All right, chamath. Apparently the Rain man, David Sachs, is now the architect. I think he's been working behind the scenes according to a bunch of the news stories.

I like puppet master.

The puppet master. Okay, well, we should call Sachs Geppetto.

Let's cut.

We're going live now to the RNC in Milwaukee and live coverage. Sith Lord David Sachs, are you there? Oh, there he is. It's Palpatine. Tell us about your new empire.

Everything has proceeded as I have foreseen. Let your winners ride.

Rain man David Saxonson.

And instead, we open sources to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it.

Love you, queen of Quinoa.

I'm going all in.

Obviously, Sachs. Trump makes his own decisions. You're getting a little bit too much credit, I think.

Yeah, absolutely. No, I mean, I'm mocking, I'm satirizing the New York Times and Business Insider and all these publications that are giving me all this credit. Listen, the president obviously makes the decision. He solicits feedback from lots of people. I was probably one of a thousand people, or at least hundreds of people who offer my opinion. Obviously, I'm a big fan of JD Vance, but I think it's just giving me way too much credit.

In all seriousness, Sachs, you're there. And obviously, President Trump, how is he doing? How is he feeling in the wake of this absolute tragedy?

I think he's doing well. He was in great spirits, I think. But let's, maybe we just should get into the assassination attempt. That's really the thing to talk about here.

All right, everybody, welcome back to episode 188 of the all in podcast. We have a full docket to get through today. We are here on July 18 on the taping of this, and it is five days after an assassination attempt on the former president of the United States and the likely 47th president of the United States. Obviously, President Trump, we're going to start with what we know. It's five days later. We're a bit in the fog of war as it is. And there are all the breaking news caveats that you can put on this, but I want to recap what we know now about this assassination attempt and get everybody's feedback on it. Last Saturday at a rally in Pennsylvania, 20 year old named Thomas Matthew Crooks fired eight rounds with an AR 15 at the former president. One bulletin nicked Trump's right ear. This was confirmed by the president on truth, social and a Trump supporter tragically in the crowd. Corey comparatore was killed while protecting his family from gunfire. Two others were critically injured. Crooks was killed by the Secret Service's countersniper team 26 seconds after he fired the first shot. He didn't have a criminal record.

He was not known to the FBI or secret service. He was a registered Republican, but also donated $15 to a progressive pack. And the motive is not known. So we'll just wait for that. There were some leaks from a Senate briefing. I don't know if you gentlemen have heard those, that just came out. And it was reported that Crooks wrote on July 13 on Steam. That's a gaming platform. July 13 will be my premier watch as it unfolds. He had a second phone. He had a detonation device in his pocket or a bomb or some sort of explosive device in his car. We'll get details with that, I'm sure. And now we are in the phase of how the hell did this happen? Here's a picture of the rooftop. The closest rooftop was not secured, and it was 130 yards away. The head of the secret service said they didn't put anybody on the rooftop because of its sloped surface. Obviously, this is being mocked on social media and questioned by journalists and anybody with a any iq points. The most disturbing part of all of this, aside from somebody wanting to murder the president, is the timeline.

So ABC News is reporting the following timeline, gentlemen. 510 pm. Crooks was first identified as a POI person of interest. 530, he's spotted with a rangefinder. 552. He's spotted on a roof by the Secret Service. 602. Trump takes the stage. 612 pm. He fires his first shot. We'll get into some clips and everything, but let me just stop here and get everybody's reaction to this tragedy. Shamath, your thoughts?

It's absolute insanity. I actually just. I had just woken up because I was flying back to the United States for a board meeting. And so as I was boarding and on the way, I was just on my way to the airport, reading it mostly from our group chat. And I was. I couldn't believe it, to be totally honest with you. I thought this made. I thought this was, this is not possible in this day and age. And part of why I thought it was not possible was because I had elevated in my mind who the secret Service were and that the job they did or that they're supposed to be doing is just so sacrosanct to the well functioning of America that you only have the absolute best people doing that job. And that job is to protect these handful of individuals in America. Most importantly, being the president of the United States who are just lying to us at a moment where she should be cooperating and doing a full investigation. Okay, so.And isn't it true that they were.Inside the structure, well, air conditioned? Inside the building and outside? It was probably not.Okay, but that's just question number one. Okay, question number two is, like you said, he was a person of interest an hour before the shooting, and no one went to go resolve that situation. Moreover, they see him with a rangefinder. Okay, what the hell do you use a range finder for? I mean, he's scoping out the target with a rangefinder, and they let the president go out there, okay. While they still have a person of interest out there. This guy has a rangefinder, he has a ladder, he has a backpack, and he was never intercepted. He was never stopped, even though they had identified him. And they let the president go out there. So clearly, there was a huge failure of communication between the secret Service and the Trump campaign. How did that happen? How was there no agent stationed at the fence such that they had to ram it with an suv for the secret service to get through? I don't know if you guys knew about that part of it. Okay, no, no.Say that again.There was no agent stationed at the fence. Okay? So in order to get there, they rammed the fence with an suv. So the secret Service quickly get through.Oh, my gosh.Okay. That's insane.And what harm would have come from just taking a half hour and have Trump have a cup of coffee and then go make sure that this person is not exactly, like.Exactly.I'm just thinking judgment wise. Listen, I understand they're in the field. I understand they have. I understand if, like, they were concerned, maybe that's one of our snipers on the roof. Like, maybe there was a moment, like a 32nd moment. Like, I'm trying to give have been able to restore free speech? Do you think he'd be able to restore innovation? No. If you're running an institution, you have to be able to fire people when they don't perform. But we have lost that ability of our federal government. So there's something that's very, very broken here. When people fail, they have to be held accountable or you don't get good performance.Right?When institutions fail. There needs to be a question on why are we funding those institutions?Nobody fired.Why would you give more money to a failing company? You would never do it.This is the comment I put in the letter that I sent to that senior Democrat back in October. I don't see any accountability with respect to the programs that you pass bills to fund. You pass bills to fund these programs, you stand up new institutions, and then there is never a retrospective post mortem or review on the performance of those institutions or the objective of those programs. And yet we keep funding them and asking for more money. And eventually you end up with a decaying empire like we've seen in history. We need to have a series of actions that drive accountability in outraged by what I said, and they were trying to claim online that somehow I'd been booed or something like that. There were absolutely no booze. There were actually people applauding. And then as I got deeper and deeper into the speech, people applauded it more and more. It was very much a speech that attacked the forever wars.It attacked the warmongers and complimented President Trump for keeping us out of wars and complimented him for being strong but also having the savviness and the ability to negotiate with our adversaries to keep us out of wars. And I think that's now a position that's very popular within the republican party. But it's a process. It's evolving.This is a perfect segue because there are reports that friend of the pod Tucker Carlson had a big impact on talking to Trump about his selection of JD Vance and said, don't pick a neocon that'll get you assassinated. There was one report that was advice that came before the assassination attempt, obviously. So conspiracy theorists are kind of losing their minds over this. But let's talk about the selection of JD Vance, because that is a big surprise, I think, in many quarters. Tell us about JD Vance. Your friends.Yeah, I mean, I'm friends with him, and I very much supported his selection for VP.Why is he the best pick, in your mind?Well, there's a couple of things. So JD Vance represents a couple of very interesting characteristics. On the one hand, he's from this poor region of Appalachia that really represents the forgotten man or the forgotten cities and towns in America. You could call it the MAGa heartland. And so MAGA really likes him. At the same time, hes worked in tech, he was a venture capitalist. He understands the future. And hes popular in tech. So its very unusual to get somebody who has MAGA plus tech on their side together. So thats one almost contradiction you could say that JD represents. Heres another one. JD Vance was in high school when the twin Towers came down. And then we invaded Iraq. And he was gung ho to serve and to go exact retribution and justice on America's enemies. And he enlisted in the Marine Corps, and he went off to serve in the Iraq war. Subsequently, he realized that we had all been lied to about the Iraq war and that it was a gigantic mistake. And moreover, the forever wars were a huge mistake. And to me, this is something that I really appreciate about him. And this is a quality that I really want at President Trump's side, which is he's an american patriot.He had the courage to serve, to go serve in America's wars. But he has the wisdom and the judgment to want to avoid those wars when we don't need to fight them. And there's way too many of, like you said, jason, these neocons, these warmongers in the party who've never, ever acknowledged their mistake in the Iraq war and all the forever wars. And they seem on virtually a daily basis to want to plunge us into the next forever war. So this is, I think, a quality that's of paramount importance to have in our commander in chief and in the person who would be next in line to be commander in chief. So for these reasons, I very much support JD.All right, so let me get some feedback from the rest of the panel. I'll just give you a couple of bullet points about him. For those of you who don't know, JD Vance, yeah. He worked at Peter Thiel's mythical capital and Steve cases revolution. And so he worked for a Republican and a Democrat in Steve case. Started his own firm called Narya Capital, and he went to Ohio State, graduated Yale, was actually classmates with Vivek. They talked about that. He's only 39 years old, so he's half the age of Trump, as you mentioned, combat correspondent for six months in Iraq in 2000, 539 years old. And Teal backed him with, I think, the largest Senate race donation in history, 15 million. And so this is quite a ascension, chamath, from a venture capitalist to potentially vice president and obviously potentially president. He's in the second spot. So were you a proponent of the JD Vance as well?Superb.The press says you lobby Trump as well. Is that true?He's superb. I cannot say enough good things about this guy. He's superb. His wife is superb. He's a bit of an enigma, I think, as Sacks said, because his views are so unique and he comes from a background that is very similar to mine. So I have tremendous loyalty for the path that he had to navigate, to get out, just to get out. And I think that, that, you know, I really care for people like that. And then he's done really good things with the resources that he's been given and the relationships that he's built. And I really respect that, too.We all read hillbilly elegy. I don't know if we talked about it on this pod years ago, but you and I certainly talked about it a bunch. Jamath. And he came from nothing. Less than nothing, less than nothing addicts.And less than nothing.And he talks a lot in his book. I don't know if you remember this about social capital and the fact that he didn't understand the name of the firm is social capital for people who don't know the reference, that he just didn't have the social capital to even understand that a lawyer went to law school. Totally, and he is an enigma. His positions don't align with Trump's in every case, but they have quickly become aligned with Trump's.He's an incredible pick.Yeah, yeah. I thought he was an incredible pick before his speech last night, and he even exceeded my expectations in that speech. I just thought it was truly an incredible speech. First of all, the introduction by his wife, Usha, was really, you know, incredible. I thought she did a fantastic job. And then he got up there, and I had a friend text me who's not really that into politics. He's just like, this guy seems so normal. He's happy, he's normal. He seems competent. There was one commentator, I think, on one of the cable shows who I think meant this as an insult, but it actually was positive. He said that when you're at, like, a fast food restaurant or something and need to ask for the manager, JD Vance is the person you hope is the manager. He comes out, he's friendly, he's competent, he's reasonable. He knows how to get stuff done. I'm not sure if that was meant as an insult or a competency.I can tell you that's meant as an insult.Yeah, but I think it's a compliment. Right. And he's just so normal. He's gonna be very hard to demonize. Obviously, they're trying to do it on cable news. They're somehow trying to portray him as an extremist or a racist, even though he has a mixed race family.The tent of the Republican Party at this RNC, Sacks, is the most wide open tent I've ever seen in politics. They had Amber Rose, and people were criticizing Amber Rose.She was excellent. She was excellent.She was fantastic. I thought her.She was excellent.And she knocked the ball out of the park.She's absolutely radiant.She's a feminist.Beautiful, and she crushed it.I thought speech was effective. I thought it was authentic. And it would describe her red pilling. Basically, it described her evolution and her journey from someone who believed the media's lies about Trump thinking that he was a racist to actually meeting the man herself, realizing that the way they had portrayed him was basically a slander. And how she became friends with President Trump, I thought was an incredibly effective speech. But look, there is very few people who didn't like it. There was this one post by Matt Walsh online, and he was roundly denounced for what he said. I mean, he kind of engaged in this pearl clutching that they had allowed.Amber rose to speak because of her apparently value judging.And it's like, who's Matt Walsh to judge?Give me a break.It felt like a part of the Republican Party that's on its way out, this pearl clutching social conservatism. In any event, it was really an opportunity, I think, for people to disavow his criticism and support her.Yeah, she did. My great point here is what, you know, they've done a really great job of. And Vivek did a wonderful job in his talk. I want to give him a shout out of just saying, hey, listen, everybody can be part of this party. I think there's a lot of notes the Democrats could take from what they saw at the Republican National Convention. These are people who would have been at the DNC but one election cycle ago. But because of this purity test, you can't even win with them.Let's take the obvious. We're trending into a direction right now where, based on Donald Trump's pick for the vice president and some of the other surrogates like Vivek, if Donald Trump were to win, what you're going to see is a very youthful cabinet of a lot of 30 somethings and 40 somethings. And I think that that's a really important thing to consider versus a bunch of 60, 70 and 80 year old career politicians. Correct?Absolutely. Youth and vigor. And again, this new direction. You know, a lot of people were commenting about JD's speech, that large parts of it could have been given by Bernie Sanders or, you know, it was this populist message that, well, let me ask you that.Yes, he's had a position of breaking up big tech and being pro union. How do you reconcile all that and this new Republican Party? Address those two? Because that seems to be a big discussion. Two discussion topics.Yeah, I think that it's definitely a new emergent republican party where I think this is Donald Trump's republican party. This is the MAGA wing, the America first wing of the Republican Party. We're moving from a party of basically the chamber of Commerce Business Roundtable, a bunch of oligarchic fat cats, to being a populist party that actually represents the people. And I think it's a very. And they had the Teamsters up there. Yeah. And I think it's a very welcome change. And the part of JD's speech that I like the best is when he described that, hey, I went off and many other people went off to fight in these forever wars, risking our lives or giving our lives. We come back to our home communities, and what do we find? We find them hollowed out. The jobs have all been exported, the factories have shut down, and instead the town has been poisoned by fentanyl. That is a message that you have not heard in the Republican Party, except for Donald Trump and that new part of the party. And I think that Donald Trump choosing JD Vance was so important to cement this new vision of the Republican Party.It was a legacy pick because it means that this America first MAGA message is gonna continue into the future, many years into the future. And let me just tell you, as I listened to that speech, I hearkened back to another speech at a republican convention I heard 32 years ago. I'm sorry to say I'm old enough to actually remember these things. And I remember Pat Buchanan's speech in 1992. And after Pat described the factory workers who lost their jobs. I just wanted to read you what he said, and I want you to think about what JD said. So what Buchanan said was, my friends, these people are our people. They don't read Adam Smith or Edmund Burke, but they come from the same schoolyards and the same playgrounds and towns as we come from. They share our beliefs and convictions, our hopes and dreams. They are the conservatives of the heart. They are our people. And we need to reconnect with them. We need to let them know we know how bad they're hurting. They don't expect miracles of us, but they need to know we care. And I think that for too long, republican leaders ignored that advice.They didn't connect with everyday Americans. They were foolishly willing to cut programs like Social Security or Medicare, saying that we had to cut the deficit while at the same time funding forever wars. So they're totally not credible. And the party was basically led by warmongers like Dick Cheney or Mitch McConnell or soulless bean counters like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. And I think Vance really broke with all of that. And I think he represents the future of the party. He trashed the Iraq war. He promised no more foreign interventions. He railed against policies that benefit multinational corporations at the expense of workers. And I think it's no wonder that the neocons lobbied so hard against his selection.Freberg, let's get you on.I think those days are over. And I think that just means to say this, end with this, that I think that Donald Trump and JD Vance represent a conservatism of the heart that we haven't seen before. And I think this is the future of the Republican Party.Freeberg, does JD Vance being selected tip your vote towards Trump Vance ticket?I think he's going to do well for Trump. I think if he, who were his other options?Nikki Halley. I mean, they were pressure for him to go after a lot of the neocons. Right, Sacks. And get the never trumper contingent. Wasn't that like a lot of the pressure?Absolutely.I mean, I think there was Doug Bergam, who was that was your favorite?Noam Friedberg, not my favorite. I met him, seemed like a really thoughtful guy. He's done an incredible job managing the state of North Dakota, but he's got some social policy issues that I think are going to rub people the wrong way. And I think to Sacks point, he's more in the camp of supporting Ukraine, which it seems like some part of the party are starting to come around and say no. So it seems like he wasn't a great fit ultimately.Yeah. By the way, I met Doug Bergam the other night, and he's a very nice man who I think could play a very important role. Very nice guy who I think can play a major, major role in the.Built an incredible business, sold it to Microsoft.Yeah. There's nobody who understands, I think, energy better and all the regulations that have gotten in the way of making America energy independent and tapping our vast energy reserves. So I found him very, very impressive on that. But at the end of the day, it's just not the kind of pick that JD is.I remain a moderate undecided voter. I love JD Vance. I think it's an inspired choice. I know Sachs, where you're voting. I'll take some guesses on you, Chamoth. But Freiberg, where are you standing right now?I'm very happy that RFK junior was not selected as the VP.Why?To be on the ticket. I think RFK would have been a challenging partner for Trump and it would have led to a lot of disagreements. And I think that RFK has some policy perspectives that I don't agree with, particularly as it relates to health, energy, agriculture. And so there are some disagreements I have with respect to his view of the world. I will say JD seems like a pragmatist. He seems highly intelligent. He seems highly competent. And I know that he has not been in a governing position before. Right. So this is really critical to note. This is a training job for him in a large way. Hes been a senator and hes been an investor and hes been an individual contributor. As an investor, hes built his own firm, but its not a scaled firm. So this is going to be a really interesting kind of process to watch unfold. But I think from a policy and a strategy perspective, he can have a really positive impact on the direction of the things that we talked about earlier, which is accountability in government programs, having a clear set of objectives, making sure that we focus on those objectives and don't spend time and resources on things that are fluff and perhaps aren't really meeting the objectives.And I think that he'll have. The thing I do have concern about, I think that the nationalist agenda, the nationalism and the isolationism agenda is counter to global trade, which can be deeply inflationary. And that is one concern I do have, which is the ability for the US to export and import with other trade partners around the world, I think is critical for us to continue to grow our economy and keep inflation down. So if we take policy action that limits our ability to import because we impose tariffs on other countries goods and services, it can be inflationary. Makes things more expensive for Americans, everyday Americans, to buy. When everyday Americans go into Walmart and they buy products, a lot of those products are shipped from China. So if there's a tariff on those products and the price of those products now goes up by 30, 40%, that can be a real burden. That drives inflation. That's the point about the nationalism on manufacturing and inputs.So, Freiburg, you're pretty convinced at this point that a reciprocal trade agreement would cause inflation hyperinflation.No, no. I think that the idea that the general statement, which I don't think is necessarily how this is being executed. I just want to make sure that we're all cognizant the point that if you introduce tariffs on imports, it will drive prices up. Now, that may be the right thing to do from a policy perspective, as we heard from President Trump when we interviewed him, his belief is that this is an important security stick, that we use it to drive reciprocity, and we use it to hold China in check. And so that may be a more important strategic priority over the increase in the price of certain goods. The problem that will arise, and this happened during the last Trump administration, if China then responds with tariffs on the export of us agricultural products, our biggest buyer of agricultural products today is China. And then China put tariffs on our export, or they stopped buying from the US and they started buying from Brazil instead. The farmers are hurt. And when the farmers are hurt, the Trump administration had to spend money to support farmers. Tens of billions of dollars subsidized it. They paid farmers in a way.And so the federal government then has to step in to meet the gap that arises from what will end up becoming an escalating tariff problem or escalating purchasing problem. So global trade allows the economy to grow, gives everyone a market. You can start to trade, but there's also these security issues. I do think it's important that we onshore a lot of manufacturing. I think it's important. But there's going to be a period of pain. There's going to be an investment needed, and it's not going to be simple and easy. And we may face quite a bit of inflation on the path to doing that.Can you give us an update here at the end of the show? Friedberg Scholarships and that people have been asking for the all in summit.So this week we are opening up scholarship applications. You can go to Summit all in podcast Co. And we have a very, very, very limited number of scholarship tickets that we hold for the summit like we did the last two years. The applications are open now. Please get your application in right away because we expect it will be completely overbooked almost immediately. And some of those scholarships are going to be sponsored by athletic Brewing company. So thank you to Athletic Brewing Company for paying for a lot of our scholarship recipients to go to the all in summit this year. Really exciting programming coming together. We have more details to share in the next couple of weeks. And we do, we do have one more last block of Gaez tickets that we're going to release. Get your application in on the website. Summit all in podcast Co. For a GA ticket for the last block. Thank you.All right, let's just do one quick business story here. Since we spent the bulk of the episode talking about politics and current events, exits creeping back. Sequoia is doing a secondary sale of their stripe investment, one of the greatest investments of the last decade. And Google is in talks to acquire Wiz. And this is absolutely amazing news for the industry, which has been suffering from a lack of distributions. As you can see in this chart, after 2021, exit values just plummeted and there are some signs of life. Now, let's start with Sequoia buying back some stripe shares from its own LP's. Sequoia Capital has invested 517 million in Stripe that's currently worth about 10,000,000,020 x. Michael Moritz led the seed in Series A. Sequoia offered to buy back 860 million in Stripe shares from LP's and its legacy funds. Those are the funds between 2009 and 2012. Sequoia is using capital from their newer funds, like its evergreen fund that was formed in 2021, the Heritage fund. That's their wealth management team, to give the legacy funds some liquidity. It's not normal that a company stayed private this long. It is the exception to the rule.But it has happened, actually happened with Uber to a certain extent. So legacy fund LP's have the choice sacs to hold, sell some, or sell all of their stripe shares. Here's the quote from the note. Sequoia personnel and associated persons will not be offered the option to sell stripe shares previously received as carried interest distributions from the legacy funds and they are offering 27.50 a share, which is pretty generous $70 billion valuation. As you may know, Stripe has hit as high as 100 billion in market cap in the private markets. So this will be from the seed, which was a 20 million post, 3500 x for those Lp's and for the Series A. It is a hundred million dollar post, which is 700 x for those people who don't know. I think it was Sam Altman who actually did that investment as a sequoia scout in the same fund that I did, the Uber investment. So still the number one and two investments there. Your thoughts, Chamath, on this unique opportunity and device to sell early shares from the same venture fund?I have two thoughts. The first is that it's interesting to see that they mark the valuation up to 70 billion. So that's a good sign for Stripe. But the second thing is, I was a little puzzled by this whole thing. It's a very complicated thing when you're buying old stakes into a new fund and crossing funds. It's sort of like actually one of those things that are supposed to be verboten. And when you're trying to build a good fund with great governance, this is actually at the top of the list of the things that you're never supposed to do, which is to provide liquidity to a group of LP's via another fund that you control. But I think this actually shows what may be going on behind the scenes. So I don't want to be conspiratorial or anything, but it would be a great way for the GPS to get liquid to meet their capital calls here without having to pay capital gains tax. And that makes a lot of sense for the GPS themselves. And so I suspect that that probably.Well, they did say that the gps aren't going to get to liquidate anything, so they did put that note in there.So they provide, you can provide no meaning. But what that means is you can provide liquidity. You don't get to pull the money out, that's fine. But then now you can use it to fund capital calls. But I don't like it. I don't like these kinds of things where one fund is basically scratching the back of another fund. It always tends to be the case that this stuff on the surface looks a little smelly year extensions to the funds. So then the question is, what do you do at year twelve if you still got honest with you, the quality of the product. Obviously, I don't interact with those kind of products every day, but the fact that they're willing to pay such a premium means, a, the product is good, but more importantly, b, in the absence of cloud security, these cloud vendors are going to be constrained in how fast they can grow. So what an incredible market. What an incredible, incredible market.I have to say, these two things have really helped the climate in the lp community this past week. A lot of chatter about ipos that are getting filed and that we could be ending the drought. And people were feeling very, very pessimistic about venture as a category. And I think these two things have changed a lot of people's feelings on that. So good work there. And I think it also signals maybe some regime change expectation. Sachs yeah, Lena Khan maybe getting booted when this regime change occurs next year, and then maybe more m and A would occur. What's Trump's and JD Vance's position in your mind, on M and A and Lena Khan? SACHS if you had to interpret it.Well, something that's very interesting is that JD Vance has been relatively positive towards Lena Khan.Yeah, that's the weird.He's one of Lena Khan's few republican fans. And the reason for that is because Lena Khan, for all of her faults and we've described them here, has been willing to take on big tech. The fact of the matter is that the top handful of tech companies, the Microsofts, the Googles, Amazon, these are big tech monopolies. There's just no way around that fact. And they do need to be closely watched and supervised and regulated with respect to their market power. And I do think they use their market power in inappropriate ways. As we've discussed on this podcast, I sometimes think that Lina Khanda, in her approach, has been a little bit more of a cleaver when she needed to use a scalpel. I dont think that she should stop some of these, what I would call R and D acquisitions, from taking place where theres no accretion of market share, but rather startups being bought because they contribute a useful piece of technology. I dont think you want to shut down that part of the market. Lord knows we dont have enough exits as it is. Like we were just talking about. I think it would be great if we could massage Lena Khan's approach a little bit.But I think that it is a good thing that she's not willing to just roll over and let the big tech companies do whatever they want. And I think JD Vance appreciates that about her. So, look, I don't think that Lena Khan is going to be running that agency in a second Trump administration. But I think the problem with Republicans.Though, sacks, is the freedom of speech issue and Republicans being banned on the social platforms, including it up to Trump. I mean, if that issue wasn't there, I think you would probably see maybe a different approach.Yeah, well, I think it's a huge issue because the fact of the matter is you've got these tech monopolies who are using their monopolistic market power to put their thumb on the scale of our political discourse in favor of one side versus the other. So obviously, if you're on that side of the aisle, you're going to be up in arms about that. You're not going to be happy about that. And I do think that given their market power, they have an obligation not to distort our democracy by artificially suppressing one side of the debate.Yeah.So I think that, yes, Republicans should be up in arms about that, and they should be resisting censorship. And JD Vance specifically mentioned censorship in his speech.That seems to be his main issue. I think we'll see under Trump a lot more mid market m and a. If I were to, you know, let's call it under $100 billion, $100 billion acquisition would be fine with me. Under 100.Well, I really liked the part of his speech where he said that in a healthy democracy, we debate ideas. And that's good. We even have debates in the Republican Party, and that's good. The last thing you want to do is censor the marketplace for ideas. Gosh, I mean, are we going to hear anything like that from the Democrats when they do their convention?Well, in breaking news, as we wrap up this program, the hot swap summer will continue. Apparently, Biden is predicted to resign this weekend. We'll see if it happens. Speedrun primary Nostradamus is predicting it happens. Nostra canis. Nostracanus will get it straight. Nostra Canis will keep his position. The hot swap is coming.Well, Jake, at this point, I think you were right about Biden stepping aside. I thought he was out of the woods. He did that press conference, that NATO press conference, where he did make that one mistake, that senior moment where Trump was his vp. Yeah.Oops.But that was the kind of thing where he got his name mixed up. But otherwise, he sort of seems to be finding his footing in terms of talking about policy. And the brush fire was sort of put out. Right. But then for some unknown reason, he goes on and does that Lester Holt interview. I don't know why they were still letting him do interviews. He should only be reading from a dull prompter. And he mixes up. He forgets the name of his secretary of defense, Lloyd Austin, and he just refers to him as the black man, the bet, as a bet interview. So he did the Lester Holt interview, which was not good. And then he did the bet interview, which was good.Well, the money's dried up, right, chamath? So once the money goes, it's over.Well, yeah. And he also did a horrible one with 360, with speedy, speedy Mormon. And that was a train wreck. There was a couple moments there that are just total gaffes.They say Pelosi and Schumer told him, it's over. And I guess that means. And Katzenberg.You're right, Jason. When the big money is gone and they make the call, it's done.It's done.Isn't that amazing? What we've learned about the democratic party, the coup de Grasse was basically Katzenberg going in there saying, yeah, I can't raise any money for you. And then, boom, he's out.I am shocked that any political party would be swayed in any way by political donations. Enjoy the.Enjoy the hard c, sacks.I love you guys. I gotta go to dinner.Love you guys. Talk to you soon. For the chairman, dictator, the architect, David Sack, and your sultan of science who ducked out a little bit early, I am the world's greatest moderate moderator. We'll see you next time. Bye bye.Love you, boobs.Bye bye. We'll let your winners ride rain man David Sackdeh.And instead, we open source it to the fans. And they've just gone crazy with it. Love you.Besties are gone.Go 13.That is my dog taking an ocean.We should all just get a room and just have one big, huge orgy because they're all, it's like this, like, sexual tension that they just need to release somehow.

lying to us at a moment where she should be cooperating and doing a full investigation. Okay, so.

And isn't it true that they were.

Inside the structure, well, air conditioned? Inside the building and outside? It was probably not.

Okay, but that's just question number one. Okay, question number two is, like you said, he was a person of interest an hour before the shooting, and no one went to go resolve that situation. Moreover, they see him with a rangefinder. Okay, what the hell do you use a range finder for? I mean, he's scoping out the target with a rangefinder, and they let the president go out there, okay. While they still have a person of interest out there. This guy has a rangefinder, he has a ladder, he has a backpack, and he was never intercepted. He was never stopped, even though they had identified him. And they let the president go out there. So clearly, there was a huge failure of communication between the secret Service and the Trump campaign. How did that happen? How was there no agent stationed at the fence such that they had to ram it with an suv for the secret service to get through? I don't know if you guys knew about that part of it. Okay, no, no.

Say that again.

There was no agent stationed at the fence. Okay? So in order to get there, they rammed the fence with an suv. So the secret Service quickly get through.

Oh, my gosh.

Okay. That's insane.

And what harm would have come from just taking a half hour and have Trump have a cup of coffee and then go make sure that this person is not exactly, like.

Exactly.

I'm just thinking judgment wise. Listen, I understand they're in the field. I understand they have. I understand if, like, they were concerned, maybe that's one of our snipers on the roof. Like, maybe there was a moment, like a 32nd moment. Like, I'm trying to give have been able to restore free speech? Do you think he'd be able to restore innovation? No. If you're running an institution, you have to be able to fire people when they don't perform. But we have lost that ability of our federal government. So there's something that's very, very broken here. When people fail, they have to be held accountable or you don't get good performance.Right?When institutions fail. There needs to be a question on why are we funding those institutions?Nobody fired.Why would you give more money to a failing company? You would never do it.This is the comment I put in the letter that I sent to that senior Democrat back in October. I don't see any accountability with respect to the programs that you pass bills to fund. You pass bills to fund these programs, you stand up new institutions, and then there is never a retrospective post mortem or review on the performance of those institutions or the objective of those programs. And yet we keep funding them and asking for more money. And eventually you end up with a decaying empire like we've seen in history. We need to have a series of actions that drive accountability in outraged by what I said, and they were trying to claim online that somehow I'd been booed or something like that. There were absolutely no booze. There were actually people applauding. And then as I got deeper and deeper into the speech, people applauded it more and more. It was very much a speech that attacked the forever wars.It attacked the warmongers and complimented President Trump for keeping us out of wars and complimented him for being strong but also having the savviness and the ability to negotiate with our adversaries to keep us out of wars. And I think that's now a position that's very popular within the republican party. But it's a process. It's evolving.This is a perfect segue because there are reports that friend of the pod Tucker Carlson had a big impact on talking to Trump about his selection of JD Vance and said, don't pick a neocon that'll get you assassinated. There was one report that was advice that came before the assassination attempt, obviously. So conspiracy theorists are kind of losing their minds over this. But let's talk about the selection of JD Vance, because that is a big surprise, I think, in many quarters. Tell us about JD Vance. Your friends.Yeah, I mean, I'm friends with him, and I very much supported his selection for VP.Why is he the best pick, in your mind?Well, there's a couple of things. So JD Vance represents a couple of very interesting characteristics. On the one hand, he's from this poor region of Appalachia that really represents the forgotten man or the forgotten cities and towns in America. You could call it the MAGa heartland. And so MAGA really likes him. At the same time, hes worked in tech, he was a venture capitalist. He understands the future. And hes popular in tech. So its very unusual to get somebody who has MAGA plus tech on their side together. So thats one almost contradiction you could say that JD represents. Heres another one. JD Vance was in high school when the twin Towers came down. And then we invaded Iraq. And he was gung ho to serve and to go exact retribution and justice on America's enemies. And he enlisted in the Marine Corps, and he went off to serve in the Iraq war. Subsequently, he realized that we had all been lied to about the Iraq war and that it was a gigantic mistake. And moreover, the forever wars were a huge mistake. And to me, this is something that I really appreciate about him. And this is a quality that I really want at President Trump's side, which is he's an american patriot.He had the courage to serve, to go serve in America's wars. But he has the wisdom and the judgment to want to avoid those wars when we don't need to fight them. And there's way too many of, like you said, jason, these neocons, these warmongers in the party who've never, ever acknowledged their mistake in the Iraq war and all the forever wars. And they seem on virtually a daily basis to want to plunge us into the next forever war. So this is, I think, a quality that's of paramount importance to have in our commander in chief and in the person who would be next in line to be commander in chief. So for these reasons, I very much support JD.All right, so let me get some feedback from the rest of the panel. I'll just give you a couple of bullet points about him. For those of you who don't know, JD Vance, yeah. He worked at Peter Thiel's mythical capital and Steve cases revolution. And so he worked for a Republican and a Democrat in Steve case. Started his own firm called Narya Capital, and he went to Ohio State, graduated Yale, was actually classmates with Vivek. They talked about that. He's only 39 years old, so he's half the age of Trump, as you mentioned, combat correspondent for six months in Iraq in 2000, 539 years old. And Teal backed him with, I think, the largest Senate race donation in history, 15 million. And so this is quite a ascension, chamath, from a venture capitalist to potentially vice president and obviously potentially president. He's in the second spot. So were you a proponent of the JD Vance as well?Superb.The press says you lobby Trump as well. Is that true?He's superb. I cannot say enough good things about this guy. He's superb. His wife is superb. He's a bit of an enigma, I think, as Sacks said, because his views are so unique and he comes from a background that is very similar to mine. So I have tremendous loyalty for the path that he had to navigate, to get out, just to get out. And I think that, that, you know, I really care for people like that. And then he's done really good things with the resources that he's been given and the relationships that he's built. And I really respect that, too.We all read hillbilly elegy. I don't know if we talked about it on this pod years ago, but you and I certainly talked about it a bunch. Jamath. And he came from nothing. Less than nothing, less than nothing addicts.And less than nothing.And he talks a lot in his book. I don't know if you remember this about social capital and the fact that he didn't understand the name of the firm is social capital for people who don't know the reference, that he just didn't have the social capital to even understand that a lawyer went to law school. Totally, and he is an enigma. His positions don't align with Trump's in every case, but they have quickly become aligned with Trump's.He's an incredible pick.Yeah, yeah. I thought he was an incredible pick before his speech last night, and he even exceeded my expectations in that speech. I just thought it was truly an incredible speech. First of all, the introduction by his wife, Usha, was really, you know, incredible. I thought she did a fantastic job. And then he got up there, and I had a friend text me who's not really that into politics. He's just like, this guy seems so normal. He's happy, he's normal. He seems competent. There was one commentator, I think, on one of the cable shows who I think meant this as an insult, but it actually was positive. He said that when you're at, like, a fast food restaurant or something and need to ask for the manager, JD Vance is the person you hope is the manager. He comes out, he's friendly, he's competent, he's reasonable. He knows how to get stuff done. I'm not sure if that was meant as an insult or a competency.I can tell you that's meant as an insult.Yeah, but I think it's a compliment. Right. And he's just so normal. He's gonna be very hard to demonize. Obviously, they're trying to do it on cable news. They're somehow trying to portray him as an extremist or a racist, even though he has a mixed race family.The tent of the Republican Party at this RNC, Sacks, is the most wide open tent I've ever seen in politics. They had Amber Rose, and people were criticizing Amber Rose.She was excellent. She was excellent.She was fantastic. I thought her.She was excellent.And she knocked the ball out of the park.She's absolutely radiant.She's a feminist.Beautiful, and she crushed it.I thought speech was effective. I thought it was authentic. And it would describe her red pilling. Basically, it described her evolution and her journey from someone who believed the media's lies about Trump thinking that he was a racist to actually meeting the man herself, realizing that the way they had portrayed him was basically a slander. And how she became friends with President Trump, I thought was an incredibly effective speech. But look, there is very few people who didn't like it. There was this one post by Matt Walsh online, and he was roundly denounced for what he said. I mean, he kind of engaged in this pearl clutching that they had allowed.Amber rose to speak because of her apparently value judging.And it's like, who's Matt Walsh to judge?Give me a break.It felt like a part of the Republican Party that's on its way out, this pearl clutching social conservatism. In any event, it was really an opportunity, I think, for people to disavow his criticism and support her.Yeah, she did. My great point here is what, you know, they've done a really great job of. And Vivek did a wonderful job in his talk. I want to give him a shout out of just saying, hey, listen, everybody can be part of this party. I think there's a lot of notes the Democrats could take from what they saw at the Republican National Convention. These are people who would have been at the DNC but one election cycle ago. But because of this purity test, you can't even win with them.Let's take the obvious. We're trending into a direction right now where, based on Donald Trump's pick for the vice president and some of the other surrogates like Vivek, if Donald Trump were to win, what you're going to see is a very youthful cabinet of a lot of 30 somethings and 40 somethings. And I think that that's a really important thing to consider versus a bunch of 60, 70 and 80 year old career politicians. Correct?Absolutely. Youth and vigor. And again, this new direction. You know, a lot of people were commenting about JD's speech, that large parts of it could have been given by Bernie Sanders or, you know, it was this populist message that, well, let me ask you that.Yes, he's had a position of breaking up big tech and being pro union. How do you reconcile all that and this new Republican Party? Address those two? Because that seems to be a big discussion. Two discussion topics.Yeah, I think that it's definitely a new emergent republican party where I think this is Donald Trump's republican party. This is the MAGA wing, the America first wing of the Republican Party. We're moving from a party of basically the chamber of Commerce Business Roundtable, a bunch of oligarchic fat cats, to being a populist party that actually represents the people. And I think it's a very. And they had the Teamsters up there. Yeah. And I think it's a very welcome change. And the part of JD's speech that I like the best is when he described that, hey, I went off and many other people went off to fight in these forever wars, risking our lives or giving our lives. We come back to our home communities, and what do we find? We find them hollowed out. The jobs have all been exported, the factories have shut down, and instead the town has been poisoned by fentanyl. That is a message that you have not heard in the Republican Party, except for Donald Trump and that new part of the party. And I think that Donald Trump choosing JD Vance was so important to cement this new vision of the Republican Party.It was a legacy pick because it means that this America first MAGA message is gonna continue into the future, many years into the future. And let me just tell you, as I listened to that speech, I hearkened back to another speech at a republican convention I heard 32 years ago. I'm sorry to say I'm old enough to actually remember these things. And I remember Pat Buchanan's speech in 1992. And after Pat described the factory workers who lost their jobs. I just wanted to read you what he said, and I want you to think about what JD said. So what Buchanan said was, my friends, these people are our people. They don't read Adam Smith or Edmund Burke, but they come from the same schoolyards and the same playgrounds and towns as we come from. They share our beliefs and convictions, our hopes and dreams. They are the conservatives of the heart. They are our people. And we need to reconnect with them. We need to let them know we know how bad they're hurting. They don't expect miracles of us, but they need to know we care. And I think that for too long, republican leaders ignored that advice.They didn't connect with everyday Americans. They were foolishly willing to cut programs like Social Security or Medicare, saying that we had to cut the deficit while at the same time funding forever wars. So they're totally not credible. And the party was basically led by warmongers like Dick Cheney or Mitch McConnell or soulless bean counters like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. And I think Vance really broke with all of that. And I think he represents the future of the party. He trashed the Iraq war. He promised no more foreign interventions. He railed against policies that benefit multinational corporations at the expense of workers. And I think it's no wonder that the neocons lobbied so hard against his selection.Freberg, let's get you on.I think those days are over. And I think that just means to say this, end with this, that I think that Donald Trump and JD Vance represent a conservatism of the heart that we haven't seen before. And I think this is the future of the Republican Party.Freeberg, does JD Vance being selected tip your vote towards Trump Vance ticket?I think he's going to do well for Trump. I think if he, who were his other options?Nikki Halley. I mean, they were pressure for him to go after a lot of the neocons. Right, Sacks. And get the never trumper contingent. Wasn't that like a lot of the pressure?Absolutely.I mean, I think there was Doug Bergam, who was that was your favorite?Noam Friedberg, not my favorite. I met him, seemed like a really thoughtful guy. He's done an incredible job managing the state of North Dakota, but he's got some social policy issues that I think are going to rub people the wrong way. And I think to Sacks point, he's more in the camp of supporting Ukraine, which it seems like some part of the party are starting to come around and say no. So it seems like he wasn't a great fit ultimately.Yeah. By the way, I met Doug Bergam the other night, and he's a very nice man who I think could play a very important role. Very nice guy who I think can play a major, major role in the.Built an incredible business, sold it to Microsoft.Yeah. There's nobody who understands, I think, energy better and all the regulations that have gotten in the way of making America energy independent and tapping our vast energy reserves. So I found him very, very impressive on that. But at the end of the day, it's just not the kind of pick that JD is.I remain a moderate undecided voter. I love JD Vance. I think it's an inspired choice. I know Sachs, where you're voting. I'll take some guesses on you, Chamoth. But Freiberg, where are you standing right now?I'm very happy that RFK junior was not selected as the VP.Why?To be on the ticket. I think RFK would have been a challenging partner for Trump and it would have led to a lot of disagreements. And I think that RFK has some policy perspectives that I don't agree with, particularly as it relates to health, energy, agriculture. And so there are some disagreements I have with respect to his view of the world. I will say JD seems like a pragmatist. He seems highly intelligent. He seems highly competent. And I know that he has not been in a governing position before. Right. So this is really critical to note. This is a training job for him in a large way. Hes been a senator and hes been an investor and hes been an individual contributor. As an investor, hes built his own firm, but its not a scaled firm. So this is going to be a really interesting kind of process to watch unfold. But I think from a policy and a strategy perspective, he can have a really positive impact on the direction of the things that we talked about earlier, which is accountability in government programs, having a clear set of objectives, making sure that we focus on those objectives and don't spend time and resources on things that are fluff and perhaps aren't really meeting the objectives.And I think that he'll have. The thing I do have concern about, I think that the nationalist agenda, the nationalism and the isolationism agenda is counter to global trade, which can be deeply inflationary. And that is one concern I do have, which is the ability for the US to export and import with other trade partners around the world, I think is critical for us to continue to grow our economy and keep inflation down. So if we take policy action that limits our ability to import because we impose tariffs on other countries goods and services, it can be inflationary. Makes things more expensive for Americans, everyday Americans, to buy. When everyday Americans go into Walmart and they buy products, a lot of those products are shipped from China. So if there's a tariff on those products and the price of those products now goes up by 30, 40%, that can be a real burden. That drives inflation. That's the point about the nationalism on manufacturing and inputs.So, Freiburg, you're pretty convinced at this point that a reciprocal trade agreement would cause inflation hyperinflation.No, no. I think that the idea that the general statement, which I don't think is necessarily how this is being executed. I just want to make sure that we're all cognizant the point that if you introduce tariffs on imports, it will drive prices up. Now, that may be the right thing to do from a policy perspective, as we heard from President Trump when we interviewed him, his belief is that this is an important security stick, that we use it to drive reciprocity, and we use it to hold China in check. And so that may be a more important strategic priority over the increase in the price of certain goods. The problem that will arise, and this happened during the last Trump administration, if China then responds with tariffs on the export of us agricultural products, our biggest buyer of agricultural products today is China. And then China put tariffs on our export, or they stopped buying from the US and they started buying from Brazil instead. The farmers are hurt. And when the farmers are hurt, the Trump administration had to spend money to support farmers. Tens of billions of dollars subsidized it. They paid farmers in a way.And so the federal government then has to step in to meet the gap that arises from what will end up becoming an escalating tariff problem or escalating purchasing problem. So global trade allows the economy to grow, gives everyone a market. You can start to trade, but there's also these security issues. I do think it's important that we onshore a lot of manufacturing. I think it's important. But there's going to be a period of pain. There's going to be an investment needed, and it's not going to be simple and easy. And we may face quite a bit of inflation on the path to doing that.Can you give us an update here at the end of the show? Friedberg Scholarships and that people have been asking for the all in summit.So this week we are opening up scholarship applications. You can go to Summit all in podcast Co. And we have a very, very, very limited number of scholarship tickets that we hold for the summit like we did the last two years. The applications are open now. Please get your application in right away because we expect it will be completely overbooked almost immediately. And some of those scholarships are going to be sponsored by athletic Brewing company. So thank you to Athletic Brewing Company for paying for a lot of our scholarship recipients to go to the all in summit this year. Really exciting programming coming together. We have more details to share in the next couple of weeks. And we do, we do have one more last block of Gaez tickets that we're going to release. Get your application in on the website. Summit all in podcast Co. For a GA ticket for the last block. Thank you.All right, let's just do one quick business story here. Since we spent the bulk of the episode talking about politics and current events, exits creeping back. Sequoia is doing a secondary sale of their stripe investment, one of the greatest investments of the last decade. And Google is in talks to acquire Wiz. And this is absolutely amazing news for the industry, which has been suffering from a lack of distributions. As you can see in this chart, after 2021, exit values just plummeted and there are some signs of life. Now, let's start with Sequoia buying back some stripe shares from its own LP's. Sequoia Capital has invested 517 million in Stripe that's currently worth about 10,000,000,020 x. Michael Moritz led the seed in Series A. Sequoia offered to buy back 860 million in Stripe shares from LP's and its legacy funds. Those are the funds between 2009 and 2012. Sequoia is using capital from their newer funds, like its evergreen fund that was formed in 2021, the Heritage fund. That's their wealth management team, to give the legacy funds some liquidity. It's not normal that a company stayed private this long. It is the exception to the rule.But it has happened, actually happened with Uber to a certain extent. So legacy fund LP's have the choice sacs to hold, sell some, or sell all of their stripe shares. Here's the quote from the note. Sequoia personnel and associated persons will not be offered the option to sell stripe shares previously received as carried interest distributions from the legacy funds and they are offering 27.50 a share, which is pretty generous $70 billion valuation. As you may know, Stripe has hit as high as 100 billion in market cap in the private markets. So this will be from the seed, which was a 20 million post, 3500 x for those Lp's and for the Series A. It is a hundred million dollar post, which is 700 x for those people who don't know. I think it was Sam Altman who actually did that investment as a sequoia scout in the same fund that I did, the Uber investment. So still the number one and two investments there. Your thoughts, Chamath, on this unique opportunity and device to sell early shares from the same venture fund?I have two thoughts. The first is that it's interesting to see that they mark the valuation up to 70 billion. So that's a good sign for Stripe. But the second thing is, I was a little puzzled by this whole thing. It's a very complicated thing when you're buying old stakes into a new fund and crossing funds. It's sort of like actually one of those things that are supposed to be verboten. And when you're trying to build a good fund with great governance, this is actually at the top of the list of the things that you're never supposed to do, which is to provide liquidity to a group of LP's via another fund that you control. But I think this actually shows what may be going on behind the scenes. So I don't want to be conspiratorial or anything, but it would be a great way for the GPS to get liquid to meet their capital calls here without having to pay capital gains tax. And that makes a lot of sense for the GPS themselves. And so I suspect that that probably.Well, they did say that the gps aren't going to get to liquidate anything, so they did put that note in there.So they provide, you can provide no meaning. But what that means is you can provide liquidity. You don't get to pull the money out, that's fine. But then now you can use it to fund capital calls. But I don't like it. I don't like these kinds of things where one fund is basically scratching the back of another fund. It always tends to be the case that this stuff on the surface looks a little smelly year extensions to the funds. So then the question is, what do you do at year twelve if you still got honest with you, the quality of the product. Obviously, I don't interact with those kind of products every day, but the fact that they're willing to pay such a premium means, a, the product is good, but more importantly, b, in the absence of cloud security, these cloud vendors are going to be constrained in how fast they can grow. So what an incredible market. What an incredible, incredible market.I have to say, these two things have really helped the climate in the lp community this past week. A lot of chatter about ipos that are getting filed and that we could be ending the drought. And people were feeling very, very pessimistic about venture as a category. And I think these two things have changed a lot of people's feelings on that. So good work there. And I think it also signals maybe some regime change expectation. Sachs yeah, Lena Khan maybe getting booted when this regime change occurs next year, and then maybe more m and A would occur. What's Trump's and JD Vance's position in your mind, on M and A and Lena Khan? SACHS if you had to interpret it.Well, something that's very interesting is that JD Vance has been relatively positive towards Lena Khan.Yeah, that's the weird.He's one of Lena Khan's few republican fans. And the reason for that is because Lena Khan, for all of her faults and we've described them here, has been willing to take on big tech. The fact of the matter is that the top handful of tech companies, the Microsofts, the Googles, Amazon, these are big tech monopolies. There's just no way around that fact. And they do need to be closely watched and supervised and regulated with respect to their market power. And I do think they use their market power in inappropriate ways. As we've discussed on this podcast, I sometimes think that Lina Khanda, in her approach, has been a little bit more of a cleaver when she needed to use a scalpel. I dont think that she should stop some of these, what I would call R and D acquisitions, from taking place where theres no accretion of market share, but rather startups being bought because they contribute a useful piece of technology. I dont think you want to shut down that part of the market. Lord knows we dont have enough exits as it is. Like we were just talking about. I think it would be great if we could massage Lena Khan's approach a little bit.But I think that it is a good thing that she's not willing to just roll over and let the big tech companies do whatever they want. And I think JD Vance appreciates that about her. So, look, I don't think that Lena Khan is going to be running that agency in a second Trump administration. But I think the problem with Republicans.Though, sacks, is the freedom of speech issue and Republicans being banned on the social platforms, including it up to Trump. I mean, if that issue wasn't there, I think you would probably see maybe a different approach.Yeah, well, I think it's a huge issue because the fact of the matter is you've got these tech monopolies who are using their monopolistic market power to put their thumb on the scale of our political discourse in favor of one side versus the other. So obviously, if you're on that side of the aisle, you're going to be up in arms about that. You're not going to be happy about that. And I do think that given their market power, they have an obligation not to distort our democracy by artificially suppressing one side of the debate.Yeah.So I think that, yes, Republicans should be up in arms about that, and they should be resisting censorship. And JD Vance specifically mentioned censorship in his speech.That seems to be his main issue. I think we'll see under Trump a lot more mid market m and a. If I were to, you know, let's call it under $100 billion, $100 billion acquisition would be fine with me. Under 100.Well, I really liked the part of his speech where he said that in a healthy democracy, we debate ideas. And that's good. We even have debates in the Republican Party, and that's good. The last thing you want to do is censor the marketplace for ideas. Gosh, I mean, are we going to hear anything like that from the Democrats when they do their convention?Well, in breaking news, as we wrap up this program, the hot swap summer will continue. Apparently, Biden is predicted to resign this weekend. We'll see if it happens. Speedrun primary Nostradamus is predicting it happens. Nostra canis. Nostracanus will get it straight. Nostra Canis will keep his position. The hot swap is coming.Well, Jake, at this point, I think you were right about Biden stepping aside. I thought he was out of the woods. He did that press conference, that NATO press conference, where he did make that one mistake, that senior moment where Trump was his vp. Yeah.Oops.But that was the kind of thing where he got his name mixed up. But otherwise, he sort of seems to be finding his footing in terms of talking about policy. And the brush fire was sort of put out. Right. But then for some unknown reason, he goes on and does that Lester Holt interview. I don't know why they were still letting him do interviews. He should only be reading from a dull prompter. And he mixes up. He forgets the name of his secretary of defense, Lloyd Austin, and he just refers to him as the black man, the bet, as a bet interview. So he did the Lester Holt interview, which was not good. And then he did the bet interview, which was good.Well, the money's dried up, right, chamath? So once the money goes, it's over.Well, yeah. And he also did a horrible one with 360, with speedy, speedy Mormon. And that was a train wreck. There was a couple moments there that are just total gaffes.They say Pelosi and Schumer told him, it's over. And I guess that means. And Katzenberg.You're right, Jason. When the big money is gone and they make the call, it's done.It's done.Isn't that amazing? What we've learned about the democratic party, the coup de Grasse was basically Katzenberg going in there saying, yeah, I can't raise any money for you. And then, boom, he's out.I am shocked that any political party would be swayed in any way by political donations. Enjoy the.Enjoy the hard c, sacks.I love you guys. I gotta go to dinner.Love you guys. Talk to you soon. For the chairman, dictator, the architect, David Sack, and your sultan of science who ducked out a little bit early, I am the world's greatest moderate moderator. We'll see you next time. Bye bye.Love you, boobs.Bye bye. We'll let your winners ride rain man David Sackdeh.And instead, we open source it to the fans. And they've just gone crazy with it. Love you.Besties are gone.Go 13.That is my dog taking an ocean.We should all just get a room and just have one big, huge orgy because they're all, it's like this, like, sexual tension that they just need to release somehow.

have been able to restore free speech? Do you think he'd be able to restore innovation? No. If you're running an institution, you have to be able to fire people when they don't perform. But we have lost that ability of our federal government. So there's something that's very, very broken here. When people fail, they have to be held accountable or you don't get good performance.

Right?

When institutions fail. There needs to be a question on why are we funding those institutions?

Nobody fired.

Why would you give more money to a failing company? You would never do it.

This is the comment I put in the letter that I sent to that senior Democrat back in October. I don't see any accountability with respect to the programs that you pass bills to fund. You pass bills to fund these programs, you stand up new institutions, and then there is never a retrospective post mortem or review on the performance of those institutions or the objective of those programs. And yet we keep funding them and asking for more money. And eventually you end up with a decaying empire like we've seen in history. We need to have a series of actions that drive accountability in outraged by what I said, and they were trying to claim online that somehow I'd been booed or something like that. There were absolutely no booze. There were actually people applauding. And then as I got deeper and deeper into the speech, people applauded it more and more. It was very much a speech that attacked the forever wars.It attacked the warmongers and complimented President Trump for keeping us out of wars and complimented him for being strong but also having the savviness and the ability to negotiate with our adversaries to keep us out of wars. And I think that's now a position that's very popular within the republican party. But it's a process. It's evolving.This is a perfect segue because there are reports that friend of the pod Tucker Carlson had a big impact on talking to Trump about his selection of JD Vance and said, don't pick a neocon that'll get you assassinated. There was one report that was advice that came before the assassination attempt, obviously. So conspiracy theorists are kind of losing their minds over this. But let's talk about the selection of JD Vance, because that is a big surprise, I think, in many quarters. Tell us about JD Vance. Your friends.Yeah, I mean, I'm friends with him, and I very much supported his selection for VP.Why is he the best pick, in your mind?Well, there's a couple of things. So JD Vance represents a couple of very interesting characteristics. On the one hand, he's from this poor region of Appalachia that really represents the forgotten man or the forgotten cities and towns in America. You could call it the MAGa heartland. And so MAGA really likes him. At the same time, hes worked in tech, he was a venture capitalist. He understands the future. And hes popular in tech. So its very unusual to get somebody who has MAGA plus tech on their side together. So thats one almost contradiction you could say that JD represents. Heres another one. JD Vance was in high school when the twin Towers came down. And then we invaded Iraq. And he was gung ho to serve and to go exact retribution and justice on America's enemies. And he enlisted in the Marine Corps, and he went off to serve in the Iraq war. Subsequently, he realized that we had all been lied to about the Iraq war and that it was a gigantic mistake. And moreover, the forever wars were a huge mistake. And to me, this is something that I really appreciate about him. And this is a quality that I really want at President Trump's side, which is he's an american patriot.He had the courage to serve, to go serve in America's wars. But he has the wisdom and the judgment to want to avoid those wars when we don't need to fight them. And there's way too many of, like you said, jason, these neocons, these warmongers in the party who've never, ever acknowledged their mistake in the Iraq war and all the forever wars. And they seem on virtually a daily basis to want to plunge us into the next forever war. So this is, I think, a quality that's of paramount importance to have in our commander in chief and in the person who would be next in line to be commander in chief. So for these reasons, I very much support JD.All right, so let me get some feedback from the rest of the panel. I'll just give you a couple of bullet points about him. For those of you who don't know, JD Vance, yeah. He worked at Peter Thiel's mythical capital and Steve cases revolution. And so he worked for a Republican and a Democrat in Steve case. Started his own firm called Narya Capital, and he went to Ohio State, graduated Yale, was actually classmates with Vivek. They talked about that. He's only 39 years old, so he's half the age of Trump, as you mentioned, combat correspondent for six months in Iraq in 2000, 539 years old. And Teal backed him with, I think, the largest Senate race donation in history, 15 million. And so this is quite a ascension, chamath, from a venture capitalist to potentially vice president and obviously potentially president. He's in the second spot. So were you a proponent of the JD Vance as well?Superb.The press says you lobby Trump as well. Is that true?He's superb. I cannot say enough good things about this guy. He's superb. His wife is superb. He's a bit of an enigma, I think, as Sacks said, because his views are so unique and he comes from a background that is very similar to mine. So I have tremendous loyalty for the path that he had to navigate, to get out, just to get out. And I think that, that, you know, I really care for people like that. And then he's done really good things with the resources that he's been given and the relationships that he's built. And I really respect that, too.We all read hillbilly elegy. I don't know if we talked about it on this pod years ago, but you and I certainly talked about it a bunch. Jamath. And he came from nothing. Less than nothing, less than nothing addicts.And less than nothing.And he talks a lot in his book. I don't know if you remember this about social capital and the fact that he didn't understand the name of the firm is social capital for people who don't know the reference, that he just didn't have the social capital to even understand that a lawyer went to law school. Totally, and he is an enigma. His positions don't align with Trump's in every case, but they have quickly become aligned with Trump's.He's an incredible pick.Yeah, yeah. I thought he was an incredible pick before his speech last night, and he even exceeded my expectations in that speech. I just thought it was truly an incredible speech. First of all, the introduction by his wife, Usha, was really, you know, incredible. I thought she did a fantastic job. And then he got up there, and I had a friend text me who's not really that into politics. He's just like, this guy seems so normal. He's happy, he's normal. He seems competent. There was one commentator, I think, on one of the cable shows who I think meant this as an insult, but it actually was positive. He said that when you're at, like, a fast food restaurant or something and need to ask for the manager, JD Vance is the person you hope is the manager. He comes out, he's friendly, he's competent, he's reasonable. He knows how to get stuff done. I'm not sure if that was meant as an insult or a competency.I can tell you that's meant as an insult.Yeah, but I think it's a compliment. Right. And he's just so normal. He's gonna be very hard to demonize. Obviously, they're trying to do it on cable news. They're somehow trying to portray him as an extremist or a racist, even though he has a mixed race family.The tent of the Republican Party at this RNC, Sacks, is the most wide open tent I've ever seen in politics. They had Amber Rose, and people were criticizing Amber Rose.She was excellent. She was excellent.She was fantastic. I thought her.She was excellent.And she knocked the ball out of the park.She's absolutely radiant.She's a feminist.Beautiful, and she crushed it.I thought speech was effective. I thought it was authentic. And it would describe her red pilling. Basically, it described her evolution and her journey from someone who believed the media's lies about Trump thinking that he was a racist to actually meeting the man herself, realizing that the way they had portrayed him was basically a slander. And how she became friends with President Trump, I thought was an incredibly effective speech. But look, there is very few people who didn't like it. There was this one post by Matt Walsh online, and he was roundly denounced for what he said. I mean, he kind of engaged in this pearl clutching that they had allowed.Amber rose to speak because of her apparently value judging.And it's like, who's Matt Walsh to judge?Give me a break.It felt like a part of the Republican Party that's on its way out, this pearl clutching social conservatism. In any event, it was really an opportunity, I think, for people to disavow his criticism and support her.Yeah, she did. My great point here is what, you know, they've done a really great job of. And Vivek did a wonderful job in his talk. I want to give him a shout out of just saying, hey, listen, everybody can be part of this party. I think there's a lot of notes the Democrats could take from what they saw at the Republican National Convention. These are people who would have been at the DNC but one election cycle ago. But because of this purity test, you can't even win with them.Let's take the obvious. We're trending into a direction right now where, based on Donald Trump's pick for the vice president and some of the other surrogates like Vivek, if Donald Trump were to win, what you're going to see is a very youthful cabinet of a lot of 30 somethings and 40 somethings. And I think that that's a really important thing to consider versus a bunch of 60, 70 and 80 year old career politicians. Correct?Absolutely. Youth and vigor. And again, this new direction. You know, a lot of people were commenting about JD's speech, that large parts of it could have been given by Bernie Sanders or, you know, it was this populist message that, well, let me ask you that.Yes, he's had a position of breaking up big tech and being pro union. How do you reconcile all that and this new Republican Party? Address those two? Because that seems to be a big discussion. Two discussion topics.Yeah, I think that it's definitely a new emergent republican party where I think this is Donald Trump's republican party. This is the MAGA wing, the America first wing of the Republican Party. We're moving from a party of basically the chamber of Commerce Business Roundtable, a bunch of oligarchic fat cats, to being a populist party that actually represents the people. And I think it's a very. And they had the Teamsters up there. Yeah. And I think it's a very welcome change. And the part of JD's speech that I like the best is when he described that, hey, I went off and many other people went off to fight in these forever wars, risking our lives or giving our lives. We come back to our home communities, and what do we find? We find them hollowed out. The jobs have all been exported, the factories have shut down, and instead the town has been poisoned by fentanyl. That is a message that you have not heard in the Republican Party, except for Donald Trump and that new part of the party. And I think that Donald Trump choosing JD Vance was so important to cement this new vision of the Republican Party.It was a legacy pick because it means that this America first MAGA message is gonna continue into the future, many years into the future. And let me just tell you, as I listened to that speech, I hearkened back to another speech at a republican convention I heard 32 years ago. I'm sorry to say I'm old enough to actually remember these things. And I remember Pat Buchanan's speech in 1992. And after Pat described the factory workers who lost their jobs. I just wanted to read you what he said, and I want you to think about what JD said. So what Buchanan said was, my friends, these people are our people. They don't read Adam Smith or Edmund Burke, but they come from the same schoolyards and the same playgrounds and towns as we come from. They share our beliefs and convictions, our hopes and dreams. They are the conservatives of the heart. They are our people. And we need to reconnect with them. We need to let them know we know how bad they're hurting. They don't expect miracles of us, but they need to know we care. And I think that for too long, republican leaders ignored that advice.They didn't connect with everyday Americans. They were foolishly willing to cut programs like Social Security or Medicare, saying that we had to cut the deficit while at the same time funding forever wars. So they're totally not credible. And the party was basically led by warmongers like Dick Cheney or Mitch McConnell or soulless bean counters like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. And I think Vance really broke with all of that. And I think he represents the future of the party. He trashed the Iraq war. He promised no more foreign interventions. He railed against policies that benefit multinational corporations at the expense of workers. And I think it's no wonder that the neocons lobbied so hard against his selection.Freberg, let's get you on.I think those days are over. And I think that just means to say this, end with this, that I think that Donald Trump and JD Vance represent a conservatism of the heart that we haven't seen before. And I think this is the future of the Republican Party.Freeberg, does JD Vance being selected tip your vote towards Trump Vance ticket?I think he's going to do well for Trump. I think if he, who were his other options?Nikki Halley. I mean, they were pressure for him to go after a lot of the neocons. Right, Sacks. And get the never trumper contingent. Wasn't that like a lot of the pressure?Absolutely.I mean, I think there was Doug Bergam, who was that was your favorite?Noam Friedberg, not my favorite. I met him, seemed like a really thoughtful guy. He's done an incredible job managing the state of North Dakota, but he's got some social policy issues that I think are going to rub people the wrong way. And I think to Sacks point, he's more in the camp of supporting Ukraine, which it seems like some part of the party are starting to come around and say no. So it seems like he wasn't a great fit ultimately.Yeah. By the way, I met Doug Bergam the other night, and he's a very nice man who I think could play a very important role. Very nice guy who I think can play a major, major role in the.Built an incredible business, sold it to Microsoft.Yeah. There's nobody who understands, I think, energy better and all the regulations that have gotten in the way of making America energy independent and tapping our vast energy reserves. So I found him very, very impressive on that. But at the end of the day, it's just not the kind of pick that JD is.I remain a moderate undecided voter. I love JD Vance. I think it's an inspired choice. I know Sachs, where you're voting. I'll take some guesses on you, Chamoth. But Freiberg, where are you standing right now?I'm very happy that RFK junior was not selected as the VP.Why?To be on the ticket. I think RFK would have been a challenging partner for Trump and it would have led to a lot of disagreements. And I think that RFK has some policy perspectives that I don't agree with, particularly as it relates to health, energy, agriculture. And so there are some disagreements I have with respect to his view of the world. I will say JD seems like a pragmatist. He seems highly intelligent. He seems highly competent. And I know that he has not been in a governing position before. Right. So this is really critical to note. This is a training job for him in a large way. Hes been a senator and hes been an investor and hes been an individual contributor. As an investor, hes built his own firm, but its not a scaled firm. So this is going to be a really interesting kind of process to watch unfold. But I think from a policy and a strategy perspective, he can have a really positive impact on the direction of the things that we talked about earlier, which is accountability in government programs, having a clear set of objectives, making sure that we focus on those objectives and don't spend time and resources on things that are fluff and perhaps aren't really meeting the objectives.And I think that he'll have. The thing I do have concern about, I think that the nationalist agenda, the nationalism and the isolationism agenda is counter to global trade, which can be deeply inflationary. And that is one concern I do have, which is the ability for the US to export and import with other trade partners around the world, I think is critical for us to continue to grow our economy and keep inflation down. So if we take policy action that limits our ability to import because we impose tariffs on other countries goods and services, it can be inflationary. Makes things more expensive for Americans, everyday Americans, to buy. When everyday Americans go into Walmart and they buy products, a lot of those products are shipped from China. So if there's a tariff on those products and the price of those products now goes up by 30, 40%, that can be a real burden. That drives inflation. That's the point about the nationalism on manufacturing and inputs.So, Freiburg, you're pretty convinced at this point that a reciprocal trade agreement would cause inflation hyperinflation.No, no. I think that the idea that the general statement, which I don't think is necessarily how this is being executed. I just want to make sure that we're all cognizant the point that if you introduce tariffs on imports, it will drive prices up. Now, that may be the right thing to do from a policy perspective, as we heard from President Trump when we interviewed him, his belief is that this is an important security stick, that we use it to drive reciprocity, and we use it to hold China in check. And so that may be a more important strategic priority over the increase in the price of certain goods. The problem that will arise, and this happened during the last Trump administration, if China then responds with tariffs on the export of us agricultural products, our biggest buyer of agricultural products today is China. And then China put tariffs on our export, or they stopped buying from the US and they started buying from Brazil instead. The farmers are hurt. And when the farmers are hurt, the Trump administration had to spend money to support farmers. Tens of billions of dollars subsidized it. They paid farmers in a way.And so the federal government then has to step in to meet the gap that arises from what will end up becoming an escalating tariff problem or escalating purchasing problem. So global trade allows the economy to grow, gives everyone a market. You can start to trade, but there's also these security issues. I do think it's important that we onshore a lot of manufacturing. I think it's important. But there's going to be a period of pain. There's going to be an investment needed, and it's not going to be simple and easy. And we may face quite a bit of inflation on the path to doing that.Can you give us an update here at the end of the show? Friedberg Scholarships and that people have been asking for the all in summit.So this week we are opening up scholarship applications. You can go to Summit all in podcast Co. And we have a very, very, very limited number of scholarship tickets that we hold for the summit like we did the last two years. The applications are open now. Please get your application in right away because we expect it will be completely overbooked almost immediately. And some of those scholarships are going to be sponsored by athletic Brewing company. So thank you to Athletic Brewing Company for paying for a lot of our scholarship recipients to go to the all in summit this year. Really exciting programming coming together. We have more details to share in the next couple of weeks. And we do, we do have one more last block of Gaez tickets that we're going to release. Get your application in on the website. Summit all in podcast Co. For a GA ticket for the last block. Thank you.All right, let's just do one quick business story here. Since we spent the bulk of the episode talking about politics and current events, exits creeping back. Sequoia is doing a secondary sale of their stripe investment, one of the greatest investments of the last decade. And Google is in talks to acquire Wiz. And this is absolutely amazing news for the industry, which has been suffering from a lack of distributions. As you can see in this chart, after 2021, exit values just plummeted and there are some signs of life. Now, let's start with Sequoia buying back some stripe shares from its own LP's. Sequoia Capital has invested 517 million in Stripe that's currently worth about 10,000,000,020 x. Michael Moritz led the seed in Series A. Sequoia offered to buy back 860 million in Stripe shares from LP's and its legacy funds. Those are the funds between 2009 and 2012. Sequoia is using capital from their newer funds, like its evergreen fund that was formed in 2021, the Heritage fund. That's their wealth management team, to give the legacy funds some liquidity. It's not normal that a company stayed private this long. It is the exception to the rule.But it has happened, actually happened with Uber to a certain extent. So legacy fund LP's have the choice sacs to hold, sell some, or sell all of their stripe shares. Here's the quote from the note. Sequoia personnel and associated persons will not be offered the option to sell stripe shares previously received as carried interest distributions from the legacy funds and they are offering 27.50 a share, which is pretty generous $70 billion valuation. As you may know, Stripe has hit as high as 100 billion in market cap in the private markets. So this will be from the seed, which was a 20 million post, 3500 x for those Lp's and for the Series A. It is a hundred million dollar post, which is 700 x for those people who don't know. I think it was Sam Altman who actually did that investment as a sequoia scout in the same fund that I did, the Uber investment. So still the number one and two investments there. Your thoughts, Chamath, on this unique opportunity and device to sell early shares from the same venture fund?I have two thoughts. The first is that it's interesting to see that they mark the valuation up to 70 billion. So that's a good sign for Stripe. But the second thing is, I was a little puzzled by this whole thing. It's a very complicated thing when you're buying old stakes into a new fund and crossing funds. It's sort of like actually one of those things that are supposed to be verboten. And when you're trying to build a good fund with great governance, this is actually at the top of the list of the things that you're never supposed to do, which is to provide liquidity to a group of LP's via another fund that you control. But I think this actually shows what may be going on behind the scenes. So I don't want to be conspiratorial or anything, but it would be a great way for the GPS to get liquid to meet their capital calls here without having to pay capital gains tax. And that makes a lot of sense for the GPS themselves. And so I suspect that that probably.Well, they did say that the gps aren't going to get to liquidate anything, so they did put that note in there.So they provide, you can provide no meaning. But what that means is you can provide liquidity. You don't get to pull the money out, that's fine. But then now you can use it to fund capital calls. But I don't like it. I don't like these kinds of things where one fund is basically scratching the back of another fund. It always tends to be the case that this stuff on the surface looks a little smelly year extensions to the funds. So then the question is, what do you do at year twelve if you still got honest with you, the quality of the product. Obviously, I don't interact with those kind of products every day, but the fact that they're willing to pay such a premium means, a, the product is good, but more importantly, b, in the absence of cloud security, these cloud vendors are going to be constrained in how fast they can grow. So what an incredible market. What an incredible, incredible market.I have to say, these two things have really helped the climate in the lp community this past week. A lot of chatter about ipos that are getting filed and that we could be ending the drought. And people were feeling very, very pessimistic about venture as a category. And I think these two things have changed a lot of people's feelings on that. So good work there. And I think it also signals maybe some regime change expectation. Sachs yeah, Lena Khan maybe getting booted when this regime change occurs next year, and then maybe more m and A would occur. What's Trump's and JD Vance's position in your mind, on M and A and Lena Khan? SACHS if you had to interpret it.Well, something that's very interesting is that JD Vance has been relatively positive towards Lena Khan.Yeah, that's the weird.He's one of Lena Khan's few republican fans. And the reason for that is because Lena Khan, for all of her faults and we've described them here, has been willing to take on big tech. The fact of the matter is that the top handful of tech companies, the Microsofts, the Googles, Amazon, these are big tech monopolies. There's just no way around that fact. And they do need to be closely watched and supervised and regulated with respect to their market power. And I do think they use their market power in inappropriate ways. As we've discussed on this podcast, I sometimes think that Lina Khanda, in her approach, has been a little bit more of a cleaver when she needed to use a scalpel. I dont think that she should stop some of these, what I would call R and D acquisitions, from taking place where theres no accretion of market share, but rather startups being bought because they contribute a useful piece of technology. I dont think you want to shut down that part of the market. Lord knows we dont have enough exits as it is. Like we were just talking about. I think it would be great if we could massage Lena Khan's approach a little bit.But I think that it is a good thing that she's not willing to just roll over and let the big tech companies do whatever they want. And I think JD Vance appreciates that about her. So, look, I don't think that Lena Khan is going to be running that agency in a second Trump administration. But I think the problem with Republicans.Though, sacks, is the freedom of speech issue and Republicans being banned on the social platforms, including it up to Trump. I mean, if that issue wasn't there, I think you would probably see maybe a different approach.Yeah, well, I think it's a huge issue because the fact of the matter is you've got these tech monopolies who are using their monopolistic market power to put their thumb on the scale of our political discourse in favor of one side versus the other. So obviously, if you're on that side of the aisle, you're going to be up in arms about that. You're not going to be happy about that. And I do think that given their market power, they have an obligation not to distort our democracy by artificially suppressing one side of the debate.Yeah.So I think that, yes, Republicans should be up in arms about that, and they should be resisting censorship. And JD Vance specifically mentioned censorship in his speech.That seems to be his main issue. I think we'll see under Trump a lot more mid market m and a. If I were to, you know, let's call it under $100 billion, $100 billion acquisition would be fine with me. Under 100.Well, I really liked the part of his speech where he said that in a healthy democracy, we debate ideas. And that's good. We even have debates in the Republican Party, and that's good. The last thing you want to do is censor the marketplace for ideas. Gosh, I mean, are we going to hear anything like that from the Democrats when they do their convention?Well, in breaking news, as we wrap up this program, the hot swap summer will continue. Apparently, Biden is predicted to resign this weekend. We'll see if it happens. Speedrun primary Nostradamus is predicting it happens. Nostra canis. Nostracanus will get it straight. Nostra Canis will keep his position. The hot swap is coming.Well, Jake, at this point, I think you were right about Biden stepping aside. I thought he was out of the woods. He did that press conference, that NATO press conference, where he did make that one mistake, that senior moment where Trump was his vp. Yeah.Oops.But that was the kind of thing where he got his name mixed up. But otherwise, he sort of seems to be finding his footing in terms of talking about policy. And the brush fire was sort of put out. Right. But then for some unknown reason, he goes on and does that Lester Holt interview. I don't know why they were still letting him do interviews. He should only be reading from a dull prompter. And he mixes up. He forgets the name of his secretary of defense, Lloyd Austin, and he just refers to him as the black man, the bet, as a bet interview. So he did the Lester Holt interview, which was not good. And then he did the bet interview, which was good.Well, the money's dried up, right, chamath? So once the money goes, it's over.Well, yeah. And he also did a horrible one with 360, with speedy, speedy Mormon. And that was a train wreck. There was a couple moments there that are just total gaffes.They say Pelosi and Schumer told him, it's over. And I guess that means. And Katzenberg.You're right, Jason. When the big money is gone and they make the call, it's done.It's done.Isn't that amazing? What we've learned about the democratic party, the coup de Grasse was basically Katzenberg going in there saying, yeah, I can't raise any money for you. And then, boom, he's out.I am shocked that any political party would be swayed in any way by political donations. Enjoy the.Enjoy the hard c, sacks.I love you guys. I gotta go to dinner.Love you guys. Talk to you soon. For the chairman, dictator, the architect, David Sack, and your sultan of science who ducked out a little bit early, I am the world's greatest moderate moderator. We'll see you next time. Bye bye.Love you, boobs.Bye bye. We'll let your winners ride rain man David Sackdeh.And instead, we open source it to the fans. And they've just gone crazy with it. Love you.Besties are gone.Go 13.That is my dog taking an ocean.We should all just get a room and just have one big, huge orgy because they're all, it's like this, like, sexual tension that they just need to release somehow.

outraged by what I said, and they were trying to claim online that somehow I'd been booed or something like that. There were absolutely no booze. There were actually people applauding. And then as I got deeper and deeper into the speech, people applauded it more and more. It was very much a speech that attacked the forever wars.

It attacked the warmongers and complimented President Trump for keeping us out of wars and complimented him for being strong but also having the savviness and the ability to negotiate with our adversaries to keep us out of wars. And I think that's now a position that's very popular within the republican party. But it's a process. It's evolving.

This is a perfect segue because there are reports that friend of the pod Tucker Carlson had a big impact on talking to Trump about his selection of JD Vance and said, don't pick a neocon that'll get you assassinated. There was one report that was advice that came before the assassination attempt, obviously. So conspiracy theorists are kind of losing their minds over this. But let's talk about the selection of JD Vance, because that is a big surprise, I think, in many quarters. Tell us about JD Vance. Your friends.

Yeah, I mean, I'm friends with him, and I very much supported his selection for VP.

Why is he the best pick, in your mind?

Well, there's a couple of things. So JD Vance represents a couple of very interesting characteristics. On the one hand, he's from this poor region of Appalachia that really represents the forgotten man or the forgotten cities and towns in America. You could call it the MAGa heartland. And so MAGA really likes him. At the same time, hes worked in tech, he was a venture capitalist. He understands the future. And hes popular in tech. So its very unusual to get somebody who has MAGA plus tech on their side together. So thats one almost contradiction you could say that JD represents. Heres another one. JD Vance was in high school when the twin Towers came down. And then we invaded Iraq. And he was gung ho to serve and to go exact retribution and justice on America's enemies. And he enlisted in the Marine Corps, and he went off to serve in the Iraq war. Subsequently, he realized that we had all been lied to about the Iraq war and that it was a gigantic mistake. And moreover, the forever wars were a huge mistake. And to me, this is something that I really appreciate about him. And this is a quality that I really want at President Trump's side, which is he's an american patriot.

He had the courage to serve, to go serve in America's wars. But he has the wisdom and the judgment to want to avoid those wars when we don't need to fight them. And there's way too many of, like you said, jason, these neocons, these warmongers in the party who've never, ever acknowledged their mistake in the Iraq war and all the forever wars. And they seem on virtually a daily basis to want to plunge us into the next forever war. So this is, I think, a quality that's of paramount importance to have in our commander in chief and in the person who would be next in line to be commander in chief. So for these reasons, I very much support JD.

All right, so let me get some feedback from the rest of the panel. I'll just give you a couple of bullet points about him. For those of you who don't know, JD Vance, yeah. He worked at Peter Thiel's mythical capital and Steve cases revolution. And so he worked for a Republican and a Democrat in Steve case. Started his own firm called Narya Capital, and he went to Ohio State, graduated Yale, was actually classmates with Vivek. They talked about that. He's only 39 years old, so he's half the age of Trump, as you mentioned, combat correspondent for six months in Iraq in 2000, 539 years old. And Teal backed him with, I think, the largest Senate race donation in history, 15 million. And so this is quite a ascension, chamath, from a venture capitalist to potentially vice president and obviously potentially president. He's in the second spot. So were you a proponent of the JD Vance as well?

Superb.

The press says you lobby Trump as well. Is that true?

He's superb. I cannot say enough good things about this guy. He's superb. His wife is superb. He's a bit of an enigma, I think, as Sacks said, because his views are so unique and he comes from a background that is very similar to mine. So I have tremendous loyalty for the path that he had to navigate, to get out, just to get out. And I think that, that, you know, I really care for people like that. And then he's done really good things with the resources that he's been given and the relationships that he's built. And I really respect that, too.

We all read hillbilly elegy. I don't know if we talked about it on this pod years ago, but you and I certainly talked about it a bunch. Jamath. And he came from nothing. Less than nothing, less than nothing addicts.

And less than nothing.

And he talks a lot in his book. I don't know if you remember this about social capital and the fact that he didn't understand the name of the firm is social capital for people who don't know the reference, that he just didn't have the social capital to even understand that a lawyer went to law school. Totally, and he is an enigma. His positions don't align with Trump's in every case, but they have quickly become aligned with Trump's.

He's an incredible pick.

Yeah, yeah. I thought he was an incredible pick before his speech last night, and he even exceeded my expectations in that speech. I just thought it was truly an incredible speech. First of all, the introduction by his wife, Usha, was really, you know, incredible. I thought she did a fantastic job. And then he got up there, and I had a friend text me who's not really that into politics. He's just like, this guy seems so normal. He's happy, he's normal. He seems competent. There was one commentator, I think, on one of the cable shows who I think meant this as an insult, but it actually was positive. He said that when you're at, like, a fast food restaurant or something and need to ask for the manager, JD Vance is the person you hope is the manager. He comes out, he's friendly, he's competent, he's reasonable. He knows how to get stuff done. I'm not sure if that was meant as an insult or a competency.

I can tell you that's meant as an insult.

Yeah, but I think it's a compliment. Right. And he's just so normal. He's gonna be very hard to demonize. Obviously, they're trying to do it on cable news. They're somehow trying to portray him as an extremist or a racist, even though he has a mixed race family.

The tent of the Republican Party at this RNC, Sacks, is the most wide open tent I've ever seen in politics. They had Amber Rose, and people were criticizing Amber Rose.

She was excellent. She was excellent.

She was fantastic. I thought her.

She was excellent.

And she knocked the ball out of the park.

She's absolutely radiant.

She's a feminist.

Beautiful, and she crushed it.

I thought speech was effective. I thought it was authentic. And it would describe her red pilling. Basically, it described her evolution and her journey from someone who believed the media's lies about Trump thinking that he was a racist to actually meeting the man herself, realizing that the way they had portrayed him was basically a slander. And how she became friends with President Trump, I thought was an incredibly effective speech. But look, there is very few people who didn't like it. There was this one post by Matt Walsh online, and he was roundly denounced for what he said. I mean, he kind of engaged in this pearl clutching that they had allowed.

Amber rose to speak because of her apparently value judging.

And it's like, who's Matt Walsh to judge?

Give me a break.

It felt like a part of the Republican Party that's on its way out, this pearl clutching social conservatism. In any event, it was really an opportunity, I think, for people to disavow his criticism and support her.

Yeah, she did. My great point here is what, you know, they've done a really great job of. And Vivek did a wonderful job in his talk. I want to give him a shout out of just saying, hey, listen, everybody can be part of this party. I think there's a lot of notes the Democrats could take from what they saw at the Republican National Convention. These are people who would have been at the DNC but one election cycle ago. But because of this purity test, you can't even win with them.

Let's take the obvious. We're trending into a direction right now where, based on Donald Trump's pick for the vice president and some of the other surrogates like Vivek, if Donald Trump were to win, what you're going to see is a very youthful cabinet of a lot of 30 somethings and 40 somethings. And I think that that's a really important thing to consider versus a bunch of 60, 70 and 80 year old career politicians. Correct?

Absolutely. Youth and vigor. And again, this new direction. You know, a lot of people were commenting about JD's speech, that large parts of it could have been given by Bernie Sanders or, you know, it was this populist message that, well, let me ask you that.

Yes, he's had a position of breaking up big tech and being pro union. How do you reconcile all that and this new Republican Party? Address those two? Because that seems to be a big discussion. Two discussion topics.

Yeah, I think that it's definitely a new emergent republican party where I think this is Donald Trump's republican party. This is the MAGA wing, the America first wing of the Republican Party. We're moving from a party of basically the chamber of Commerce Business Roundtable, a bunch of oligarchic fat cats, to being a populist party that actually represents the people. And I think it's a very. And they had the Teamsters up there. Yeah. And I think it's a very welcome change. And the part of JD's speech that I like the best is when he described that, hey, I went off and many other people went off to fight in these forever wars, risking our lives or giving our lives. We come back to our home communities, and what do we find? We find them hollowed out. The jobs have all been exported, the factories have shut down, and instead the town has been poisoned by fentanyl. That is a message that you have not heard in the Republican Party, except for Donald Trump and that new part of the party. And I think that Donald Trump choosing JD Vance was so important to cement this new vision of the Republican Party.

It was a legacy pick because it means that this America first MAGA message is gonna continue into the future, many years into the future. And let me just tell you, as I listened to that speech, I hearkened back to another speech at a republican convention I heard 32 years ago. I'm sorry to say I'm old enough to actually remember these things. And I remember Pat Buchanan's speech in 1992. And after Pat described the factory workers who lost their jobs. I just wanted to read you what he said, and I want you to think about what JD said. So what Buchanan said was, my friends, these people are our people. They don't read Adam Smith or Edmund Burke, but they come from the same schoolyards and the same playgrounds and towns as we come from. They share our beliefs and convictions, our hopes and dreams. They are the conservatives of the heart. They are our people. And we need to reconnect with them. We need to let them know we know how bad they're hurting. They don't expect miracles of us, but they need to know we care. And I think that for too long, republican leaders ignored that advice.

They didn't connect with everyday Americans. They were foolishly willing to cut programs like Social Security or Medicare, saying that we had to cut the deficit while at the same time funding forever wars. So they're totally not credible. And the party was basically led by warmongers like Dick Cheney or Mitch McConnell or soulless bean counters like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. And I think Vance really broke with all of that. And I think he represents the future of the party. He trashed the Iraq war. He promised no more foreign interventions. He railed against policies that benefit multinational corporations at the expense of workers. And I think it's no wonder that the neocons lobbied so hard against his selection.

Freberg, let's get you on.

I think those days are over. And I think that just means to say this, end with this, that I think that Donald Trump and JD Vance represent a conservatism of the heart that we haven't seen before. And I think this is the future of the Republican Party.

Freeberg, does JD Vance being selected tip your vote towards Trump Vance ticket?

I think he's going to do well for Trump. I think if he, who were his other options?

Nikki Halley. I mean, they were pressure for him to go after a lot of the neocons. Right, Sacks. And get the never trumper contingent. Wasn't that like a lot of the pressure?

Absolutely.

I mean, I think there was Doug Bergam, who was that was your favorite?

Noam Friedberg, not my favorite. I met him, seemed like a really thoughtful guy. He's done an incredible job managing the state of North Dakota, but he's got some social policy issues that I think are going to rub people the wrong way. And I think to Sacks point, he's more in the camp of supporting Ukraine, which it seems like some part of the party are starting to come around and say no. So it seems like he wasn't a great fit ultimately.

Yeah. By the way, I met Doug Bergam the other night, and he's a very nice man who I think could play a very important role. Very nice guy who I think can play a major, major role in the.

Built an incredible business, sold it to Microsoft.

Yeah. There's nobody who understands, I think, energy better and all the regulations that have gotten in the way of making America energy independent and tapping our vast energy reserves. So I found him very, very impressive on that. But at the end of the day, it's just not the kind of pick that JD is.

I remain a moderate undecided voter. I love JD Vance. I think it's an inspired choice. I know Sachs, where you're voting. I'll take some guesses on you, Chamoth. But Freiberg, where are you standing right now?

I'm very happy that RFK junior was not selected as the VP.

Why?

To be on the ticket. I think RFK would have been a challenging partner for Trump and it would have led to a lot of disagreements. And I think that RFK has some policy perspectives that I don't agree with, particularly as it relates to health, energy, agriculture. And so there are some disagreements I have with respect to his view of the world. I will say JD seems like a pragmatist. He seems highly intelligent. He seems highly competent. And I know that he has not been in a governing position before. Right. So this is really critical to note. This is a training job for him in a large way. Hes been a senator and hes been an investor and hes been an individual contributor. As an investor, hes built his own firm, but its not a scaled firm. So this is going to be a really interesting kind of process to watch unfold. But I think from a policy and a strategy perspective, he can have a really positive impact on the direction of the things that we talked about earlier, which is accountability in government programs, having a clear set of objectives, making sure that we focus on those objectives and don't spend time and resources on things that are fluff and perhaps aren't really meeting the objectives.

And I think that he'll have. The thing I do have concern about, I think that the nationalist agenda, the nationalism and the isolationism agenda is counter to global trade, which can be deeply inflationary. And that is one concern I do have, which is the ability for the US to export and import with other trade partners around the world, I think is critical for us to continue to grow our economy and keep inflation down. So if we take policy action that limits our ability to import because we impose tariffs on other countries goods and services, it can be inflationary. Makes things more expensive for Americans, everyday Americans, to buy. When everyday Americans go into Walmart and they buy products, a lot of those products are shipped from China. So if there's a tariff on those products and the price of those products now goes up by 30, 40%, that can be a real burden. That drives inflation. That's the point about the nationalism on manufacturing and inputs.

So, Freiburg, you're pretty convinced at this point that a reciprocal trade agreement would cause inflation hyperinflation.

No, no. I think that the idea that the general statement, which I don't think is necessarily how this is being executed. I just want to make sure that we're all cognizant the point that if you introduce tariffs on imports, it will drive prices up. Now, that may be the right thing to do from a policy perspective, as we heard from President Trump when we interviewed him, his belief is that this is an important security stick, that we use it to drive reciprocity, and we use it to hold China in check. And so that may be a more important strategic priority over the increase in the price of certain goods. The problem that will arise, and this happened during the last Trump administration, if China then responds with tariffs on the export of us agricultural products, our biggest buyer of agricultural products today is China. And then China put tariffs on our export, or they stopped buying from the US and they started buying from Brazil instead. The farmers are hurt. And when the farmers are hurt, the Trump administration had to spend money to support farmers. Tens of billions of dollars subsidized it. They paid farmers in a way.

And so the federal government then has to step in to meet the gap that arises from what will end up becoming an escalating tariff problem or escalating purchasing problem. So global trade allows the economy to grow, gives everyone a market. You can start to trade, but there's also these security issues. I do think it's important that we onshore a lot of manufacturing. I think it's important. But there's going to be a period of pain. There's going to be an investment needed, and it's not going to be simple and easy. And we may face quite a bit of inflation on the path to doing that.

Can you give us an update here at the end of the show? Friedberg Scholarships and that people have been asking for the all in summit.

So this week we are opening up scholarship applications. You can go to Summit all in podcast Co. And we have a very, very, very limited number of scholarship tickets that we hold for the summit like we did the last two years. The applications are open now. Please get your application in right away because we expect it will be completely overbooked almost immediately. And some of those scholarships are going to be sponsored by athletic Brewing company. So thank you to Athletic Brewing Company for paying for a lot of our scholarship recipients to go to the all in summit this year. Really exciting programming coming together. We have more details to share in the next couple of weeks. And we do, we do have one more last block of Gaez tickets that we're going to release. Get your application in on the website. Summit all in podcast Co. For a GA ticket for the last block. Thank you.

All right, let's just do one quick business story here. Since we spent the bulk of the episode talking about politics and current events, exits creeping back. Sequoia is doing a secondary sale of their stripe investment, one of the greatest investments of the last decade. And Google is in talks to acquire Wiz. And this is absolutely amazing news for the industry, which has been suffering from a lack of distributions. As you can see in this chart, after 2021, exit values just plummeted and there are some signs of life. Now, let's start with Sequoia buying back some stripe shares from its own LP's. Sequoia Capital has invested 517 million in Stripe that's currently worth about 10,000,000,020 x. Michael Moritz led the seed in Series A. Sequoia offered to buy back 860 million in Stripe shares from LP's and its legacy funds. Those are the funds between 2009 and 2012. Sequoia is using capital from their newer funds, like its evergreen fund that was formed in 2021, the Heritage fund. That's their wealth management team, to give the legacy funds some liquidity. It's not normal that a company stayed private this long. It is the exception to the rule.

But it has happened, actually happened with Uber to a certain extent. So legacy fund LP's have the choice sacs to hold, sell some, or sell all of their stripe shares. Here's the quote from the note. Sequoia personnel and associated persons will not be offered the option to sell stripe shares previously received as carried interest distributions from the legacy funds and they are offering 27.50 a share, which is pretty generous $70 billion valuation. As you may know, Stripe has hit as high as 100 billion in market cap in the private markets. So this will be from the seed, which was a 20 million post, 3500 x for those Lp's and for the Series A. It is a hundred million dollar post, which is 700 x for those people who don't know. I think it was Sam Altman who actually did that investment as a sequoia scout in the same fund that I did, the Uber investment. So still the number one and two investments there. Your thoughts, Chamath, on this unique opportunity and device to sell early shares from the same venture fund?

I have two thoughts. The first is that it's interesting to see that they mark the valuation up to 70 billion. So that's a good sign for Stripe. But the second thing is, I was a little puzzled by this whole thing. It's a very complicated thing when you're buying old stakes into a new fund and crossing funds. It's sort of like actually one of those things that are supposed to be verboten. And when you're trying to build a good fund with great governance, this is actually at the top of the list of the things that you're never supposed to do, which is to provide liquidity to a group of LP's via another fund that you control. But I think this actually shows what may be going on behind the scenes. So I don't want to be conspiratorial or anything, but it would be a great way for the GPS to get liquid to meet their capital calls here without having to pay capital gains tax. And that makes a lot of sense for the GPS themselves. And so I suspect that that probably.

Well, they did say that the gps aren't going to get to liquidate anything, so they did put that note in there.

So they provide, you can provide no meaning. But what that means is you can provide liquidity. You don't get to pull the money out, that's fine. But then now you can use it to fund capital calls. But I don't like it. I don't like these kinds of things where one fund is basically scratching the back of another fund. It always tends to be the case that this stuff on the surface looks a little smelly year extensions to the funds. So then the question is, what do you do at year twelve if you still got honest with you, the quality of the product. Obviously, I don't interact with those kind of products every day, but the fact that they're willing to pay such a premium means, a, the product is good, but more importantly, b, in the absence of cloud security, these cloud vendors are going to be constrained in how fast they can grow. So what an incredible market. What an incredible, incredible market.I have to say, these two things have really helped the climate in the lp community this past week. A lot of chatter about ipos that are getting filed and that we could be ending the drought. And people were feeling very, very pessimistic about venture as a category. And I think these two things have changed a lot of people's feelings on that. So good work there. And I think it also signals maybe some regime change expectation. Sachs yeah, Lena Khan maybe getting booted when this regime change occurs next year, and then maybe more m and A would occur. What's Trump's and JD Vance's position in your mind, on M and A and Lena Khan? SACHS if you had to interpret it.Well, something that's very interesting is that JD Vance has been relatively positive towards Lena Khan.Yeah, that's the weird.He's one of Lena Khan's few republican fans. And the reason for that is because Lena Khan, for all of her faults and we've described them here, has been willing to take on big tech. The fact of the matter is that the top handful of tech companies, the Microsofts, the Googles, Amazon, these are big tech monopolies. There's just no way around that fact. And they do need to be closely watched and supervised and regulated with respect to their market power. And I do think they use their market power in inappropriate ways. As we've discussed on this podcast, I sometimes think that Lina Khanda, in her approach, has been a little bit more of a cleaver when she needed to use a scalpel. I dont think that she should stop some of these, what I would call R and D acquisitions, from taking place where theres no accretion of market share, but rather startups being bought because they contribute a useful piece of technology. I dont think you want to shut down that part of the market. Lord knows we dont have enough exits as it is. Like we were just talking about. I think it would be great if we could massage Lena Khan's approach a little bit.But I think that it is a good thing that she's not willing to just roll over and let the big tech companies do whatever they want. And I think JD Vance appreciates that about her. So, look, I don't think that Lena Khan is going to be running that agency in a second Trump administration. But I think the problem with Republicans.Though, sacks, is the freedom of speech issue and Republicans being banned on the social platforms, including it up to Trump. I mean, if that issue wasn't there, I think you would probably see maybe a different approach.Yeah, well, I think it's a huge issue because the fact of the matter is you've got these tech monopolies who are using their monopolistic market power to put their thumb on the scale of our political discourse in favor of one side versus the other. So obviously, if you're on that side of the aisle, you're going to be up in arms about that. You're not going to be happy about that. And I do think that given their market power, they have an obligation not to distort our democracy by artificially suppressing one side of the debate.Yeah.So I think that, yes, Republicans should be up in arms about that, and they should be resisting censorship. And JD Vance specifically mentioned censorship in his speech.That seems to be his main issue. I think we'll see under Trump a lot more mid market m and a. If I were to, you know, let's call it under $100 billion, $100 billion acquisition would be fine with me. Under 100.Well, I really liked the part of his speech where he said that in a healthy democracy, we debate ideas. And that's good. We even have debates in the Republican Party, and that's good. The last thing you want to do is censor the marketplace for ideas. Gosh, I mean, are we going to hear anything like that from the Democrats when they do their convention?Well, in breaking news, as we wrap up this program, the hot swap summer will continue. Apparently, Biden is predicted to resign this weekend. We'll see if it happens. Speedrun primary Nostradamus is predicting it happens. Nostra canis. Nostracanus will get it straight. Nostra Canis will keep his position. The hot swap is coming.Well, Jake, at this point, I think you were right about Biden stepping aside. I thought he was out of the woods. He did that press conference, that NATO press conference, where he did make that one mistake, that senior moment where Trump was his vp. Yeah.Oops.But that was the kind of thing where he got his name mixed up. But otherwise, he sort of seems to be finding his footing in terms of talking about policy. And the brush fire was sort of put out. Right. But then for some unknown reason, he goes on and does that Lester Holt interview. I don't know why they were still letting him do interviews. He should only be reading from a dull prompter. And he mixes up. He forgets the name of his secretary of defense, Lloyd Austin, and he just refers to him as the black man, the bet, as a bet interview. So he did the Lester Holt interview, which was not good. And then he did the bet interview, which was good.Well, the money's dried up, right, chamath? So once the money goes, it's over.Well, yeah. And he also did a horrible one with 360, with speedy, speedy Mormon. And that was a train wreck. There was a couple moments there that are just total gaffes.They say Pelosi and Schumer told him, it's over. And I guess that means. And Katzenberg.You're right, Jason. When the big money is gone and they make the call, it's done.It's done.Isn't that amazing? What we've learned about the democratic party, the coup de Grasse was basically Katzenberg going in there saying, yeah, I can't raise any money for you. And then, boom, he's out.I am shocked that any political party would be swayed in any way by political donations. Enjoy the.Enjoy the hard c, sacks.I love you guys. I gotta go to dinner.Love you guys. Talk to you soon. For the chairman, dictator, the architect, David Sack, and your sultan of science who ducked out a little bit early, I am the world's greatest moderate moderator. We'll see you next time. Bye bye.Love you, boobs.Bye bye. We'll let your winners ride rain man David Sackdeh.And instead, we open source it to the fans. And they've just gone crazy with it. Love you.Besties are gone.Go 13.That is my dog taking an ocean.We should all just get a room and just have one big, huge orgy because they're all, it's like this, like, sexual tension that they just need to release somehow.

year extensions to the funds. So then the question is, what do you do at year twelve if you still got honest with you, the quality of the product. Obviously, I don't interact with those kind of products every day, but the fact that they're willing to pay such a premium means, a, the product is good, but more importantly, b, in the absence of cloud security, these cloud vendors are going to be constrained in how fast they can grow. So what an incredible market. What an incredible, incredible market.I have to say, these two things have really helped the climate in the lp community this past week. A lot of chatter about ipos that are getting filed and that we could be ending the drought. And people were feeling very, very pessimistic about venture as a category. And I think these two things have changed a lot of people's feelings on that. So good work there. And I think it also signals maybe some regime change expectation. Sachs yeah, Lena Khan maybe getting booted when this regime change occurs next year, and then maybe more m and A would occur. What's Trump's and JD Vance's position in your mind, on M and A and Lena Khan? SACHS if you had to interpret it.Well, something that's very interesting is that JD Vance has been relatively positive towards Lena Khan.Yeah, that's the weird.He's one of Lena Khan's few republican fans. And the reason for that is because Lena Khan, for all of her faults and we've described them here, has been willing to take on big tech. The fact of the matter is that the top handful of tech companies, the Microsofts, the Googles, Amazon, these are big tech monopolies. There's just no way around that fact. And they do need to be closely watched and supervised and regulated with respect to their market power. And I do think they use their market power in inappropriate ways. As we've discussed on this podcast, I sometimes think that Lina Khanda, in her approach, has been a little bit more of a cleaver when she needed to use a scalpel. I dont think that she should stop some of these, what I would call R and D acquisitions, from taking place where theres no accretion of market share, but rather startups being bought because they contribute a useful piece of technology. I dont think you want to shut down that part of the market. Lord knows we dont have enough exits as it is. Like we were just talking about. I think it would be great if we could massage Lena Khan's approach a little bit.But I think that it is a good thing that she's not willing to just roll over and let the big tech companies do whatever they want. And I think JD Vance appreciates that about her. So, look, I don't think that Lena Khan is going to be running that agency in a second Trump administration. But I think the problem with Republicans.Though, sacks, is the freedom of speech issue and Republicans being banned on the social platforms, including it up to Trump. I mean, if that issue wasn't there, I think you would probably see maybe a different approach.Yeah, well, I think it's a huge issue because the fact of the matter is you've got these tech monopolies who are using their monopolistic market power to put their thumb on the scale of our political discourse in favor of one side versus the other. So obviously, if you're on that side of the aisle, you're going to be up in arms about that. You're not going to be happy about that. And I do think that given their market power, they have an obligation not to distort our democracy by artificially suppressing one side of the debate.Yeah.So I think that, yes, Republicans should be up in arms about that, and they should be resisting censorship. And JD Vance specifically mentioned censorship in his speech.That seems to be his main issue. I think we'll see under Trump a lot more mid market m and a. If I were to, you know, let's call it under $100 billion, $100 billion acquisition would be fine with me. Under 100.Well, I really liked the part of his speech where he said that in a healthy democracy, we debate ideas. And that's good. We even have debates in the Republican Party, and that's good. The last thing you want to do is censor the marketplace for ideas. Gosh, I mean, are we going to hear anything like that from the Democrats when they do their convention?Well, in breaking news, as we wrap up this program, the hot swap summer will continue. Apparently, Biden is predicted to resign this weekend. We'll see if it happens. Speedrun primary Nostradamus is predicting it happens. Nostra canis. Nostracanus will get it straight. Nostra Canis will keep his position. The hot swap is coming.Well, Jake, at this point, I think you were right about Biden stepping aside. I thought he was out of the woods. He did that press conference, that NATO press conference, where he did make that one mistake, that senior moment where Trump was his vp. Yeah.Oops.But that was the kind of thing where he got his name mixed up. But otherwise, he sort of seems to be finding his footing in terms of talking about policy. And the brush fire was sort of put out. Right. But then for some unknown reason, he goes on and does that Lester Holt interview. I don't know why they were still letting him do interviews. He should only be reading from a dull prompter. And he mixes up. He forgets the name of his secretary of defense, Lloyd Austin, and he just refers to him as the black man, the bet, as a bet interview. So he did the Lester Holt interview, which was not good. And then he did the bet interview, which was good.Well, the money's dried up, right, chamath? So once the money goes, it's over.Well, yeah. And he also did a horrible one with 360, with speedy, speedy Mormon. And that was a train wreck. There was a couple moments there that are just total gaffes.They say Pelosi and Schumer told him, it's over. And I guess that means. And Katzenberg.You're right, Jason. When the big money is gone and they make the call, it's done.It's done.Isn't that amazing? What we've learned about the democratic party, the coup de Grasse was basically Katzenberg going in there saying, yeah, I can't raise any money for you. And then, boom, he's out.I am shocked that any political party would be swayed in any way by political donations. Enjoy the.Enjoy the hard c, sacks.I love you guys. I gotta go to dinner.Love you guys. Talk to you soon. For the chairman, dictator, the architect, David Sack, and your sultan of science who ducked out a little bit early, I am the world's greatest moderate moderator. We'll see you next time. Bye bye.Love you, boobs.Bye bye. We'll let your winners ride rain man David Sackdeh.And instead, we open source it to the fans. And they've just gone crazy with it. Love you.Besties are gone.Go 13.That is my dog taking an ocean.We should all just get a room and just have one big, huge orgy because they're all, it's like this, like, sexual tension that they just need to release somehow.

honest with you, the quality of the product. Obviously, I don't interact with those kind of products every day, but the fact that they're willing to pay such a premium means, a, the product is good, but more importantly, b, in the absence of cloud security, these cloud vendors are going to be constrained in how fast they can grow. So what an incredible market. What an incredible, incredible market.

I have to say, these two things have really helped the climate in the lp community this past week. A lot of chatter about ipos that are getting filed and that we could be ending the drought. And people were feeling very, very pessimistic about venture as a category. And I think these two things have changed a lot of people's feelings on that. So good work there. And I think it also signals maybe some regime change expectation. Sachs yeah, Lena Khan maybe getting booted when this regime change occurs next year, and then maybe more m and A would occur. What's Trump's and JD Vance's position in your mind, on M and A and Lena Khan? SACHS if you had to interpret it.

Well, something that's very interesting is that JD Vance has been relatively positive towards Lena Khan.

Yeah, that's the weird.

He's one of Lena Khan's few republican fans. And the reason for that is because Lena Khan, for all of her faults and we've described them here, has been willing to take on big tech. The fact of the matter is that the top handful of tech companies, the Microsofts, the Googles, Amazon, these are big tech monopolies. There's just no way around that fact. And they do need to be closely watched and supervised and regulated with respect to their market power. And I do think they use their market power in inappropriate ways. As we've discussed on this podcast, I sometimes think that Lina Khanda, in her approach, has been a little bit more of a cleaver when she needed to use a scalpel. I dont think that she should stop some of these, what I would call R and D acquisitions, from taking place where theres no accretion of market share, but rather startups being bought because they contribute a useful piece of technology. I dont think you want to shut down that part of the market. Lord knows we dont have enough exits as it is. Like we were just talking about. I think it would be great if we could massage Lena Khan's approach a little bit.

But I think that it is a good thing that she's not willing to just roll over and let the big tech companies do whatever they want. And I think JD Vance appreciates that about her. So, look, I don't think that Lena Khan is going to be running that agency in a second Trump administration. But I think the problem with Republicans.

Though, sacks, is the freedom of speech issue and Republicans being banned on the social platforms, including it up to Trump. I mean, if that issue wasn't there, I think you would probably see maybe a different approach.

Yeah, well, I think it's a huge issue because the fact of the matter is you've got these tech monopolies who are using their monopolistic market power to put their thumb on the scale of our political discourse in favor of one side versus the other. So obviously, if you're on that side of the aisle, you're going to be up in arms about that. You're not going to be happy about that. And I do think that given their market power, they have an obligation not to distort our democracy by artificially suppressing one side of the debate.

Yeah.

So I think that, yes, Republicans should be up in arms about that, and they should be resisting censorship. And JD Vance specifically mentioned censorship in his speech.

That seems to be his main issue. I think we'll see under Trump a lot more mid market m and a. If I were to, you know, let's call it under $100 billion, $100 billion acquisition would be fine with me. Under 100.

Well, I really liked the part of his speech where he said that in a healthy democracy, we debate ideas. And that's good. We even have debates in the Republican Party, and that's good. The last thing you want to do is censor the marketplace for ideas. Gosh, I mean, are we going to hear anything like that from the Democrats when they do their convention?

Well, in breaking news, as we wrap up this program, the hot swap summer will continue. Apparently, Biden is predicted to resign this weekend. We'll see if it happens. Speedrun primary Nostradamus is predicting it happens. Nostra canis. Nostracanus will get it straight. Nostra Canis will keep his position. The hot swap is coming.

Well, Jake, at this point, I think you were right about Biden stepping aside. I thought he was out of the woods. He did that press conference, that NATO press conference, where he did make that one mistake, that senior moment where Trump was his vp. Yeah.

Oops.

But that was the kind of thing where he got his name mixed up. But otherwise, he sort of seems to be finding his footing in terms of talking about policy. And the brush fire was sort of put out. Right. But then for some unknown reason, he goes on and does that Lester Holt interview. I don't know why they were still letting him do interviews. He should only be reading from a dull prompter. And he mixes up. He forgets the name of his secretary of defense, Lloyd Austin, and he just refers to him as the black man, the bet, as a bet interview. So he did the Lester Holt interview, which was not good. And then he did the bet interview, which was good.

Well, the money's dried up, right, chamath? So once the money goes, it's over.

Well, yeah. And he also did a horrible one with 360, with speedy, speedy Mormon. And that was a train wreck. There was a couple moments there that are just total gaffes.

They say Pelosi and Schumer told him, it's over. And I guess that means. And Katzenberg.

You're right, Jason. When the big money is gone and they make the call, it's done.

It's done.

Isn't that amazing? What we've learned about the democratic party, the coup de Grasse was basically Katzenberg going in there saying, yeah, I can't raise any money for you. And then, boom, he's out.

I am shocked that any political party would be swayed in any way by political donations. Enjoy the.

Enjoy the hard c, sacks.

I love you guys. I gotta go to dinner.

Love you guys. Talk to you soon. For the chairman, dictator, the architect, David Sack, and your sultan of science who ducked out a little bit early, I am the world's greatest moderate moderator. We'll see you next time. Bye bye.

Love you, boobs.

Bye bye. We'll let your winners ride rain man David Sackdeh.

And instead, we open source it to the fans. And they've just gone crazy with it. Love you.

Besties are gone.

Go 13.

That is my dog taking an ocean.

We should all just get a room and just have one big, huge orgy because they're all, it's like this, like, sexual tension that they just need to release somehow.