All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg - E154: Presidential Candidate Dean Phillips in conversation with the Besties + Xi's SF visit & more

Episode Date: November 17, 2023

(0:00) Bestie intros! (1:25) Democratic Presidential Candidate Dean Phillips shares his business background (13:11) Dean's time in Congress: witnessing legal corruption, thoughts on Biden's mental state, advantages of not being a career politician (29:10) Foreign Policy: Russia/Ukraine, Israel/Hamas, China/US de-escalation, how he'd handle TikTok, immigration, border security (56:08) US fiscal situation, healthcare, defense spending, restoring cross-party common ground (1:19:30) Post-interview debrief (1:29:12) Xi and Biden meet in San Francisco, Newsom up next? (1:45:00) Science Corner!: DeepMind's new weather forecasting model Follow the besties: https://twitter.com/chamath https://linktr.ee/calacanis https://twitter.com/DavidSacks https://twitter.com/friedberg Follow the pod: https://twitter.com/theallinpod https://linktr.ee/allinpodcast Intro Music Credit: https://rb.gy/tppkzl https://twitter.com/yung_spielburg Intro Video Credit: https://twitter.com/TheZachEffect Referenced in the show: https://twitter.com/TalentiGelato/status/487275228952014848 https://www.pinterest.com/pin/491244271857449720 https://designreplace.com/dean-phillips-us-congress https://braveneweurope.com/michael-von-der-schulenburg-hajo-funke-harald-kujat-peace-for-ukraine https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/biden-floats-newsom-for-president-apec-in-sf-18496249.php https://www.axios.com/2023/11/07/china-economy-negative-foreign-investments https://twitter.com/chamath/status/1718016818118553622 https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1724093441519341573 https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/biden-floats-newsom-for-president-apec-in-sf18496249.php https://deepmind.google/discover/blog/graphcast-ai-model-for-faster-and-more-accurate-global-weather-forecasting

Congressman, how should we refer to you today? Well, I prefer Dean, but you know, let's go with that. Mr. Phillips. And just I'm asking people to be keen on Dean. So am I as well run with it? Oh, there you go. Well, you know, I'm the big supporter of the Dean machine already. Oh, you know about the Dean machine with this gelato I love it. I'm all up on the Dean machine. By the way, I bought an old international harvester metro van for 20s when we did Activations like South by Southwest and I used to own one of those by the way I bought an old international harvester metro van for talenties when we did activations like south by southwest and I don't want of those by the way no you did I yeah I bought it for my ranch come on I love that baby so I bought one for talenty and I saw how people just immediately

were attracted to and fell in love with it and I thought hey when I ran for Congress I'm gonna do the same thing so I created the government repair truck are you driving around this international harvester? Of course. You're kidding. Yeah, that's awesome. I'll show you how Sonia picture of it is cool. It's awesome.

It's got a 1980 Chevy chassis under it, but it's still the basic nuts and bolts. So, that's what we're referring to a type of automobile. You can ask one of your three drivers about it, David. Dorie, David, your driver can take you in it. Ask your Miami driver, he probably owns some muscle cars. I don't think your LA driver owns muscle cars. Here we go. Let's start the show.

Three, two, one. What? You're like your winner's ride. Rainman David's side. I'm going home. And I said we open sources to the fans and they've just got very easy with me. Love you guys.

We look in one. I'm going home. Hey everybody. Hey everybody. Welcome to the all in podcast with us again today the dictator himself, Chimoff Polly, Hapatia, the rain man David Sacks and the Sultan of science, David Friedberg. We are going to continue our conversation series with presidential candidates today. Our fourth presidential candidate is on the program Dean Phillips, represents Minnesota's third district. And he's about 25 years younger than Trump and Biden at 54 years old. Dean, before getting into politics, I understand you were the CEO of your family's

spirits business and you ran to Lentilato. Oh, that bestasio flavor. Amazing. So welcome to the All in Podcast, meet the other besties, and maybe you could just start out by telling us why you are running for president. Yeah, well, I'll tell you, after being in the vodka business and the ice cream business, and actually the coffee business, I think I understand at least what Americans want. So, it's a good start. Well, I'll tell you a little about my background. Why I'm here, I lost my dad in the Vietnam War when I was just six months old.

He had grew up with no money in St. Paul, Minnesota. I earned an ROTC scholarship on behalf of the federal government, of course, to pursue his education. Went to Vietnam in 1968, just before I was born. I got to see the US land on the moon And I think regularly about how he looked up two days before his helicopter crashed and he died looked up and saw Americans on the moon and looked down and saw America at its worst and literally that experience in no small way is what brings me to this day and I was

Six months old and my mom was 24 and widowed and we moved in with my great-grandparents for the first three years of my life. And I got lucky. When I was three, my mom married a wonderful, extraordinary man who adopted me, Eddie Phillips, brought me into a family of great blessings. My grandmother became dear Abby and my aunt and lander. So I grew up in a family of a lot of advice. And I've lived on both sides of the advantage, and I recognize it. I remember the day I turned 26, and I counted the days that my father had lived,

my birth father, and I remember the day after I had lived as many days as him. My life changed forever, and I became inspired, joined our family business after college, and up running our beverage business, where we created Belvedvedere vodka, which we sold LVMH and then Got into the ice cream business and did the same thing you guys created Belvedere. Yeah, we my father and I and our partner Steve Gill Went on a trip to Poland in 1993 hoping to sell them Philip Schnapps, which we made in Minnesota

We thought Eastern Europe was ready for peppermint and peach Schnapps, and we were touring distilleries, and we see both in duty free in the airport and in the distilleries, the most beautiful packaging we had ever seen in the spirit space. And so now, my do, this is when absolute and stoley were like the pinnacle of luxury, 15 dollar average now. And my father immediately, yeah, sat at a restaurant that night. Literally, this is a literal napkin story.

He, on a napkin, created a little matrix and said, if Stolen Absolute are $15 and they're the most premium in a fast growing category, why shouldn't there be a $25 vodka and why should this not be it? So we negotiated with the Polish government, our partner, Ted Dorda from Poland helped us. And we first obtained the distribution rights. And then when Poland privatized their spirits industry, we acquired the distillery and the IP. And the rest was history.

And, you know, cork finish, beautiful bottle. We sold it. We talked about the lowest common denominator, the pens we used to write the orders, the way we carried it, made all the difference in the world. And then we use that same template in ice cream. Because what we found is in every consumer product category, in which there are two main competitors, Coke and Pepsi, Stole Absolute, Ben and Jerry's and Hagen Dives, they tend to fight to the bottom, lower pricing, frankly, demeaning consumers. There's always an opportunity to introduce something a little bit more premium, a little

bit more special, that's still in affordable luxury. And Belvedere, by the way, was built by Jay-Z. I can tell you that story if you want to hear it. It's an extraordinary one. Yeah, tell that story too. Yeah. So far, you're our kind of candidate. Exactly.

You just got to go on both. Apparently. We're all looking at you like who is this guy? So when people ask me about my platform, I'll say I'll be a storyteller Red Vodka. I'm ready to start popping bottles over here. By the way, that's exactly what Jay Z did. Saxon, I popped many a Belvedere bottle in when we had our run in LA. True or not, true, Saxon. It was a tough choice between Belvedere and Gregus. L.A. True or not, true sex. It was a tough choice between Belvedere and Gregus. Oh, I'll tell you that story too, by the way. So we introduced Belvedere and it, and by the way, what we learned in hindsight is that our aperture was way too small.

We were way too, we sold it by the bottle, not by the case. We only went to restaurants and bars at first, not to the big stores. We wanted to be special. And we completely underestimated the size of what this category could be. Sydney Frank, who introduced Greygoose, took a much bigger approach. Anyway, so I'm sitting at home getting ready for work one day. I have MTV on, and it's probably a year after we introduced Belvedere, it's doing well, but not big. So it's mid-90s?

Yeah, I can't remember the year, Chamath. It's probably, you know, 95. Yeah, 90s. They're about. I'm watching MTV. I see a Jay-Z video and it is all Belvedere. It's in the fridge. He's holding it. People dancing. He's pouring it on him. And I froze, called my dad immediately, who of course didn't have MTV on. And I said, you got to turn it on. He couldn't find the channel. I'm like, hey, dad, MTV repeats the same videos 5, 10 times a day. So we got to the office and sure enough, we had the TV on. It came back on the whole company gathered at that time. We're probably 10 people and we gathered around the TV and watched this video and I'm telling you guys within two weeks that brand completely popped. And my dad, Jay-Z ended up calling my father. They had a dinner in New York City, a memorable one for both.

Actually, he ended up introducing Abatka some years later called Armadale. And it failed miserably. But it was one of the first times that I think in this new culture of influencers and celebrity endorsers that that magic happened. He almost literally made Belvedere. So that's the story. And you guys sign into a deal and pay a money or a member? No.

In fact, we talked about that. And the core, so this is the brand foundation of the brand house was authenticity. We didn't do a damn thing that had anything to do with anything that wasn't true. The makers of it, the product itself, we didn't pay people to talk about it unlike Sydney Frank with Gregus. So we chose not to. It was all natural and then here's the other cool thing. And this is how my campaign is going to work. We sent 200 bottles in very special beautiful boxes to 200 influencers. We believe that if we could simply seed the brand with 200 people all around the US that they could be the Content-makers and the advocates the ambassadors in fact one of them went to this guy right behind me Bill Clinton and

Robert De Niro another example Robert Redford, you know leaders of an industry and actors and and And the like Robert De Niro gets one of these things and there's a note inside with a picture of the distiller, Bogdan Zydlenski. It said, watch page three, the Tiffany section, I'm sorry, the Tiffany location of the Wall Street Journal, and call it, it was like Monday, February 6. To only 200 people knew what was coming. The ad in the paper didn't show a bottle of but anything. It just said, Belvedere.

Bogdan wants to know how you like it. So we literally did an ad that Kask knows back then probably a hundred thousand dollars tiny little top corner ad that spoke to 200 people in the United States of America that had no idea nobody else knew what it was. Robert De Niro goes to the Beverly Hills Hotel or the peninsula I can't remember. Orders of Belvedere Martini soon thereafter. The barman says Mr. De Niro we have absolute we have Stole I don't have that brand. And he says, I don't think you heard me, I want to belveter Martini. So the barman sends like the bar back to whatever the the wine and spirit shop is on Rodeo Driver and Beverly Hills, and the guy he comes back with a bottle.

And the entire bar watched this little episode, and I'm telling you once again, within a week, that store was selling through Belvedere like it was one. So these little moments where you identify the right people, and now mind you, this is in the analog era, there was no internet, there was no social media, this was people simply talking to people. So we sold Belvedere to LVMH, and then we looked at the ice cream category, so I've been a Jerry's doing the same thing.

If you can, tell us about that. What is it like to negotiate against LVMH and Bernard Arnoh? And why do you sell it when it's working, I guess, maybe it's a question? You know, I'll tell you, well, this is not a story I've shared with many. They were very disingenuous. And it deeply troubles me to this day, the way that my father

was treated, the promises that were made simply to get a deal done and then not kept. I think it's a reflection on principle and I'll leave it at that. A lesson learned, in fact, rather than going through a competitive process, which I think any enterprise would do to maximize value of a brand, Our family ethos was a little different and I think we bit and in hindsight it was a mistake, but I'll leave it at that. You learn less eight, you know what, you learn lessons every experience to this very day. I'm learning them every day on the campaign trail too. That was one I would never make again. All right, well you got the two David's votes with Ivaca. You got mine with the gelato

and if you launch a luxury fabric brand or sweaters, I think you're gonna get you mom. First, I got some other work to do for eight years. So we'll do that afterwards. We'll just wrap this long story up. So we introduced, you know, Tillenti obviously does well. We sold it to Unilever. Then I opened a couple coffee shops

with my family in Minneapolis. That can just be kind of a fun folly. And then we're watching the 2016 election at home. I thought it would wake up the next morning. We'd have Hillary Clinton as president, not that that was thrilling to the world, but it would have been safe. And lo and behold, you know what happened. And I remember telling my family that night, like, look, give the guy a chance. He's not going to act like that in the White House. The presidency changes you. It humbles you. It moderates you. And my family thought I was at, you know, I was at joke.

And I woke up the next morning, my 16 year old was in her room crying. My 18 year old was a freshman at college. We FaceTimed her and she's crying. And I sat at the breakfast table, guys, and I promised my daughters I would do something. I raised them to be participants, not observers. And I looked around at my district. I thought maybe I'll run for Congress. I looked around and I had the district had not been won by a Democrat since the 1958 election. This is

the now we're looking at the 2018 election, 60 years. And the man who had won, won his fourth term by 14 points. And people told me that it's crazy. You're out of your mind, you're giving up a good life to run for misery, and you'll never make it, and you'll embarrass yourself. Which is why I did it. And not only did we win, we won by 12 points, we had fun, we used invitation, not confrontation. And I drove that little van all around the district to the most

unhospitable parts. I opened the service window, I served coffee, and I put two chairs out, and people would just come up and talk. And I found magic in just letting people share what's on their mind. They're so unheard. Anyhow, I can tell you now, I want to tell you why I'm doing it, but that's the story of where I came from and why I'm doing this and look at the end of the day. I'm the one of those that got lucky.

There's a lot of kids who lost their dads and Vietnam who did not have the magical moment that I had to be adopted by an amazing father. And that was the difference for me. It's my job to make sure others get that same chance. Simple as that. Before we jump into the future, but why you're running and what you see for the country, talk about the years that you spent in Congress.

What did you observe there? What is it like day to day? And what do you think is working and what is it working i wish we had three hours i get their jimath i get there first week of twenty nineteen and like all of you that come from organizational enterprise experience i assume that nancy policy and kevin mccarthy would have a have a strategy to introduce the new members of congress both

democrats and republicans you get to know each other do a roaps course you know and build some trust or would have a strategy to introduce the new members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, you know, get to know each other, do a ropes course, you know, and build some trust or something. And my goodness, it was just the opposite guys. We were put on separate buses, going to different events. And I realized right away that they had a systemic segregation strategy on day one. And you know, I'm pretty sincere. The two parties, this is the, I'll tell you what I've learned and I'll talk more about this. The only people that want to protect the status quo of the duopoly and the political industrial complex that just surrounds it all are the two parties

and it is destructive and I will get into that. But I recognize right away all of my colleagues that the leadership in both Democratic and Republican side, they wanted to keep us separate. They did not want to give us education and information, and they wanted to keep us so busy that we could not become threats to their power structure. You can imagine, members of Congress tend to be pretty ambitious people, and ultimately they were smart to do that because they made members of Congress, they do this day, raise money all week long. 10,000 hours per week is what senators and House members spend raising money. I've got a bill actually that would preclude it from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. because

it's such an unmitigated joke and disaster. The fact that in the United States that a PAC representing a special interest or corporation can hand a $5,000 check to a member of Congress at a stay-house on Wednesday evening. And then that member serves on a committee in which that business or special interest has business in front of the next day is the most unbelievable form of legal corruption you could possibly imagine. So that's one. Needless to say, I resolved right after that first week of orientation that I would do it differently. I befriended my Republican colleagues. My wife, on a lease and I started having bipartisan dinners at our house. I joined the problem solvers caucus.

I hope you guys know about it. It's the most important small caucus in Congress. We're now 32 Democrats and 32 Republicans. Committed to doing what we're supposed to do. Get to know each other, talk policy, and try to make a difference. Now we're the war courses, not the show horses, so you don't know most of our names, including me. But we were the ones invited to the White House in like week three of our service.

I was one of four Democrats or four Republicans that President Trump invited to the situation room to make a proposition to get us through the shutdown, which I can talk about that bizarre hour of my life as well. And that's how it resolved to do it. Now I'm ranked, depending on the survey, number one, number two, number 10, most bipartisan members of the entire U.S. Congress and including governors. And I vote relatively progressive. It's not about about just the votes it's about the ethos it's about uh... republican sponsored bills uh... that come from me it's about me sponsoring republican led bills uh... and that's what makes me a little bit

different than i think just about every member of congress not to mention i think i'm the only one that's willing to torpedo uh... a career so that the country isn't torpedoed by this nonsense and dysfunction. There's a lot more to talk about, but it all starts with a systematic segregation and a focus on fighting each other and set a fighting for each other. I can talk about it all day long. Let's start there Dean. What? Give us the assessment of what's happening in the White House right now. Before we talk about your candidacy, just like, what's going on? Well, let me just say I respect President Biden. He's a man I've had in my house for an event.

He's a man with whom I flown on Air Force One twice. He did a beautiful video for my daughter. He called my mother. I think he did a fine job. I think he was the only man that could have defeated Donald Trump in 2020. And I have to say, I think it's fair to say too. He's probably the only Democrat who could and will lose to Donald Trump in 2024. He's a human being.

He's now in his 80s. He is clearly on the decline. He's not incompetent. I believe he's surrounded himself by competent able principal people and I believe the White House is running as a team as most do. But do I think that he will be in a position to continue leading this country in the future? I do not. I think I'm joined by about 75% of the country of the country and saying that. I also believe the policies that we pass for the most part are investments for the future. In infrastructure, the CHIPS Act, I think, is a very important bill, which, by the way,

has national security implications, as you guys know. The inflation reduction act of a bizarre name for a bill that's really an energy and climate bill, I think, is pretty good legislation. And I think he reconstituted our allies around the world that had been afraid to a point of great danger during the Trump administration. So I salute the past, but this is really an election about the future.

It's about a generational change. It's about creating, you know, really a new American century that will be powered by systems, structures, people, technologies that I'm just afraid that President Biden and former President Trump can't even comprehend, let alone create thoughtful policy to both nurture and also manage. And I think that's where we're at. And I want to, I think we have wars overseas that I think in no small part are caused by a generation that is so focused on techniques and tools of the past that they can't even

dare look to building peace for the future. That's why we have the Middle East still going. That's why Ukraine, you know, the Vice President has some ownership in some of these issues that I'm afraid have to be exposed and they're the truth and I'm happy to talk about them. But most of all, I'll wrap it with this. Affordability in the United States of America is absolutely the most challenging issue facing Americans. They don't believe that their government is listening. They don't believe the President understands. They don't believe that their government is listening they don't believe the president understands they don't believe congress is able to do anything about it because we're so

dysfunctional uh... and that's another mission that i'm on right now to end this nonsense i'm going to build a team of rivals i will have a white house uh... and a cabinet comprised of both democrats and republicans the most able leaders imaginable who have run multi-billion dollar organizations in some cases understand customer service, will employ zero-based budgeting to the extent we can, we will employ a world-class consulting firm to look at every single government program, system, structure, and personnel to identify ways to save money.

These are things that this president and frankly, no president who doesn't have business experience, nonprofit leadership experience, and government experience could possibly imagine, because they're so stuck in their siloed ways of thinking he's been there for 50 years, and it's time for change. I was three years old when he became a senator. So let's get specific on the issues

and go into foreign policy, which is David Saxx's, I think, number one issue, this election. Of course. But first, just to be clear on Biden, do you believe he's in cognitive decline? Do the Democrats privately believe he's in cognitive decline? And to what extent? Do you think he'd make it through the next presidency? Or do you think this is a sort of a Ronald Reagan situation where he might look back on it

and he's got some early onset of some cognitive decline? What do you personally think and what are you think is a sort of a ron or a game situation where might look back on it and he's got some early on set of some cognitive decline what do you personally think what are democrats think i don't want to impress upon anybody or give you the sense that i think he has a form of dementia or alzheimer's or significant cognitive decline but anybody who pays attention can see the change and i'm not i'm not you know people are saying that i'm causing his problems i could risk his you know reelection you know i'm not the guy that has him losing to trump nationally down in five of six battleground states the lowest approval ratings in presidential history almost uh... and i'm certainly not the guy

uh... that has shown his you know his decline that's on video that's on audio you see it it's naturally human being for goodness sakes all i'm doing you guys is saying the quiet part out loud the only one you ask the question it do others talk about this the question is is anybody not talking about this of course they are you guys they've really created an opportunity for you because

like you said everyone's talking about this course but no one's willing to say it of course what what has been the blowback in the democratic party from your declaring what do you think I'm not being thrown flowers and parties let me tell you that guys I'll tell you I I think most would consider me an affable friendly well liked member of congress I know that that's my that's my ethos. My friends are still my friends. I think they're disappointed because this is not what you do.

When you're a member of a party, you fall in line, you shush up, you sit down, you get in line, and you do nothing to upset the apple cart of others who've been waiting in line perhaps a little longer than you. So you can imagine the pushback has been strong, the arrows sharp, and the pain quite significant, but nothing compared to the pain that Americans are feeling right now, and that's why I'm doing this. And I should also let you know, I had no intention of doing this. A year ago, I was on a radio show and a host asked me if I thought the president should run again, and I said, of course not. He implicitly, if not explicitly,

said he would be a transitional president, kind of the bridge. Most members of Congress thought he was going to stand down. That's why I knew some and Pritzker and Whitmer and so many others were kind of making their plans. And I said, and if he doesn't pass the torch, then we should ensure that least that the stage has newer generation candidates to give voters a choice. Anyway months went by I started seeing the polls changed dramatically. The tenor and tone of constituent discussions with me and every single one of my colleagues was changing graphically all the independence, moderate Republicans that voted for the president. I think for the right reasons, we're increasingly telling us that they're not going to do it again.

They may not vote for Trump, but they're not going to vote rather than vote for Biden. And over time, it came to a point, actually, guys, where I resigned from the House leadership table because my position was so incongruent with those who were in positions to do something about it that I didn't feel it was appropriate for me to sit with them anymore. And I was really frustrated. I called Wretchen Whitmer. I called JB Pritzker. I made public calls to the candidates whose names are better known than me to jump in.

You know, the water is warm, you guys. It's a democratic primary. That's what we do. Not only did those two not take my calls, which they would of any other day, they had their political operatives take those calls and they told me, please, don't use their names. That's the culture, that's the culture you guys that we're dealing with. You will be blackballed, you will be disenfranchised,

you will be let out the door if you so much as even issue a word that you might challenge as sitting president of the United States. This is the United States of America. It's appalling, anyhow. I'm frustrated. We saw that, we saw that happen president of the United States. This is the United States of America. It's appalling. Anyhow, I'm frustrated. We saw that. We saw that happen with our K-Junior because he declared initially as a Democrat and Biden wouldn't give him secret service protection despite the enormous personal safety, risk, and

threats. He's actually got something for us. You can imagine. Yeah. Yeah. And biggest line item in my budget right now, by the way, is security. The second biggest line item, it's going to suppress that, is getting onto the ballot. Right.

Well, that was a thing. They wouldn't let RFK on the ballot. They wouldn't debate him. They just want to pretend like he didn't exist. And they basically drove him out of the party. So now he's running as an independent. Do you think you're going to be able to get on the ballot as a Democrat in these primaries? Absolutely.

We're making those choices right now, David, because first of all, it's obscene. I want to let you all know that in a country that prides itself on being a democracy, a democratic republic, I can't even tell you how many states literally create high barriers to entry to satisfy the two parties to ensure that their coronated candidate has an advantage over anybody else. I'm talking about- The most egregious ones. Give us an example of what you have to do.

The most egregious are oftentimes the deepest blue. New Yorkism is close to impossible. When I say impossible- How so, explain it to us, like what you have to do. So the reason I started in New Hampshire is it has 103 year old tradition of being the first in the nation primary. They take this really seriously. They're the most engaged Americans in the country. They have a process. They you know we walk through the snow, we answer their questions. And you also all you need is a thousand dollar check. You got to be 35 years old. You got to be

born in the United States of America. And you too can become a candidate for president of the United States. That's what I did. They have the most beautiful ritual in the state house and conquered New Hampshire that is worth going to one time just to see the majesty of filing for president of the United States. So there are 21 of us on the Democratic side of the ballot because that's how it should be.

Take a state like Virginia. Wait, wait, wait, hold on. There's 21 people running for the Democratic, but that's incredible. I have no idea. Yeah, Chimac 21, Marion, Williamson and I are the best known of those 21 because the president of the United States chose not to. So that's how you have it. You ask about other states though, New York, Virginia,

$450 to $500,000 to pay consulting firms, to pay people $25, $26 per signature to just sit outside and just say, hey, can we get your signature to get this guy in a ballot? No, it's not grassroots, it's not old school caucusing democracy. It is pay to play. And we would need it. We would need a, we're going to have to raise.

Probably six, maybe, I'm sorry, maybe less than that. Maybe five million dollars. We have a staff of three people right now and legal counsel just to get my name on a primary ballot. It's absurd. Maryann Williamson, you know, she's not going to be able to. RFK as an independent, by the way, I think he should be. I'm not someone who I'm concerned about some of his positions, but I think he should be

able to get on the ballot. It's, you guys, it's absurd. It's obnoxious. And what I've discovered in the last three weeks is going to be my mission after being president to fix because it is going to destroy the country from the inside. And that is why we have the kind of candidates we have year after year after year and Americans say they're, and that's why we have Trumpism. I like the fact that most people become politicians as a career of hard to against this for a

while. And so they have everything to lose if they stand up against the party and they stand up against the political establishment within which they're meant to operate. And therefore, just a few people get to make all the decisions and control all the levers and everyone else is just a Marianette. And they stay there forever, Dave. They stay there forever.

And there's no term limits, which is what we need, but that's why we need them. The fact that you're self-made and you don't have anything to lose, you can leave Congress and you'll be fine. You're a citizen that can go back to work and do what you do, and you're doing this as a service, you're doing this because of your interest in the country. It sounds like not to say that other folks don't, but they're largely going to be driven and unfortunately, adversely affected by the fact that they have to fall within The way that the game has played in order to operate and will not stand up and save the things that need to be said

In order for us to make progress and get out of these situations, but those are the perverse incentives I commend you for doing it. I'm glad it's possible I think Jason we should probably talk about the top it We have two topics that I think we're all passionate here The first is foreign policy. The second is the budget and our out of control spending. Let's start with sacks. You said you wanted hard questions.

Welcome to the pod. Sacks. Let's bring it before we hear about you. Well, this is said hard questions. Let's go. Please meet David Sacks. Hey, David. Dean, you said a minute ago that one of the reasons why the world's on fire is because

of the Biden administration's handling of foreign policies kind of led us to this point. I think there was a really good example of this, but we could go. There was a new report out by a former UN Assistant Secretary General, named Michael Vonder Schulumberg, who worked at the UN for 34 years. He did a detailed study and reconstruction of what happened in March of 2022, so the month after the war. And what he concluded is there was a bona fide deal on the table between Russia and Ukraine where Putin was willing to pull back and leave and leave the territorial integrity of Ukraine intact if Ukraine would agree not to become part of NATO.

And this is something that's been discussed. There have been many reports of this over the last several months Ukrainian and proff to hide a story about that. But now there's yet another confirmation that such a deal was available. And yet Boris Johnson and Joe Biden said, no, we want to pressure Putin, Johnson and Joe Biden said, no, we want to pressure Putin not work out a piece deal with him. And so thanks to Western intervention, that deal never happened. Now we're 20 months later, and Ukrainian counteroffensive has failed. It's been a fiasco. The casualties have been absolutely massive.

You horrifying. You saw there was this article on Time Magazine, this new profile of Zelensky where his own a's and a visor say that he's delusional you can't accept that they're losing the war they furthermore say that even if the u.s. provides more weapons more aid they don't have enough men they're enough soldiers to use them things are going that badly i think there's now a fear that you crane could collapse in the next year even if we provide more aid. So I guess, you know, I know that early on in the war, you supported Biden's policy. I'm wondering, have events on the ground now change your view at all? How do you feel about it today? Do you think it was a mistake not to try and work out a peace deal in those early months

of the war? And if you were president, what would you try and do differently now to try and end this thing? Well, first of all, I think we have to back up to 2014 to talk about this, David. First of all, I've seen that reporting. I do not have confirmation of the validity of that. And if I did, I could talk about it more directly. But if that's the truth, I would first ask to that include Crimea. And secondly, it is not the United States decision about whether or not Ukraine should agree to a peace deal. It is Ukraine's decision,

plain and simple. But I do want to turn back the clock a little bit because I think this all kind of plays together. Yeah, but it didn't include Crimea. But Zalensky was willing to go for that deal. And it was the last two intervening and said, no, we want you to pressure Putin and fight. And David, like I said, I never speak to him unless I can verify that deal. And it was the west who intervened and said, no, we want you to pressure poo and then fight. David, like I said, I never speak to him unless I can verify that myself. And I've not seen that intelligence in the skiff. I've not seen that presented to me. And by the way, there are some times where I don't know, most times none of us know it and everything.

If that is the case, I would absolutely answer this question differently. But based on what I do know, I want to turn back the clock to 2014. This is where foreign policy matters. President Obama was a great order, I think, of inspirational leader. He came to the U.S. presidency with only organizing state legislative and a couple or a few years of a Senate experience as a very young man. And Joe Biden was his vice president. And when Vladimir Putin took Crimea, easily, that set the tone for what's going on right now. And we have not done a very good job of prevention.

That's true in health care, that is true in poverty, that is true in our foreign policy. Which is, by the way, maybe what happens when you spend 83 billion a year on diplomacy and 850 billion a year on bombs and missiles. Not to mention, go back to Eisenhower and the military industrial complex, David, and you well know this. It does. It controls a lot of our policy because those who are making great profit find ways to influence those who open the piggy banks.

I think the Crimea moment in 2014, the writing was on the wall, that was Putin's test. If I take an inch, maybe they'll give me a mile. And what happened during the Biden presidency, of course, he took the mile. I think it has implications now, though, David and all of you. If we do not do our best to support Ukraine and defending, I think it doesn't just send a message to Putin, a post-Pooten Russia, which is going to be a failed nation with a brain drain and something we should talk about, but also sends a message to Iran, North Korea, and even China, and I want to talk about that too,

because I think we have a much brighter future with them than most people portray as it relates to Taiwan. And that's the sad truth, is we get ourselves into these situations that then layer up the consequences by withdrawing. And Afghanistan was another example of that. So to answer your question, had there been a peace deal at that point that simply would have, and the deal would have been, will give you your territory back in return for not entering NATO?

Who in the right mind would say that was a bad deal? Who in the right mind? Especially? Forrest Johnson. Well, by the way, that's really good when you get people like, well, I'm going to make this case, as you guys know, for comprehensive new generation of leaders all around the world in our country and in others that are sick of this nonsense, sick of the bloodshed, sick of enriching enterprise at the expense of human beings, it happens here, it happens in Ukraine and Russia, and it's happening in the Middle East.

Plain and simple. Sex-editing else on foreign policy you want to go to? Hacking off now would be, I think, a shameful, horrible mistake. The one thing I would argue right now, David, is those who are most likely going to be subject to Putin's terror, the countries in Europe should be carrying a much bigger, bigger part of this load. We have 750 bases and installations around the world in 80 countries where the most dominant presence in world history of any government, and we spend more on our military than the next, I think 11 nations combined for God's sakes. And if anyone thinks that a kinetic risk to the United States is the most likely harm

that will be done us, not cyber or not social or not biological, I think you're out of your mind. Those are the risks that I think are most threatening, that I think this president does not quite understand. Those are the risks that I think are most threatening, that I think this president does not quite understand, and we have to recomprise and recommit to diplomacy and defending ourselves against the most important, literal risks, including nuclear weapons that can be carried in a backpack and detonated in New York or Tel Aviv or anywhere in the world. And if we don't start changing how we do things, we're not going to be ready, and we are just sitting still in dysfunction. Okay. And if we don't start changing how we do things, we're not going to be ready and we are just

sitting still in dysfunction. I'm going to change it. Let's talk about China for one second. I'll give it to you in two arcs. Arke number one, the comments that President Xi made yesterday, which were very if you just heard them or read them, were very specific. We have zero desire to seek Chinese to Germany. We have zero desire to find a cold or hot war, but then there is what wasn't said, which is part of what you said, which is, well, okay, maybe there's no kinetic war, but the cyber risk is still there. And actually the psychological war risk is there. So two questions. One is, how do you react to what President G said last night? And then

the second is, how do you react to what's happening with this TikTok of some of Bin Laden sia thing that just seems to be, frankly, just getting out of control here. I agree. Well, let me say I was so pleased to see President Xi's remarks. I think President Biden responded by saying we should trust but verify. I think that's appropriate. I was troubled, though, when a question was shouted out to President Biden on his way out about whether he considered President Xi a dictator and he said, yes, he's a dictator. And I think that may have undermined this entire rapprochement, which I think is terribly

important. Words matter, the playbook matters, and the negligence or ignorance of another culture as it digests our words, our actions, our intentions is very consequential. And unfortunately, we see this pattern with the president of doing what he did today in using that term. Whether or not it's really true or not, there are ways, as we all know, to simply not comment because that is going to undermine, I think,

a very important, otherwise, very promising outcome. And to your question, I'm concerned that we have made China, perhaps into the very enemy that is sensibly now our military and test real complex, wants to defend us from, which happens time and time and time again through our history. And it concerns me deeply. We should be partnering with China. Our disagreements are real. I think they should be litigated and bridged with diplomacy, not destruction. And imagine what can be accomplished in this 21st century world, if two nations like ours recognize the potential of spending less on destruction and more on human beings. You know, it astounds me.

Do you think TikTok itself is a threat to the United States? TikTok. If you're a president, ban it or force them to divest and remove the servers in China and the algorithm from China, et cetera. I'll make this really simple. He's making it actually being used for siops. I'll make this really simple. You know, if we want to change our Constitution and change what we consider speech, change

how the federal government or any domestic government affects people's rights to what they watch, what they read, what they eat, how they pray, how they think, where they go, with whom they congregate, you know what, that's up to Americans. But I think to target one app is a huge mistake. And my And I have a very simple solution. Hold every single platform to the same standard, transparency via their algorithm, have an independent commission perhaps that is discharged and responsible with assessing and holding those platforms to account. And if any of them violate the terms that we pass into law, then they should

be banned. But to target one, I think it's not sensible. We do have foreign ownership rules for media outlets. Yeah. So there's many more users and is much more powerful with the algorithm. So then how would you respond to that sort of counter-argument? I'm just going to say this, if we want to change our constitution, this is what the Supreme Court, I'm afraid, is going to say if we start doing this, then change the Constitution. That's what they said, by the way, about a women's reproductive rights. In the absence of Congress doing anything, in the absence of that, we're going to assess

it the way it reads right now. I don't think that's necessarily really possible without a significant Supreme Court challenge. My belief is yes, is it a threat? Yes, it's a threat. By the way, every social media platform is a threat when used by malign actors. You know, nearly 80. To be proven for reciprocity.

If we allow TikTok, they allow Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, I think that's the kind of thinking Jason I like. In fact, reciprocity as it relates to IP, enforcement of IP, of theft, of trade, that's, you just hit the nail on the head, reciprocity. You know, let's be reciprocal in the nature of a relationship. If you're gonna ban our apps and our platforms,

our products or our brands, well, this is to me an opportunity for the next generation to say this is nonsensical. You know, if you're gonna, by the way, China, you all know, has significant, they have a bubble there facing that will make ours in 2008 look like a gumball by comparison. And that is coming down the pipe.

I think that has a lot to do with this kind of step towards rapprochement. But yes, reciprocity. And to know that Facebook is not allowed. Yeah, perfect example. But in the United States, that doesn't change my contention that we should set the same standard for every platform, every media entity, whatever it might be, hold them accountable and if they don't qualify or perform, then they're banned.

Give us your just maybe societal then commentary on the number of people on TikTok right now. Yeah, it's significant. Advocating for... Well, I don't even know what you want to call it. I guess reading and sympathizing with some of the modens. It's just... Well, first of all, I'm sure you guys do too. I look at TikTok.

I consume as much media as many platforms as possible, so I understand why some of the nonsensical perspectives are being shared with me by so many people right now. So I understand why some of the nonsensical perspectives are being shared with me by so many people right now. So I get it. But back to the fundamental question, what do we do? This has been, by the way, an age old issue since our very founding. It used to be anonymous pamphlets that would spread misinformation or condemnation and fire people up. Now it's just instantly available. It doesn't matter if you have a printer, you can push a button. And yes, am I concerned, of course I am. The fact that when I'm spending time on college campuses right now,

and listening to otherwise really well-educated, privileged kids, same things that are so nonsensible, so ignorant, and so shocking, I know where it's coming from. So I understand the problem just like all of you. I think this question is, what do you do about it? And all I'm saying is we should have the same standard for every platform because the same issue is on every platform. That is my only thing about you. You're about to say this, but what do you think about what Nikki Haley suggested? You know, I was shocked that people maybe just frame for the listeners who don't know what she says. So Nikki Haley, and I asked Mark Zuckerberg this one, so too. I'll tell you, Nikki Haley proposed that every platform, every social media platform, have verified accounts. No more anonymous accounts.

And she got ripped, got ripped. You know, I understand this is, it's a reasonable argument to have. But I got to tell you, I'm a surprise that that's something that seems somewhat reasonable to people who are paying attention would have such a such a response that she actually retracted it. I'm not proposing it I'm just saying that I think we should be throwing ideas on the table and I know from experience just like you guys when you hide behind a fake name You can be not just a jerk to someone you you can be downright dangerous. When your name's attached to it, you behave in a very different manner, not a mention when you're face to face. So I don't think that was as absurd as people considered it. I asked Mark Zuckerberg after a financial services hearing a couple years ago. You know, why doesn't Facebook just

verify accounts make this so much easier to hold people accountable and have higher standards of accountability. And he said it would be a competitive disadvantage. And of course it actually had to do it. Yeah, and this has been tested. Korea had their version of this in order to sign up in Korea for their social networks or ISPs. You had to use your social security number.

Sure, and that makes sense. And the other thing, guys, is you know that if you write a letter to the editor of most major newspapers, you have to, you have to attach your name to it. It has to be verified. It's, I just think it's a conversation that we should be having. And by the way, you know, it might be time to read Future Shock again by Alvin Toffler, who predicted so much of this mess in which we find ourselves the incapacity of human beings to adapt to such rapid technological change, which by the way, you all in this, you, just the handful of you on this, on this

podcast, have more expertise than the entire United States Senate and Congress combined as it relates to the issues we're talking about. On tech, there is no capacity, no competency. So on whom do we rely, the very lobbyists being paid by the very enterprises that so easily can set the standards, if there aren't people of better capacity. And only 11 members of Congress have an engineering degree. Only 11 members of Congress. I was on Kevin McCarthy invited me to join his AI cabinet, which just it was a few four

Democrats, about four Republicans. We had our first meeting and started making plans right before he was deposed. And now I don't know anything. If anything's going on in that respect. Where do you stand on the spectrum of decorum online on one end and free speech on the other? Where the absolutist would say, absolutely not verified accounts as a non-starter, because it just fundamentally undermines the First Amendment and this other thing, which is more organized to core them. Jimoth, I think that's the issue of our day. Maybe the most important when it's true, both online and it's also true in our Congress

right now. Where's that intersection between debate, discord, and comprehensive division? I don't have the good answer for it right now, is the truth. And I'm afraid that if you interpret our constitution, free speech has to be met with more free speech. But I'll tell you, that that also will conflict and increasingly is with the right to pursue happiness. I mean, that's just true. I mean, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's the most complicated issue in our era. Would I like to see our kids safer, our mental health and emotional health improve and the division reduced and misinformation and disinformation rectified, of course, because I do think.

Would you put a minimum age on the use of social networks, do you have kids, would you make it 15, 16 years old, is that? I think it would be healthier for, look, put a minimum age on use of social networks? Do you have kids? Would you make it 15, 16 years old as well? I think it would be healthier for, we have minimum age for alcohol. That's older than you have to be to fight in the war for God's sakes. It's ridiculous. You know, the cannabis is still banned at the hypocrisy of the federal government is also what I'm running against right now. So Jason, I think that is a good idea.

You know this. And I've had daughters that grew up in the social media era. It is one of the most destructive, it is far, it is as destructive as I think drug consumption to adolescent health as anything else. So to answer a question, I think that's a perfectly legal, be perfectly reasonable, and you can't just entrust parents to do it because Johnny's parents will allow him to have the phone and the apps, you know, and Jill's won't. And he can't, entrust parents to do it because Johnny's parents will allow them to have the phone and the apps You know and Jill's won't and he can't there has to be just I think there has to be we do that for a lot of other things And I think we should talk about at what age any of this is reasonable

But absolutely I think that's not unreasonable. I want kids to be safe just like you guys and so does like driving a car Is a good back there 15 16 17 years old. Yeah, we should also allow kids to learn how to drink before they learn how to drive. We're the only country that does it like this. Drive for five years until you legally can drink. So when you have your first drink, you don't even know what it's going to do to you. It's absurd. Frieber, I know we're going to talk about spending in a second, but just before we get away from foreign policy, I think it's important that we ask, what would be your goals with

respect to conflict in the Middle East? What's the strategy you'd enjoy to achieve those goals and who are the people that eat around yourself with? Well, tell you, my strategy is quite simple. It's peace around the world and it's prosperity at home, plain and simple, and I can put the legs of that stool together for you as quickly as I possibly can, but let's talk about the Middle East. I'm 54 years old. President Biden has been in the U.S. Senate or in the White House for 50 years. None of us on this podcast have lived through anything but bloodshed, reciprocal misery between

Palestinians and Israelis. This cycle has continued for decades. I've had enough. I cannot stand the sight of babies being pulled from the wounds of mothers by Hamas and Israel. Any more than I can watch babies being destroyed by bombs and missiles in Gaza, and it's got to stop. I am about to issue a statement to that end that says essentially, Hamas must release all of

its hostages, period period of which there are nine Americans guys. Nine Americans are being held in Gaza by a terrorist organization. And as President, I would be making that might not my daily desire or request, my daily demand, all hands on deck, these hostages must be released immediately. Would you send in special forces to collect them? I would. Absolutely. It is incumbent on the President of the United States

to extract Americans being held against their will by any foreign entity. I don't know, gotta ask him. But good luck asking him, because he doesn't do any press conferences. The goal for peace is reasonable, but maybe some specifics around your strategy. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Okay, so first, at the moment, the hostages are safely released, there should be a ceasefire period. And at that very moment, there should be a multinational peacekeeping force sent into Gaza to maintain security immediately. When I say multinational, the very nations that are connected to Gaza, Arab nations have to be part of it. Not the United States, not Israel, of course, but a significant force there to keep the peace immediately, concurrently, a multinational coalition designed

to eliminate Hamas by every nation in the world that wants them eliminated, which frankly is most. And then we have got to invest again, nations of the world, investing in a democratic civil society, infrastructure, education, facilities, and security, so that a new generation of Palestinian leaders can create a circumstance whereby another nation can be created, period. And it's not going to happen with Israel and Palestinians trying to do this. It has got to be imposed.

It has got to be a coalition of the willing. And then only then, when we see the conditions for, hopefully, elections for Palestinians for the first time since 2006, 17 years. And concurrently, it is time for Israelis to call an election to replace Benjamin Netanyahu because he is absolutely part of Israel's security problem. I've looked him in the eye.

I told him before this happened, earlier this year, I've been with him twice. Looked him in the eye, I said, what you are doing is affecting the relationship with the United States and Israel and will absolutely affect security moving forward. I had no idea what would be coming in October 7th. But the settlement policy, the right wing government, the distraction that the judicial reform initiative has created in that country is made the conditions ripe. And by the way, having been in re-odd recently too, it was really getting close. The Saudis in the Great-Lise normalizing. And that was exactly why I believe whether it was implicit or explicit, Iran inspired Hamas

to do this then. And by the way, in the United States, mark my words. There are our adversaries are watching the dysfunction and distraction right now with the same open eyes. And we have borders that are awfully easily to get in. And that's the truth. And I'm a Democrat saying that I would do this entirely differently. Can you actually talk about the border? Tell us what would you do there? Once again, I've got a lot of colleagues who make their decisions by reading an article,

seeing a tweet or seeing a TikTok. I go, I've been to Israel and the Middle East twice just in the last number of months. I've been to the Southern border twice. I've seen with my own eyes. It is the most despicable, embarrassing, failure of American policy I have ever seen. I have seen women walking across the Rio Grande with babies in their arms who have spent

six or $7,000, their whole life savings paid to gangs and coyotes to bring them across the border. I've seen the extraordinary beauty and grace with which Border Patrol agents have looked after these people. I've seen babies who were abandoned that were on 24-hour care, Border Patrol agents, who took as good a care of these little kids as they would their own. I saw people in cages. I saw the most archaic out-of-date, inefficient, ineffective ports of entry.

I saw lines of trailer trucks, probably two, three miles long, idling in the hot weather, waiting to get across. I saw a mile long of human beings waiting to come into the country to do their shopping or their job or their education, and it was horrifying. And if we think, by the way, we need much better border security, barriers, technologies, and facilities. And by the way, we also needed at the Northern border. I'm a border-state in Minnesota.

People walk across farm fields in Manitoba and in Minnesota. We don't know who they are. Some of them get caught. That's true. But I'll tell you guys, if we think that we can solve the problem at the border, that's the issue right there. This administration and past ones just don't get it. We should be adjudicating asylum cases in countries of origin.

Why make these poor people take their life savings that they have no money? They're set off in the streets here. They're supposed to come back to a court two years from now. Let them keep their money. Let's build dormitories next to our consulates or our embassies in the northern triangle countries or ever migrants are coming. Create some safety security there, invest in local economies so that there can be some opportunity, and adjudicate their

cases there if they qualify. Let's bring them to America with $6 or $7,000 in their pocket so they can start a nice new life and pursue the American dream. And if they don't, they will be kept in their countries of origin and of course we have to work with Mexico as well. But this is not rocket science. It's simple problem solving and the fact that we continue to do this stupid policy to this day you guys is in fact.

On the other side of this, talk about recruiting. Many countries, Canada, New Zealand, a lot of the Nordics have a point-based system and they actively recruit talent. You're an entrepreneur, you've been CEO of multiple companies. It is an absolute, arduous pain to get talented people here right now. Recruitment of talent in the United States is bundled with the Southern border. How would you decouple that? Would you be in favor of a point-based system and recruitment of talent to get more talented

immigrants in our country, which by the way, three of the four besties here, we're not born in the United States. Which is an... And by the way, my four mothers and four fathers came here for the same reasons. Same reasons that every one of those moms and dads is coming across the Rio Grande. So I tans you a question directly Jason, I think we can do both. I think we should have a merit-based system to attract the best and brightest and most talented.

I'm sure all of you had came from enterprises that would afford benefits, perhaps education to people you would expect them to actually stay at your enterprise for a number of years to kind of as a payback. We are right now, the United States is training some of the best and brightest in the world, not creating opportunities to stay. And of course, Canada is the beneficiary, the Nordic countries, European countries. You guys know this. This notion that we can't do two things at once, that we can't welcome the most disadvantaged who simply want to pursue an American dream

and start at the very bottom and match that with some of the best and brightest who can actually start at the very top. Oh my goodness. Why does everything have to be binary, you guys? Black and white, good or bad, yes or no? Yes or no? It's nonsense. Before we run out of time, you know what I'm talking about.

Oh, darn, let's get too short. Yeah, no, for you. I'm getting a little over time. I got more days that time, guys. Oh, okay, great. We really want to talk. I got time. Yeah. Freeberg and I are, I think freeberg, you know, moved me to his position on this number one issue for this election freeberg

correct me if I'm wrong for you is still our out of control spending. Freeberg. Maybe you could tee this up. Yeah, I mean, I've said this in the past, I think the US is facing a fiscal emergency in the sense, I think the US is facing a fiscal emergency in the sense that arithmetic starts to play out, that the cost of debt spirals. We can't accomplish any of the other stuff we're talking about unless we can figure this out. We have $33 trillion of debt today.

The treasury estimates it's going to grow to $47 trillion by 2033, just 10 years away. I want to have Trillion in deficit this year, trillion in debt interest expense alone this year. And a third of our debt is coming up to be refinanced soon. It's going to get refinanced at 4.5% interest rate instead of 2.5% and sitting at today. So the interest will swell, the deficit will swell, the debt will swell. And we're already taxing 18% of GDP as federal revenue, which a lot of economists have shown. You can only get to 20% at which point economy starts to shrink.

There's, yeah, I think pretty good research on this. Some would argue differently, but I think that's kind of a natural limit. So the only kind of response is what's wrong with spending? Like, why do we have the spending problem? I guess the question for you is, what is causing structurally the spending problem? A lot of people have said that this is the late-stage empire, the failure of democracy, because everyone votes themselves, all the money eventually. Or is it a politically oriented problem where folks don't want to address the biggest line items? They don't want to hold programs to account.

And what is the answer here? So to answer your question directly, you ask what the cause is. It's incompetency and perverse incentives. Period. There used to be a political reward for conservatives who were focused on fiscal responsibility, because they would win elections over tax and spenders. But that party is long gone, long gone. There's no reward. That's why Trump added $7 trillion to the deficit. And that's why Biden will probably

end, you know, add about that much as well. So, by the way, I think I'm one of the only Democrats who has been named by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, one of their fiscal heroes as a Democrat. And also, I'm a Hamilton Jefferson Award winner by the US Chamber of Commerce. And I'm also pro-worker. I this notion that you can't be, by the way, pro-business and pro-worker that they're somehow mutually exclusive, that's BS.

They're mutually mandatory. But back to your question, 33 trillion in debt, by the way, our economy can accommodate more. That's the sad truth. The issue is our debt service. And nobody's talking about the fact that it is going to go from the mid 400 billion a year to to your point gave with the higher interest rates probably approaching a trillion maybe eight hundred and forty.

Already over a trillion. Is it a trillion one today? It's going to be a trillion. Well, yeah. I don't. I would argue that maybe we could have a little argument about if it's there quite yet, but not the either way. Let's call it. Let's call it a Let's call it a trillion. That means literally, that means literally, we are spending way more

for the past than we are investing in the future. That means we have literally no dollars left for any discretionary spending. Every bit of it is now consumed by Social Security, Medicare, and our military. And on top of that, we've got people sleeping on the streets in every single town in City in America. We have kids going to school hungry. We have one of the most, to me, failing public school systems in the entire developed world. We have a healthcare system that is not healthcare, it's sick care, a fee for service model that should be capitated, and our outcomes are mid-pack. And we have a $2 trillion deficit, and

by the way, no childcare, no pre-K education. I can go on down the list. It's nonsensical, and we're spending $2 trillion more. So to answer your question, you guys know the answer here. We're a country with, I think, $150 some million, $1 trillion, $000,000 in total United States household wealth. Where do you cut? Let's start by getting into those specifics. Do you cut entitlements?

Do you cut military? Where do you cut and how do you cut? So here's what I would do. Starting with Social Security. Social Security, you guys, is the most successful, anti-poverty program in world history. And I believe it would be not just a dereliction of duty, it would be counter to every American principle if senior citizens struggled. By the way, we don't have a culture in America that takes care of the elders, like in most Asian cultures and other wonderful cultures in the world. So absent that, we have to afford resources.

So two things. As you all know, Social Security, the Trust Fund, will face probably reductions in 25, at about 25% cut levels by 2033, based on the current path. Two easy things we can do. 160,000 dollars a year is the cap right now, I think, roughly. We should make that 250.

That means it's a very regressive tax. If you're making 160, you're paying a whole lot more of your income than someone making 250, 300,000 years. Not to mention, 3 million or 30 million. So we should raise the cap to 250, make sure that fund at least is solvent through probably 20, 40, 60, 20, 40, 47. And then I would do something different for the first time in American history. For all the millions of Americans who've done well, don't need their Social Security that wish to become philanthropists,

I would create a pool, not that goes back to the treasury, a pool that would be automatically redistributed to the lowest five or 10% of all social security recipients in the entire country. And let's say it might be a $500 boost. It might be a $1,000 boost a year for the most challenged elderly Americans. But when 40% of Americans can't afford a $400 car repair or emergency expense, you know, that's not for this group, but. No, dear point. Your point. I think it was the Fed or it was Treasury that published a study I was shocked

by the actual number of American millionaires that exist. And it's counter to the narrative, because you would, if you just read the headlines, you think America's an economic despair, and it's not true, and the wealth creation is actually quite pervasive, which is a great feature of American capitalism. So to your point,

there are a lot of people who would be willing to pay it forward to folks that didn't have it if you gave them the choice. It's just not possible today. So why shouldn't we be a government that creates, so just, Jamaat, if I could just say, you know, one of my perspectives and intentions is to not necessarily, by the way, we don't have to spend money to

expose young people who never get out of their neighborhoods in many cities in this country, expose them to possibility. Get them into factories, into ad agencies, into high tech centers, show them rockets and music makers and artists. We don't need to spend a whole lot more money to simply completely change the path of young Americans' lives, not to mention old Americans' lives. That's just a perfect example of a simple solution that costs zero and lets Americans actually be Americans.

Okay, so now go to Medicare, but I think I know what you're going to say because you mentioned it, Capitation. Yeah. Maybe talk very quickly on that and then military. What do you, Captain? Yeah, so quickly on healthcare, look I think I know what you're going to say because you mentioned it, capitation, but maybe talk very quickly on that and then military. What do you, couple? Yeah, so, so quickly on healthcare, look guys, I, I represent United Health Group. In my district, tens of thousands of Minnesotans, many of them who live in my district earn very handsome salaries from United. They've done some great work in many ways, but I have to tell you, since I've joined Congress in my third term now,

you would be in tears. If you had to sit with the people that I have sat with over so many occasions who thought they had coverage, whose son got sick or whose mother broke a leg or something, and they literally have gone bankrupt or taken on tens of thousands of dollars in medical debt and they get surprised bills. And then they read in the paper that their health insurer reported annual net income of over 20 billion dollars. And I don't know how you guys feel, but I got to tell you, you know, I'm a capitalist.

I'm also compassionate. And I can no longer reconcile that. I really can't. There's a reason we're the only nation in the world that does it this way. I think it's time, by the way, from Roosevelt to Truman to Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon proposed universal health coverage and it was Ted Kennedy that undermined it, if you can imagine that. If we don't, if conservatives and progressives don't come to the table and talk about how we can deliver a national health insurance program that is portable, let's gig economy participants do their thing that people don't have to make choices about

where to work just because of the health care. I don't know why we wouldn't talk about that. And by the way, I'm not talking about the provision of care. It's really important because Fox News and some Republicans have tried to say this is a socialized solution. Just the coverage because the money is in the system already between 3, 4, 5, 6, x, pharma costs between 2x, health per capita, health costs, 10,000 per person compared to any country in the world at 5.

The answer is I think right there in front of us, the money is in the system, would not require tax increase. I think we could actually save substantial money. I'm working on a proposition right now. I would argue that the model is part of the problem. Fear service is antithetical to what we need. We need a capitated model that gives an incentive to the providers, to keep people out of the

hospital, at least try, at least try. So that's the answer on that. And by the way, right now, Medicare, as you probably know, it covered, I think 23% of the mayor of the country, or no, between Medicare and the VA, which are single payer systems, 25% of Americans right now are covered by a single payer system. And by the way, it works better than the other system. Medicare recipients are pretty pleased. This would also be a huge benefit as a capitalist running companies. I mean, how much of your time was spent running your companies, dealing with healthcare and the dysfunction

of employees staying at companies because they couldn't? Awful. Get healthcare in another company. What about military team? What would you do that? Okay, now military, and this is where,

how to answer your question very directly once again, nobody can tell you that they can even begin to address our fiscal challenges without looking at that ridiculous number, approaching a trillion dollars a year. And by the way, the Pentagon has not passed an audit. They would, in my administration, there would be a top-down assessment of every single program, every single base and facility, every explanation of why we are in those 80 nations and whether

or not we should be employing 21st century strategies to keep our country safe. And I think one of the simplest solutions, you guys, is we should be entrusting countries more approximate to the problems to manage them. It doesn't mean we're not in good ally anymore. It just doesn't mean that we are in a position any longer to be the policeman for the entire world when we can barely take damn care of our country itself. It's just so damn simple and I'm frustrated by it because as someone who lost his father

in a completely obnoxious and unnecessary war, a guy that I have on my phone right now, digital audio tapes that he used to send back tapes to my mom, where he says, I've come to the conclusion, and he loved America. He did not like that war, but he loved America. He said, I believe the only reason we're still here is because so many people are making so much money. He saw it, and the same thing is happening to this day, you guys, that trillion dollars,

that's going somewhere, it's going in people's pockets. And I believe we can cut that and I'm not going to make a proposition, but I believe after a comprehensive assessment that we can save hundreds of billions of dollars that can either be saved on the bottom line or better yet actually invested in human beings instead of the destruction of them, period. Would you zero based budget? Absolutely. Why, Jamal, I've had to go back to Washington twice

to vote on CRs, continuing resolutions. Yeah. It is, the dysfunction is absurd. There's not a, there may be five people that can read a PNL or a balance sheet in the whole damn Congress. Our budgeting system is completely broken. And yes, as president, I would demand a zero-based budgeting procedure. And, like I said, a comprehensive independent assessment of every program.

And if it is not generating a return, if it could be outsourced to a private sector that can deliver it for a better value, that's how we should proceed. And by the way, it may not be easy, it may take time to get done, but why we don't try is absurd and to answer your final question. If we don't, and once foreign investors no longer consider the United States of America, the safest place to deploy capital, it's too late. And I will not, certainly under my watch, will not let us get there, but we've got a re-craft.

And lastly, can I say one more thing quick on that, Jamoth? If the only way that I think we can address the biggest issue in the country, which is the growing disparity between those who have wealth and income and those that do not, we're not a nation that will redistribute. I think we've been not just unsuccessful, we've actually created some of the problems we now find ourselves in. The way to do it is to raise the foundation. The same way it was raised for me by a good, a stroke of good luck. I was adopted by a dad who gave me everything. And who knows where I would have been if that didn't happen.

I want to do the same thing for everybody. Have health care, have great education, have child care, make sure you have a house a place to live. If we give everybody the same thing, then we can be a country. So let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's

say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's Swami who would dismantle the Department of Education at the federal level and just push all the responsibility to the states with about your program. He talked about it here once. Where are you and what's your philosophy on this state of the education? I would say I'm in the middle because I think there's some I think there's some worthiness to both of those perspectives. What would I do? I would fundamentally reinvent American public education with the best and the brightest, with students, with teachers, with families, with the nonprofit sector and the business sector because right now business needs to participate in 21st century education to

advise the teachers and the administrators and the curricula designers what skills they need. They're not even part of the conversation you guys. I don't know about you all. I don't know about you all. Well, why do you think that there are certain places, progressive, liberal, bastions, if you will? That have been the first to dismantle things like Stan and AP classes. Why is that happening?

I wish I had a good answer for that. It's appalling. But I do have a good solution. I'm sure like you guys, you all know this, the single most important determinant of a child's success educationally is the quality of their educator. Every single study says the same thing. The United States of America right now, we pay about 81% of the per capita GDP to teachers

for compensation. The best performing systems in the world, and there is a correlation, pay 120, 130, sometimes 140, 140% of their per capita GDP, they make teaching one of the most admired, elevated professions in their nation. They identify great teachers when they're still young,

and I think we should be a nation that does the same thing. We're not attracting the best and brightest any longer. When Teach for America teachers outperform teachers who have tenure have been added for 10, 20, 30 years. Does that not say the quality matters? It's not the school how it looks. But anyway, I would reinvent and the other thing is this, you and I'm sure like you guys, I remember a couple teachers that made a huge difference in my life and they're about 50. I could barely remember it all. They should all be those two. And then furthermore, if you think sitting in front of a blackboard is the way to teach

kids in this day and age, no, you got to get out of the school, you got to look at Scandinavian countries and Asian countries and how experiential learning, learning from the best most extraordinary educators in the world through screens on occasion, but to experience. You know, AI is going to fundamentally change employment as we know it. We have nobody in Washington that gets it. We need an administration in 2024 that does and begins to simply rectify all of these problems anticipating the change that's coming. This administration is not going to do it.

And education should be redesigned based on the change we know is coming. And I don't have all the answers, but I know a lot of people have in California and around the country and around the world who could help us. It's too early to regulate AI. Or is it? No, no, I think it should be very, you know, Jason, I would say right now it should be very limited. And this is where back to the conversation about anonymous accounts. We do have to set, I think, some standards and penalties for nefarious use of AI. If we don't do that early and set the tone, I think it will get out of control. So to me, that's all we should do right now.

And let it grow, let it expand, let large enterprises and small come up with extraordinary ways to save money, by the way. AI is going to save extraordinary sums of money for the federal government and healthcare for businesses. We can anticipate how employment will change and what jobs will be jobs of the future. But if we don't think about that now, we're going to do what Congress always does. Get caught off guard, have to come in on a midnight. It'll prepare with a thousand-page bill that nobody understands because it was written by a lobbyist that had skin in the game and does not serve America and that maybe wraps up this whole conversation. Yeah, I'm just not sure folks really understand in congress what they're doing.

No, it's front. But the difference between foundational models and the utilization of those models in an endpoint are very different regimes to think about regulation. And they're not even, that framework isn't even understood. Not at all. We're not even talking about regulating outcomes or actions, we're talking about regulating the infrastructure that could cause various outcomes.

Regulate. I'm very much against where this is all evolved to. I think like some folks kind of want to say, hey, this is a regulatory capture moment, but I want to see someone in Congress stand up and demonstrate an understanding. First, before they can even have the right to articulate, you know, a framework for regulation. Well, Dave, I want to shout out this guy. Don Byer is a former US ambassador, Democrat from Virginia. He must be 70. He went back to college. I think John Hopkins and just received or is pursuing his degree in artificial intelligence. That's the kind of representative. Isn't that cool? You would never know his name because he's not on, you know, Fox Remus and BC screaming at night, but those are the kinds of people that should be celebrated. A lot of my Republican colleagues

that got thrown out of Congress because they had the audacity to support the Constitution when Trump was impeached the second time, you know, those people I celebrate. Can I, I got to run, but can I tell one quick story to wrap my whole story up in a place what I want to try to do? You know, at the, at the end of the day, none of this occurs, none of the successes, none of the policy ideas, none of the ideation occurs if we don't repair, and that means restoring friendships, our families, our communities, and our country. So I do a series back home in Minnesota called Common Ground. I get six Democrats and six Republicans,

invited to a table. We break bread, we introduce ourselves to a little bit of our life stories. We talk about health care policy, and we talk about immigration policy, which is where everything I shared tonight comes from both Democrats and Republicans. And it's a two-hour session facilitated

by an extraordinary group called Braver Angels. I encourage you to look them up. They are remarkable doing this work all around the country. And at the end of these sessions, we go around the table and each person at the table shares a little bit about what they got out of this experience. And I had an episode not long ago that sums up my whole mission. A young woman Emily looks across the table at Dave and says, Dave, when you drove up in your F-150 with the Trump sticker on it, I almost got back in my car, left the parking lot, and drove away. I could not bear to go in the building,

let alone sit at the table with you. And she said, but I got to say, I so loved sitting here. And you're a good guy, and I learned something. Goes around the table, comes to Dave and he looks at Emily and says, Emily, when you drove up in your Prius, I wanted to run it over. And he says, and he says, but hey, I got to tell you, Emily, I've never met a progressive as cool as you and I really am glad I came to this today. And at that moment, Emily and Dave stood up in front of our table and they embraced and to

see a bleeding heart liberal and a dyed in the wool trumper. Do that probably was the most important moment in my entire career and service. If that is the only moment of its kind in my career and service, it would have made it worthwhile. And that is exactly what I'm going to inspire as president of the United States. Get Emily and Dave to hug it out. All they have to do is be invited for a little dinner, give them some space in place to recognize their common cause and their common ground. And that's how we're going to do this. I don't see

a candidate right now in the ballot that has that intention, has that capacity, or has that capability. So I just want to thank you guys and- Last thing, and just yes or no. Can everybody expect that you will be on the ballot in every state? I can't say I'm going to be in the ballot in every state, Jamoth, because I don't think it's possible between time and money. I'm going to have to make some choices.

And that's just the sickening truth. I want to salute Bernie Sanders. He actually made it possible for a candidate like me and probably future candidates Who are subject to this nauseating system to actually still compete and get to the convention and maybe win because He depowered people like me members of Congress that used to have outsized votes disproportionately so versus voters. And I celebrate him because he was right.

I used to think he was a sore loser. Bernie Sanders was absolutely right about a rigged system that is keeping people out of the process, keeping candidates out of the process, and keeping debate out of the process. So I'm going to be on most ballots. I've got to raise money. And frankly, I hate to be shameless.

But the truth is, if we want to get on most ballots. I've got to raise money and frankly, I hate to be shameless, but the truth is if we want to get on ballots, I need support. And it's easy. Dean24.com. You know, by the way, I'm at 15% in New Hampshire after just two weeks. We thought it would take six if we were lucky. Wow. So people can throw 15 bucks our way to get on ballots at Dean24.com.

And by the way, Joe Biden, 27%, 73% of New Hampshire Democratic voters do not want the sitting present of the United States as their nominee. And mark my words, we're going to bring change. Thank you guys. All right. Thanks so much. Thanks. Thank you very much.

Keep the faith guys. I mean, love to see you again. See you later. Yeah. Great. Thank you. Peace. Keep the faith guys. I mean, love to see you again. See you later. Yeah. Great. Thank you. 90 minutes with Dean Phillips. Everybody go to dean24.com if you want to learn more.

All right, besties. I think that was another epic discussion with the presidential candidate. What's your thoughts, Jamal? You set up this interview. Where does he stand in your likely votes for president in 2024? Where would your rank him now? Andriang texted me like last week and said, would you guys do this?

And I was really interested because mostly I didn't know where he was coming from to be totally honest. But I think his national visibility is probably going to increase a lot. My reaction is that he is who he says he is, which is like kind of down the middle. He doesn't take either extreme, any kind of takes a moderate point of view and says there's a balance of this and that that can work. And that's actually good that he owns that as opposed to it being sort of a consequence or a byproduct of not getting what he wants.

He kind of like that is where he starts. So I like that about him a lot. I thought he was really candid about what doesn't work. I really appreciate that honesty. He's saying some of the right things around capping Medicare, zero-based budgeting, the military. I think all of those things right. I didn't like to be honest, the free speech military. I think all of those things right. I didn't like to be honest, the free speech part. I thought that that was, I don't think you can have some kind of registry of verified accounts or something.

I just think that's a non-starter for America. It's a super slippery slope. But in general, I was really impressed. And his war stories as a businessman were pretty cool. Pretty awesome. Sachs, what your candid thoughts on, obviously he's not part of your political party, but what do you think his chances are versus Biden and how would you assess his performance here today? I was pleasantly surprised that he made the case for himself not just based on Biden's age and the fact that he's 54. But he also, I think, took a number of interesting policy stances that were a little different than

where Biden is. He did it on foreign policy, did it on domestic policy. So I think he took a number of positions that were refreshing. And a big one, I think, relates to his personal story where he talks about how he lost his father and Vietnam and that that war was kept going much longer than it should have been because basically the greed of the military industrial complex and he didn't fully connect the dots all the way to our present situation Ukraine but at least I think he would be skeptical of the influence of the M.I.C. in our politics. What he said with respect to Ukraine is, well, he said that it would be shameful to abandon

them now, but he also said that if it's true, he wasn't willing to concede it because he just said no factually, but if it's true that we could have avoided the war by taking NATO expansion off the table, that it would only be common sense to do that. I think that when the histories of this are written, it's going to be abundantly clear that we could have done precisely that. So his difference of opinion with me isn't in the logic. It's just in what facts he knows to be true. So I actually thought that his position there was reasonable

You know if it came down to a choice between Dean Phillips as the Democratic nominee and someone like Nikki Haley as Republican nominee I'd vote for Dean Phillips all day long You know one other thing I like about him is he is a business owner and He presents as a Bill Clinton Democrat. I mean, i think that's not an accident he's got a picture of bill clinton on the wall behind him you know he presents as a that was exactly my take away to i thought wow this is a modern democrat who's a little bit of a throwback to the democratic party of the nineteen nineties if rfk junior is trying to bring back the democratic party of say the nineteen sixties the party of john f kennedy and Bobby Kennedy his father, I think that Dean Phillips is more trying to bring back the Democratic Party the 1990s.

Both of them I think are ultimately very out of step with where the Democratic Party is today, but they're out of step with it in ways that I like. So he is a candidate who I could support against the Republican who, if we ended up getting a sort of stale, neo-con type Republican candidate, I would take a Dean Phillips all day long. Really? Wow. Great. Freeberg your thoughts. I mean, I think if Joe Biden runs, he obviously doesn't stand a chance just based on the structural issues that he described. If Joe Biden doesn't run and drops out, I think there are probably a lot of other

Democratic candidates who are going to have deeper pockets and more support from the party and more celebrity or what have you to get themselves elected. With respect to his candidacy and whether it's a realistic kind of campaign, I would probably argue no. But what I really like is the fact that he is making the case, I think in a stronger way than even RFK junior was on how these incumbents and how the incumbency in the party system prevents new candidates from actually participating in a true democratic process. And it feels to me a lot like what goes on in that sense is the equivalent of like regulatory capture, but in politics. It allows these party leaders and influencers, which is a very small group of people to decide

who gets to go on a ballot in the state, to decide who gets to be the nominee, who decides who gets to run for president. The best thing that he's doing is exposing a system that Bernie Sanders calls rigged and that clearly, I think, is very inequitable and doesn't create a true kind of democratic process. So it's really great to see him doing this work and telling this story. And I'm glad we gave him the forum to do that for just that reason. And if you were to have a choice of him or Biden, you'd pick him.

Yeah. If you had a choice of him or Vivek on the other side, would you pick? No comment. No comment. Okay. Taking off my moderator hat for a minute, loved his business stories, so I grew with you, Chema. Really excited to see somebody under the age of 80.

Run for president. And I thought there were really two powerful moments there when he said he would send special forces in and then he was pretty aggressive in his assessment of Netanyahu's leadership. And overall, he did engage with every single issue and had interesting policy issues. No, Shema. It seemed pretty engaging there. So overall, great job, everybody. I think, four for four on the presidential candidates, and just as a programming note,

we have sent the first podcasting kits, the first microphones to four presidential candidates for those of you counting at home. What do you think will happen post this, Shamaaf? Vivek got a big bump, RFK got a big bump. What do you think is going to happen post this? I think that Dean Phillips is going to pull really well. The more that people get to see him, and I think New Hampshire is set up well for grassroots politics like this. It will, it will go over very well. The question, I think, Freeberg points is the key one, which is the party infrastructure

has tremendous antibodies. And if they decide to shut you out, which they did very strongly and, vocally, for RFK, you don't have much of a choice, except for one as an independent. So, his candidacy is precarious, not because of the viability of him as a candidate, actually, because I think it's quite high or his likability, which is quite high or his electability, as SAC said, which against the right person is very high.

This has all to do with the antibodies of the infrastructure. It's just a quick. Just a quick programming note. J.Kell, are you drinking a chocolate milk? I am drinking a core power 26. 26 grams of protein. I'm still on my... I'm trying to get more protein. But I did have a super gut bar earlier today. Oh, no. It's not. It's not, which was quite nice. I thought there was a chocolate milk.

This one's got 26 grams. It's a 42 gram protein. Yeah, I don't want to give a free add to core power. But sacks, in addition to the antibodies that, you know, kicked RFK out of the Democratic party, the press also blocked him. CNN, et cetera, wouldn't let him on. The right would let him on all day long. Does this same antibody kind of system exist on the right at all

or is the right more open to multiple candidates just generally speaking. No, I mean, you look at Republican debates and they are vigorous debates. There is real disagreement on the right. There are real debates on the right and there is a real working out of contested issues. The Democratic Party, by and large, is a machine. It works in lockstep. That's why what Dean Phillips is doing is so sacrilegious. I mean, he is pretty much ending his career as someone who can just move up through the

ranks of the Democratic Party. Maybe this will turn out in a way where it gives him like a leapfrog, but I don't think so. I mean, I think he's basically signaling to the higher ups of the Democratic Party that he's no longer a candidate for advancement through the regular course. Got it. And one analogy is that the Democratic Party is like the Empire and the Republicans are like the rebel alliance. You know, the Republican Party is a bunch of misfits.

It's a bunch of discontents. He walks. He walks and solos. and solos or whatever. But the Democratic Party marches and walks that. Is that why the Democratic Party wins more is because they're in lockstep? Yeah. They're much better fundraisers. They're more disciplined. They have their act together right now. I don't think this is always the case, but I think it's true right now. Yeah. Okay. Well, we had a couple of other issues we wanted to get to, so I think we can wrap there. Great job, everybody.

That was spectacular, great job getting the candidate, Chimoff. Thank you for that. All right. We have to touch on what happened this week with the US and China relations. Everybody knows you, Jean Ping, was here in the Bay area to meet with Biden. Yellen, welcome. She at the plane. Maybe she's selling some treasuries, I don't know.

And this. That's what the person. Yeah, she, I mean, like we're like some sort of a piss poor company that selling his junk bonds. I mean, the second that she gets off the plane, she's hawking our shitty bonds. Well, listen, everybody's rushing inside. Now, you know, fundraising's hard.

Did you guys hear the commentary that the treasury auction had a really tough Tough moment last week there. You had a big auction on what was it 10 and 30-year bonds the 30-year bond did was not really there And so they're they got to get buyers in the market. They got to go get the Race money to run Lee to she's here everybody's having a hard time raising right now Pretty pretty crazy But Chimoff you and I tweeted about this clip where Xi Jinping said that he's basically for peace

and that we have to work together. Let me just start there with you, Chimoff, so we can get through this quickly. Do you take him out his word? There were cynical people saying like, hey, he's just desperate, needs more trade, needs more business. How do you interpret Xi's peace pipe here?

And his dinner with a bunch of executives last night. I think he's pragmatic. He's somebody that wants to not just rule over China, but he wants to do it for the rest of his life, and he wants to do a good job. And I've said this many times, China's issues are endemic and pervasive and they're demographic. And so he has huge structural issues that he has to fix in the Chinese economy. And so I think all of this is just about him focusing on his priorities, which makes sense, which is really about domestic policy. There's an enormous real estate issue that has to get sorted out.

There is a GDP issue that has to get sorted out. There's a youth unemployment issue that has to get sorted out. There is a GDP issue that has to get sorted out. There's a youth unemployment issue that has to get sorted out. And then there's an aging and a birth rate and replacement issue that has to get sorted out. All of these things are enormous efforts. And so I think he's pragmatic enough to not also then add foreign misadventures to that plate. And I think what you heard was him being very clear about just exactly that. Sachs, what was your interpretation? There's so many jumping off points here. You got farm policy, you got TikTok, fentanyl. I mean, there's a long list of issues, but does it feel like we're turning the corner on relations? Hey, they need us. We need them. What was your

interpretation all of this well i i think what's going on here is that the administration has its hands full with two wars they've we've got so got this war in europe over ukraine which is going very badly and now we have a new war in the middle east that caught them completely by surprise uh recall that literally a week or two before october seven through i jake you had Jake Sullivan saying the Middle East has never been more peaceful. So they absolutely did not anticipate what was coming. And now we have half of our carrier groups in the Middle East position there in cases, you know, blows up into a wider regional war.

So I think the simple fact of matter is that the Biden administration, this is more than they can handle. Or let's put this way, they're trying to put the China compete on hold. They're trying to put it on ice while they figure out a way to rescue this losing effort in Ukraine and to prevent the situation in the Middle East from spiraling out of control. It's just too much for them. They don't have the bandwidth to deal with a war or conflict breaking out in the Asia Pacific. So I think that's the, the Biden administration's motivation here is they're seeking to ease tensions because they're just too bad with constraint to deal with it.

By the same token, I think Jamal Thizraid that she realizes that he's got his hands full with domestic economic problems. He doesn't need a ratcheting up of tensions with the United States right now. And I would also add that on foreign policy, I think what you're seeing in his remarks is a return to the foreign, away from this kind of wolf warrior diplomacy that they had going on a few years ago where they were kind of saying these very bellicose things and they're kind of flexing their muscles in the Asia of specific region that really backfire on them because it raised the hackles of all those other

Asian countries and it was making it too easy for the United States to form a containment alliance against china so he's moving away from that type of wolf warrior uh... rhetoric that got them nowhere and he's moved back to the rhetoric of a dungshaw paying who said that uh... china's policy should be to buy its time and hide its light under a bushel. In other words, just get stronger and stronger, don't let people get wise to how strong you are and then when the time is right, you will flex your muscles

but just keep getting stronger. And I think he's returned to that policy. And you saw this with a Belt and Road conference that in Beijing just a few weeks ago, where you saw countries like Vietnam participating. And I think that China, their strategy is now to try to use some honey to catch some flies as opposed to using this kind of bella-coast rhetoric. And Saber rattling. And if we look at this chart, I think this chart speaks volumes

for Eberg in foreign investment into China has absolutely fallen off a cliff in dec the decoupling the saber rattling, you know, and other countries looking to have resiliency and not be dependent on China has obviously blown up in his lap. What are your thoughts on foreign trade and our business relationship with China and their relationship with the West and the rest of the world? This used to be a thing to do to make money and then it became a question mark of whether you can make money a couple of years ago. And now, as of this year, I would argue, you were a pariah if you

were trying to invest in China or do any business in China. It's almost like you can't do business with the enemy. That's the tone shift that I think accelerated in the last 24 months. As that tone shift happened in the business community and the investment community, it obviously escalated the tenor of, what does the broader relationship look like, that I think catalyzed, hey, we got a simmer thing down because we can't really afford a deal with that escalation right now.

But I don't know, I mentioned this to you guys, I was at a conference this past summer. This summer at 22, it was like, hey, maybe, you know, when are things going to get bad with China? To this summer, it's like, if you were doing business in China, you're trying to pick up pennies in front of a freight train. Like, you're going to get run over. And it happened in one year. That was my observation. It was like this pretty easy. Yeah, and I could tell from the tone of what everyone is saying on stage. It was like universal There wasn't anyone that disagreed and similarly as you guys know

We've heard this from both political parties in the US. It suddenly became the new new thing for Democrats and Republicans To denounce China denounce investing in China denounce doing business with China, but Too much too fast. I would argue, has led to an observation of the consequences to deeply coupled economic partner to the United States. China is the largest buyer of US agricultural exports, $200 billion a year of farm products that we make that shipped out to China. China is a major supplier to our electronics industry. We don't need to recount all

the relationships, but trying to decouple too quickly, trying to call China the enemy too fast, I think, has led to a realization that that's not really attendable. So I would argue that maybe this week has been a moment. I don't know if it really changes the long-term trajectory, but it seems like it's certainly a very important and critical pause in the escalation. One thing I wanted to comment, I think one of the biggest winners this week, I'd love your point of view on this guy, is it's like Gavin Newsom.

I mean, he was all over this week, like he was at the playing greeting G, he cleaned up San Francisco. I mean, he got it out from the president. He was at the dinner. I mean, do you guys think like Gavin is gonna you know, going to be there when Joe says, I'll see you later. I'm not going to run again. And then you know, when I spoke, yeah, what's happening here?

It's all just a big coincidence. He actually went on stage and San Francisco made all those comments about the city should be cleaned up and we haven't been doing it. We could have the whole time. It's very honest about it. Well, that's not quite what he said. Yeah. But I look, I mean, I don't know what do you guys quasi owning it right? It's actually quasi. Oh, I don't think he did own it. He gave these really weird remarks about how there are some people are saying that we're only cleaning up San Francisco because there's these fancy people here.

That was just such a weird term as well. And it's true because it's true. And it's true, but yeah, it was like he was headed in one direction and then realized he was making a mistake, but couldn't quite. Yeah, let's pull it up. Let's pull it up. It's good. Yeah, here. Play it. They're just cleaning up this place because all those fancy leaders are coming in a town. That's true because it's true. What he's basically doing there is admitting that he as the governor has the power to snap his fingers and wave his magic wand and clean up the streets of San Francisco and that is completely different than what he's been telling us for years for years he's been maintaining that the problem of homelessness in california is owned by local officials or by judges or by somehow by the system itself

and it's too complex and it's beyond his power to simply do something about it. But he just admitted that in fact he does have the power to do something about it. In fact, he is the boss of a one party state and all he had to do was snap his fingers and make this almost problem go away. And he's willing to do that for Xi Jinping.

He's willing to do that for Dream Force. He's willing to do that for the Super Bowl but he is not willing to do that for Xi Jinping. He's willing to do that for Dream Force. He's willing to do that for the Super Bowl, but he is not willing to do that for the ordinary citizens of San Francisco. And I think that ultimately is gonna be a huge vulnerability. What he should have said here is, it's true that we cleaned up the city to represent ourselves well for these foreign leaders

who are coming in, but the truth of it is that we should be doing this every day. And here's my agenda for fixing it, point one, two, three. And if we could get everyone on board with this agenda, we could fix this problem. But that's not what he said. What he basically communicated was that I can solve this problem anytime,

but I don't give a shit about you, ordinary citizens. We only do this for the fancy people. Tremoth, any reaction to that? He's auditioning. I mean, I think that much is clear. Again, I would just say, you can't just go to China and meet with Xi Jinping. So that has to be endorsed, it's negotiated,

it's enabled. You go there with talking points, you go there in discussion with state and treasury and the rest of the federal bureaucracy behind you. So that was a clear addition of some kind. And I think it was obvious that they wanted the apex summit to be the backdrop of a Biden G meeting. And so you're doubling down on California. So I think it's kind of like a dry run here is what I would say. I mean, I'm not sure that it's, I don't know what for.

It definitely made him look presidential. And I think you're right that when he went to China a few weeks ago to invite G to the summit, that was clearly sanctioned by, gotta be, by Blinken, by Sullivan, by the, of course, by Sullivan by the you can't do that of course of course of course but again the the reason why they sanctioned that is because they really want to use tensions with china right now given how full their hands are with the middle east right now with you know i'm not i'm not debating that i think that that makes all the sense in the world I think that you could have sent any number of well not any number but one of three cabinet secretaries and it would have been just as appropriate. I think sending the governor I think was a little bit of it it was a test can he perform and I think he did a good job there. He helped himself I mean he heard himself with the it's true because it's true but he helped

himself in terms of the optics of the can of. Can I say it though? I think he did look presidential in China. And I actually, that was the first time where I thought Gavin was really being a normal person, because he actually told the truth. He's like, yeah, this state is a. At best, no, but this state at its best is a center of innovation in the future. And at its worst, it's where every bad progressive idea goes to die. The way he said that. No, no, no, I'm saying that. I'm saying San Francisco embodies both of those two things. On one day, it's full of people on crystal math and fentanyl. On the second day, it's the open AI dev day. Yeah, well, say the president

with an a block of each other. And I think he just admitted. But if he said something like that, that would make him so much more real. Well, maybe he's trying to find his voice. I think his tone has shifted a bit. I don't know. That's what I'm saying. It felt like in seeing some of the talks he gave this week and his positioning and where he was sitting,

he looks like very legit. I definitely will say that the Gavin Newsom of three years ago was a little bit smarmy and More of like a political insider the Gavin Newsom of like the last week and particularly even just that comment to me David was Actually being honest and I think that that's a more viable path if they decide to give him the candidacy. Which I think is a really good observation because he could just come out and say, listen, we tried a bunch of things, we had good intent, it didn't work, and now we're reversing them. But you know, Biden did say that he would possibly be running for his job. I want to thank Governor Newsom, I want to thank him.

He's been one hell of a governor, man. Matter of fact, he could be anything he wants. He could have the job I'm looking for. That was, I don't know if you guys heard that quote from Biden, Biden said that last night. Wow. So I guess conspiracy, let's put our tinfoil hack corner time, sucks your favorite.

Percentage chance, Biden runs or drops out, whichever way you want to do it. Anybody have some tealy? I still think there's about a 70% chance that Biden runs. Okay, so there are a percentage. He's not going to voluntarily retire. He eat the party apparatus, whoever's behind the scenes, pulling the strings, the wizard of Oz is going to have to go, the party apparatus, whoever's behind the scenes pulling the strings, the Wizard

of Oz is going to have to go, the party elder, you have to go to him at a certain point and say, sorry, this is just not going to work. And we're not there yet. Okay. Chimoff, what do you think? I'm curious. I think, David, the leaders and the powers that be will not make that call right now. I don't think it's time yet.

Freeberg, are you going to take? I don't know. I think it's speculation. I really don't think it's time yet. Freiberg, you got to take? I don't know. I think it's speculation. I really don't know. Okay. Hey, Trimoff, one question here, just on markets. Hundreds of billions of dollars not being invested in China on that chart for investments. Where does that money go?

Any thoughts on where that's going? It's just sitting in a couch. I think it's being invested in other geographies. We talked about it last week with Jared Kushner, but if you look at just the ton of cash and cash equivalents, I think it just speaks to how everybody's just a little bit on the sidelines waiting to go, waiting for the green light, which you saw CPI this week, by the way. I mean, we talked about it last week, which is that it looked like CPI is turning over.

And now the consensus forecast is you're going to see CPI with a low 2% handle by February or March of this year. So you're going to see 2.2% CPI or something. Watch out. Watch out as in, hey, markets could come roaring back. Maybe not syrup environment, but, hmm, could get interesting. All right, listen, we don't want to leave without doing a science corner. Everybody loves science corner. I know deep mind has been working on,

you know, many projects, freeberg and deep mind, of course, is Googles AI arm. They did go. They did protein folding and of course they're doing barred, but they announced something this week about predicting weather. Tell us about this paper that was really extreber. Yeah, so I think this was pretty exciting. You guys know I used to work in whether when I ran climate corp, we did a lot of work with weather forecasting and weather modeling. So DeepMind published a paper in the journal Science this week

introducing graphcast, which is actually a publicly available model that does weather forecasting using machine-learn models. It's a 37 million parameter model just to give you a sense how small that is. That model compared to ChatGPT, which is like a 1.5 trillion parameters in the ChatGPT model. This is only 37 million parameters in this model.

And the performance that they got out of GraphCast, which they published in the journals, they've made the model available. You can check it out. You can read the paper on how they built the model. They're very open about that. When the model actually forecasts whether, over a 10-day period, better than traditional weather forecasting.

So let me just talk about how weather forecasting is normally done and what they did differently and why this is such a big breakthrough. So whether forecasting is usually done by kind of chopping up the atmosphere into little cubes, little blocks, and the weather is a fluid. It's like a liquid. It's air and moisture being moved around with energy. And so normal weather forecasting systems are what are called numerical models. You run physics. You run the formulas for physics on each of those little cells of the atmosphere and figure out how they affect the cell next to them and the cell next to them. And you run that cycle forward and you run all these calculations and then you figure out how those cells are going to be different in hours and then in days going forward.

And these numerical models basically because they're compute intensive, they're running actual calculations from physics to model all this stuff, they require a lot of compute power. There are hundreds of variables that are measured and that are output from forecasting models, and they're generally run on these very expensive compute clusters. There are two major weather forecasting systems. One is run by ECMWF, which is the European Weather Center, and the other one is run by NOAA, called GFS here in the US.

And ECMWF runs on a million cores across 7,700 compute cluster nodes. They spend about $200 million on this compute cluster. And the GFS model runs on a 29 petaflop system. So 29 quadrillion floating operations per second. It costs $270 million. And when they run the forecast model using this traditional way of doing things,

they're running all these physics calculations on these little small blocks of the atmosphere and perturbing it fast forward, try and capture as much data out of the model runs as they can. And every six hours, they run the model, and there's a new output every six hours. And it costs a billion dollars for NOAA to run forecasts every year and disseminate that information. And then all the weather companies you know from Weather Channel and AccuWeather, they are all buying or getting free access to these forecasts that come from these big compute clusters.

And that's how all weather forecasting is done. They're actually done primarily by these big centralized government super compute clusters. And then they're made available for everyone to consume. And the more data and the more compute you get, the better the forecasts, the higher the resolution, meaning the more local space you can forecast on, the smaller the timecales, meaning you can go from one day forecast to one hour forecast, break it down, and the further out you can be accurate, whether it's five days and then 10 days and so on. So more compute has been the name of the game for many, many years in whether forecasting

the more compute you get, the better the forecasts. So this breakthrough that DeepMind has had is they basically took all the past weather forecast and they built a model that figured out how to take the current weather and the weather from six hours ago, just the data, so the data feeds from today's current weather and weather six hours ago, and trained a model that predicted weather for the next 10 days. The same output as you would get from these big expensive numerical models. And they did this using what's called a graph neural network. That's the architecture for the model.

A graph neural network is far more complicated than, say, predicting an image, which is two-dimensional. It's pixels next to each other, or predicting a text stream, which is one-dimensional. It's what's the next word in a sentence. So a graph neural network's a fairly complicated model. And so they describe all the techniques they use and everything they built in the paper. They were really open about it all. And then they were able to train this model using past, you know, forecasting data going back to the 70s.

And then they ran the model. If you pull up these charts. So the first chart that we're going to pull up here basically shows the model's performance graph cast against the big ECM WF model. And what you'll see is that the model across all timescales going out to 10 days is better. And there's a bunch of ways to measure this primarily what's called root mean square error, which measures the skill of the forecast. So here you can see the black line is the

numerical model run by ECMWF, which is the big weather forecast model that most people in the world rely on every day, and the bottom is the machine learn model. And by the way, the entire graphcast model runs in one minute. So you basically input current weather data and you input weather data from six hours ago and in a minute. You get all the forecasts. Whereas currently we could run on what like a smartphone or a laptop. It's not that small but yeah, you could run it on a small compute and you can get the results in a minute. And so basically everyone can now be a weather forecaster.

What is this is the gap between the black and the blue line significant? Is that an important? It is significant in two ways. One is first of all, it's better, which is amazing because researchers have spent billions of dollars and decades trying to make their numerical models better. So the fact that a machine-learn model is just simply better is really profound. And the second point is that this machine-learn model is only 37 million parameters and can be output in a minute. So you could be running this thing continuously. And you could be this, does this work for whether all around the world or just in the specific exactly all around the world. And the second thing that they measured if you

pull up the second graph was, well, okay, great, you can measure, you can do basic weather forecasting. But are you good at picking up extreme events? The things that are really outside of the normal distribution curve, the things that we should worry about, like cyclones or extreme heat or atmospheric rivers. And the answer again is absolutely yes, that this model trained on this data

is better at forecasting extreme weather events. On that bottom left one, is it saying that H.S. doesn't actually predict cyclone tracking and that graphcast gives you like two, three, four days lead time? That's just an error difference. Yeah, it's a measure of delta. So what's the down-stream effectiveness? People will be able to get out of an area that could have

extreme weather or insurance. You did climate.com, right? So you've been in this business for a long time. Yeah, so I think one of the most interesting things is how this is gonna change how weather forecasting is done. Again, billions of dollars, there's a big system in Japan, a big system in Europe and a big system in the US that forecasts the weather.

There's some of the biggest compute clusters in the world. And now you can run it in your home. You can run this model in your home because all the weather data that is the input to the model is available all the time on the internet for free. So we can just type that data and anyone could run it. You can get faster results, more frequent updates, certainly a much lower cost. And I think this is just the beginning of obviously a long road of optimization and iteration

that will go from here. It'll be really amazing to see what else can be done with this model. It totally upends a lot of different business models as well. What's really important also to note, this is an incredible proof point of these graph neural nets. Graph neural nets can be applied in other areas like chemistry, biology, material science, anywhere where you're simulating physics or physical properties or three-dimensional space over time, showing that you can train off data and be better than physical models that just needs physics to make a prediction. And you can just have the machine figure out how to do it on its own and it comes up with

this prediction that's better than running physics in a computer cluster. It's really incredible. And I think it'll also, it's a great way to highlight the opportunity for machine learning models being applied to things like chemistry and biology for discovery purposes. Another is over time. I thought it was a great paper, another really incredible proof point by deep mind. I mean, are they going to just throw away those clusters, run more software with their models now than I'm telling you. Like that's redundant. And by the way, talk about accountability. So if I'm running the Department of Commerce, which oversees NOAA in the US, I'm like, what are we doing spending a billion dollars a year on this now? We can just run this thing on a MacBook.

So a perfect example of how AI is going to save billions of dollars. This is like an incredible point for the government getting more efficient to circle back around to Dean's point earlier in the episode. Okay, this has been an amazing episode for the dictator himself from Afghatia. I want a more accurate forecast of the temperature on Uranus. Oh, it was coming in at any moment. Oh, man. It depends. Did you have a cold and dark cold and dark or maybe you had the hot sauce? Anybody knows? All right. Listen, and for the Sultan of science, the day after tomorrow, beautiful, it was a great fun movie. David Friedberg and the Rain Man, David Sacks, I'm amongst the world's greatest moderator,

great job for the last two weeks, Friedberg. And this is your favorite podcast. The All In podcast, we'll see you all next time. Bye bye. Bye bye. Oh, also, also, also. Happy Thanksgiving, everybody. Happy Thanksgiving. Happy Thanksgiving.

Happy Thanksgiving. Happy Thanksgiving. No episode next week. No episode next week. No episode next week. You never know. Somebody goes row. Happy Thanksgiving to everybody. Gobble, gobble. Glad to be back to you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your best. It's gobble. We'll let your winners ride. Rainman David Sack I'm going home, yeah! And it said we open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it.

I'm the US, I swing up, can walk! I'm going home, yeah! What, what, your winners ride? I'm a real fan! Besties are gone! I'm going through it! That's my dog, take it away. It's your driveway.

Sit next. Oh man, I'm the cashier when we eat the apple. We should all just get a room and just have one big hug or two because they're all just like this like sexual tension that we just need to release and have. What your beef, what your beef. Beer or beef. Beef or beef? What's good for you? We need to get merch.

These are not. I'm doing all this. I'm doing all this.