SPEAKER_02: You want to see something? Look at my eyes. Look at his eyes. It's fucking contagion over here.
SPEAKER_01: Broski, what happened? You have conjunctivitis? Yeah, double eye. I got it from my daughter.
SPEAKER_00: I think he got something in his eye. And then I got this like fucking allergic reaction to it. I'm just messed up dude for two days now. I haven't been able to see. Okay, well let me tell you about this weekend, which was the most motherfucking exhausting
SPEAKER_01: weekend of my life. I mean, where do I even start? Okay, here's where I start. So I fucking fly home. From Italy. From Italy. Get back in the arena. At 35,000 feet, I decide to troll the mids.
SPEAKER_01: We'll talk about that later. But anyways, sipping a beautifully chilled white burgundy.
SPEAKER_03: By trolling the mids, you mean that you were occupying their airspace. You were flying at the level of commercial jets. He did a flyby. Instead of 45,000 feet. Instead of 45,000 feet, I went to down where the public airlines fly. And I was like,
SPEAKER_01: blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
SPEAKER_01: I land in LA and I go straight to the house. I land at like, you know, I get there like 130 or 230 or something three o'clock something on there. In the morning, I take a in the afternoon, take a nice bath. And boom, we start playing at four o'clock. Okay, we start playing for this. It's not a big deal. It's like one day of poker. We play poker we finish at like three or four in the morning. We're exhausted. Kevin shows up in a wheelchair because he had pulled his fucking abdomen. Kevin Hart, Kevin Hart in a race with Steven Ridley hit a 40 yard dash with Steven pulled all this muscles like don't think you need a 40 inch dash if it was Kevin Hart.
SPEAKER_02: That's a 40 inch dash. Anyways, Kev Kev pulls all these muscles more like the door in the car opens
SPEAKER_01: and we'll jerk some stuff to the table. And I so that was the beginning. I was like this is like a this is an odd way to start poker. We played till four in the morning, go to bed, wake up, do our thing. Start the game again Thursday at four. Okay. We play again till fucking three or
SPEAKER_01: four in the morning. Wake up, we go to Burbank at 10 and we fight a port of Iarta for a bachelor party. It's unbelievable. Okay. 10 bedrooms, huge compound on the beach, the whole nine yards. We start gambling on the plane. I just want you guys to know that we slept nine hours and four days. And we just kept playing and playing and playing at one point. He said, and this is exactly how the interaction with said, Hey guys, maybe we should go to the St. Regis for dinner. And then as soon as he was about to say dinner, I was like, shut up, keep playing. The point is that we played from the plane in the car we played on an app that we played in the house. The food was served buffet style. It all decorum just went away. We didn't do anything. We didn't leave that house. We didn't walk on the beach. We didn't fucking nothing. You didn't put your feet in the ocean. I played until I landed in Moffat on Monday afternoon. Can you fucking believe it? So it's like almost like, you know, six days straight of poker. I will say this. It's an incredible house. The food was incredible. I really wish I could have seen more than my bedroom and the poker table. I wish I could tell you that the Pacific Ocean was nice. I have no fucking idea.
SPEAKER_02: You pee in a bucket. You didn't even see the bathrooms in this house.
SPEAKER_01: No, I had the doors open so that I could run to my room and pee and come back. I mean, it was a waste time. It was the most DJ weekend I've ever been a part of. And then all of us, by the way, we're so exhausted. We slept for fucking 10 hours a day for the like the last three days. Oh, and by the way, so smart. You know, you think it's a bachelor party. It's like, there'll be girls have been nothing. Not even the housekeepers were women. Everybody was man. It's just all dudes, dudes cleaning out dudes cooking dudes, dudes doing this, dudes are one
SPEAKER_01: attempt to go off site to go to a dinner. It was like, No, sit down. The best. He's the best
SPEAKER_02: that should pay for some tequila research. He's the best. My Lord, I just want to I don't want to make this into tequila part two. But my email is filled with 8000 word tequila missives and overviews from Friedberg and every tequila producer in the world. And my Twitter, my x is filled with posts about Chumont's man in the arena comments they have set off at absolute fury as Chumont was alluding to. So the man in the arena tweet, I don't know the timestamp here. It looks like 1022am. I don't know what that is Italian time. But Chumont decided to say I'm in the arena trying stuff. Some will work some won't, but always learning. You're anonymous and afraid of your own shadow. Enjoy the sidelines. And this of course was to somebody who is criticizing a spack or something. And I think this person had eight followers. And let's just go through the memes here. Here somebody with the AI revolution has made a chumoff version of gladiator Russell Crow and Chumont DNA being mixed. Freeburg I didn't know this was possible in DNA today, but I guess there is a new actor storming Hollywood and it's Chumont Crow. It's Russell Polly Hoppetier. Beautiful. I mean, what a great job that is. It literally looks like you. So great job to whatever mids did that in whatever mid software. Do you want to actually talk about
SPEAKER_01: the man in the arena comment and what the context of it is? Can we talk about that? Actually? Yeah, I think people got upset because what I said was the truth. And this is no different than when I've said stuff before, that's become a huge meme and a huge moment cultural moment. Telling the truth, especially when it's so clear and so obvious, sometimes can really touch a nerve. And what I said is basically the following, which is that there are all these people, the four of us are examples who are constantly doing things. And then we come into X and we don't confuse X with the arena. You know, we don't do stuff in the, in X, we talk on X. But then you go back and you actually do things. You start companies, you invest in businesses, you incubate ideas, you help founders get their businesses off the ground. Those are meaningful things. And success is never guaranteed. But there is a small strain of people who just violently either hate themselves or hate the fact that you're doing things and then that you talk about them. And I think what this touched was just that in a simple nutshell, it forced people to confront the fact that, hey, hold on a second, am I this anonymous rube on the sideline that just throws shade or am I actually doing stuff here? I just wanted to take an actual direct line of attack on people who are constantly blaming others for everything. And if you aren't trying and iterating, you're a fucking loser. Go out and try something. And whether it works or not, X is a great place to then go and talk about it. That's the cycle. Sax, your thoughts on the man in the arena?
SPEAKER_03: Well, look, I think speaking of crazy, politically motivated witch hunts, did you see this latest story today? That now there's a new government investigation of Elon, they're investigating him for supposedly Tesla was going to build him a glass house. Which he said is ridiculous. It's not true. So the administration, you know, I guess to turn a phrase, people who live in glass houses shouldn't be investigating glass houses. You have the Biden administration. Now the latest revelations is that Biden was using a pseudonym in 5000 emails, and he was emailing Hunter Biden under the name Robert Peters.
SPEAKER_03: Why would you do that about barisma? So this is how they're communicating first. Biden said he said, he knew seriously, I level. Yeah, well, first, remember, at yahoo.com. First, Biden said,
SPEAKER_03: I don't know anything about my son's business. Then it turns out, based on this warrant testimony of Devin Archer, who is Hunter Biden's partner, that Biden participated in over 20 phone calls where he would call in when they're in the room with clients to quote be the brand. And now we find out that Biden was communicating with Hunter about recent by using a pseudonym account, basically a burner account under the name Robert allegedly allegedly. Okay, but this is what the coma
SPEAKER_03: investigations turned up. It's certainly not looking good. And as you said, people living glass
SPEAKER_02: houses shouldn't be investigating glass. Here's the thing like, if you're going to evaluate, and
SPEAKER_02: listen, obviously, I'm biased. But if you're going to investigate Tesla over this, like, people can buy and trade the stock however they want. Like, there seems to be some Biden administration, you know, like jihad against Elon, they're going after him for this and totally, well, no, remember, a week or two ago, we wouldn't find a summit. I mean, it's all I think that's where the whole
SPEAKER_03: thing started is that they wouldn't invite TV summit because they're not a union shop. And then Elon spoke out about that. Remember, Biden introduced the CEO of GM, giving her credit for launching the whole EV revolution. So Elon criticized the administration for that. But I think the main reason why they don't like him is because what he's done with free speech on Twitter, Twitter, yeah, this glass house investigation is the second one. The one that happened last week is they're investigating SpaceX for supposedly screening out foreign nationals in the hiring process. They are saying, wait a sec, the DOJ is alleging that SpaceX was hiring too many Americans, and they needed to hire more refugees. My head spinning. Even though even though there's not refugees, no, refugees,
SPEAKER_02: refugees, a refugee is somebody fleeing a country. Nick, because of my political persecution. What where did the term refugees come from? No, it is a term. A refugee is somebody fleeing a country because of political person persecution. Why would they use that term? The DOJ sued SpaceX,
SPEAKER_01: basically for dei foot faults. They said that there was not enough refugees and asylum seekers that were being adequately considered and being hired by SpaceX. The problem with that, as it turns out, is that the DOJ is not even allowed to hire asylum seekers. I mean, and refugees.
SPEAKER_03: SpaceX is governed under the same laws, because it's a rocket company as advanced weapons contractors. And they and the whole industry has been under the belief for many years that they could only hire American citizens and green card holders for these very sensitive jobs. What happened is earlier in the year, the Biden administration released what they called a clarification here. I'll post this Nick, can you pull this up? So the US, US DOJ, Civil Rights Division released this, again, what they call the clarification how to avoid immigration related discrimination when complying with us export control laws. The export control laws is what governs rocket companies and weapons contractors. It's basically the companies that are involved in these sensitive national security areas. Until now, the government was pretty clear that you were only supposed to hire us citizens and green card holders, what they call us.
SPEAKER_02: Explain to me the reason because they have this crazy idea that that these companies,
SPEAKER_03: these national security companies should be hiring more refugees and asylum seekers, even though this is the definition of a national security risk. But the really crazy thing is, so first of all, I think this this update that they issued, this is lawmaking, okay, they called it a clarification. But this is a Biden administration making new law through the administrative agency. I think this is a crazy law. It's really the opposite of what we should want, which is more Americans getting jobs. Sacks, can I ask you a question? But what they've done with this lawsuit is they're going back and remember, the key here is that that was only issued in April of this year. They've gone back and said that from 2008 to 2022 SpaceX is governed by this new understanding. So they're basically making it retroactive. Okay, putting aside this legal lease here for a second,
SPEAKER_02: I just want to talk first principles. If you were a foreign government, and you wanted to infiltrate some company like SpaceX or Android or whatever, would it not be easier to send a quote unquote refugee to America, especially to get in versus flipping an American who already works there, it should be a much easier process, especially because no sense, right? Because especially since
SPEAKER_03: all you have to do is go to the hole in the wall in UMA, Arizona, as RFK Jr. showed, and you just mentioned the word asylum, like the cartel has taught you to, and all of a sudden, you're a refugee, you're in, they give you a piece of paper that tells you you're going to be in court in three years, but you're in thousands of people, 10s of thousands, millions of people have done this.
SPEAKER_02: Also, another pragmatic question, freebird, how many people who are coming in as asylum seekers have the advanced degrees or background to work at the Andro Space X? I don't know, pick up, pick an aerospace weapons based company, like what percentage of refugees do you think coming across the southern border or whatever border they're coming in would actually have those qualifications? So anyway, this seems insane. Well, and so Jake, how you raise an interesting point, because I
SPEAKER_03: think one of the really unusual things about this DOJ lawsuit against SpaceX is that the remedies are seeking are unprecedented. What they've said is, anybody who was screened out as part of this process was entitled to back pay lost wages since they were screened out. So in other words, it assumes that every single one of those people would have been hired, when in fact, they probably hire one out of 1000, or one out of 100 applicants gets hired. If they could have gotten a job at
SPEAKER_03: SpaceX, as we all know, their bar for hiring is incredibly high, they probably didn't have damages because they could probably get jobs at 10 other companies as well. Oh my god, the Biden
SPEAKER_02: administration is just like self inflicted wounds here. This is so dumb. What a stupid approach is
SPEAKER_00: the glass house thing a misallocation of funds claim like it's a securities issue? Is that what it is a securities issue that it was improperly disclosed and that they may not have
SPEAKER_01: filed the proper taxes because it would have been a paid benefit to Elon. Right. Right. But I mean,
SPEAKER_03: don't you feel like this is a stretch? I mean, they are stretching every law they can to go after this guy. It's getting to be a little bit Trump like to bring it up. Let's be clear. Here's what's
SPEAKER_01: happening. I think that when Elon bought Twitter, what effectively happened is the biggest psyops organization for the Democratic Party was taken away from them. And I think that they are increasingly feeling like if it really does if Twitter or x becomes a town square, that's really bad for them. And so they can't shape people, they can't amplify the victimization, they can't amplify the government's going to save you narratives. And so this is the sort of death by 1000 cuts approach that the blob has of trying to bring him down. And so you see a DOJ lawsuit over here. It's, you know, nominal, but whatever, then you're going to see, you know, the SEC investigation over $50,000 of glass. I mean, the guy is worth a quarter of a trillion dollars, and we're sweating the $50,000 glass purchase. But the point is, the goal is to tie him up, and to distract him, and to basically take resources away his mindshare from working. Now, we all know him. So he's going to do the exact opposite. Not gonna work. Alex Spiro is going to have a job for the rest of his life. That's his lawyer from Quint Emanuel. And Alex is going to beat these things back. And generally, Alex will win most lawsuits. I say most. But anyways, the
SPEAKER_01: point is that the void is that, I think you're exactly right about what's motivating this and
SPEAKER_03: what's going on. But I'll tell you when it all began is that Biden has a press conference, where he said that Elon needed to be looked at. Do you remember this? Yeah, Biden said, I don't know that he has anything wrong. But I think we need to look at his relationships with other countries. So this was the signal to all of the ambitious apparatchiks in our law enforcement
SPEAKER_03: agencies, looking for advancement, that he's the target, go after him, find something. Now, in fact, they couldn't find anything. So they look at his relation with other countries. And what you would expect is that maybe he hired some foreign nationals he shouldn't have. But it was the exact opposite. They didn't hire foreign nationals. It reminds me of the whole Alvin Bragg thing where Alvin Bragg made that case, that Trump was required by campaign finance laws to pay Stormy Daniels, using donor money. But you know, you know that if they had found that Trump paid Stormy Daniels with
SPEAKER_03: donations, they would have charged him with that. It's like investigating the guy finding he did nothing wrong, and then charging him with the opposite. What do you know, equivalency
SPEAKER_02: between these and Trump's behavior, but it's the weaponization of the justice system. And show me
SPEAKER_03: the man and I'll show you the crime. Now, incorrect with the last two. I mean, he committed a lot of
SPEAKER_02: crimes, but we'll leave that off the docket for now. We're going to agree to disagree on that one. Okay, just very interesting, media related story and fine. You're giving Robert Peters too much
SPEAKER_03: credit. I mean, Joe Biden. I'm listen. Biden's got to go. Trump's got to go. We need a new
SPEAKER_02: platform. I have announced that I am supporting Nikki Haley, and Chris Christie slash back. That would be my ideal ticket right now. I want the only person freeberg who brought up spending in either party. Nikki here. All right. Let's just move on. Let's not get distracted. But I just want to also say we were wondering who won the debate last week. biggest increase Nikki Haley. So what's it look like? I think she went from two to nine, seven to nine in different in different polls. So it's somewhere between she triple was not a huge bounce. I think you went I think you're
SPEAKER_03: right. She went to nine to seven. There was one two to 712 to nine but putting it aside, the
SPEAKER_02: Trump people are actually promoting it because they want Trump to be up against a bunch. They
SPEAKER_03: want to be up against against one. Yeah, yeah, yeah, three people at 10 to 15% is better than
SPEAKER_02: one at 30. I that's probably correct. Can I just ask because I haven't followed it this week. What
SPEAKER_01: was the set? What like after it's settled after the bounces and the spikes? Saxipu? What? Where where are we at now in the republican race after this past week and having people having a chance to really figure out what happened in the debate? Yeah, exactly. Yeah, I think the consensus view
SPEAKER_03: just about is that the biggest beneficiary of the debate was for vague Ramaswami by far. Yes, Nikki Haley did get a little bit of a bounce, but the vague got a much bigger one. He's much better known to the base now. And I think that it's the vague and DeSantis are now more or less neck and neck for number two. Haley might be number three at this point. But I think it helped the vague the most. Now. It's also true that he got a lot of criticism. But I think that's kind of where he wants to be. I mean, you want to be the center of attention. And the people who are attacking him now are all these neo cons. It's basically the whole military industrial complex is all the bond paid for politicians and think tanks who, you know, want America to be in these forever wars. So I think he's being attacked by the right people. And that's going to help him. Yeah. So Sax, you
SPEAKER_01: see him like basically, it's going to be Trump versus Vivek, if this continues. Well, it's hard
SPEAKER_03: to say. I mean, I think the stance is still in the mix. I think it's noteworthy that the top three candidates all have expressed significant either misgivings or opposition to our involvement in Ukraine. Trump, the vague and DeSantis with varying degrees of strength have basically all opposed by his policy. And they are the leading candidates in the Republican primary. I think that's telling you something very important. Haley, Christie pens, Jim Scott, they all would like to do even more in Ukraine. And that is not where the party is. So somewhere the country is nobody's there.
SPEAKER_01: One other piece of debate fallout that I thought was really interesting was that they interviewed
SPEAKER_03: Oliver Anthony. Remember the guy who sings that song? The Richmond or Richmond? Because Fox News made the first question about his song. And he clarified what the song was about. What he said
SPEAKER_03: is, the Richmond he's talking about North Richmond, are the people in DC. It's the blob. And it was the people on the debate stage. Yeah. Well, but what he said specifically was it was the it was
SPEAKER_03: the people who got us into all these endless wars when I was growing up. It was the Republicans who did specifically he was talking about Bush Cheney, Republicans, neo cons. He made that explicit and clear. I'm singing more about like a lot of the older super conservative politicians that brought us into endless war through my entire childhood. Those are Bush era neo cons. He said the people
SPEAKER_02: on that stage is who I'm talking about. Don't use my song. The song is not a left or a right song. It's about the people. It was a song about his contemporaries is what he said. Not and he's talking about both parties. And he said specifically, the people on that stage, I'm talking about don't use my song again. Okay, let's go on to the next story. There was a leaked document. And we had this come up last week, the leaked document was sent to chamath. And it was about Tiger global struggles. It had a line at the top that said this was a spiked or a draft of a New Yorker story. And it was draft is the way they said it. And we had a little conversation about here, we decided not to publish it. We had a little discussion, because we did not think in our private discussion, that this was a real story. I saw grammatical errors in it. SAC said, we really can't publish something like this because it's slanderous. And we don't know the provenance of it. And on Friday, Tiger sent a letter to its LPS in response to the document. They wrote that they are being targeted quote targeted with a series of misinformation attacks anonymously using encrypted messaging platforms like signal we strongly believe these were written by a frontal form employee with whom we parted ways unlike the anonymous coward spreading this false narrative on the internet. You know who we are. And we are here and ready to answer your questions. Rest assured our team remains highly focused on our core business which has been forming this year. So chamath just your broad thoughts on the tiger global non story, fake faux story by a former employee.
SPEAKER_01: Chase is a incredible person. I've said this before, he helped me get into the business of investing. He seeded my first angel fund. I was pretty helpful, I think in getting them on the cap table at Facebook many, many years ago, which helped them get going as well. So I think that he's a wonderful human being. And I've had nothing but positive things to say about him. Scotchlifer, I don't know as well. But he seems like clearly a hard charging person that's achieved quite a lot. And so I'm glad that we didn't publish it or talk about it. And if there is something to be said, the story will be validated and people will get to the bottom of it. What is crazy is I don't understand what this document actually serves, except exactly as you said, to a disgruntled person who has absolutely no economics, meaning if you're an LP, you don't want this document to be out. If you're a partner that has carry, you don't want this out into the out in the wild either. If you're a portfolio company, you don't want this document out in the wild. So I tend to believe that this is just a disgruntled person. Again, look, I've had this experience as well. So which
SPEAKER_01: is that there are all kinds of employees who work with you. We try our best as leaders of organizations to compensate them well. But invariably, what I find are people overestimate their contributions. And people try to take way more credit. They try to take credit for deals that they've done that they didn't actually do. They try to take credit for all the internal workings. And then invariably, when the leadership decides that those folks aren't a good fit anymore, mostly for cultural reasons, and are exited, they have a bone to pick and an axe to grind. And they try to sort of distribute misinformation to other LPs, to other GPs, to portfolio company CEOs. It's happened to me. It's happened to Chase. It's happened to Sequoia. It's happened to any of us that have been successful. So to grind people, you know, it's just like, again, it's just another example of like, there are the people that are in the arena doing and then there are the people that kind of get kicked out and get really upset and lose track of what's important. These people,
SPEAKER_01: instead of writing these missives should be working. Yeah. I mean, back to how, how just
SPEAKER_02: crunched up sacks does a former employee need to be to put in this kind of effort to write a 10 page phone New Yorker style expose. And you were the voice of reason, I think in our group chat, and just saying like, I don't even think we should talk about it in a meta kind of way. We weren't gonna cover the details of it. But even a meta discussion of it, you put the kibosh on, which would have been first, like kind of highlighting this craziness, but you took a pretty hard stance and your thoughts on it. Well, it was written like it was some sort of journalistic article, but
SPEAKER_03: a journalistic article has a byline, you know, who wrote it, you know, who publishes it, it has provenance, you know, therefore, who is liable if it's slanderous. Yeah. This piece that
SPEAKER_03: was going around had none of those things. And therefore, my view was that we shouldn't discuss it. And my view is, we shouldn't even mention it, because all you're then doing is drawing attention to something that again, you don't know the Providence of and you don't know whether it's true or not. And you don't know who's standing by it. Now, what's happened in the last week is that Tiger has issued a statement about it. And that statement was covered by the press. So I guess we can talk about the fact that they've had to respond to this. I've still not comfortable talking about any of the contents of it. Because again, we don't have nobody's put their name by it. So why even put them in the position of needing to respond to it? Yeah, until somebody is willing to basically raise their hand say, this is what I think the piece that was circulated was a mix of both business criticism or business issues and slang and personal slander. Yeah. So I mean, are there business issues in there that we could discuss? Yeah, I mean, then they would be interesting. But until we know that there's some authenticity to it, I don't feel comfortable giving any attention whatsoever to this thing. Personally, I think even talking about it now is kind of a waste of time. I freeburg any thoughts on it just as we wrap here? No, it's clearly a disgruntled
SPEAKER_02:
SPEAKER_00: person trying to cast a negative light. Just get a job, bro. All right, de dollarization corner
SPEAKER_02: bricks added six new members climbing to 11 total and bricks Of course, everybody knows Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, these four countries make up 40% of the world's population, 25% of global GDP. Joining the bricks block are Saudi Arabia, Iran, Ethiopia, Egypt, Argentina, and the UAE new bricks and this kind of being set up as like an alternative to g7 g8, I guess, new bricks makes up almost 50% of the global population with a third of GDP. This is the first expansion in 13 years in South Africa joined sacks. You've got some thoughts on the bricks and a little presentation here. inform the audience. Alright, so Jake, like you said,
SPEAKER_03: they added six new members, Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and UAE. This on top of the original five members. Now, you've described this group of countries as mid I don't know what metric you're using to make that determination. If you look at share of global GDP in purchasing power parity terms, and we can debate whether that's the right method or not, but a lot of economists believe that PPP is the right way to look at it. The original bricks were 32% of global GDP, the new bricks bring it to 37%. And there's a couple dozen more countries that have expressed an interest in joining bricks, which would bring it to 45. The g7 is only 30%. And that number has been declining over time back in 1995. It was all the way at 45%. Whereas the bricks were only about 17%. You can see that decline or shift here in this chart, going all the way back to the 1980s. This is why I think a lot of Americans have this casually dismissive attitude towards the bricks is they're thinking that these countries are still living in the era of the 1990s of uni polarity, when the g7 was, you know, more than half a global GDP. But now, the bricks are bigger than the g7. Again, in terms of PPP, the rest have risen, and it's become a very substantial part of the world economy. If you look at global oil production, the new bricks now have 54% of global oil production, it's almost double with the g7 producers, despite the US still being the number one producer of oil. We're not the biggest exporter because we use it all.
SPEAKER_02: Just to add to that point, oil is of course, a declining commodity with renewables and nuclear and people are gonna rely on it less. So sure, I don't think renewables are anywhere close to be
SPEAKER_03: able to replace fossil fuels. If it's actually cheaper. Hold on, let me just answer to that.
SPEAKER_02: It's cheaper now. And Chammoth can speak to this to install solar wind than it is to do a lot of the carbon based fuels. So it actually has tipped economically, where it's I think, cheaper and 80% of cases 85% of cases to install renewables. Is that correct? We're only speaking the cost of
SPEAKER_01: solar is effectively now the cheapest form of energy on a kilowatt per hour basis. Great. Okay, continue. Well, this isn't preventing Germany from sliding into a massive
SPEAKER_03: recession because they're not able to get cheap energy anymore. Yeah, they turned off nuclear.
SPEAKER_01: That also supposes that you have the actual supply and to David's point, why Germany has such a difficult issues because they turned off that gas, they turned off the reactors, and there's just not enough solar installed right now. So you know, you also think about a country. What I just meant was more the levelized cost of energy, which is if you had an installation here and an installation there of two different modes of energy generation, solar is cheaper, but Dave, David is right, like, you know, it's still going to take some time for the proliferation of solar. Agreed. We all agree.
SPEAKER_03: The US is already roughly energy independent, we produce about 20 million barrels of oil a day, we consume about 20 million. So we are roughly neutral. With respect to the world, we're neither a net importer or net exporter as of now. So oil is still going to be a huge, it's the number one global commodity. If BRICS adds Venezuela, Algeria and Kazakhstan, as they may do, as soon as next year, they'll control 90% of all oil and gas traded globally, you're going to have an OPEC plus BRICS sort of symbiosis because Russia and Saudi Arabia basically run OPEC plus new BRICS is also really strong in food production. Five of the world's six biggest food producers are now part of BRICS, China, Brazil, India, Argentina, Russia, the only other one is the US, they have 46% of global population, 36% of global landmass. So my point is BRICS isn't just strong in global GDP, they're strong in the production of what are currently the two most important commodities in the world, which is oil and food. They also have influence over strategic trade routes. So if you look at where these countries are located, and I'm sure this went into the thinking of who they just admitted to BRICS, because they had a lot of choices, that's something like 26 countries applied. And these are the first six they've added. So they now control the Arctic Sea route, which is basically as the polar ice cap starts to melt in the Arctic, you're seeing a new ability to create maritime routes. North of Russia, basically, from Europe to Asia, it's a much faster route than going around the Horn of Africa or through the Suez Canal. You have this international North South transportation corridor, which is basically a combination of overland routes and some maritime that connect Russia, Iran and India. You've got Belt and Road, these east west corridors, you've got the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, they're all now part of BRICS. And the point of that, I think, strategically is to bypass chokepoints like the Strait of Singapore, the Strait of Malacca, the Bosphorus, and the Strait of Hormuz. So the point here is that the US Navy has very strategically over decades, been encircling China with military bases on, you know, island chains around China, this is going to basically neutralize that whole strategy because China will have ways of securing its trade routes over land, or again, over sea, going through the Arctic. So this has huge geostrategic implications. The other big thing that I think BRICS is doing is they have this five to 10 year goal of allowing BRICS members to sell trades and local currencies. I think that you guys may be seeing it the wrong way. The goal here is not to create a new reserve currency. It's simply to create a way to bypass the dollar complex. They're trying to break the petrodollar monopoly. This is not an offensive organization, and they're not necessarily trying to create a single alternative to the US dollar. They are trying to create a way to not have to go through the dollar complex in order to do their trade when they're trading with each other. And what China and Brazil are doing is a test case for this, where they are setting up a yuan clearing arrangement with Brazil.
SPEAKER_02: And the goal to be clear sacks here is to have a voice versus the G7, which they feel they've a lot of these countries feel they've been left out of, and to maybe not have as much dependency on the West and form this block that has a bigger voice in the world, right?
SPEAKER_03: I go a little further and say this isn't just about them having a voice. It's about them having economic sovereignty. They do not want to be completely dependent on the United States to secure their economies. And the big driver of this has been the weaponization of the US dollar. And swift. Yeah. So in conjunction with this Ukraine war, the US sees Russia's foreign reserves,
SPEAKER_03: which were in dollars, they've widely imposed sanctions, we're now sanctioning dozens and dozens of countries. And we are technically limiting who can use swift as part of this. So if you are any of the BRICS countries, you're asking yourself, wait a second, when I am doing business with another member of BRICS, why should the US be any part of that transaction? Yeah, they do not want that transaction to be mediated by the US at all. In a way, it's like people buying crypto so that they don't have to deal with the US government.
SPEAKER_02: They have, you know, they have Bitcoin over here, and they're not subject to the rules of the US dollar, right? It's like a way of having some independence. Yeah, we totally get it.
SPEAKER_03: They're willing to play by the US rules when they're trading with the US. But they do not want to play by the US rules when they're not trading with the US or the G seven. And this is about creating that independence. I think it's great that they have to that there is a competitor
SPEAKER_02: to the US dollar because it makes us be more thoughtful about our spending ultimately, and our balance sheet. What are your thoughts on this? I have a couple. So if you go back to when the
SPEAKER_01: BRICS was created, this is like 20 plus years ago, it was first just BRIC and with a small S. And then it became BRICS with a big S when they admitted South Africa. I think the fact pattern in that organization is pretty poor. You know, when they first got organized, they tried to
SPEAKER_01: create a competitor to the IMF. I think it's called the IDB, the International Development Bank. That bank has not dispersed a single dollar. In 23 years, they tried to create a joint program to lay undersea fiber amongst these countries hasn't even started. So I think it's good that this organization is growing. I think the problem is that the actual amount of legislative coordination that these countries has been able to exhibit has been literally zero. And the problem now is that their regional rivalries are only growing. So China and India, which are the two anchor partners of BRICS are literally in a land war. There's a border that they fight over with guns. You have a growing anti-Chinese resentment inside of both India and Brazil. Nick, you can just throw up this little chart. In India, they've blocked a lot of apps, they're about to block a bunch of imports. But India sees China as an existential threat. The Brazilian population, this is just a poll that the economist put in. There's just a lot of anti-Chinese sentiment. So it's very hard to see folks that are such polar enemies actually working together, even if they're part of an organization. So I think that the odds of legislative coordination in the future are probably less than what they were even 10 years ago. So I expect even less, and it's hard to expect even less when nothing has been done. And then the second is I just look at the data. And if you look at Swift in July, the Swift volumes on US dollars was the largest ever. And so it's kind of one of these weird things where I think that it's good that that organization exists. Don't get me wrong, because I do think that if they could... Oh, the other thing that I'll say about the BRICS, which is kind of odd, is that unlike the G7, and unlike NATO, where you have democratic ideals that underpin the organizational framework, here it doesn't because you have China, Russia, Iran, which are total polar opposites to Brazil and India in terms of democratic governance. And I don't know enough about Ethiopia or Egypt to say anything. So if they can... They're challenged states at a minimum.
SPEAKER_02: Well, no, no, I'm just saying they're not democratic. The way like NATO and the G7 are all
SPEAKER_01: democratically elected countries. It's a very good point. They don't share the same operating system,
SPEAKER_02: the authoritarians and democratic nations put together. So then the last thing is, could you see a currency framework to compete against the US
SPEAKER_01: dollar? And I think the practical complexity is if you take all of these other issues, land wars, import controls, and growing Chinese resentment, and now try to boil that into an exchange rate mechanism where the Renminbi and the Rupi and the Reye can be interchangeable. I think it's very difficult to see because if you look at the last time that that happened, the Frank, the Lira, the Pound, Sterling, the Deutschmark, that was possible because all of those other factors were not on the table. They were not fighting with each other. There wasn't this anti resentment in one country to another country. They roughly held the same democratic ideals. So I think my comment is, I think it's good that BRICS is growing. I think that if they can get some legislative or policy coordination wins, it'll be great. The track record is literally zero. And the setup doesn't to me mean much yet, but hopefully that something happens. Who knows? Freiburg, your thoughts? I think the arguments about the pragmatism of non dollar denominated trade and the progress
SPEAKER_00: that's been realized or can be projected to be realized from current policy can be debated. What I think is most important is the signal that's being given, which is that there is a desire by a larger percentage of global GDP than is represented by the G7 to de-dollarize. And so while these intentions may be difficult to translate into policy in the near term, that signal says a lot about the influence and perhaps the policy of the US in addressing and dealing with a lot of these countries and global economic actors. But I don't think they want to de-dollarize. That's not part of their
SPEAKER_01: They want to increase trade as a stated mission and they want to collaborate on trade. That is
SPEAKER_02: the stated mission.
SPEAKER_01: Do you think the stated mission is de-dollarization? Or do you think the implicit outcome is de-dollarization?
SPEAKER_00: No, the local currency support initiatives are implicit de-dollarization. I don't hear anyone saying we got to destroy the dollar because they're all very important trade partners. Most of those countries are very important trade partners with the US and very dependent on trade with the US. It seems less that it's about, hey, we've got to hurt the US and it's more about we have to be independent from the US. We have to be independent. Implicit in that is independent from the US. I think that that signal says a lot about US economic policy and US foreign policy. That there's something off with the unipolarity, as Sax has pointed out, that it's not de facto anymore. That there is intention here for there to be something different. Yeah, that's very healthy. That's very, very healthy.
SPEAKER_01: I think that that opens up avenues and paths that we're not thinking about today.
SPEAKER_00: All of a sudden, we'll wake up and we'll be like, whoops, and we need to be thoughtful about that. I think that's the most powerful part of Sax's commentary is that it's a very firm establishment,
SPEAKER_01: even of the non-unipolarity of the world. But the thing that the BRICs have to do is, I would just encourage them, book a quick win. There has to be some policy coordination that they could do to prove that there's something there that's more than just a get together once a year. And that's been missing for 22 years so far. And that would have a really important, I think, effect. Yeah, I agree with you, David. I think that's the litmus test. That hasn't happened yet. Let me partially agree with that and then partially respond to what you're saying before,
SPEAKER_03: Chamath. So it's true that BRICs does not have an impressive record of accomplishment to date. That's simply true. However, recent events, I think, have provided the motivation for this group of countries to now try and get something done. In the past, it was just so phenomenally convenient to be based on the US dollar complex, because everything's priced in dollars, easy to transact in dollars. And when you run a trade surplus, the US has an open capital account, and you can just park the money in US Treasuries. So there was never a reason for any of these countries to want to leave the US dollar complex until more recently, when again, US foreign policy has militarized and weaponized the dollar and to try and make it a coercive instrument to get these countries to do what the US wants. And all those countries now are bristling at that, and they want to maintain their sovereignty. And so now they have tremendous motivation to get this done. Now, the thing they've already agreed to and done as part of BRICs is that when you join BRICs, you agree not to sanction any other member of BRICs. That is a meaningful commitment. And obviously, it has a lot to do with this Ukraine war. And the fact that the US has been demanding it's the whole world sanction Russia. And most of the world has not been sanctioning Russia. And that's why the sanctions have not been effective as the US has not been able to get that done. The US will not be able to get it done in the future with respect to at least the countries who are members of BRICs with regard to their trade with each other. And as we saw in the percentage of world GDP, BRICs very rapidly, once they add a few more members are going to be at about 50% or world GDP. So the US is only gonna be able to influence call it roughly that half a global GDP where the US or the G7 is a major trading partner. Now, what BRICs will be lacking is the way on a technical level to bring about the sovereignty they want. So they need to have a way to settle on clear transactions. And they need to have a place to park the surplus that's created for net exporters. And they haven't quite figured that out yet. So for example, there's a recent news item, where Russia, which is selling a huge amount of oil to India right now, it was saying that they don't want to accumulate more rupees. So they've got to figure out what do we do with all these extra rupees. So there's a lot of pieces to figure out here. And that is why they're saying this is a goal they have over the next five to 10 years. It's not one to two year timeframe. It's five to 10 years, but let them make they should make their own euro if they feel so
SPEAKER_02: strongly that they're a great voting block, make a euro, and then they could all put into it. And you can see what happens when a bunch of dictators and a long tail of failed states now share a common car, a common currency, it's not going to work. These countries are all each other. Yeah, states who share Egypt, Ethiopia, these ones are all very troubled states, by the way. Yeah. GDP has been going up like a rocket. J. Cal. That's the point. Inflation. Furthermore,
SPEAKER_03: they're called democracy, human rights. Yeah, their goal is not to create a common currency.
SPEAKER_03: Like the Euro. And I'm saying India and Brazil are not going to replace you on and rupees with some sort of new euro like currency. Moreover, they're not trying to create a reserve currency that's going to be a currency for the man on the street. This is about settlement of global trade flows and getting out from under the US dollar complex. My point just to be clear
SPEAKER_02: freeburg is if you were to think of it as a thought experiment, these to chamat point, these are culturally and strategically very different countries. And I think what they have in common is that they haven't been included in the G seven and really America's reaction to this should be to get India out of this and get them into the G seven and make that strategic decision that India is the most important country for us to have strong relationships with. It's kind of hard to put Saudi Arabia and to put UAE in this, because they don't share the democratic principles of the rest of the G seven. But we should be trying to any democracy that's in the bricks, we should be trying to include in the G seven that that's the strategic chessboard that would make the most sense. And then you would just leave bricks as all authoritarian dictators, and they do not work well together. They always wind up. Well, you're still nominally a democracy. No, that's what I'm saying
SPEAKER_02: like getting Brazil I just said getting anybody who's a democracy and moving them towards democracy and getting them into the G seven should be our stated goal. That's what the West should do.
SPEAKER_03: Lula who's Brazil's president is one of the most ardent advocates for de dollarization. Here's his quote every night I asked myself why all countries have to base their trade on the dollar. Yeah,
SPEAKER_02: they don't they can change him. J cal me this guy will get rid of that. That's stupid. That's a
SPEAKER_02: stupid statement. Nobody's saying that I just said the exact there are people saying that but Oh, not
SPEAKER_03: me just to be clear words in my mouth out of the exact opposite of what I just said. I get that
SPEAKER_02: include that point is my point is this is not a simplistic dichotomy between dictators and
SPEAKER_03: democracies. Another way to consist by the way, South Africa is just on a population basis. If
SPEAKER_02: you took India out and you got the measure, the G seven, it would be majority over one majority percentage of citizens in the bricks living under authoritarian rule. But India, I'm not going to
SPEAKER_03: respond to that. And then also, tomorrow, India is the largest country in the world. I mean, this is that that's the strategic,
SPEAKER_02: important piece here in my mind,
SPEAKER_03: I think India and the US will pull tighter together in terms of security because of a mutual desire to balance the power of China. So I think Jamaat is right about that. However, India also has a very strong anti colonial impetus to their politics and especially their foreign policy. They do not like being told what to do by the West and the United States. And in particular, they do not believe in many of their politicians said this, we don't see why we should have to sacrifice for you. We're going to do what's in the best interest of our own people. And that is why India has rejected enormous pressure from the US not to trade with Russia, India and Russia as as bad as relationship is between India and China is the relationship between India and Russia is very strong. It historically always has been. And Russia right now is supplying half of India's oil. And India has adamantly refused to play along with the US sanctions. Rightfully, so and rightfully
SPEAKER_01: so. Right. They should make their own best decisions. Right. So I think a lot of people
SPEAKER_03: are thinking that India is not here to be a bootlicker to the United States.
SPEAKER_03: Exactly. Exactly. So look, I think India will pursue its interests. I think when it comes to security, they will align with the US to balance the power of China. But I think when it comes to economic policy, India will pursue its own interests, which I think has to do with maintaining their economic sovereignty. 100% cheap oil, they need cheap oil. They're developing country, right?
SPEAKER_02: They need oil. And that's the lowest priced oil. Another way to think about the framing is that the
SPEAKER_00: priorities for many of these countries for the last two decades, have shifted going from a state of economic insecurity, civil insecurity, government insecurity. And as you obviously establish systems and certainty in certain elements, the dollar complex of SACS frames it was very useful in helping them with that transition. But as they start to move from emerging market to developing market to developed market, the priorities start to shift. And then the priorities become much more about sovereignty, independence, institutional destiny, etc. that kind of start to make this more realistic. That maybe they don't have their ducks in a row at this point, but there's certainly a conversation or set of conversations that emerges when you're not worried about civil war, or you're not worried about economic strife. And you can now start to think on a global stage. And that's evidenced by the PPP data that SACS shared, where you've seen them become a much larger percentage of global GDP share over the past 10 or 20 years, that's a good metric, or that general opportunity to say, hey, I'm going to shift my priorities now. And that's why maybe now's the time to start to pay attention to what's happening. And think about US policy to participate in, in some reconstruction that's necessary. I tell you what
SPEAKER_02: the most important thing here is all this calm, all these conversations seem to come back to energy chamath, cheap oil, Russian oil, Saudis, UAE, all participating in bricks. And then if you look at nuclear, we just had a bunch of I think it was senators signing a bill, I think you might have tweeted it chamath of support of nuclear 21 nuclear power plants are being constructed at this moment in China eight in India, the United States only has one which is kind of an extension in Gujarat, actually nuclear in Gujarat, India just injured India just turned on its first home
SPEAKER_01: built one. So just literally today. So big, big news in India. If we really want to have a great
SPEAKER_02: relationship with India, an incredible path and with some of these other countries would be for us to really invest in these reactors and help people build them and help them get energy independence from Russia's oil, we should be building 50 reactors in India, I don't know
SPEAKER_01: enough. I don't know enough to know whether that's true or not. And part of it is that, like whether we should be building those reactors in quotes, because I don't know what those means,
SPEAKER_01: Gen two, Gen three, Gen four reactors, any small modular reactors. My big comment in my thread is just more that I think that the regulatory support in the United States for nuclear is so constipated that it's impossible to get it done. So you could have the greatest technology in the world. I just don't see how the laws change fast enough and the zoning changes fast enough and the NIMBY ism goes away to make these things viable. And so that's actually the real question. I don't know. You know, freebird states, what I'm advocating for here, Sax is, hey, what if the United States policy was
SPEAKER_02: we're going to help India and some other countries, they don't need to grow their independence.
SPEAKER_01: They don't need their help. They just turned on their own homegrown nuclear reactor. We haven't done one in 20 years. But our new, I guess we call them Gen two freeburg. These these new reactors,
SPEAKER_02: would that not be a possible path if we're spitballing here to help them get more energy independence from Russia? Wouldn't that be a great long play? They don't need our help. I don't think you're understanding like it's like,
SPEAKER_01: we're like Michael Jordan, and we're about to teach them kid how to throw free throws. This is not what's happening. Any help would be helpful. I mean, if people are trying to build a large
SPEAKER_02: not directors, you don't you don't you don't need a numb nuts to come and help you build a product.
SPEAKER_01: Do you? You don't hire some two bit product manager to help you when something is scaling and working. India GDP is going to be 7% a year. They're off to the races. They're on a rock ship. They're doing everything right. What what what can we do? We can help them rewrite their laws to make them Byzantine so nothing gets done. So that zoning is possible. Okay, as a strategy,
SPEAKER_02: if we had the ability to build nuclear reactors in other parts of the world, which is exactly China's policy, that's the belt. I think I think you in a nutshell right now summarizing why
SPEAKER_01: there's this dismissiveness, which is like, we can help them. But what makes you think you're better?
SPEAKER_02: China is taking the same approach. I'm saying copy China strategy, which has been to go to other countries in India might need less help. Other countries might need more, but we have this capacity. So what if we what capacity do we have? We don't have any demonstrated capacity nuclear.
SPEAKER_02: We have plenty of companies building these new nuclear reactors free. None of them work. None of them work. What do you mean? None of them work? None of them work.
SPEAKER_01: Okay. None of them work. When you talk to politicians in a lot of these countries,
SPEAKER_03: what you describe as Americans coming in and helping they describe as exploitation. They call it exactly China strategy or neo imperialism. Yes, they call it neo imperialism
SPEAKER_03: or neo colonialism. As collaborating on energy independence, broadly speaking, so you're being
SPEAKER_02: dismissive. Think of what do you want Zimbabwe? Do you want the Zimbabweans to fly in and mutually
SPEAKER_01: collaborate with you to build something in America? Would you be trying to make jokes
SPEAKER_02: about me? I'm proposing a joke. I'm just making a joke. I have a very viable strategy here is, which is to look at what China is doing. And what China is doing the Belt and Road strategy, which we've talked about here on this program is trying to help other countries get more energy. How could we do that? We do tell you listen to what Larry Summers said. Remember he said that
SPEAKER_03: when China goes abroad, they give money for infrastructure, bridges and hospitals. Yes, when the US goes abroad, we give a lecture, which is exactly no, if you want to accomplish what
SPEAKER_02: you're talking about, yes, stop this explosion of sanctions. We're now sanctioning dozens of
SPEAKER_03: countries stop weaponizing the dollar stop militarizing the dollar stop seizing other countries reserves without any due process. You're talking about Russia in their intelligent due
SPEAKER_03: process of law, just like any other country, the country that invade their neighbor. So you get to
SPEAKER_03: steal their reserves? Oh, I think it's a pretty great. I don't wear a rules based order. Oh,
SPEAKER_02: I think you can't just sanctions are much better than Yeah, starting a war. Yeah, I think I can have sanctions. We're talking about we're talking about the seizing of another country's foreign
SPEAKER_03: reserves, which is what the US did. Yeah, I would say that's an extreme thing to do.
SPEAKER_02: Except in the case where people are invading other free countries, and then it's okay. So what you're doing right now is, yeah, this is the way that the administration reacted. What you're doing right
SPEAKER_03: now is making up the rules. That's what the rules based order means to these countries is that Americans will make up the rules. Two years ago, foreign reserves were something that was not part of American foreign policy. They were your reserves. Then this Ukraine war happens by says, Nah, you know, those are ill gotten gay and sees them. Those are the new rules. In other words, the rules based international order is whatever Americans say it is. And then you run around saying no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, made this decision together to sanction Russia. It wasn't just the US, you're mischaracterizing that.
SPEAKER_02: And you know what, if Hitler was invading other countries, or Putin or any dictator, I do think it's fair game to seize their resources. I do not buy into this narrative.
SPEAKER_03: 70% of the world does not buy into this narrative. They understand those are majority dictator. Those are majority dictator countries. 70% of the world's population does
SPEAKER_03: not believe this narrative about the Ukraine war. They understand that the US is at least equally responsible for this war laughable to say the US is equally responsible. That's what
SPEAKER_02: the rest of the country that is you are a spokesperson for Putin, if you believe that, that the US is responsible. Okay, you know what you can quote any polling you want the US believe this the US is not 50% responsible for Putin invading Ukraine that is laughable and disgusting. Every country just every country that wants to believe the US is 50% responsible for
SPEAKER_02: Putin invading Ukraine. Unbelievable. It's not about what I believe. It's about what
SPEAKER_03: the what you believe. You said it. So do you believe 50%? Where was 50% responsible for
SPEAKER_02: Putin and painting Ukraine? That's insane. I don't know what percentages I would describe
SPEAKER_03: but I believe this war is easily 50%. Can I finish my point? Go ahead.
SPEAKER_03: The way you're acting right now is exactly why all these countries want to create bricks. They don't want to be subjected to this virtue signaling foreign policy by the United States. We've discussed the ways many times the US could have avoided this war it did it.
SPEAKER_02: Yeah, respectfully disagree. Putin's responsible for the war. This is why India does not want to
SPEAKER_03: be subject to the whims of people like you. You don't see people like me. I think the West made
SPEAKER_02: the decision that we needed to take action against the US and listen, we don't get to make decisions for the UK and France and Germany. We don't get to make their decisions respectfully they make their own decisions. That's not really true. Okay, the US runs. The US runs NATO because we pay for it.
SPEAKER_03: All these countries go along with the US because they like the defense and security that we provide. The US calls the audience and within the US calls the shots. So basically a handful of people in the Biden administration, Biden, Newland, Blinken, Sullivan, that's who makes the policy.
SPEAKER_03: I do not think the rest of the world does not want to be subject to their whims. I respectfully I don't think Biden gets to choose with Germany and France and the UK do. Oh, I think
SPEAKER_03: Olaf Scholz is eventually going to be voted out and Macron is eventually going to be voted out because their people are waking up. But absolutely they are the lap dogs of the United States.
SPEAKER_02: We would like to go on to any other topics. I want to talk about the summit next week. I'm really
SPEAKER_00: excited. Sure. Right, we're coming in hot to the summit. Kicks off next Sunday. Really excited for
SPEAKER_00: everyone that's going to join us. Obviously, we'll be putting out videos of the content as quickly as we can. Jake how has I don't know, Sax and Chamath if you guys are aware, but he is in charge of the parties. And he has gone well beyond budget on these parties. They're going to be outlandish. They're going to be out of control. Show the three posters. Let me show you the posters explain everything. Night one is our double seven party or our bestie Royale, if you will. And here
SPEAKER_02: is bestie Royale presenting on Sunday night bestie Royale where your best spy outfit you could be Austin powers you could be Daniel Craig you could be Sean Connery you could be Charlie's Angels any spy you can be and here's bestie Royale coming at you on Sunday night, a little poker here is the closing night party we're going out of order bestie runner cyberpunk rave with the besties announcing Grimes will be DJ so we will have Grimes doing a set at the bestie runner party is awesome. It's gonna be fun. And so where your best cyberpunk it could be Fifth Element you could go with any side we just say can I just say I give up right now because Claire is gonna win.
SPEAKER_01: Of course she's whatever. Okay, she's like it's not even worth trying. Well, I'm just gonna come in every day played runner every day. But we'll have some neon stuff for you to put on is
SPEAKER_02: it gonna be cold outside? No, this is inside and this is occurring at a film studio. So we have three warehouses at a film studio where we created part of the set of Blade Runner some incredible Asian street food will be done. That's awesome. It's gonna be great. And then Monday night is going to be absolutely blow the doors at it fast times at Barbie high. And here we are, where your best Spicoli outfit your best surfer outfit of any kind or sorry, will this be outside? This is going to be outside we have a tent for the VIP for the way it works is you should you should well we'll see what the weather is gonna be warm. So you can wear your bathing suit if you want just wear a trench coat over it. tomorrow if you're going to do a thirst trap live and in person.
SPEAKER_02: And Mick will be DJing again so the dance floor will be lit. Just because we went well over the
SPEAKER_00: budget. We brought in some sponsors to help us cover the costs. I want to thank those sponsors I connections which is actually running the app that we're using to coordinate the summit. Our law firm that does the legal work for us Cooley has agreed to sponsor and there's a group of entrepreneurs from South Africa started a company called House of Macadamia as they make macadamia nut snacks delicious. There's they're sponsoring the end they you know why they reached out because Chamath and I eat salt and vinegar pistachio so they made a salt and vinegar macadamia bag in our honor love it. Oh, right. Just in vinegar like this episode. And then we've got a group called
SPEAKER_00: Pavis which makes mineral based sunscreen. And obviously they heard us talking about sunscreen so they reached out and brew bird which makes a coffee brewing device came in and wanted to be a sponsor. So a lot of the sponsors came to us having heard about us talking about something on the show. And it was very helpful in helping us cover the cost of the event. So I want to say thank you to all thank you guys. Thank you. Thank you to all of your sponsors. Thanks.
SPEAKER_02: And then we're doing a high and low thing at we're have incredible food trucks where we've elevated the food to like a higher level. And so we want to pair these food trucks with some nice ones. And so they sent you a list of all the different foods and then Bo is doing the steak at the first night. Roku sushi really great sushi place in LA is doing the sushi the first night so we got some really great vendors and all the Asian street food in the Blade Runner party is gonna be great. So Asian the last night steak and sushi the first night and then these elevated food trucks. What is what is my year to do this? You're 20 year four. Yeah, I'm 24 year 25.
SPEAKER_01: I'm just gonna tell you in advance that I'm taking full complete control. You all you will have to do is show up. I don't want any intervention.
SPEAKER_02: I don't need to be moved please after the share and last year. Please leave me out of it. Great. I'm taking the sacks approach. I'm showing up. Where are you going to do it? Jason? I have three biggest grift Brooklyn exactly. Okay, well, I'll take you through it. Brooklyn my hometown is one
SPEAKER_02: so that's in my mind. My favorite city is Tokyo. You know, I love going to Japan. So that's in my shortlist. And then on the grift side, UAE might be great. I have some partners there. And so that could be amazing to do in Dubai as a you know, Dubai would be nuts. Dubai would be kind of crazy.
SPEAKER_01: My friend Andrew Sassoon is in charge of opening. I think it's the winds casino there or is he charged with all the entertainment and nightlife would be incredible. Sassoon can light it up in Dubai. I also took Europe off the table because I had the sense that you might know I may I may
SPEAKER_01: no no no I may go to Oman I make but I'm going to go to do a destination thing which is going to be yeah everybody will stay in the same place. It'll be a much smaller number of people and it'll be end to end curated and 750 500 people. There'll be clothes there'll be everything. Okay. For
SPEAKER_02: the Sultan of Science with the sunglasses on the dictator and the architect. We'll see you all next time on All in Pockets. Bye bye.
SPEAKER_03: Oh, man. We should all just get a room and just have one big huge door because they're all like this like sexual tension but they just need to release them. What you're the bee? We need to get merch.
