, if you're buying a

building or building a new building, you

are now going to have your equity

capped. Your upside, the amount of cash

flows that you can generate from that

asset, meaning the apartment building

you're buying is now limited by the

amount that you can increase the rent

every year. So, that creates a

disincentive for capital for investors

to buy new buildings or put money into

upgrading buildings or put money into

building new buildings. At the same

time, as we know, the city of Los

Angeles, the state of California, and

the federal government of the United

States have passed law after law,

regulation after regulation, statute

after statute has gone into effect that

makes it more expensive, take more time,

and more difficult to build housing. The

increase in regulation combined with the

cap in the economic access to free

markets, I think has made it

increasingly difficult for there to be a

free flow of capital to go and build new

housing and develop units for people uh

to live in and for sale. Every time the

government gets involved in a market, it

distorts the market. It limits the flow

of liquidity and it limits the market

finding lower prices. And I think that's

fundamentally what's gone on. The

government is now trying to limit what a

landlord can charge in such a dramatic

way that it's ripped out all of the

incentive for landlords to buy and own

these buildings because they're now only

going to be small yielding investments

and there's no upside. So there's no

incentive to go and build new housing.

And then the government's made it

difficult to build new housing for lots

and lots of different reasons. Same

thing happened with Prop 13, which we

passed in California in 1978, I think,

which creates a huge disincentive for

people to sell their homes and reduces

liquidity in the market. Now, I'll just

flip to the federal agencies. So, Fanny

and Freddy combined have issued or

supported about $8 trillion of home

loans. The initial view on that would

be, okay, great. They're creating

liquidity for a market that doesn't have

liquidity, for people that need access

to capital, for banks that don't have

assets to lend. And as a result, it's

going to make housing more accessible to

more people. That was the fundamental

premise of setting up a government

lending agency to support the purchase

of housing. But as you fast forward over

many years, the fundamental reality in a

very liquid, well-c capitalized

marketplace that we have today is that

that capital is actually excess

liquidity that can in fact drive prices

up. And much like we've seen in many

other markets like education with

student loans or like healthare with

Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare and so on,

when the government gets involved and

provides capital to quote support a

market and make it more accessible, the

prices skyrocket. So people will use a

Fanny or Freddy Mack loan to buy a first

home and then they can go buy their

second home or their third home or they

can now afford to buy a more expensive

home that they otherwise might not have

bought. And so it over time creates an

inflationary effect in the markets. And

I think that this is a fundamental

question on like how are we going to get

out of this doom cycle because

fundamentally we're adding restrictions

for building new homes. We're capping

the amount you can make on homes. And

we're giving liquidity to markets to

drive up the price of homes. All of

which create this perfect storm of

disaster where we're just raising our

hands. And you know what we say? Please

government do more. And if the

government does more, I can tell you one

thing for sure. Prices are going to go

up even more. And so I think one of the

the challenging and hardest things to do

is say, "Hey, government do less." And

figure out a way to kind of back out of

this situation.

>> Perfect segue into what I'm seeing on

the ground, you know, and I I lived in

New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco,

and as folks know now, I live in Austin,

Texas. And if you you Perfect segue

there, David, there's really two

different countries here. You have

people living in coastal cities where

you're not allowed to build units and

rent is incredibly expensive and you

make the same amount of money. If you

look at when I grew up in Brooklyn and

uh I went to school at night. I took 5

years to get my degree from Florida

University. I had 12K in student loan

debt. I was making 40 to 60,000 a year

while I was in college doing it. It's a

big salary for back then, but my

apartment for in Brooklyn was 500 a

month. I lived in an apartment, an

addict apartment.

>> And so if you were to take two people

like that in America today, they're

making 60 to 70K. That's the average

salary for college educated people who

are 27 years old. If you live in Austin,

it is absolutely no problem for you to

own a home. Let me explain to you how

easy it is for we have so many units in

Austin, Texas. And in Houston, it's even

more pronounced. But Nick, pull up the

chart there just on rent because you

start as renters. Obviously, Austin rent

has gone down 20% in the last 3 years

because we build units. When you build

units, when you have supply, prices go

down. And the stupid people in San

Francisco with their woke are

like, "Oh, you're building luxury

units." Let me tell you what happens,

dumb asses, when you build luxury units.

The the rich hipsters who are living in

shitty apartments in the mission upgrade

to luxury buildings. How do I know this?

They're doing it in Austin. If you live

in a crummy apartment in Austin and you

see these beautiful apartments being

made with luxurious pools and

restaurants, cafes, co-working spaces,

you move to one of those and that frees

up that unit. In Austin, if you make

$130,000 a year, your 130,000 as a

couple, your rent is going to be 10%

15% max of your income. And you're going

to be able to to make a down payment of

10% because the homes within 25 miles

under 45 minutes of driving to the city

center. Do you know how much they are

per square footed where I live?

>> How much?

>> They are $200 to $300 per square foot.

You can buy a threebedroom for three to

300,000 to 500,000. You can buy a brand

new one freeird for 500,000. So

>> Ben Shapiro is absolutely correct. The

people who are upset at Ben Shapiro are

a bunch of hipsters who went

hundreds of thousand dollars in debt,

are paying5 or $6,000 a month in their

rent, can never get out from under their

rent payment or their liberal arts

degree. If you're a smart

person, go to the University of Texas,

graduate with little to no debt, live in

a a modest apartment, put down a down

payment, and buy a $500,000 home. This

problem doesn't exist in Texas. It

doesn't exist in a lot of markets.

>> Last night at dinner, Jason, the

president asked, "What could we do? What

are some ideas around student debt?" And

Bill Aman had a great idea, which was we

need to put the university

on the hook as the first loss.

>> Yes.

>> And and his suggestion was 20,000 was

what he said. I I don't know if that's

the right number or not, but the logic

that he made, which I thought made a lot

of sense, was if the universities are

forced to underwrite these degrees and

they know that they'll take the first

dollar loss up to a certain amount, 20,

30, 40,000, they'll be much more

circumspect about what degrees they

force onto people and the amount of

money that they're willing to actually

underwrite via these loans. And that

will be a telltale sign that a lot of

these degrees don't make any sense. And

right now we don't have a market check

to tell young people that. And so we

push them all into school thinking that

it's the right thing to do and then

they're just completely saddled and

they'll never get up. You have to do

math people. You have to have agency and

you have to be self-reliant. It when I

went to school there were some kids and

it's happening now where they think they

have to live on campus. They think they

have to go for four years. If you have a

job and you take five years to get your

degree and you don't live on campus,

your debt position when you graduate is

going to be much different. If you have

a job that is, you know, in demand in

the world, you'll make 60 70 80k. If you

come out with less debt, if you live in

an attic apartment, if you do a little

austerity people, and you do a

spreadsheet of your finances, which I

had to do because my dad was a

bartender, my mom was a nurse. I had to

pay for college myself. I had to think

it through. The these elite lunatic kids

in New York City or San Francisco think

they deserve to live in Manhattan. You

don't have a god-given right to live in

Tokyo, France, Hong Kong, or any of the

major cities. You need to live in the

suburbs. You need to commute an hour to

school.

>> France is a country.

>> Uh in Paris. Thank you.

>> Okay.

>> In Paris, sorry. If you live in Paris,

London, these are not your god-given

right. Live an hour outside the city

center and take the tube people. These

lunatics think they deserve it. And this

is why Mandami and the Legion episodes.

Can we just title this episode grumpy

chimoth and soap box JCO?

>> Absolutely. [laughter]

>> No, I just

>> Did you bring your own soap box? Did you

bring your own soap box to Tokyo or did

you buy one there?

>> Soap box. Soap box. Soap box.

>> Yeah. Japanese. You're going to

>> You're going to upset so many of the

private equity wives that you spend most

of your time curing favor from. They're

not even know any private I haven't met

any private equity wives. I don't know

where they are, but literally these kids

are so

>> They're in the They're in your comments

for sure.

>> I don't think they're following me on

that.

>> I'm sure your your bot army pays for

some of them to

>> They're not. I'm telling you something.

They're not They're definitely not in PA

public equity wise for JCAL.

>> When you run when when you listen,

you're such a narcissist. You will

eventually run for some political office

and that'll be

>> py forjal.

>> Absolutely. You'll be the first to

donate to my give me a break,

>> bro. You know why I would? Because

you're you're one of my best friends and

I love you. So yes, site unseen. You

tell me how much you need, I'll give it

to you. But it's not because I believe

you're right or you should win.

>> Okay. Coming back to New York after

mammi burns it down. Mayorjason.com

bookmark. I am donating to you has no

alignment to philosophy, ideology, or

your potential chances of winning. It's

purely for

>> There it is. Hey guys, book it now. I'm

controlled by big tech and finance

interests. I guess related to the angst

about affordability was the flare up of

H-1Bs. Again,

Trump went viral after Laura Ingram on

Fox

kind of pushed him pretty hard on H1B

visas and he stood his ground. President

Trump stood his ground that we need high

skilled workers in America. Here's your

25 second clip. We'll be back on the

other side. H-1B visa thing will not be

a big priority for your administration

because if you want to raise wages for

American workers, you can't flood the

country with with tens of thousands or

hundreds of thousands of foreign

workers.

>> You also do have to bring in talent when

you don't have talented people. No, you

don't. No, you don't. We don't have

talented people. No, you don't have you

don't have certain talents and you have

to people have to learn. You can't take

people off an unemploy like an

unemployment line and say, "I'm going to

put you into a factory. We're going to

make missiles or I'm going to put

>> How did we ever do it before?

>> Jamat, your thoughts here? Uh, we've

obviously talked to her blew in the face

about the value and the abuse of H-1B

visas, but it's coming up again. And I

guess, you know, at a time when Trump's

popularity is a little bit low and

people are suffering with the inflation

not going down, yada yada. This seems to

be like um another point of contention.

>> I think that we have to overhaul the

H-1B program. Last night at dinner

actually

Howard Lutnik explained how some of

these abuses happen. It's really unfair

actually how it works.

What he described is that when the

application window opens for what is a

very small number of H1Bs a company that

has you know call it 300,000 employees

abroad

will apply on behalf of all 300,000

because they're all roughly the same

kind of employee. Whoever gets it gets

to come over. Now, if you're filing

300,000 applications, obviously you have

a disproportionately larger chance than

Freeberg's company or my company or your

company, Jason, who's filing one,

obviously. And so when those kinds of

things happen and you can now use the

data to understand it, you have to fix

it. So that's one very material and

obvious change we need to make right

away, which is we have to allow American

companies to find these folks and have

it be very precise. The second thing is

that

we're introducing

a price that each of these companies can

pay for so that then you can signal

clearly the disproportionate economic

value that that person can create and

the fact that after all the effort

possible you can't find that person here

and that's why you're willing to pay

$100,000 which is a non-trivial amount

of money. So, I think that when both of

those two things, the $100,000 thing is

introduced and the visa application

abuse is fixed, I think that we will go

a long way to cleaning up the H-1B thing

and putting ourselves back in a much

better place. But right now, there's

just a lot of abuse. And so, the program

itself is not working the way it should

have. And and I think this has largely

been solved. I think it's a

communication issue for the Trump

administration because they did put this

$100,000 fee on it that's already in

effect. And I've been saying this here

at CNBC this startup for a decade.

There's massive abuse on the bottom half

and there's it's necessary on the top

half. If you're bringing in IT people

for$4 to $80,000, it's not viable to put

a 2030 $40,000 fee on top of that. But

if you're Google or Facebook and you're

bringing in a PhD in AI who's going to

get paid a million dollar, well that

$100,000 fee, 20 $30,000 a year,

whatever it winds up being, is nothing.

It's dimminimous. They I take it one

step further. Freeberg. I think we

should be auctioning these.

>> Use a more narrow example.

>> Yeah.

>> Let's say Freeberg. It's a startup. He

has capital, but he has to return it.

>> Freeberg, would you pay $100,000 for the

right person

>> that you could not find? And are there

jobs where right now you're like, man, I

can't find people that are highly

specialized or not yet?

>> I could see that. Yeah. I mean certainly

I could see being I mean fortunately I

have there are we can recruit those

sorts of people in my industry

because we're very special but yeah I

could understand like particularly as it

relates to software I could see people

definitely doing that.

>> Yeah and the the the way to really do

this and this is Trump's superpower is

turning something that's a cost center

into a profit center. I always give him

credit when he does something brilliant.

And the brilliant thing to do is to take

the hundred,000 and make it an auction.

I would auction off half of these to the

highest bidder. And then you would have

Google, Facebook, and Meta saying

instead of give me, you know, a 100,000

of these at the rack rate, they would be

saying, "Hey, I need 10 of these for

sure. I'm going to bid a million. I need

another hundred of these. I'm willing to

bid 750." And then take that money and

just allocate it to vocational training

and retraining. You know, the problem is

this administration has two different

sides. You have the brilliant people in

this administration who I admire very

much like Lutnik and Sachs and the

business people. And then you have the

knuckleheads in my mind, the people who

are doing the the stuff that ICE agents

and the deportations. And the perfect

example of this has come up with the

H-1B visas. They took the Hyundai plant

where you needed high-skilled workers

and they arrested and they deported a

bunch of South Koreans. they in a very

brutal way, very disrespectful way. At

the same time that Lutnik is out there

trying to get people to invest in the

country and build factories here. You

can't be deporting people with Steven

Miller's deranged process of running

people down and treating them inhumanely

and then at the same time be saying,

"Hey, we want you to invest and build a

battery factory." Hyundai has a battery

factory. These lunatics came there and

arrested and chained up South Koreans

who are our partners, who are helping us

rebuild our navy. This is where the

administration has to speak with one

voice and it needs to be the

professional smart people. And this is

another example of it. They they they

already solved this problem and they

can't

communicate it properly. Let Bessing go

out there and communicate this over and

over and over again. It's a profit

center now. And don't arrest the South

Koreans who were trying to get to build

factories here. Scratch the next topic.

There was a massive three three massive

coronal mass ejections this week. These

are giant waves of charged particles,

protons and electrons mostly that shot

off from the sun. You can see a graphic.

>> You have to pick better words because

>> that looks like Uranus right now. Did

you have a burrito?

>> Mass ejections shot out.

out right from Uranus.

>> Okay. So, the the sun goes through an

11-year cycle. As you know, the sun is a

giant ball of plasma. Plasma is where

the particles are so hot, they're so

energetic that the electrons and the

protons and all the particles kind of

split apart. And so, you have these

subatomic particles moving around at

extremely high energy levels. And when

they when the protons smash into each

other, that's what fusion is. And that's

what causes the energy that we get from

the sun. And because these are charged

particles, protons have a positive

charge and electrons have a negative

charge. When they're moving around at

this high energy in such a dense space,

they actually create very powerful

magnetic fields. And those magnetic

fields pull and stretch the physics of

the the surface of the sun. And over

time there are these cycles where those

magnetic field strengths get so strong

that once in a while they snap and shoot

out a chunk of those particles into

space. That is the fundamental physics

that drives these coronal mass

ejections. These big waves of charged

particles that shoot flying through

space at thousands of miles a second is

how fast they move. High energy waves of

charged particles. And then when they

hit the earth, because they're charged

particles and we have a magnetic field

around the earth, they interact with the

magnetic field and they disturb it. And

the disturbance of the magnetic field on

Earth can actually have dramatic effects

on GPS, on communications, and it can

actually create shorts in conducting

material on the surface of the planet.

So for years we've always talked about

there could be an extinction level event

one day if one of these coronal mass

ejections are so large they could

actually uh wipe out satellite

communication. They could turn off all

computers. They could cause shorts in

the electrical grids around the planet.

There's all these major risks. So this

is often talked about as like when's

this big event going to happen? And this

week it was a very big event. There were

three major coronal mass ejections that

happened in in a row. Two of them kind

of combined and hit the earth at the

same time. and we had the highest level

recorded geomagnetic storm which was G5.

So this G5 storm caused massive

disruptions in the magnetic field

strength of the Earth. Fortunately,

there was not a lot of reported damage,

but we did get to enjoy the beautiful

aurora as far south as Texas in the

United States because these charged

particles with magnetic field, they kind

of move towards the north and south pole

and then they combine with molecules in

the atmosphere. They release light and

you can see these beautiful waves of

orange, yellow, red, green, purple

lights that look like they're coming

down from the heavens all over the

planet. It was really an amazing and

spectacular site. So, it was a scary

week from a solar storm perspective, but

it created a beautiful view here on

Earth. So, that was the explanation for

what happened with the geomagnetic storm

this week. But to be clear,

there were no other adverse effects from

the CME.

>> So far, there's some reports of

communications going out in Africa

on small networks and things like that.

Uh I did not hear about widespread

satellite failures, which is obviously

always a big risk with these things

because these things can actually short

out satellites. I mean, these are clouds

of protons moving very densely at

actually, you know what, Nick, can you

pull up this is one chart to look at. So

this chart actually shows on a log

scale, which means every step up on the

chart is 10 times bigger than the number

before it. But you can see that right

around midnight London time on November

12th, which by the way was just before I

got on the airplane to fly from Japan to

San Francisco. So I was actually

considering not getting on my flight

>> around this time.

>> Really?

>> But there was a Yeah, very seriously.

Well, he didn't want to have a mass

ejection on his flight.

>> That would have been really bad. Well,

you thought like the GPS could go out or

something like that.

>> No, no. So, this has happened in the

past and they do have redundancy for the

GPS going out, but the radiation level

spikes

>> uh when you're that high up, but only at

higher latitude. So, I was looking at

the latitude of my flight path, but they

actually turned off all flights going

over the North Pole because the

radiation gets so high. You can't fly

over the North Pole when you have this

much magnetic flux happening,

particularly in the northern latitude.

So you can see in this image that red

bar is protons

that are moving that have an energy

greater than 10 mega electron volts

which is not a super high energy but

more scarily is the green one. The green

one is actually 100 mega electron volts.

This is a massive amount of energy in a

proton that can cause serious damage on

a microscopic level. So it can shred DNA

for example. it can shred circuits and

so on. So this is a very powerful set of

positively charged protons and they

count how many they're picking up on

these satellites where they have these

kind of detectors as they come from the

sun how many of them they're hitting and

you can see this extraordinary spike

where it spiked up from normally you see

call it one

to all the way up to a thousand. So it

spiked by a,000x

>> wow

>> in 5 minutes.

And so this is a massive increase in the

natural background effect of charged

protons shooting at this extremely high

energy through space and hitting Earth.

>> There was that Carrington event which

was the the largest one ever recorded.

I'm sure you're aware Friedberg like in

the 1800s.

>> What would happen if we had that level

of event today given the infrastructure

because back then we had telegrams

right? We didn't have a lot of equipment

but some of that equipment got fried

during the Carrington event.

>> Yeah. Yeah, I mean that's the sort of

event that can absolutely shortcircuit

electronic equipment either in

satellites and then they would be

rendered permanently unusable. It can

also if it hits the surface of the earth

because remember what protects the earth

is the magnetic field we have and the

reason we have a magnetic field around

the earth is because we have an iron

core at the earth and as that iron core

rotates it creates a magnetic field and

we're very lucky to have that because

that magnetic field actually is like a

shield. It's like a force field around

the earth and it shoots charged

particles away from the earth and keeps

them from hitting the surface of the

earth which would kill all life on earth

over time. That's why we can't go live

on the surface of the earth

>> without protection.

>> We're preparing for a Carrington event.

Like if it happened you could turn off

all the equipment.

>> No.

>> Like power grids and stuff like that.

>> So what would happen is you could have

these voltage spikes that can actually

shortcircuit physically destructure the

microchips, the little wire connectors.

So this is a very serious risk to

civilization which is why people always

talk about these solar storms being

those black swan events, those one ina

million year events or those one in

aundred year events that could render us

back into the stone ages. Some people

say it's unclear the probability of

that. But the sun does go through an

11-year cycle. And during that 11-year

cycle, there's a minimum and a maximum.

We're kind of close to the maximum right

now. So we are seeing these events very

predictably every 11 years. But how big

they are is something that's, you know,

unknown to us. I mean, we try and study

the dynamics of the sun, but it's very

difficult for us to be very predictive

about how big these CMEs are going to be

when they're going to happen.

>> So, we have to be on top of like

observing as they happen. But then we

only have a few hours to say, "Oh my

gosh, this thing's coming for us.

Beware, everyone. Watch out. Be

careful." But there's not very much we

can do to prepare. I will say I have a

belief that I think electronbased

computing is going to go by the wayside

by the end of the century and be

replaced with photonbased computing. And

I think we're going to move most of what

we do today with copper and uh

semiconducting material over to photonic

material and photonic systems and what

will ultimately be quantum meets

photonic systems probably some point

this century. When that happens, these

risks go away. But for now, while we're

relying on electrons and moving

electrons around through copper wire and

so on, we run the very strong risk of

these geomagnetic storms having an

adverse effect on the planet and on our

core infrastructure.

>> Freeberg, I got to see you earlier this

week in Tokyo. We shared a little

tempora. Good times. Yeah,

>> good times in Tokyo. Definitely a lot of

expats making their way from the tech

industry to Tokyo. It's a booming town,

booming tech scene. There's a lot of

people from America who have come to the

conclusion that the great confiscation

is upon us. [laughter]

This is what I'm calling it, the great

confiscation.

Whether it's California or New York,

they're coming for your bags. And so

people are now looking for not one but

two escape hatches. A state, a sovereign

state, Freedberg,

in the United States, the great state of

Texas where I hell from the past few

years. and people are looking for an

international.

Everybody's getting themselves a

passport or a golden visa. Japan, Riad,

and where I've spent the last two weeks,

are amongst the top choices.

>> Do you see this image behind me? This is

that forest city in Malaysia.

>> It's the craziest thing I've ever seen.

>> You went there?

>> I went there last week. They put a

hundred billion dollars into building

this island. A whole city.

>> This is the thing that Bology owns. No,

he he rented a hotel. They have a big

resort hotel. He rented the whole hotel.

That's where he's running his network

school. He's running essentially like an

in-person Y Combinator network state.

You pay one fee for your apartment, your

food, your gym, and you hang out with

other people who want to be part of a

new society

with their own rules.

>> Kind of interesting on the margins.

>> Yeah.

>> But between that and Singapore and

Tokyo, I mean, there was like

a really interesting cross-section of

people that I would say are kind of on

the frontier of tech that feel like it's

not in the United States anymore and

they're looking for what feels like the

wild west. Where where can we go? Where

can we put down roots? Where can we

establish a new town for a new era?

Because a lot of people view the US at

the end of a cycle. And it look it may

not be a massive community today, but

it's a burgeoning community. It's a

growing community and there is this

really I think interesting maybe scary

trend line of folks um you know wanting

to kind of see this stuff happen outside

the US and making an effort to

>> put down roots

>> elsewhere. I'm going to start my own

little community

[clears throat]

>> for Vikunia

>> Vikunia and Wagyu. Those are the two

litmus tests for entry.

Chimamathopouloolis. Apopoulos.

[laughter]

It's gonna be

>> You could only wear Vikuna and you could

only eat one.

>> Chimathopolis.

>> All right, everybody. Another amazing

episode. The Allin podcast is in the

can. Love you besties.

[music]

>> Let your winners ride.

>> Rainman David.

[music]

>> And it said,

>> "We open sourced it to the fans and

they've just gone crazy with it. Love

you. [music] Queen of

>> your

[music]

besties are gone.

>> That is my dog taking a notice in your

driveway.

>> Oh man, my dasher will [music] meet me

up.

>> We should all just get a room and just

have one big huge orgy cuz they're all

just useless. It's like [music] this

like sexual tension that we just need to

release somehow.

Wet your feet.

We need to get murky's back.

[music]

I'm going all in.