so saks are we gonna talk with each other today or you know or he's an iso player he turned into an iso player he's like the carmelo anthony of this he's the carmelo anthony of the all-in pod sack you want to pass the ball or you just want to you want to clank it off the room raymond clay i mean we should have a focus on having a dialogue with
each other today several points in the thing as opposed to all standing up saying our piece and then hopping we lost a little bit of the fiber of this team here there's three people playing as a team and then they're sacks i would love to ask you questions and i would love to see my job the ball jay cal you're the guard you pass the ball i'm supposed to score oh really remember
what uh shaq used to say when he wasn't getting the ball he gets really unhappy he said pass the ball to the big dog he'll score yeah i'm shaq you know you're not kobe who is the shitty yeah you're derek fisher make sure that big dog gets the ball there won't be any problems i'm bob cousy okay i'm gary payton in this okay [Music] [Music] hey everybody welcome to the all in
podcast where three besties talk about a range of talking topics and one monologues about biden derangement syndrome with you again this week the sultan of science and the dictator parliamentaria and playing iso ball somewhere in the wing is uh your political commentator junior projection david sacks it's an act of projection which sacks is gonna lose his mind over
he's got two monologues prepared justin trudeau has invoked an emergency order to freeze bank accounts linked to trucker protests in canada on monday trudeau invoked an emergency law that requires financial institutions in canada to examine customer records and take action against people involved with or aiding in the protest here's trudeau's tweet from
yesterday if you're watching on the video streams illegal blockades and occupations are not peaceful protests they're a threat to jobs and communities and they cannot continue in the house of commons earlier today i joined members of the parliament to speak about that and about the need to invoke the emergencies act the counter signal which is a right-leaning canadian digital
publication reported that 34 different crypto wallets were also being targeted by canadian officials this law grants the government extraordinary powers like the right to ban public assembly in certain locations the canadian civil liberties association said it planned to challenge the government's decision in court uh remember sax wrote a piece
on financial d platforming for barrio ice's common sense about a year ago the piece was about the private sector financial platforms de-platforming folks uh so your thoughts sacks you have 90 seconds on the uninterrupted clock on the shot clock all right thank you jay kelly it's true last summer i wrote a piece for barry weiss's sub stack talking about how financial d platform
would be the next wave of online censorship and here we are it's actually happened what i could not have predicted is that it would occur in our mild mannered neighbor to the north and that the reprisals would be directed by the government itself not just a consortium of private actors and what trudeau has done is he didn't just employ the emergency act against the
trucker so that he could basically arrest them and break up the protest they have now directed banks and any financial institution even cryptocurrency wallets to freeze the accounts not just to the truckers but anybody who's contributed to them basically anyone's contributed 25 or more um there were two uh crowdfunding sites that they raised money from all
those people the thousands of disordinary canadians who did nothing more than contribute to an anti-government protest they are now at risk of financial rune because their bank accounts have been frozen and you have to wonder what what is the ends here that justifies the means covid you know omicron is on the lane it's on its way out at the same time that trudeau was announcing these
dictatorial measures uh ford the the guy who runs uh ontario the largest province 15 seconds ford was out there saying that he was gonna uh that coveted mandates were gonna be over so why exactly are they doing this you know we're at the end of covet and um zach let me ask you a question if um if there were people online making donations to the criminals who loot
and kill people in san francisco which you've railed against being criminals who are breaking the law and should all be put behind bars do you think that it would be appropriate in that context for the government to block their donations to supporting criminal activity in a criminal ring um you know that i think we all agree uh you know shouldn't be transpiring
well but but your the implication there is that truckers are using violence or or something like that and they're not i mean it's been it's been largely a peaceful protest it's been very annoying to people who you know but isn't the case being made that they are actually breaking the law by blocking streets and that's not you know there's a peaceful
protest where you can go and get a permit and actually go in a public zone and peacefully protest within the con the confines of the law and what's allowed in that jurisdiction look but what these folks are doing is civil disobedience which is not a peaceful protest it is you know kind of breaking the law to make a point it is peaceful because there's been no violence if you
look at actually but they're breaking those they're breaking the law right well let me let me ask the question for freeberg then um sex if a group of truckers were shutting down the bay bridge with three lanes of traffic and then shut down the 280 and the 101 and it impacted this if they in fact are shutting down roads emergency businesses and our emergencies
can't get through would you want them to be towed would you want their cars to be towed listen here here's the thing the ambassador bridge this vital choke point of commerce between the u.s and canada that was blocked and that was creating a serious problem but it had already been cleared on monday by the time that trudeau invoked the emergencies act and
then on tuesday he then invokes this financial act your opinion sacks if they if they block roads and bridges would you if they're in charge yeah if they're breaking the law in that way it's not just one lane it's all three lanes damage is society i'm just trying to understand the the standard here because just zooming out to last year and the year before right there was a protest
happening with blm and those blm protests resulted in damage to private uh property uh to burning cars there were protests at the capitol that involved folks trespassing into federal land and federal buildings and now there's protests that are uh you know blocking vital trade routes and you know access to emergency vehicles and all this sort of stuff to me and also
you know people in san francisco breaking the law and not being put in jail my personal opinion is anyone that's breaking the law we should stop them from breaking the law and anyone that wants to kind of you know follow a peaceful protest or make a point should kind of make the point but if the law is the law shouldn't there be a universal standard to hold up the law and if the
case and if the case is people are giving money to aid in breaking the law shouldn't we stop the hold on you know transmission go hold on hold on a second look i think you're conflating a bunch of really important things there aiding and abetting criminals uh is already illegal there are rico statutes that um allow the authorities to go after people that are aiding and
abetting through monetary support criminal behavior separately there is a whole body of law at the federal state local level that allows you to deal with protests okay the real question is why did you have to go and invoke emergency powers at the tail end of a pandemic for what is effectively non-violent protests again that's the key question right so just to give you
some canadian history uh as a canadian citizen what i can tell you is that we've invoked this emergency powers act three times in the past the first was for world war ii the second sorry world war one the second was for world war ii and the third was the flq crisis which was a domestic terrorist organization in quebec that was fighting for a separate homeland
that's those are the three other times in the past that a sitting prime minister has invoked these broad sweeping emergency powers and they did it because you exhaust the natural body of law and the constitution and the bill of you know the charter of rights that governs the normal behavior of a democratic society what this was is not any of those things
i don't think anybody could claim that a bunch of non-violent protests yes they were annoying yes they basically you know stop some commerce but i don't think it was on the order of world war one world war ii or a domestic terrorism issue like the flq crisis so why invoke this basically get out of jail free card where you can behave without any checks
and balance this is the confounding hold on a second did we exhaust the current body of normal governing law and if we didn't why is this example okay and the counterfactuals are so many imagine trump invoked this thing during blm imagine biden did this right now right you would be up in arms i think that's well said let me just add something to that the emergencies act that trudeau
invoked requires something like an act of espionage against the country or syria the word serious violence or in the law or the threat of serious violence those conditions were simply not met yeah and then on top of that to go after people who contribute as little as 25 to these truckers who are trying to support them because these guys are not making
any money you know there could they have very they're living under very harsh conditions so you make a small check you write a small donation to support these people to aid them they're simple working-class people who are protesting for normalcy and get their freedom back and now all of a sudden your bank account gets frozen it is basically creating a it's gonna have a chilling effect
because it's essentially creating a cast of untouchables because no one is going to want to associate with transact with or donate to this group of people these designated people now under the emergencies act who your bank account can get frozen if you deal with that i think it's going to have the opposite effect i think this is going to blow up in trudeau's face this is the worst
decision making by any major political leader in a long time to go after a group of people as champa said in the in the waning days of a pandemic what is the point why are we picking this or why is he picking this guy up so why makes no sense but why is he doing it and jamal why why did the police not break so i totally hear your point why did the
police not break up these protests why did he need to invoke the emergency because look it happened i think that the police in some cases did in some cases didn't there were probably a lot of police sympathizers there were probably a lot of sympathizers in general as there were a lot of people who were detractors oh you think the police you're saying there
were police that were complicit it's the nature of a protest you have people for you have people against but the point is i think what's really clear is justin trudeau first basically said these people are racists and misogynists then he said they just hold views that are just unacceptable to me and then like a totalitarian dictator invoked an emergency measures act that
allows him to do what he wants that's the fact pattern he painted himself into a political corner and then tried to give successfully he gave himself absolute power for some period of time and the real question i think is why should this be allowed to happen in a democratic country with democratic norms against people that haven't done as far as i can tell
a shred of violent behavior no it hasn't been you guys and where it's clear that the body of normal governing law hasn't been exhausted yet meaning the minute that these people were asked to actually empty the ambassador bridge they did guys we're canadians that's what we do yes we love to pronounce but if you just ask us super nice exactly no you're right trudeau never tried talking
to them i mean why wouldn't he just try and talk why wouldn't he just try and negotiate with them instead he demonized them right all that bad as white supremacists and nazis and even you know confederates or which i don't even understand in the context of canada this is yet another example of the dying death right in front of us of the woke
playbook right we talked about this last week i think it's related to the san francisco board of ed recall that's now national and probably even international news the the the reaction to rogan the reaction to dave chappelle it's all part and parcel of this thing where people up and down the spectrum have learned what the mechanism of action is of this cancer culture and
they don't fall for it anymore there's a person that's able to escalate it because he's actually in a seat of power and that's what i think people should be debating you mean shutting down dissenting voices from a position of power just because and he went unnecessarily he went on the record and he said guys these views are unacceptable to me well in a democratic society that's not
your choice yeah not your choice justin i mean and i could have engaged with views on all kinds of topics all the time unacceptable is not the threshold of world war ii world war one in the flq crisis do you guys think that there's a moment here that also is a mile marker on the road towards the state versus crypto given the actions that we're taking against
bitcoin wallets because that seems to be like a big trend that's going to play out over the next decade or two they're there inevitably crypto is the threat to the state right and so you know you're going to see skirmishes like this that kind of you know hey wallets that donate are illegal and you know free break this is one of the best points you've made if you look at what
this has done to bitcoin and you look at what it's done for other cryptocurrencies this will do more than mcdonald's accepting bitcoin because this is the first time like a western democratic state is seizing people's funds like in an incredibly unfair unnecessary way which is just going to have more people say you know what maybe i should keep some of my net worth out
of the government's purview if they're going to seize it anyway and then now people are going to start looking into the coins that allow people to can't conflate having an enemy with having a different view these aren't the same thing having an enemy is a serious deal right whether that's domestic or international that's what we had to do in world war
one world war ii in the flq crisis this is just somebody who has a different opinion i don't agree in mass mandates is what one person says i want a mass mandate is what the other person says the idea that you can deplatform one or the other or fire them from their job or prevent them from having access to the money that they've earned or preventing other people from donating money
that's really um it's a really low bar and i think when you normalize this kind of behavior it's a very slippery slope and so if if somebody else were to do it they now have like it's again going back to the rene gerard sort of philosophical discussion from last week one of the things uh about you know these stoning rituals right that sacks talked about
that we talked about last week one of the things that rene gerard talks about is it is always hardest for that first person right the first person that throws the stone right that's how jesus was able to defuse that that incident as described in the book of john but in a different example the first person that throws a stone all of a sudden normalizes it for everybody
else after them and then these stonings become commonplace or became commonplace so similarly it's like if you're a sitting democratic person who just decides this doesn't work for you you can't flip the script and and basically remove everybody's democratic rights that's really crazy it's actually at a closing point you want to make well okay just on this point about
bitcoin the the reason why bitcoin is necessary is because the tactics that trudeau is using is essentially to starve these truckers out to not only basically arrest them and but he's also taking away their insurance licenses he's basically preventing them from ever working again he's talked about that we're gonna put give you a criminal
record it's gonna make it hard for you to get a job and then most importantly on top of that he's preventing anyone from helping them by contributing to them by making a donation so he's essentially starving these guys out and that's the reason why bitcoin is potentially helpful is it allows people using non-custodial wallets to make an unrun around that and
donate and help these these people who are being persecuted essentially i mean he could have just simply chosen to do what sax's favorite president obama did with occupy wall street which is say great you have something you want to voice here's where you can do it just you know no guns no violence but we let how long did occupy wall street last in downtown wall street and in oakland and
other places like a year or two and you just wait them out and that's it i think when you encounter a sincere protest movement the first thing you should do as leaders actually listen and try to understand what it is that they're protesting on behalf of and trudeau never did that he went straight to 11 with this and i think part of the reason
why i mean jk you asked why why is it that that you know there seems to be a common denominator with this and with the ukraine issue that the leaders are immediately escalating these situations instead of looking for a way to de-escalate it and they're doing it with the media egging them on and so as as harsh as trudeau's rhetoric has been the media's rhetoric
around this has been even worse you have this cnn contributor juliette kyam who's also a harvard professor who basically tweeted that trudeau needed to slash their tires empty the gas tanks arrest the drivers you know making it unclear how you'd never get the trucks off the bridge uh but then she said cancel their insurance suspend their driver's license prohibit any
future regulatory verification uh she says trust me i will not run out of ways to make this hurt you know it's you have the media cheering this on egging on trudeau they're doing the same thing beating the drums of war on ukraine what is wrong with these people yeah de-escalate and where's the off-ramp i think the biggest the biggest story is this um this bitcoin thing because
you know if you guys think about like pre-1960s like capital wasn't digitized it was like physical like you had to own like a stock certificate or cash or gold or a bearer bond to today everything is digitized right like there's a digital record of you know who owns what stock and who how much is in your bank account and none of it is tied to your having a physical
asset and ultimately the law was able to reach into these digital systems and have greater um uh oversight and ultimately control uh you know over accounts and so on and it's had a you know the digitization of capital assets has had an incredible ability to drive economic growth and investment and ease of transaction but it's also significantly increased the
centralization of assets or the central influence over assets bitcoin seems to be the resolution to that and now you're seeing the ultimate challenge to bitcoin and the challenge to decentralized systems like bitcoin and cryptocurrencies and so on i don't want to speak specifically to anyone but there seems to be like this trend line over the last 60 years that's now being
challenged because you could have your accounts frozen any moment um you know for breaking the law or because emergency acts are are induced and i think you're right it's probably going to accelerate interest in these kind of off government chain if true into some separate chain anyone can do it anybody can do it they're doing it in china right and they're uh
it's the point of it the digital argument is like this incredible the whole point it's like absolute centralization of every capital asset here's where you go think of how dangerous the digital yuan is the minute you say something that xi jinping doesn't like it's a it's a stroke of a keyboard key and all your assets are all your assets are locked away it's a database entry and you just
basically reroute who belong who it belongs to or it could be it could happen in america they say you know what california now wants to have a wealth tax anybody who's got money we're just going to take your money out you guys think automatically do you guys think we sound like a right-wing politics show at this point no this isn't a right-wing politics
thing i mean i think i think that we have so jumped the shark there are things that are happening today every day that you know if you had said in isolation two or three years ago would any of these things ever happen we all would have just looked at each other and said it's impossible that these things could happen but the problem is fast forward two years of a pandemic i think
we have let a lot of our civil liberties decay right under our nose and we're not willing to fight for it because it's become too tribal and and rights have been politicized so the idea of having rights you know and then standing up for your rights all of a sudden has to be a decision between whether you're left or right that's crazy i don't think that
liberties in the sense of government oversight have decayed as uh in addition to that liberties in the sense of of a social setting have decayed you know we've because of cancer culture we've normalized the ability to silence minority or dissenting voices and this is both in the private enterprise setting as well as in the public setting and it's um you know
i don't know i i don't consider myself a right-wing conservative person by any stretch um but i do consider myself a person who believes in individual freedom and liberty that's called an american by the way yeah it's basically being an american and i think you know as we move on to this uh recall in san francisco i think sax made a really good point like what
are our political leaders doing here are they trying to stir the pot and antagonize these situations if you look you know clinton obama a lot of people previously were trying to defuse these situations and then biden seems to be stirring the pot justin trudeau and then if you look at trump with blm you know and the immigration stuff he never sat down and
met with him and he arguably antagonized them so i think this is a perfect segue into what happened and you know so we should expect a little more from our political leaders great point from sacks you just bought up something incredible you know trump railed against these blm folks but at no point did he try to shut down their bank accounts and take their money away and
trudeau can't you know did this was not even near in the scale of blm yeah who's the bigger authoritarian yeah i mean clearly if you objectively it's true in this situation the scary authoritarianism as we talked about in previous pods tends to come from the left at least the right you see it coming it's failed under moral virtue signaling
that's right they're very sanctimonious they claim they claim to be the defenders of the working class while they're actually prosecuting them such an unforced error like so dumb he's going to lose right now he's going to lose if a d.a was elected and a police officer police chief were elected to san francisco that said we are going to freeze the bank accounts and um you know uh
demobilize the criminals that are ransacking our city our people our stores would you support that no not if it's an office an extrajudicial use of power i mean the law specifies what you're allowed to do do you think san francisco's in an emergency situation i mean would you support the mayor taking on emergency uh authority to go and fix the problem which she just did by the
way in the tenderloin yeah but that doesn't give her the power to go to wells fargo and say to wells fargo we want you to freeze all these accounts with no due process of law that's basically what trudeau is about that's the overreach that's the line you think is like go and see that you should have to go through a court proceeding just to free someone's bank account
period can't just freeze someone's man count the law allows you to do this now it's called rico so you follow the due process of the law and you can do all those things friedrich that that you just mentioned if you want to free somebody's bank account right you can actually do that the government has the ability to do that they don't need to
pass this basically get out of jail free card to do whatever you want without any oversight and teacher matt's point earlier have you exhausted the regular law here i haven't all the provinces are ending covet mandates anyway so this whole issue is moot so dumb it's this is like the stupidest behavior at the end of a pandemic that we've ever seen and shout out to george
lucas for getting it right i mean if you look at the theme of star wars it was like oh i just need emergency powers for a minute because of a trade federation blockade and here we go a fake crisis yeah that wasn't george lucas by the way i mean that goes back to the uh the roman empire right like yeah yeah that was the formation of the empire caesar caesar
got emergency authority i mean this is a tried and true and the poll the polls are actually right and the polls show that the most of the public in canada is applauding so what was the line from democracy dice to applause exactly that was padme's line in the star wars films all right uh they're aging well the prequels uh three members of san francisco's board of education they were
the worst just to be clear but go on sorry uh not compared to the three just huge dumps that disney took on the our childhoods with the sequels three members of the san francisco board of education were called this week massively they lost by between 72 and 79 these were the virtual signaling maniacs who wanted to change the names of all
the schools wouldn't reopen the schools yadda yadda and this uh really frustrated and they wanted to get rid of elite ap classes all of this they did jason they did they did yeah um and these three board members are out so london breed jason jason just to be clear in the middle of a pandemic i think my understanding is that instead of figuring out how to get these kids back
in class how to figure out how they could take off their masks they wanted to drop abraham lincoln and george washington's name from schools because it was it was too regressive yep they cancelled the gifted program because it made other kids feel bad and a gentleman that wanted to serve on a committee who i think was gay but not minority was excluded because
he wasn't a minority enough for them so these are the three people that uh 76 of san francisco citizens or you know residents just uh recalled and if you're not following this the tech industry had a major part in this in terms of backing it there was a lot of claims which i'll let sachs address in a moment uh that this was a republican-driven out-of-state movement but if you look
there are not a hundred thousand republicans in san francisco and all likelihood this was actually apparent in a lot of cases based on the geography of san francisco and the density of certain populations a lot of asian americans came out in force and some neighborhoods 90 percent were voting to oust these people uh gary tan uh who is a product
of the san francisco public education system and a great entrepreneur and venture capitalist uh was a leader in this movement so congratulations to him and this all is going to culminate i think in may or june sucks will correct me with the recall effort for uh chesa boudin uh this killer d.a who won't prosecute anybody sex what are your thoughts on this victory and full
disclosure you were a major donor to this i was the second largest donor and i was the largest donor under age 90. arthur rock was the biggest donor what a badass by the way the guy is 95 years old he donated to 400 000 to this uh recall um in fairness you live in san francisco this is a backdoor issue for you you care oh yeah yeah look i think crime in
schools are the key quality of life issues in any community and it transcends partisan boundaries if your kids cannot get a quality education and you cannot be safe in your community nothing else matters and that matters to democrats just as much as republicans and that's why like you said three quarters of san francisco voted for this recall even though 85 of them voted for
biden's not it's basically a 90 democrat city so uh you know all these claims that was a republican recall turned out to be nonsense this was something that was broadly supported and um and you know look it's the same reason that yunkan flipped a you know plus 10 democrat state in virginia which is that you know it had a lot to do with school closures they kept the
schools closed for a year and a half uh and then when they were supposed to have conversat a pta meeting about reopening it like jamas said they spent five hours debating whether to allow this beloved gay parent on to a voluntary school board they didn't they spent all their time you know talking about changing the names of the schools instead of how to reopen them they also
there's chronic mismanagement i mean the school is something like 125 million dollars in debt despite you know being in a very rich city they opened for one day that's right just so that they could get a state uh piece of the state budget pie so these kids clamored back to school just so that they could technically say yeah we were open and to get i think it
was a 12 or 13 million dollar check and then they shut the schools down again right and you brought a key point jason which is that the asian american community in san francisco has been absolutely galvanized by this issue because this school board also you know lowell high school was one of the best schools in the city and it was merit-based and it had great advanced
math programs and this this board basically got rid of all of that stuff and it infuriated the asian american community many of whose most prominent members have basically risen out of poverty because of the education they got at lowell and so this war on merit that's happening is something that is going to you know flip the you know asian american community i think to when i
when i was growing up i grew up in a french ghetto of otto and i was supposed to go to a local high school that was just plainly trash and i was able to go to an equivalent of lowell this a public magnet high school that had uh advanced classes and everything a gifted program and it really did change my life and so i really understand what people are
saying which is like when you're in poverty the only way out is through an education really you may you know get accidentally lucky but the only really predictable sustainable pattern here is is through school and so when you deprive folks from being able to get a decent education and there's no real you know orderly logic to it it's a really
ridiculous kind of an idea the other thing is i think that this speaks very powerfully as sac said as a non as a bipartisan issue that these democrats have to get right because you know you saw this also in virginia where democrats basically went down this one tack and you know the republican candidate glenn younkin basically said hey listen the schools are broken it completely
doesn't make any sense we oppose a lot of what's going on the watering down and the critical race theory et cetera et cetera and he put it to a vote and a lot of people cross the aisle there as well where typically ardent democrats basically voted for this republican governor i think the point is that there are just several issues that are just so transcend like they're just they
transcend all party lines and this is an anchor issue that we have to get right friedrich any thoughts on this do you think this is the start of maybe a turnaround for san francisco because chester boone is way more hated and safety is an even bigger issue i think for a lot of people right now in san francisco and it dovetails with asian hate and the
number of asian people targeted in crimes so he's got a i mean if these people got out by 75 on average he's going to be out by 95 percent is this a tipping point is san francisco going to make a reason i don't know i mean look i think there's generally a broader trend and momentum around what we classify as locism which i think is a little bit disparaging to the intention
of social justice and recognizing the the primary points of social justice through action and behavior um in civic discourse and and government behavior um and you know this like the um election of several das around the country uh who take a different stance to prosecution of crime to try and create better options for rehab and and so on um i think is not a movement that's
going to go away overnight i think there's certainly a hefty amount of resistance but what we're really doing right now is i think we're learning and realizing the boundaries of this movement and of this moment the one boundary that i think san franciscans are too bad san francisco like you know as in the case in tech has always been so progressive in terms of
you know doing these things faster than anyone else but what we're realizing in san francisco is non-prosecution of criminals as the d.a has undertaken over the past couple of years leads to really heinous crime um and rampant crime and um and and this kind of social justice movement within the education system causes a decline in the value of our education system those are two
really important learnings that san francisco has had over the past couple of years with this very important um and momentous kind of social justice movement but it doesn't mean that the movement is over it doesn't mean that quote-unquote vocalism is over it means that that social justice intent is still there but we're realizing where the
boundaries are and how far things can and maybe should go i posted this article um tyler collins who's a you know pretty well-known economist he wrote this op-ed for the for bloomberg and what he said is that wokism has peaked um and there's just these two passages that builds on what friedberg said uh quote by wokism i refer to a movement that on the positive side is highly
aware of racism and social injustice and is galvanized towards raising awareness on the negative side it can be preachy alienating overly concerned with symbols and self-righteous unquote and i think that that probably does summarize sort of like where it starts which is i think rooted in a very good place but unfortunately all too often where it ends which is that sort of
moral absolutist judgment cancel culture around it and then the second quote that he said was the following he said quote vocalism is likely to evolve into a subculture that is highly educated highly white and fairly feminine that is still a large mass of people but not enough to run the country or all its major institutions in the san francisco
school board recall for instance the role of asian americans was especially prominent unquote so i don't know i just think that all these things sort of you know people are looking for affiliation and you start with labels that bring you in and then you have to sort out are all these labels really true and how true are they and i think we're in this moment now where now we know the
mechanism of action of vocalism i just don't think it works anymore and i think a lot of people will say i believe in the high order deals of racial and social justice but i don't believe in the mechanism of action and so the pendulum swung too far but but but the core intent of a generation of change is underway which is social justice and climate change i
think those are the two big uh points of it just won't be done with this cohort under this well it won't be done to this extreme this fast right and um and i think that the pendulum went too fast too far um and it's um and there are boundary effects that are causing recourse right now and we're seeing this across the country especially in new york with the
election of the mayor and san francisco the d.a recalls happening in the next couple of months so sax what's your prediction on the da recall by the way well that's 95 but i mean to build on your point they were talking about 10 of the people in the united states who are involved in this you know retweeting and virtual signaling and you know is twitter a real place well no a city is a
real place people have to live in san francisco and when these ideologies result in unlivable conditions for people well they're going to say you know what there's reality here how do we get competent people to take the positions sacks that are being vacated now who should london breed put in these three positions and maybe tech people need to i mean this is
what i think has to happen i think some number of tech people have to get off the bench and say you know what i'm going to do a tour of duty as politicians in san francisco to to take back the city what should happen here in terms of who takes these positions because republicans can't win in san francisco so you're going to need moderate democrats right sex before sax
goes can i just say something because i think i just want to say something that's really important i'm sorry to jump in but j cal i think the point you're making about the tech people implies the tech people are effective and good at doing this but that's not necessarily the fabric of san francisco i've lived in san francisco since 2001 the number of people in san francisco in
2001 that were in the tech industry was a minority since that time it became a significant size and over the last two years since the pandemic it's decreased significantly but san francisco is a city with decades and generations of history my wife's family is multi-generational san franciscans and i don't think that traditionally san franciscans view tech people as the
right people to solve these problems for them that the intention of that city is not necessarily about let's get tech people to solve our problems they have a different set of values perhaps um and so we we often overstate and assume that tech people are the right people and are the the problem solvers but i don't think that that's necessarily the right
problems that people want to solve so i just i just wanted to interview and then who should take these positions because right people typically really far left people are motivated to take these positions i don't see business people writ large across all political you know positions but specifically in san francisco don't want to take these positions so is this just
going to be replayed saks the recall effort was led by two parents autumn lujan and sivaraj they're the ones who led this thing they're the ones who rose up to basically oppose these crazy school board members and that is who london bridge to talk to i mean she needs to go talk to the people who are successful in organizing this recall because they understand the
issues obviously and the people are with them so either appoint them to the board or ask them for their recommendations and i think what you see consistently whether it's with this sf uh school board or the the uh the school boards that we saw in virginia that yunkan very effectively ran against is that they don't believe the parents matter terry
mcauliffe's fatal that his last gaffe was basically saying that the parents shouldn't get to decide what is taught in the schools he basically said the quiet part out loud but that is what still across the country the teachers unions believe and most of the democratic party the activists believe and until they start losing elections you're not going to see a change in that
belief oh my god how awesome would it be if sacks are on the school board oh my god yeah uh and just to put a pin in this uh and the cherry on top the san francisco board of supervisors voted seven to four to send a recall reform bill so their reaction to all of this is to do a recall of recalls and say now you uh can't recall somebody in their first
year and the people who are placed in these positions can't run again so now the speculation is the three people who got voted off are going to run again so there's a lot more to come on this yeah and also part so they're putting just to staff that they're putting that on the ballot on june 7th the same day that we vote on the recall of chase booty and
the board of supervisors now put in this measure that would make it far harder to recall people one of the provisions of that is whoever london breed appoints as the successor like you're talking about they cannot run after that so it is designed to for no that makes no sense they're basically doing a great job right exactly it makes no sense so you have the board of
supervisors trying to throw a wrench into the democratic process meanwhile these are people who claim to be preserving democracy saving democracy they are trying to throw a wrench in the thing is underlying it david is they think they know better that's what it fundamentally comes down to they are willing to have democracy up to a point and when that point is an unacceptable
view by somebody else they feel like they know better and they're willing to be really draconian in whatever they do to decide yeah and shout out to mike bloomberg i'll pull up the the tweet for everybody he hasn't been very vocal or been on the stage much but obviously he did a great job in new york on reforming schools the san francisco school board recalls
should be a wake-up call to elected officials especially democrats across the nation parents are fed up with the status quo and that put adults uh that puts adults ahead of kids yeah an ideology ahead of results well said mike yeah well mr bloomberg yes that was very good and bloomberg has been very good on calling out the democrat their democratic party's blind loyalty to the
teachers unions and until they're willing to break with the teachers unions who are their biggest donor we're not going to get any real progress on school reform and this is the issue my favorite political commentator one of them is roy tashira who's a democrat he wrote the emerging democratic majority he wrote a blog post talking about how
the asian how asian american voters are going to swing away from the democratic party because of issues like this because of the decline of standards in school and safety and and the asian american community i think is galvanized on this chase boudin issue because they have seen in all these cases of asian hate where elders in their community have been violently assaulted chase abu deen has
done nothing except release the perpetrators walkers all right well listen this is seems like a good turning point let's um we talked about on this podcast over and over again about the compression in sas multiples in the public market valuations uh something that we're still working through in the stock market which has been choppy at best over the last couple
of months an information story came out just this week major crossover funds like tiger and d1 are slowing down their investments in late stage private companies and i was talking to some folks who said the multiple compression is here now they're not doing the deals at 75 or 100 x revenue this was reported in an article by the information tiger global told
their lps in a webinar earlier this month that it would no longer focus on backing late stage startups preparing to go public instead they will focus on two things going even earlier into series a and series b rounds and buying shares of public tech companies that have sunk in value compared to the all-time highs obviously we know twillow zoom block all
down over 60 percent from their one year highs i could get into more details here but let's stop for a second and chamoth what are your thoughts in uh the dot-com bubble it took somewhere between three to five years for most stocks to bottom and they bottomed i think peak to trough somewhere you know towards 80 of where they were in 2000 right so it took three to five years to go basically
minus eighty percent we did that in three months you know maybe four months and so uh the markets have become a lot more efficient over time so now that we have that reset it's pretty natural that there's going to be a very quick reset on the private market side and you know you have to go where the bodies are buried and what i mean by that in this case is the
overwhelming misvaluation of late-stage private companies and so these folks don't have much of a choice they have a lot of money that they've raised before all of this happened they have a huge portfolio of stuff that they've marked up or have been marked up by others and they don't want to go through the pain now resetting so part of the easy
strategic decision there is to say you know what we know this is a little bit radioactive but instead of really figuring out what the mark on these companies are we'll go to a different sort of part of the playground and play there because we don't have to go and deal with these issues and you know we can do 10 15 20 million dollar checks into early stage businesses pretty normal
reaction strategically but i think the reality is that at some point in the next year or two these other companies have to get public the hope is that the market catches back up so that you can defend the last valuation and that's that's the way that this stuff doesn't require a lot of pain the problem is if you're high burn and you are counting on yet another
successive round or you're at a point in your life cycle where you need to go public in the next two years if you go public you will get taken to the woodshed taking to the woodshed being your valuation might be half of what it is in your last round so there's going to be medicine that has to be taken sex there'll be medicine some people are going to have to take some medicine
sacks what's your best advice being one of the great operators in the history of silicon valley as the ceo of paypal thanks jacob well i'm gonna put you up there with cheryl i mean i think that i think everybody agree the top four people can correct me here tim was a good operator i mean i i saw what you did to icq man you were riding that that bad boy down
that wasn't easy i delivered a billion [ __ ] users to a company okay pretty decent um you did pretty good at facebook i'll say that but if i would think most people would say sax cheryl tim cook keith for boy we'll put that aside for the debate in terms of operating throwing a little dark spicy barbecue pork here come on give me a kiss i'll put you in the top 25 chamoth
okay but i mean it wasn't your was it your chosen career a little dark meat a little dark meat nice god please don't get me in trouble man bring me into your start me bro you're orbiting i'm stepping back j cal who are your top four cheryl i pick my top four in this order i'll give it an order so basically for white people when uh asian and indian ceos run most of the
tech companies and stuff i'm talking about number two ceos not ceos just for the ceo position to be clear i'm not talking ceo i'm talking co i would say tim cook when he was steve jobs that's my number one operator last 23 years number two i put cheryl sandberg who did obviously amazing things for google and then facebook right those two would be my top two and then i tie my top two
sacks uh as uh at paypal uh and zenifitz even though it didn't work out it was still a great run at the time and then i put keith reboy square uh and a couple of other companies he did those are my top four anybody else want to come at me go ahead i don't have complete data set on cos where would you put sex you uh did i put you over and disagree who might have disappeared
oh and was it keith adams linkedin brilliant you are jacob lately that's a love fest now you and friedberg are at each other's throats so i'll just let you guys fight it out and i'll be all about the love yeah freeba why are you attacking jake cal yeah as an operator extraordinaire what's your best advice to the company that raised 100 million and let's say their
valuation is now not a billion it's 500 million what are the steps you take you got 14 months of runway in the bank do you lay people off do you extend it to 24 what are your thoughts you must be dealing with this with companies in your portfolio well there's a few things going on first of all i think tiger built a great business in providing late stage sort of
passive non-dilutive capital to to companies sas companies we have a bunch of of uh sas businesses that they provided later stage financing i think those valuations are gonna come down i don't know that they're gonna be such a great partner for series a firms because they are passive and you know what we see is that series a companies need a lot of
help they need a lot of advice you need a lot of help with recruiting governance governance they need you know when they're going from say 20 employees to 100 they need to know what that org chart looks like and on and on and on so i don't know that if this report i don't know if this reporting is actually true but if the goal is all of a sudden for tiger to
become a series a investor that competes with craft or sequoia or these other firms that are not very hands-on that doesn't seem like a great strategy to me i do think that for our later stage companies they have to realize that you know if they raised can i take the other side of this sorry david i just want your reaction to this i think it's going to work but not for
the right reasons the reason it'll work is there are way more entrepreneurs now than there are great entrepreneurs and so of all of these entrepreneurs that exist the idea of getting passive money where you won't get fired where there is that remember like remember when we were growing up in silicon valley the risk is always like if you take sequoia benchmark you know
social capital like there's a high bar for that capital which means we are helping you run this business effectively and there's a cost where if you don't perform you'll get fired there's always been that risk it's true and i guess that's the argument they could make but the flip side is that there's a lot of so the ceo now why would you take a 15 million dollar
series a check from sequoia where they could fire you whereas 15 million dollars from tiger they may never call you we we address that by doing look if a founder is really worried about that we address that by giving them three board seats you know we might have one they might have three i mean my view on it is you just never fire a founder unless they've done
something criminal it's just that simple but um so look i think there's ways of addressing the governance where uh you can get the help or the value out of an early stage firm without giving up the control so yeah i mean look that's the pitch that tiger would make but i think that's addressable uh what do you think of that pitch fredberg i will give you the 15 million
dollar series a you don't have to have a board you can just be passive and let us know how it goes give us a quarterly report we'll look at the p l that's all of crypto now anyways that's true well i mean that's a fair point no governance in crypto is leading to a lot of weird stuff i can tell you i tell people this a lot so i had um three term
sheets for my series b uh it was from andreessen horowitz coastal ventures and founders fund and founders fund came in kind of last minute but i went with coast law uh even though it's a lower valuation because vinod was pretty insistent like let me put someone that could be useful some you know government person because we were doing a lot of work lobbying in in dc on
your board we won't be on your board we won't bother you and i took the round and then my series c i took from founders fund because brian zingerman who's obviously a good friend um you know made the case like look uh our model at founders fund is we let founders run the business we're not here to tell you how to run your business and they were both great fits and you know
it worked out well i didn't i had i have had experience with antagonistic vcs on boards and um you know it generally creates a pretty negative dynamic now when i was the worst story without the person's name i don't think i want to go public with it so i'm not going to do that um but when i was on give us an idea of what the behavior would be because there are people in the
audience who want to know what is bad behavior of vc just give us a composite when you're an entrepreneur or ceo running an early stage business you live that business 20 hours a day you know the details if you're smart you're thorough you're analytical you're creative there is no one that's going to come in the boardroom for two hours a quarter and suggest things to you that
you haven't thought of there's no one that's gonna come in the room and be smarter than you at your own business and so more often than not vinod's been exceptional at defining this problem the problem is vcs join a board and they think that they have to quote add value so they come in and they make a bunch of suggestions and recommendations and push
you to do a bunch of things and as the node has said correctly many times they more often than not add negative value they can actually destroy and damage a business because they need to feel like they're exerting some degree of influence over the business and as a result they push the business to do things that the ceo or founder otherwise
wouldn't be doing and that often ends up in a kind of weird sticky kind of place so i just validated the tiger pitch right there i think that's right and by the way it's why founders fund founders fund is fantastic i don't know if you guys are lps but their investment returns are so far beyond what i think anyone really realizes they're incredible investors and a big part of
it is they try and find the entrepreneur that doesn't want and doesn't need the help and then they give them the capital to go and execute and they leave them the heck alone and they are just so good at finding those folks identifying them and then literally being passive in in how they kind of manage and operate their business and that's why they're so freaking good i think the people you're
talking about are a lot of rookie vcs who come in and then yeah they they think that not just just experienced ex operators even people who ran businesses who say i know how to run a business and look no two businesses are alike so maybe the way they ran their business with their team and their market and their industry worked well for them but now when they
got to come in and do it with someone else's business and some other space with some completely different team you know they try and exert influence and really it's just you know not wanted let me go to sac sacks hold on i want to just get one from you give us an idea because you've been in the business for over 20 years uh i mean by the looks of it maybe 40.
but 20 years of just crushing it in the business what's the worst behavior you've seen on a board you can make a composite of like a vc being destructive on a board yeah i mean look i think sometimes vcs will have sort of hobby horses and they'll keep pushing for things that the founder doesn't want that's not productive but what i would say is first of all let
me just say like i'm not somebody who likes to take board seats and i i do it as a it's like i see it as a cost not a benefit to me because it takes up my time if i didn't have to ever take a board seat that'd be a great as far as i'm concerned that'd be a good thing i'm not somebody who wants to you know insert myself and get on these boards you know offer it as an
incentive no i only i only took more sales yeah the only reason i'll ever take aboard c is because i have to do it because the founder insists that otherwise they won't go with i've seen it so exactly then you'll do it for one year right you'll say hey i'll do it for a year i always time limit it now because i just can't i mean i can't make a ten year obligation you
know it's typically like one or two years and then you know we'll see doesn't mean i'll roll off in two years but um but i but i need to have the expectation set up and and the reality is if the company can perform well for another two years they'll be at a different stage and maybe they won't you know need my help as much so the two most valuable
pieces of private equity that i own is a company called dcg and it's a company called netscope and collectively it's like billion dollars worth of stock that i own what i'm on the board of one i'm not on the board of the other anymore and i text with these guys maybe once every two or three months at best so you know completely confirming david your point that great founders are just
n of one individuals you know barry silbert um sanjay berry next level guys but that's very different than the the series a playbook because when i ran institutional money i'm telling you there is a pressure to be involved and show some value and i do think that there is a level of judgment on the ceo that has happened now maybe that's changed historically but i think that's
the single biggest pivot that one would exploit if you were tiger or co2 or d1 stepping into the early stage game which is to essentially make it a feature and it's not dissimilar to when dst and yuri milner entered the late stage round you know what was his big differentiation i'll take common stock and i won't take a board seat i didn't see it
to be influential it seemed so counter-intuitive and so against the grain but he acknowledged what was this thing that up until that point was true which is common and preferred converged in price per share so buying common in a late stage company was the same as buying preferred yo well that's something you should explain for a second people don't know you said
at an ipo well let's start so when you set up a company you have a price per share of the common stock and then a price per share that the series a investor has the series a investor is buying preferred shares that actually looks more like debt than equity and what i mean by that is there's typically a coupon there's a rate of return there's
accumulated dividends all these features give it a certain price per share and the common has none of those features and so it has a lower protective provisions and that gap is typically around 20 to 1 when you set up a company okay and that's what allows you to hire employees and give them very very cheap options with embedded upside then what happens is you raise more and
more of these series b series c series d these preference stack right preferred shares build up but the value of the comment keeps rising too and by the time you go public the gap converges what yuri realized was hey wait a minute i'm buying a company a year or 18 months before it goes public the price of the common and the price of the preferred are roughly the same
and so i'm just gonna you know do that and i'm not gonna take a board seat because it's clear this company is successful so similarly for tiger d1 and co2 i would just observe the obvious and kind of put everything that we've just said on the table which is hey guys i'll give you the money you're either end of one or not i'm making a guess that you are and i'm
just going to get out of your way and leave you alone bundling governance and advice unbundling the governance and advice piece from the capital piece but you're going to still need that governance and advice piece i think i think it could work yeah i mean i think there's a lot of great founders or their founders who start young and experienced become great and the smart ones listen
to advice on the way and they they seek out people who've done it before and so you know yes they may be in no one business by the growth stage but that doesn't mean they don't need any help whatsoever at the series a stage such a good observation yeah and look i think there's been i think there's been an evolution in silicon valley i'd actually
say there's been like three distinct phases in the venture capital world and i remember all of them so you go back to the the night the late 90s okay when you know you had this mentality on the part of vcs that if a company became successful you would just automatically replace the founders right you go bring professional ceo upgrade that was a disaster okay and and that's when
founders fund peter came in i think founded um founders fund in 2003 and the reason they called it founders fund is to indicate they were going to be pro-founder and they would never replace the founder and they would let you do whatever you wanted and i think zachary you want to tell the backstory of the sean parker stuff and how that happened yeah i mean so basically both peter and
sean parker had you know experiences they felt were very negative with sequoia and by the way i have a great relationship with sequoia roloff who worked with us at paypal is there and i think they've evolved as a firm so i'm not calling them out or anything but but both sean parker and peter felt like sequoia pushed out and replaced and so with plaque so specifically
there were a couple of different companies involved but when peter was uh ceo of paypal as well that you know he felt he felt that pressure as well so when they then founded as two of the four founding partners of founders one back in 2003 the whole point was we are going to be pro founder you're never going to replace you will let you do whatever you want i think
that that was phase two and that became i think the dominant model and so becoming pro founder was now table stakes and i think the third phase has been you know what andreessen harvest has now done with this massive like the services and the value add which is that we're gonna basically not only be pro-founder but we're gonna like bring all these resources to help you
and that's the era we're in right now i mean from the from our perspective like as as craft i mean look it's not in our interest to get into any dispute with a founder and if we feel like our advice isn't being taken well we just back off you know of course we're pro founder like we don't want the control we're not control investors and you know if it's if
it's becoming frictional we'd rather just get out of the way no it's just not working the underlying thing that you're not saying though is because you have enough of a fund that's large enough where you can have enough bets where any of these any of these things to the upside is a total needle mover but anything that goes to zero doesn't actually diminish
the fund or impair it meaningfully so there is no upside to getting engaged and really being non-anti-founder so yeah i think it's a i think it's a part of a business model but one thing i want to tell you about parker parker was single-handedly incredibly responsible for keeping zuck in the seat when he was president of facebook because parker wrote you know uh this structure that really
allowed mark to keep control super voting shares sax to add on to your your point i think that there's been uh so so it there seems to be a bifurcation around the services model or not but the fourth thing that seems to have happened and you guys tell me if i'm wrong on this but it plays into the tiger global story when i was um uh when i got that term
sheet for my series b at climate corp marc andreessen i was trying to raise like 25 to 30 million dollars and mark anderson was like we're gonna give you a turn sheet for 40 million dollars more than you were asking for uh because we want you to use that extra capital to go faster to go harder to grab the market because we have this big pitch in businesses
grabbing the market and that seems to have also become a bit of a mainstay but not just a mainstay but now almost like the the the kind of standard pitch that a lot of the later stage guys are taking which is like here's so much capital that it helps you make the market and then the softbank vision fund kind of took that to the extreme with 100 billion raise and tiger
global i think last year have publicly said they deployed about 15 billion dollars into startups where startup may in a natural cycle kind of evolve to needing 70 million raise or 100 million raise and they're like writing checks for 250 or 300 and saying this extra capital gives you the ability to move faster and the reason is the faster a business moves
the higher the multiple they get on their revenue so the higher the growth rate the higher the multiple so if you can deploy capital faster if we could find a business where we can pump money through you to get it out the door faster your multiple goes up and tiger's model was let's just get the multiples up there's multiple expansion and growth so we'll make money two ways when the
company goes public in 18 to 24 months obviously when the markets end up tanking and all those multiples compress no growth rate is going to solve that problem for you um but having more capital than maybe you were thinking or asking for also seems to have become kind of an attacking i don't know if that if you view that as kind of this fourth evolution but that certainly
wasn't the case 20 years ago when vcs were being careful about is it a six million dollar round or an 8 million what's the right amount of capital and nowadays it's much more about take more than you need i'll say there was a 3.5 in there which is you saw a little bit of lack of governance or superpowers on the part of like some incompetent
founders or bad founders just you know whether it's we work theranos whatever too much control not enough governance things go off the rail but you know based on this discussion i really think this bifurcates when it's a first-time founder versus a second time founder in what i see because i have been doing board training for seed companies where i will just have three
founders sit in on each other's first board meetings we do one board meeting each and i train them how board meetings works and what i experienced with sequoia on my board and other boards and first-time founders like the tactical stuff how to run a board meeting legal hr hiring partnerships go to market strategies man it is all tactical all the time and then when
i've been on with second and third time founders you know they really are like here's all the materials here's what i'm thinking about what do we think strategically so they go from the tactical level to the strategic admission level awfully quick and they actually seem to enjoy having those four meetings a year whereas the first time founders really need to have
six to ten a year in those in that first you know call it year two of a company that's my experience i realized in this discussion that the market has really meaningfully changed meaning when i was actively investing even in the early 2000s or sorry in the in you know 2011-1213 there was a culture where if you underperformed you would get replaced
and i think david what you just spoke about which i guess is true has really changed which is if you're running a multi-multi-billion dollar fund where every check is 20 million dollars the upside is billions but the downside is negative 20. there's just no point and so you know sequoia used to be known as a very very very tough tough tough place for ceos that were underperforming
now they got a nine billion dollar fund now yeah maybe less than 10 years ago i think it was i think it was known as a very tough demanding place i think benchmark was known as a very tough demanding place because the money was much more finite right benchmark still still that case yeah i mean the expectation culture they never they never grew their fund size no
jason you're not you're not hearing me yeah i am i think what's happening is listen i had sequoia on my board and i worked at sequoia so there's difference between high expectations which i think all these folks have to have and the willingness to replace the founder as ceo and what i'm saying is every vc claims this but there were a handful of vcs
that had the courage to do this i mean famously mike morris and john doerr you know had it out with larry uh at the you know right right after this round like either go public you know get your business model or give us your money back famously at google so they're not they're willing to draw a line in this end i think that that has fundamentally changed at all these
organizations because the fund sizes have gone up and the and the mathematical reality of venture capital has changed something else you're missing which is you got to remember moritz and door were not operators and now these companies are being run ruloff is running sequoia and he's an operator and he was there so the changing of the guard and mark andreessen and ben
horowitz were operators so the operator class behaves very differently i disagree with you i think that it functions respectfully no hold on i think that fun size dictates this behavior more than any singular other feature when you're running a nine billion dollar fund you just don't sweat that changing of the ceo and david said it really well you just say okay i'll cut our losses and
move on we don't lose i think it's more about the culture change in silicon valley of a bunch of mba finance people who have never run a company now moving and running companies but you know let's move on to the next any uh closing thoughts on this one well just i mean jason you start to make this point that if you're a founder and you want to eventually run a great public company
when you ipo guess what you're going to have governance and what i've seen big time right i mean there's just delaware law there's just a lot of like expectations around being a public company and so if you don't have a board you know and you're not constituting one until you go public there's going to be a massive amount of cleanup that you have to do i mean
that's what i've seen and so you'll end up scrambling to create a board i think that the board serves so many purposes early on of giving you advice of giving you structure of providing support help services you can still remain in control while getting those things and i'm just i'm just skeptical that like if you form a company with completely passive vcs you
don't even serve on a board like you're gonna have to do a lot of cleanup later i'd say at a minimum totally i think that that's true too totally i'm not by the way i'm not saying i'm i advocate this but i'm i just think that the reality is that if these large late-stage crossover firms really step into the early stage i think they could really build a big
book of business um i do think there are a lot of founders who would love to just be given the money and just to be left alone i'm not saying that they think they know that it's better for them but on the margin just to be able to be left alone now what has changed maybe those everybody's going to be very hands off just because all the fun sizes have
exploded so at that point then you know what is the difference between sequoia and d1 time will tell i just know that like when i see a founder doing something that i think could risk the company going off the rails i'll say so and then you know if it keeps happening and the situation gets worse i'll say so again i might mention the third time i might not
at a certain point i'm just like maybe after like two times i'm just like they don't want to listen to me that's fine it's their decision their company their decision they go off the rails their problem you know we'll move on to the next one i mean that's the reality sometimes founders have to learn by doing it like sometimes their intent and you know what they could be right and
you could be wrong too so it's hard as a as a it's hard as a board member you know that's why i'm very judicious in giving advice as a board member now and i'm on a bunch of boards and doing word training because when roloff was on my board and he still is you know he would ask great questions and he would be very thoughtful about hey have you thought
about this or when i got advice from doug or michael moritz directly you know doug would say hey well can you share the two-year plan with me and i'd say you know we haven't built a plan and he said well you know jason you know hope is not a plan let's make a plan and let's discuss you know the milestones along here and it was amazing to have that level of thoughtfulness around
total vision as a founder i love i mean as a founder i love getting advice and i think you got to be really dumb not to seek it out i mean i when i was a founder i would even though i was sort of competing with benioff i would meet with him and i would like get amazing tidbits um just recently we did it wasn't like an official board meeting because roloff
isn't on our board but he's a big investor in one of my incubations colin and we just did a meeting with him and and uh and gets it in every time not to be confused with all in but no yeah not to be confused but we have a trademark it was it was me and axel who's the co-founder of paulin and um and roloff and we had like an amazing meeting where
we got like i'd say amazing advice from roloff that like focused us and it wasn't that i didn't know these things but it's just like when you're in the weeds sometimes you don't necessarily crystallize on focus on the most important thing and i came out of that meaning feeling like okay roloff just refocused us on the most important thing and it was immensely valuable and you've
got to be like dumb not to seek that out no matter what stage you're at because i seek it out today yeah and think about this david you're in the thick of things he's on square's board he's on other boards he's got a picture of the entire playing field it's like somebody who's the coach of 15 nba uh teams and you're like the coach of one he's seeing things on other nba
teams that they're doing in methodologies and best practices that you're just not gonna see so i mean again and then if you look at the great founders tk used to come to me uh and say hey you know this is the thing i'm gonna be doing at the next board meeting or here's the thing can we jam out and he would just ask for a jam session he came up with that term and
three or four people would get together and just jam and talk for five hours about the product it was awesome all right let's go on to uh david saks's favorite section of the show science with the sultan of science himself oh oh i thought you were going to say his favorite paul graham oh enough with that ooh we can't talk about that that was exactly exciting you have to you if you
are engaged in the science segment david sox and pg are in a fight all right let's cover it here's the deal if david sacks is engaged during the science portion of the class we will let him have his fight uh as the as the teacher here tell us a little bit about stem cells and uh this hiv story i was going to tell sax that the the earth is round okay it's not
flat i don't care yeah um how does that affect solana so sorry the story that i think we wanted to you guys wanted to cover today with the hiv story which um incredible i suggested this topic so i'm interested explain it to us hiv is a retrovirus meaning once you get infected it doesn't go away he doesn't care he's he's flipping through his politico notes
to figure out what did he miss saying that he was supposed to say today he just flipped over to ben shapiro on 2x he's listening to jordan peterson and sam harris in conversation go ahead okay okay the the hiv being cured headline uh you know we can dive into it for two minutes but hiv is a retrovirus when you get infected with hiv it stays in your body forever it actually ends up living
inside of your immune cells that's what makes it such an interesting challenging virus and it destroys those immune cells so over time you end up getting aids and the way it enters the immune cells is through a specific protein some people have a genetic mutation where if there's a change in the their dna and that protein is different hiv
cannot enter their immune cells and they can actually they are naturally immune to hiv ccr5 yeah and so what's happened is um found apparently in white northern europeans yeah like norwegians i think yeah exactly and um anyway so what's uh the interesting study that was done um all immune cells are made from stem cells in your bone marrow and so you know all the white blood cells
that we have that fight off our diseases come from our bone marrow and um when you get a blood cancer sometimes you end up getting so severe that you have to actually wipe out all the immune cells in your body and give yours and you end up with a bone marrow transplant so you get new bone marrow put in your new blood cells put in and hopefully if you can survive the
therapy and survive that treatment those uh that new bone marrow will produce new immune cells and your body will recover and you will be cured of your blood cancer so what happened is people had hiv and when you get this uh this bone marrow transplant you end up you know they give you radiation and chemo and they wipe out all your blood cells um uh and and then they give you this
bone marrow transplant so they selectively chose um bone marrow stem cells that came from people that have the uh the genetic mutation uh that uh that prevents hiv so then when these hiv patients that got blood cancer got a bone marrow transplant with this mutation in it they were cured of hiv um and so it's a pretty profound kind of demonstration of what we already
knew which is that this genetic mutation can can prevent hiv and there are a lot of therapies that are underway right now to actually use gene editing to induce that mutation in people's uh blood cells and in their bone marrow without needing to give them a whole transplant the the first guy that did it the first guy that did it was german right or he
was in germany i think and he unfortunately passed away uh they cured his his hiv aids but he unfortunately had a relapse of the leukemia that killed him but i think all three cases of people that um that have been quote unquote cured uh have have been these leukemia patients but i'll say two things two things about the future of this kind of possibility number one is you don't need
to get a bone marrow transplant to have this um mutation induced in your cells to prevent this infection from uh kind of occurring in your body you can use gene editing tools to do that and so we are now developing genetic therapies where rather than go and get a whole bone marrow transplant to cure your hiv we can actually edit your cells those
edited cells will now be resistant and you will be resolved of hiv the second thing is the way that they gave people the bone marrow transplant the way they created those stem cells for the bone marrow transplant was from umbilical cord uh blood from from newborns which is very rich in stem cells and this is a traditional way of kind of giving people
stem cell-based therapies is you go and source stem cells from another body or your own body which are called autologous stem cells but like i just want to say one thing what's really interesting in the future is not going to be about pulling other people's stem cells into your body and finding them from you know fetal blood or what have you we now have the technology which
i've talked about multiple times on the show called yamanaka factors where theoretically we can take your cells from your own body turn them into stem cells grow them in a lab and use that as the therapy that's called autologous stem cell therapy and rather than use stem cells or trying to find them and circ you know figure them out where they are in your body and pull
them out we can actually do stem cells for your body and that's like you know 15 years out is um autologous induced stem cell therapy where you actually make your own stem cells and then give yourself all sorts of therapies not just bone marrow transplants but you can heal lots of tissue in the body using these stem cell systems we don't really hear about hiv
aids anymore in that article i think it said that there's about 37 million people around the world that have hiv aids and it's incredible actually the amount of progress that science has made in this disease i remember when i was growing up it was made to to be like this incredible boogeyman yeah um and it really governed like a lot of social norms at the time because
we were still discovering what hiv aids was and you know how you know how do you think about sexual uh promiscuity you know from a moral and ethical perspective um i think it had a huge impact on my generation absolutely it did it was a death sentence they they made us paranoid so here's what's happened therapies have gotten so good at suppressing suppressing the virus if
the virus is suppressed far enough even though you are always going to be infected if it's suppressed far enough the who and the fda have both said you can still have unprotected sex and not transmit hiv and so even though there are plenty of people out there that might be having unprotected sex with hiv um the therapies have suppressed the viral load to the point that they're not
transmitting it actively and so that's been the big breakthrough in science over the last decade and then they also had these prep pills right which people could take proactive if they thought they might you know find themselves but i mean champ you and i lived in a generation where i mean that was exactly it was the end of things yeah well i
mean it was the end of days and they're like i i don't know it was a single biggest thing that i was that i was taught in sex ed classes to be afraid of being really scared at all and then the problem that it that it created was like you know in countries that had a large catholic population um you know the catholic church was so you know uh evil they had they were undecided
on um they were the opposite side they told people in africa to not use condoms when aids was rampant it was the biggest evil second biggest evil the catholic church did in modern history obviously the first we know i have a contribution to this segment oh god you know what he's wrong i know your point is relationship look i i remember how scared people were of aids
you know back in the 1980s when this came up and i remember that there was a head of the nih who even whipped up people's fear hold on people's fear by saying that even casual even casual contact within the same household can spread it and you know who that happened yes we know dedicated his life to trying to solve and reduce the suffering of saw for aids
and hiv no in the 1980s in the 1980s he was the face of government indifference towards aids and he spread fear and was medically wrong about it go check the records he was a screw-up then and he's a screw-up on it he worked tirelessly he didn't work tirelessly on it jkl i think saks is right in the sense that like what we thought we knew back then turned out to
be wrong and i think that's a really important point you know particularly in science it's a process of discovery what we thought we knew back then turned out it was all a hypothesis it's all a thesis until it's proven or disproven and that's the case read andrew sullivan i mean you know fauci was absolutely the enemy public enemy number one of the of the game
who is it tony tony yeah well it was attorney tony perkins there was actually a debate that fauci was in uh on aids where a gay actress literally said to him i hate you and if you read andrew sullivan's blog he will talk about how he remembers back in the 1980s that fauci was sort of public enemy number one in the gay community because of his position on this during the reagan
administration and so it is a lot of civil disobedience act up except remember and he responded by putting massive resources into this so i think you know if he was that's not listen listen to andrew sullivan on this thing he's sullivan he is not that right wait andrew sullivan is the reason why more than any other public intellectual why we have marriage equality today he
is number one he advocated for marriage equality and in the new republic made the case for it before anybody else and popularized that argument yeah i'm a fan of his writing uh let's not say don't try and portray him as a far right winger or whatever portray foul you're you're going to fauci's intent and you want to believe that she's an evil person
i think you and many other people have mysteriously forgotten who fauci really is okay you think i know the conspiracy you think fauci's intent is to you know cover up the uh intentionally was working against uh solving for hiv that's ridiculous do you think i wouldn't say intentionally do you think fauci had good intentions yeah if you infer that sex do you think
factory had good intentions i don't i don't really care about his intentions i just want to look at his actions it's amazing it's amazing it's amazing to me that a public official who was so wrong back then in the 1980s 1990s on the public health crisis of our time would just be given a free pass and along comes a new public health crisis the last couple of years and he's been
completely wrong about that too so why are you giving this guy a free passion i don't get it hey in a cloud of uncertainty in a time of war do you think that leaders need to show strong intent and clear signals or do you think that they should be wishy-washy because they don't know enough i think they should be right and if they're trying the best with what
they have with the information they have at the time okay well yeah there's some forgiveness for uh for making mistakes but when you're constantly wrong maybe it's time to get somebody else in there and look but and falchi by the way fauci with respect to code we talked about it before 100 participated in a suppression of the investigation into the origins of
kovid there was an active attempt to suppress that come on you know that the the foia emails show it it's a good science segment i do want to give a shout out to the the researchers uh who actually did this with this woman uh in new york it's pretty freaking incredible what's incredible is that they did it with um hiv patients who had blood cancer and it
was a really kind of like thoughtfully designed experiment um incredibly thoughtful yeah and it's been four years so i mean this has been baking for a long time by the way as i zoom out and hear you guys talk about what hiv was like you know back in the day and the fear around it i i do think that 30 40 years from now given the tools we have with induced stem cells and cell-based
therapies and there are hundreds of cell-based therapies coming to market over the next few years they're all in late stage clinical trials as well as gene editing i think hopefully and i'm optimistic that one day we will look back at cancer and aging in the same way that we're talking about hiv today and that both of those diseases can and will
be resolved with the tools that we're developing through science and you know there's there's going to be bumps along the road but man i you know it's so clear that he's going to go look i think i think what freeberg just said actually is really important and inspiring and i think it's great and i was kind of joking around with the fouchy thing i didn't expect it to
become a tangent so i don't need to keep going on where do you see him in editing trying to change his position no i'm not going to change anything keep that whole segment i'm just saying i didn't can you use could i do a voiceover change you haven't become so argumentative we wouldn't have spent five minutes on it if i can correct your incorrect position that she's
intentionally on-ramp please because i gotta fly to europe go okay here we go david sachs and paul graham have gotten into it uh it's a battle for the ages and the stakes are so low the stakes are so high and the animosity is so high because the stakes are so low uh here we go wait before this uh does phil hellmuth qualify this as a billionaire battle or uh literally
he revealed the billionaire if you follow phil hellmuth's account it's being d.a greatest being dog greatest on twitter follow being d.a greatest to get that fella no phil hellmuth outed he on his twitter our friend his new billionaire bestie is um his bill which he stole bestie from me i used to call everybody best day he just co-opted it uh like he co-opted me
calling tremont the dictator but i'll tell the dictator origin story later is stan lee from doordash stanley tang co-founder chief product officer of doordad great guy really great homeless ladies truffle exactly we found it okay here we go so if you can introduce them to paul graham go ahead sex all right here here here's the issue to pick what's your beef here we
go actually i did not seek out this beef saks vendetta section of the pot no no listen any billionaires out there who want to like debate like come waiting into my tweets mark cuban didn't make it made a big ass to himself i don't want to deter these guys from from waiting in because it's great here's what basically happened is i tweeted a video of all these
multi-millionaire celebrity hypocrites partying massless at the super bowl and then meanwhile the next day my three kids have to go to school in california wearing their masks that is ridiculous okay it makes no sense we all know that okay any sane person knows that that's what i tweeted about i don't know why of all issues that was triggering a pg but he had to come in
and say well they were all partying outdoors it's like really uh it looks to me like they're in a sky box and if it has three walls and a ceiling i call that a room uh but in any event that wasn't he was he was misinformed because the rule of the super bowl was that if you were not eating and drinking anyone under over the age of two have to be wearing a mask
um so you know my point stands i just want to err so here here's where things kind of went south is um is so then i tweeted uh blink twice you know paul and and here's the thing i wasn't totally trying to be snarky with that comment um here here's why i said that is because explain what that means i didn't understand that what does that mean blink twice well it means like
you're a captor you're being held kidnapped by these concepts that you have to wear no you're being held hostage by somebody and the reason why i said that is because is is look if if pg had just been some crazy dumb person never would have said that the fact is that pg is smart he writes extremely well publishes a lot of interesting things he's an independent thinker
so it almost seemed to me like somebody is holding him hostage here because how can this really smart person be making this case anyway it kind of went south from there so oh i i have no desire to continue that meanwhile kendall jenner wore north face shoes to justin bieber's uh what yeah can you believe dear she knows that how did he do that gossip gossip gossip
all right so this has been sax's corner for the week uh can we make this a regular segment but i'm making this segment but i want to say i want to stay on the main issue here which is oh please let's do it every week but yeah but look am i wrong about this masked hypocrisy that's going on how in the world are you kids picture of sacks in the mess no no no no sax in the match
i'll stop i want to air 100 support for saks on this statement i totally agree with you on the mask hypocrisy as well as the mass mandates in schools i think it's ridiculous we've pivoted so far away from first principle thinking on this stuff it's nuts i totally agree with you completely and um on this point on you wasting your time fighting with people on twitter my
personal advice to you as a friend it's just cut it out but do what you gotta do buddy but totally agree oh it's entertainment all right everybody for the dictator himself chamath palihapatia man yeah david sachs and the sultan of science if you see him out and about ask for a selfie sultan of science love selfies he does love you boys bye we'll see you all next time on
the all-in pod bye-bye love you besties bye-bye let your winners ride rain man we open sources to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it [Music] besties [Music] we should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy because they're all just like this like sexual tension that they just need to release somehow we need to get back i'm going on [Music]