Debt Spiral or NEW Golden Age? Super Bowl Insider Trading, Booming Token Budgets, Ferrari's New EV

All right, everybody. Welcome back to. the number one podcast in the world, the. All-In podcast with me again, the core. four, the original quartet, David Sacks, David Friedberg, Chamath Palihapitiya, I'm Jason Calacanis, and we have a very. full docket today. All right, topic one, gentlemen, AI acceleration. It was a big. week for AI. New study published on Monday, February. 9th in the HBR, Harvard Business Review, suggesting that AI tools intensify work.

but do not reduce it. Two UC Berkeley. researchers spent eight months embedded. at a 200-person tech company. So, this. is one company's experience. What they. found, employees who use AI worked at a. faster pace, took a broader scope of. tasks, and extended work into more hours. of the day. Workers reported feeling. more productive, but they also felt a. little more stress and burnout. Sacks, your your hot take here, your quick take.

on this study. Obviously, it's just a. one company, but it does track, I think, some of my experiences. All right. Well, a few points here. Number one, as you may recall on the prediction show. for this year, my most contrarian belief. is that AI would increase demand for. knowledge workers, not put them out of. business. And I think you see in this UC. Berkeley study the reason why that might. be the case is because the employees who. use these tools, like you said, they. worked faster, they took on a broader. scope of tasks, they actually ended up.

working more hours in the day, so they. did more work, not less, and even more. effort rather than less, not because. they were required to, but just because. they were more motivated. And I think. they were more motivated because their. work was getting up-leveled, right? They're kind of able to offload uh more. medial tasks to AI, and it made their. work more purposeful and meaningful. So, I think we're kind of moving from what. some people I think maybe Jensen has. called um task-based jobs to.

purpose-based jobs. And I think a key. skill of employees is going to be the. ability to structure work for themselves. and their AI agents. And the employees. who can do that are going to be far more. productive than those who can't. That kind of brings me to point number. two, which is that I think there's a. tremendous opportunity this year for. employees who are early adopters of. these tools or you know, so-called AI. natives to demonstrate their value to.

their employers. They're going to be able to get a lot. more done. They're going to appear to. have superpowers. They're going to be. the people in meetings who can take an. assignment that would have taken days. before and get it done in two hours. Whether it's a presentation or a. spreadsheet, people are going to be. shocked at how quickly they can get. these things done because they're going. to be fast out at working with AI. So, I. think there's a big opportunity there. And there was an article that went viral. this week by Matt Schumer called. something big is happening where he. talked about this career opportunity. that's going to be available to kind of.

AI early adopters. And I think that. brings me to my third point, which is I. think that you're going to see massive. enterprise adoption of AI, not just. chatbots, but agents this year. But I. think it's going to be driven by the. bottom up. It's going to be driven by. these early adopter employees coming in. to their workplaces, bringing in these. kind of consumerized AI tools, start. using them at work as opposed to. top-down initiatives. I think there's a. lot of top-down company transformation. initiatives that are happening in large.

enterprises where the CEO has tasked a. team with figuring out how to use AI, how to transform their business with AI. Those initiatives are going to take. months. They're going to be studying. what tools they should use. They're. going to be doing RFPs. And I think it's. ultimately going to be very slow. And. while those things are trudging along, I. think there's going to be these early. adopter employees who just make the. transformation a fait accompli by again. bringing these tools into their. workplace in the bottom up. So, I think. in the same way that you saw. consumerized SaaS tools spread from the. bottom up in enterprises, I think you're.

going to see consumerized AI tools. spread from the bottom up in. enterprises. And I think it'll. ultimately be one of the big themes this. year. Couldn't concur or agree more. Nick throw up that tweet I did. I I did. a tweet and it got 2 million views. Basically, I said, "Listen, if you got. laid off by Amazon or Microsoft over the. last two years, just learn open claw and. automate your previous job. Show you. know how to use these tools. Go back to. your boss and say, 'Hey, I want to come. back and automate everything.' Or go to. startups. Every startup I know is hiring. for this position, which is somebody who.

knows how to build and manage agents. There is no. job wreck for this yet or a title. We. should come up with what this person. does, but it it used to be called prompt. engineer. It's no longer just prompt. engineering. It's managing and educating. and offloading work to an agent and then. making sure they're actually doing it. And right now it feels like the people. in my organization, I have four of them. who are focused on this out of 20. I. would say that their leverage is between. 10 and 20 X the other 16. So, now I'm.

going down the slope of employees from, you know, most technical, you know, to least and trying to get. each one of them to adopt and create an. agent for them. We'll pro- It's still. probably take 6 months, but when we do, I think our leverage versus a competing. firm is going to be 10 X. As an example. in the podcasting space, X, we now have. it going through podcasts looking for. the best moments or you can just give it. a moment and it will clip the clip for. you and put it in the Google Drive. So,

imagine we're all in, I don't know, our. little group chat and you said, "Oh, from the last episode, can you get me a. clip of minute three to minute six?" And. then it's just on your iPhone. It's just. in the group chat. Boom. Nobody has to go find it. It just clips. it. That's the kind of work it's doing. And then we have it looking at our. YouTube stats, we have it looking at our. Instagram or TikTok stats, and then. trying to tell us which clips are going. the most viral, which ones have the most. comments, and then giving us strategies. to how to make them go more viral. It's.

really weird because it's coming up with. really great suggestions and taking. eliminating all the reporting work that. knowledge workers do. Chamath, do you. have a take on this? I know you've. deployed the software factory, which is, I think, uh. you know, aligned with obviously this. revolution happening in real time. Last. couple of weeks have been pretty big. with Claude Opus 4.6 coming out, uh. ChatGPT Codex coming out, lot of. advances, and obviously the open Claude. revolution that I've now done seven. podcasts on in a row.

What are your thoughts, Chamath? I think there are two open questions. that I find really interesting. right now. The first question. is, I tweeted that this morning, but is. on-prem the new cloud? Which is weird to think that that could. even be possible, but we've spent since. 2008. migrating everything to cloud because. there were these economies of scale, and. it created better margin and lower OpEx.

and lower CapEx because you could. essentially share infrastructure with. other companies, and that's how. AWS and GCP have built such gargantuan. businesses. The counterpoint to that though is that. in the AI revolution, companies I. suspect will be fighting for their. lives. And I think it's very much unclear. whether it makes sense for a company to. allow the natural leakage. of their edge and their confidential and. proprietary information out into the.

wild. versus the control that they would get. if they ran on-prem. That's a really. important question. What do I mean by. all that? Once you use these tools, it is is. difficult for a company to be able to. control how their data. is used subsequently thereafter. Meaning, if I give you Jason a PDF of some really. important strategy document or a. PowerPoint deck or a really critical. model, and you're interrogating it with one of. these models, if you're just using.

Chat GPT, the main line instance of it, you're leaking all of that prompt and. response metadata back to Chat GPT. Back to Gemini. Back to Claude. And there's nothing a company can do. about that. If you're using a set of agents to act. on all that information, all those agent. traces. are going back to these model builders. That may or may not be a problem for. some, but I suspect it is a deep problem. for others and they just haven't. uncovered it yet. When they realize that.

that is a problem, the enterprise will have to decide, do I. just give up. and keep running all of this stuff in. the cloud in the shared experience, or. do I bear the incremental cost. of running this stuff. in a more coordinated manner that I. control on prem? And that would be a. crazy shift just to completely go back. to where we were 20 and 30 years ago. That's a not so obvious thing that may. happen. So, that's number one. And then number two, I also tweeted this, there was this.

really interesting ruling. around what happens inside these cloud. environments, which was. a judge saying there is no attorney. client privilege and confirming that. once you start to use those tools, all of that stuff is complete public. domain material. If you put these two. things together, it creates a very. interesting set of questions for. enterprises. You will need AI to. survive. But if you use the tools as they exist. today at a public endpoint,

you will give up all control, all security, all confidentiality that. you today have. And the ability to. follow through and control what your. employees do with it. The only solution. is to have the pendulum swing all the. way back and have private provision. networks, which. increases cost, but then if you save a. bunch of money because of AI, maybe it all balances out. That is the. big question that I'm wrestling with. right now. Good insights there. And I. have some thoughts on the. on-prem, because I'm actually doing it. right now. Freeberg, your thoughts on.

this moment in time when we have people. saying it's happening faster and it's. become recursive. Recursive, obviously. fancy word for those in the audience who. haven't heard it before, just these. models and these agents can go out and. improve their own work. So, after they. do some work or a job for you, you can. have another agent say, "Hey, here's how. to do it better." Or go learn these new. skills, go use this skill last 30 days. to go find. the last 7 days or 30 days of best. practices with this tool and make. yourself better. And do that every night.

at 1:00 a.m. What are your thoughts, Freeberg, on the moment in time we are. in right now? Well, I think the thinking. historically was that it was going to be. about recursive model development, where. we were going to. continuously improve the actual model. And we were waiting for a context window. where you could feed the model. back to itself. You're effectively. retraining the model continuously. And it may be the case that the output. is what's recursive. And that turns out.

is having the effect that everyone was. waiting for. So, it's kind of a. surprise. I saw a lot of computer. scientists that have worked in AI for. some time, I think be a little bit. surprised about this moment that we're. in, that we're seeing such incredible. strides in model performance just by. making the output recursive. So, let's. see how far it goes. Are you still. obsessed with Open Claw, Jcal? I am. We have now seen that every week 5 to. 10% of the work we're doing inside of. our venture firm is being moved over to.

Open Claw. We call them replicants. You. can think of them as personas. So, we. now have three or four of these. Uh we. give them a notion account, a Slack. account, and we give them a Google Docs account. They have their own email. And. I think all of this technology was here. all along. It was really or maybe for. the last 6 months, let's say. Really. good models out there, but no company. would give the keys to the kingdom. to allow these agents to actually act on. your behalf. Why? Because they don't.

want to be responsible if it ships your. Bitcoin keys or your passwords to. somebody else. So, in order to use. these, you have to trust them. And if. you trust them, and then you are. monitoring them, the results are. unbelievable. We uh have also, to your point, Chamath, fired up Mac Studios. We have Kimmy on. them. We are moving all of the work onto. these. And then, they'll use Kimmy for. most of their easy jobs, which is free. Then, they will use Claude 4.6 Opus to.

orchestrate things. We also, now that we. have four of them, Friedberg, we've created Open Claw Ultron, which is. one. meta. replicant that is managing the other. four. And it checks their work. It talks to. them all day long about what they're. doing, and then summarizes it. And we're. building skills into each one of these. So, one of the skills is like doing deep. research. One of the skills is being. able to go into our sales database,

which is in Pipedrive. The gains we're. getting, I was able to go through. everything my Athena assistant was. doing, and I was able to take about and. I You know, Chamath, you have an Athena. assistant, too. I was able to take maybe. 30% of the Athena assistant's work and. give it to the replicant. That let the. Athena assistant work on higher-level. stuff. I would say on the average investment. team individual, we now have probably. 20% of their work being done by agents. in real time. And the best part about it. is they don't forget to do work. They.

don't make mistakes. So once you put. this in, you don't need to have checklists. They. just do it perfectly every single time. Crazy. >> And It's crazy. It's nuts, Chamath. So now I'm building. and I've been talking to Benioff a lot. cuz he's got Slack bot. Claude's got Coda. But none of them have. the keys to the kingdom. So what I'm. doing is I'm upgrading to the enterprise. version of Slack, Chamath. You're I. think probably your number two. investment in your career. What an. amazing investment that was. Um. It's number four.

Number four. Okay, listen. Keep grinding. Top five investment for. you. I'm upgrading to the highest level and. I'm ingesting every single Slack message. and then I'm upgrading and giving the. API key for every single email in our. organization to Altron. They will know. everything going on in the organization. It is mind-blowing how fast this is. going. And then finally, just a plug, I'm investing in. 10 startups in open claw space, 125k. each to come to the accelerator. If.

you're doing work on this open claw at. launch.co, email me what you're doing. cuz we want to invest in in at least a. 10 or 20 of these companies right now. Uh this is the 100% focus of our firm. It is insane. When do you guys think enterprises have. a huge freak out. around all of this and say, "Wow, we're. leaking all of our most important. information out into the wild." But. Sachs, to your point, the industrious. person trying to get ahead all of a. sudden is using an open endpoint. to like make a deck better and somehow.

all of that stuff is out in the wild. They find out. People are going to have. a freak out moment here soon. I think there's a big opportunity to. take something like open claw and make. it enterprise grade and secure and all. that kind of stuff. One of my partners. at Craft actually created a new tool. called Lobster Tank. which is a version of open claw that's. got some enterprise security wrapped. around it. >> what I mean. On prem is back. It's going. to happen. It's going to happen. It's. cost savings plus do I want to give all.

of the secrets in our organization, every piece of intellectual property to. Sam Altman who's got to make a billion. dollars a year to keep up with his. spend, right? He's going to build every. application. Let's not make it about. Sam. Do I, if I'm Geico, want to have. all of my actuaries. using all of our private and. confidential data on risk pricing in an. open instance of an LLM? The answer is. no. That's obvious.

Yeah. So now the question is how do you. adapt to that? How do you actually. generate tokens in that kind of a. situation? How do you reason in that. kind of a situation? That is a very. expensive technical problem. It's not. necessarily complicated, but it is. technical. That will bloat the op-ex. because you're going back. to a place that you had said didn't make. sense anymore. It felt very antiquated. if you ever heard a company was on prem. But AI may be the reason where you can't. afford to be not on prem. Yeah, and it's it's going to be on your.

desktop, too, because. one of the solutions to this is just. giving each employee. a really powerful. desktop that is capable of running a. local large language model, which right. now takes a Mac Studio with 512 gig or. or daisy chaining. two of them. And. >> I think that's what people are doing. Remember these VAX terminals? I think. that you could actually see a resurgence. of that idea. So you have a centralized. computer and you have a bunch of dumb. terminals. Yep. And you have a CLI and.

so you can interact with it that way, but again, it keeps everything inside. the But you could also fire up You could. also fire up your own instance in the. cloud and just run it. >> Too expensive at scale. Like for. example, 80 90 is a top 20 customer of. Bedrock. It's too expensive. Already as it is. because of all this overhead. Because of. their margin. Because of all the nonsense that's. inside of AWS that you have to pay for. in order to just get access to bare. metal. So then you go to CoreWeave. Okay, fine. But what does CoreWeave tell. you? They're an excellent business. A,

it's all training. B, you have this. situation where too much of what you. have has to be guaranteed into the. future because for them it makes no. sense to price it on spot. And if you buy on spot, you just get. these surges you can't deal with it. So. there is no solution today that makes. any sense. It's absolutely correct, Chamath. I'll. just put some numbers behind it briefly. We, with our agents, hit $300 a day per. agent. using the cloud API like instantly. And. that was like doing maybe 10 or 20%.

That's a hundred thousand a year per. agent. We're getting to a place where we. have to basically now say what is the. token budget that we're willing to give. our best devs. And then if you aggregate it across all. people, you can clearly see a trend. where you're like, well, hold on a. second. Now they need to be at least 2x. as productive as another employee. That. is actively happening inside my business. because otherwise I'll run out of money. Yeah, this is a very interesting trend. that I you you're not going to hear. anybody else talk about, but when do. tokens.

outpace the salary of the employee? Because you're about to hit it. I'm. about to hit it. I think superstar. developers are already there. Yeah. I think the rank and file is. probably 10, 20% max. More than likely. they're spending a few thousand. The average. non-technical employees probably in the. hundreds to low thousands. But to your point, the trend is what. matters. Yeah. So unless we have some. gigantic leap forward in generating. output tokens at 1/10 the cost of what. they are today, which I suspect we will.

have, so. bear with everybody for a while because. I think Nvidia and Grok and Google and. AMD, they're all incentivized to. massively ramp up the the density and. massively push down the token cost. That's going to happen. But it doesn't change the trend and it. doesn't change the incentives on. confidentiality. Let's talk about. prediction markets, gentlemen. They hit critical mass this past weekend. at the Super Bowl. More than a billion. bet on Kalshi, 700 million on. Polymarket, almost $2 billion.

in wagering. The media has been obsessing a bit about. market manipulation, insider trading, and all these issues. that are totally valid to discuss around. prediction markets, which are something. new in the world. at least at this scale. Two specific. examples from the halftime show. A day-old anonymous Polymarket account. correctly predicted 17 out of 20. halftime show bets, including the. special appearances by Lady Gaga, Ricky. Martin, but it only profited 17K, a tiny.

amount. And then another account created. less than 24 hours before the game. correctly bet on Bad Bunny's set list. Wall Street Journal this morning with an. article titled Israeli soldiers accused. of using Polymarket to bet on strikes. Israel arrested several people, including army reservists, for allegedly. using classified information to place. bets on Israeli military operations. Quote, the account in question raked in. more than 150,000 in winnings before. going dormant for 6 months. It resumed.

trading last month betting on when. Israel would strike Iran, Polymarket. data shows. The name of the account, Rico Suave 666. >> Okay, Rico Suave. Rico Suave, the name. of the account, Rico Suave 666. I think. that's also the alias that you were. using in Vegas for a little while there. at your hotel. Rico Suave 666. The. platforms are regulated, of course, by. the CFTC. But, you know, questions here about. society getting used to this new.

platform. Here's Kalshi's CEO. talking about this on CNBC. Let's say. there is a a cameraman happens to be in. the stadium during the rehearsals. You. could argue that would be like somebody. at a at a hotel who sees a rehearsal of. a CEO giving a presentation prior. Those. guys would have normally probably had to. sign NDAs by the company because they. would be worried about these issues. But. in the context of this, they probably.

wouldn't. >> It's either one of two cases. Either. this information can be public. and that's okay. Or it's an information that cannot be. public beforehand and that's. communicated to the staff, right? The. cameraman or the dancer. The reason why. you don't know what song is going to be. played first is you think that's not. public and not everybody knows. beforehand. It's a little bit of a. surprise at Super Bowl. >> Yeah, but but it's not non-material it's. not it's not material information that. can't be shared. You're making it that. by putting it on this betting platform, but they have no obligation to say we're. not going to tell anybody our opening.

lineup because there might be money made. on this other place that's now betting. on this. It's not the The responsibility. is not on them. Brinkberg, your thoughts just broadly on. what I consider society getting used to. these new platforms and what they. represent in the marketplace of ideas. I think the question is is it really. insider trading. if you and I were making a side bet and. I knew something about you and I had. some edge or some advantage and I made a. bet with you.

Is that fair? Should the government have. a role in regulating that? This kind of. goes back to securities regulation that. everything needs to be registered. And then there's this concept of insider. information. It's a real challenge and a. real question on. keeping the open platform. of opportunity for trading on anything. while also trying to mitigate the risk. of what people call insider information. in these trades. There's a good chart. that we I think we talked about in our. group chat. that shows the.

distribution of accounts. There's a few. accounts that have a huge amount of. money and make almost all the profits. and then a lot of accounts that have. very little amount of money and they get. burned through very quickly. They. actually don't have an edge. So the the. accounts that have a lot of money, they. generally only trade in things where. they have an edge where they make. markets where they actually have an. arbitrage or yeah, sharps and they eat. up all of the the capital. So if you're. a marketplace like this, you probably also want to be thoughtful. about the fact that over time you could. burn and churn through all of your.

customers, all of the users on the. platform if they're constantly going to. be making trades where they simply don't. have an edge and all the capital, all. the liquidity is coming from the. accounts that do have an edge and. effectively trade off of inside. information. So just be that these. things end up eating themselves up. I. don't Chamath, man, we had InTrade, I'm. sure you remember that and I don't know. if that was in the early 2000s. This. idea's been out there, but it has. clicked right now for some reason. Uh.

what are your thoughts broadly speaking. on the value of these platforms to. society? Let's define some terms first. So in betting, there are two kinds of. people. There are the sharps who know. what's actually going to happen with a. better edge. and then there are the squares, which is everybody else and they are. grist for the mill. And in a traditional market, like a. sports betting market, there have been edge cases. where you try to throw a game or throw a.

fight or shave points. and the sharps are involved in that, but it's increasingly harder and harder. to do because the sports leagues. analytically are studying these things. so closely to make sure that that never. happens. But what you get are people with a. smarter sense of what's going to happen. and people with less of a smart sense of. what's going to happen. The thing with prediction markets is. it's not just that. There will be those. things, but then there are going to be these.

fundamental markets that are purely. about inside information.". And the question is, what can. a regulatory body or a society do about. that? And I think the answer is not. much. And the reason is is that if you. try to regulate this, it looks like a. securities market. And I think the problem there is that. these things are too fluid and too. dynamic and too ephemeral for them to be. legislated like a security. And so, why.

are these things happening? It's because. there's too many of these prediction. markets that can be manipulated this. way. Somebody knows something that. somebody else doesn't know, and there's. no way to arbitrate that. This used to exist in the securities. market, too. And this is where now I'm. going to get a lot of people really. upset with me. In 2000, we introduced the law called. Reg FD. And what was the point of Reg. FD? It was basically that. if you're a CFO, you cannot talk.

to an individual stock manager and tell. him something that you then don't tell. everybody else. Essentially, inside. information. That used to be not illegal. I won't say. that it was legal, I would just say it. that used to be not illegal. You call your buddy, he says, "Hey, how. you doing?" He goes, "Man, quarter was a. blockbuster.". You would go and buy the stock. And starting in the 2000s, it became. illegal. And there used to be these. networks of information arbitrage that. that took advantage of this. Now, this. is an example of Warren Buffett's. returns pre and post Reg FD. Now, what.

do you see? His returns were double the market. returns. when this kind of information sharing. was legal. And the minute that it became illegal. and you had to basically act on the same. edge as everybody else, his returns went to the market return. He generated zero alpha. In fact, he. probably on the margins lost a little. bit. So, this is the single best investor in. the world. This is what happens when you.

have information symmetry. So, it's just meant to explain that. markets thrive when there's asymmetry. Billions and billions of dollars will be. made in asymmetry. The prediction. markets today, unless they are regulated. out of existence or shut down, will look like the stock market pre-Reg. FD. And there's nothing we can do except. choose not to bet it. Because otherwise, what you're going to have are a ton of.

sharps taking advantage of a ton of. squares. And I think that's the end. state. Chamath, why is it good or bad. for society that these exist? Do you. have a take on that? >> There are a certain percentage of these. prediction markets. that are about the well-functioning of. society. and. the use of inside information gets to. the truth faster. And I think. that has value, especially if it. uncovers corruption or misdeeds. And so, if people make money along the. way, and that's the incentive that it.

takes. for folks to work around what would. otherwise be whistleblower laws or. something else. to get to the truth and get it out there. faster, that probably benefits society. Now, there's a bunch of other things. where some people will just set up a. market that they know about and that. they can control that other people. aren't unaware of. That's not good. But unfortunately, there's no way to. discern when a prediction market gets. created whether it's A or B. And so, you have to decide whether it's.

more important that you can understand. these current events faster with more. accuracy or not. And I think that's. where this decision has to come to, and. that's what politicians need to decide. and society needs to decide. All right, we're really excited that we're doing. another event. Yes, a new event from. your friends at All-In. The Besties are. hosting a new conference, uh a retreat, a summit in. wine country May 31st through June 3rd. It's called Liquidity. This is for. capital allocators and LPs and GPs.

Chamath, maybe you could talk a little. bit about the vision we have here for. the event. There are. a handful of conferences that happen. every year where money is made. I'll. give you a couple of examples. All the. top. market traders have been invited to this. thing called Ira Sohn every year. where you go in front of a large. audience, present your best long or short idea, and you can be a debt trader, a credit.

trader, you can be. an equities trader. I've done it several times. Ackman has. done it. David Einhorn has done it. Cliff Robbins has done it. These are. incredible places, and you pay like. $10,000 a ticket, and if you take those. portfolios, they tend to do really well. Separately, there are conferences that. investment banks organize that are off. the record, not publicly accessible, where they ask their biggest traders. to come to a room, and they'll give them each a few minutes. to present their best long and short. ideas of public stocks. Then, there are.

these equivalent conferences. that investment banks do for private. companies where the best fast-growing. private companies show up, and the CEOs. get on stage, and they give. presentations. All of these things have been closed. I would like to blow that wide open. So, what will we do? We will convene. the best. investors. in public markets, the best hedge fund managers, the best. private market investors, the best.

growth investors, the best credit. investors, and. the largest cohort of LPs representing. trillions of dollars of capital, and the CEOs of the fastest-growing and. most important companies in technology. And what we will do over the course of a. few days is we'll have some. presentations, we'll have best ideas, we'll build relationships. There may be some investments that may. happen as a result of that. We're going. to shut down all of Yountville. We're going to shut down the French. Laundry. We're going to shut down all of.

it and it'll be ours for a two-day. playground where we will build. relationships, allocate capital, and maybe make some money as a result. So, you need to apply. We will. make some allocations to some folks that. may not otherwise get in. We'll make some allocations to emerging. managers who may need to raise capital. and scale up, but can show us good. returns. And over time we'll find a way to. increase a lot of this and make it more. and more publicly accessible. We have.

what we are going to essentially take. all of these things that I've been a. part of that have been in closed rooms, and we're going to put them together and. open it up. Yeah, well said. Well said, it's going. to be a wonderful event. Freeberg, uh. anything you're excited about in terms. of the event? No, I love Yountville. We're going to. Yountville, so I'm looking forward to. that. It's going to be great. >> I mean, beautiful location and I think. there's going to be ample time for. meetings, networking. J Cal, if you're. an investor, you can go to the website. to allin.com/events.

and you can submit your application. We. can't have everybody there and this is. not like a general admission type event. It is specifically for this group of. people. capital allocators. So, apply at. the website allin.com/events. It's going to be wonderful and Chamath. is putting his focus on it. I can tell. you because. I brought him my first five ideas and he. was like, "No, no, no. Yes, but better. Yes. Yes." So, he is engaged and he's. going to make it super tight and tight. >> Judging. I'm I'm being judgy. Good, I like it. I like it. You know,

all great events, all great art is has. some perspective behind it and we're. excited to have your sharp perspective. behind this one. Liquidity May 31st to. June 3rd. allin.com/events. Okay, let's. move on to our next topic. The new CBO. report is out. Freeberg, you said we are. in a debt death spiral. The. Congressional Budget Office released its. long-term budget forecast on Wednesday, February 11th. Here are the numbers. 2026. deficit is 1.9 trillion. That's nearly.

6% of GDP. Much higher than the 3% GDP. target we heard from uh Scott Bessent on. this podcast. Social Security, talking. about that before, Freeberg. Trust runs. out in 2032. Uh 1 year earlier than previously. expected. That's obviously going to. trigger all kinds of discussions around. austerity measures that folks will not. like. The debt will now grow from 31. trillion today to 56 trillion in 2036. So, it is not stopping, folks. We are. looking at an average of 2.5 trillion.

per year from 2026 to. 2036. Also, currently we're at 120% debt to GDP. House Committee on Budget expects it to. be 135%. So, slightly up in 2036. For. comparison, Japan is 237, Singapore 176, Venezuela 164. The Greeks 154, UK 94. 20. years ago, our debt to GDP was but 60%. Here's a direct quote from the report. The fiscal trajectory is not.

sustainable. Okay. Doctor Doom. Pom pom pom. What do you think, Freeberg? This is your story, your. chance to shine. Well, there's no. outlook to 3% deficit to GDP. >> [laughter]. >> There is. And if you look at the assumptions, one. of the key assumptions is that the. short-term interest rate, which is largely how a lot of the debt. is getting refinanced, is. modeled to be around 3.1%.

But if rates climb closer to 5% as I. mentioned in the past, just using the. current debt levels, it adds another. $650 billion a year of interest expense, which takes interest expense almost up. to $2 trillion a year, just paying the. interest on the past debt. And because we're running a deficit, that new interest expense increases the. debt every year. So, the debt goes up. and up and up just by adding interest on. past debt. And so, this becomes the debt spiral.

that we've kind of. highlighted many times. So, there's. nothing in this report that I think. changes the outlook. It's pretty scary. Um I'll say that the trigger point that. I'm getting more and more concerned. about, if the Democrats win the midterms. and you end up with a Democrat in the. White House in 2028, I think that there's a bigger problem at. foot, which is all of. the state. and local obligations. We've talked. about Social Security looks like it's. going to run out of money in a few years. here. And so, they're going to need to.

print a lot more money to fund Social. Security obligations. Uh it's very unlikely they're going to. make a massive cut to Social Security. cuz no one will get elected if they did. that. And no one will get elected if. they promise to do that. Um and there's a similar problem at the. state and local level, which is that. there's pension obligations. We've. talked about this extensively. California has nearly a trillion dollars. of unfunded pension obligations. to its public retirees or public. employees that are going to retire. If you end up with a Democrat-controlled.

House and a Democrat president. in 2028, you'll very likely see a. federalization of that obligation, meaning that the federal government will. step in to bail out or support those. state and local governments. because otherwise, there's going to be a. real kind of economic crisis at foot. So, when you add that liability coming. to hit this CBO report, which doesn't. include any of that, in the next 5 to 10. years. I think that could be not just. the straw that they breaks the camel's.

back, but the concrete that breaks the. camel's back. And that's the thing I'm. most worried about. There is a deep. connection between what's going on with. the socialist movements at a city level. and now increasingly the state level. and what we should expect to happen with. the US dollar. and how it relates to federal spending. and federal deficits and federal debt. and these are going to be dragging each. other into a bad place in the next. couple of years one way or the other. So, you know, that's kind of what I'm. more worried about at this point. It.

seems if it's very hard to cut spending. or get Congress to approve budget cuts. that we need. to save ourselves from this debt death. spiral, imagine how much worse it's. going to be. in the next couple of years if we have. to bail out or federalize state and. local debt and state and local pension. obligations. It's going to be really. nasty. So, that's the thing I worry. about the most Yeah. in my Dr. Dr. Doom. hat. Yeah, and I think that that's one. of the things that no one talks about at. the federal level and everyone ignores. it because they assume it's a state and. local problem.

As we've talked about and I'll bring it. up again and I'll ask my colleague who. works in the administration. to think about this idea that, you know, if we can find a way to declare. bankruptcy, to restructure the the. fiscal obligations or the the pension. obligations that sit at the state and. local level, we may have a way out. But. short of that, uh that's going to pile. onto this this federal problem. Sachs, your thoughts on the CBO report. and this uh. death spiral debt death spiral. Well, we.

all agree about the problem of federal. spending and the deficit and the debt. We're all concerned about that. With. respect to the CBO study, however, I'll. just note that one of the key. assumptions here. is that CBO projects that real GDP will. only grow by 2.2%. this year in 2026. That's a very low. assumption given that we grew by over 4%. in Q3 last year and the preliminary. number for Q4 was over 5% and I think.

all of our predictions for GDP growth. this year when we did our predictions. episode was 5% plus. So, 2.2% is a. pretty low number and then. they predict that it's going to slow to. 1.8%. after 2026. So again, these are very. meager, anemic growth assumptions and if. you believe that all of this CapEx is. being invested in AI infrastructure is. going to have a payoff. then growth rates could be a lot higher.

and that ultimately, I think, is the way. to get. out of the debt spiral is we need strong. growth. Without that, we're not going to. get out of this problem. So, look, I. think that if you believe in growth, then the situation is not quite as dire. You know, what would I do? Well, I mean, if I could wave a magic wand. the two key charts you want to look at. are federal net outlays as a percentage. of GDP. This is from Fred, right? And. then you want to look at. federal receipts, which is tax receipts. as a percentage of GDP. and you just don't want those lines to.

be more than, call it, 3% apart. I think. that's what Secretary Yellen said is try. to reduce federal deficits to 3% of GDP. Historically. tax receipts have bounced around 17%. and the federal net outlays have bounced. around 20%. So, if you get back to that, we'd be in pretty good shape. And we. were. Before COVID our federal net. outlays, which means spending as a. percentage of GDP, was around 20%. But.

then with COVID, it bounced all the way. up to 30% in 2020 because of both the. function of all the stimulus, but then. also the fact that the economy shrank. because of COVID and we've never quite. gotten back to that magic 20% number. Right now, it's trending around 23%. So, we're doing a lot better than we did. under COVID, but it's still just a few. percent higher. I mean, if it was up to me, I would just. freeze federal spending until the. economy grew to the point where. federal spending as a percentage of GDP. is 20%, and then you could let federal.

spending continue to grow. as the economy grows. And we're not even. talking about cuts here. We're not even. talking about shrinking the size of the. government. We're just talking about. limiting the rate of growth. until the overall size of the economy. can catch up with it. But look, as we. know, it's very hard to get Washington. to go along with that because there is. just a lot of. spending pressure in Washington. One. thing I will say, though, I mean, just. to give some credit to the. administration here, is that the level.

of federal employment is at the lowest. level since 1966. So, during. uh President Trump's second term here, we've gone from roughly 3 million. federal employees to a little bit under. 2.7 million. So, you know, over 300,000. federal employees have been cut. I think. that is a good start. I mean, you've. seen. >> 10% is a good start for you? >> Well, by the way, I think that's I think. that's really important to just pause. on, just [snorts] so people understand. this isn't like some hurtful thing about. firing people, they lose their jobs. But. when people move from the government.

workforce into the private workforce, they become productive. They're making. things that grow the economy, and. theoretically they should also make more. money. So, this is positive from an. economic point of view to move the. workforce from public to private. It. also, to my point, historically, I think. it's very important to avoid the. socialist spiral, that if you have too. many people employed by the government, it becomes impossible to not employ. people by the government. That becomes. ultimately de facto socialism. Chamath, your thoughts here?

Obviously, great thing that. we're shrinking the size of the. government. Those people are becoming. more productive, going into the private. sector. That's a big win, we all agree. 10% great job in the first year. Hey, maybe 5% the next two or three years. would be even better. But, the debt continues to be a problem. Uh are you worried? Do you think there's. a solution here? What would you do if. you were. running the show? I think you have to. take a broader historical context to. this. Does debt to GDP matter?

It depends. on many things, but mostly I would say. it doesn't matter. And it's very easy for people to get. agitated about that. Now, there are things that matter when. you print too much money, which is the value of the dollar, the. value of exports, the cost of imports, and how to actually protect your. earnings and your wealth. That's a. different question. This is a historical look back from. about 300 years of debt to GDP of the.

largest functioning economies in the. world. Now, what do you see? What you see is the trend. where you you know, if you smooth it out. for wars, which by the way has this. weird effect of first escalating the. debt to GDP, but then severely impacting. it in a positive way. The Napoleonic. War, the Franco-Prussian War, World War. II, these things all had positive effects. on bringing debt to GDP once the war was. over. But, the general trend since 1700.

to now. is up and to the right. And the key observation is that it moves. in unison. That these things are relative problems. So, if the entire world moves in unison. like this, there is an argument to be. made, which is that you could end up at 300, 250, 200% of debt to GDP, but if. everybody is there, nothing really changes that much.

The real question is if one country is. able to decouple itself and its economic. output is so meaningfully different than. everybody else's. So, my first take on. this whole debt-to-GDP thing is I think. you have to look at it together as a. group. Separately, is it important to contain the debt? Absolutely, but for these other reasons. For earnings, for inflation, for all of. those very practical reasons that impact. your daily lived life. And what do we know there?

We know that President Trump was elected. on a massive mandate. To secure the border on one hand, but to. look at waste, fraud, and abuse on the. other. And on that side, what did he do? He. drafted the most important and prolific. private businessman in the history of. the world to be his tip of the spear. And what happened? They identified. hundreds of billions of dollars, but. when it came down to it in Congress had. to act to solidify these cuts, they. haven't done much of anything.

Which is a way of saying that if the. most conservative Congress in the. history of the United States has not. done much. to solidify these cuts that were. identified by the White House and DOJ, then as Freeburg said, it'll only get. worse if there's ever a Democratic House. and Democratic control. So, what do we have to do? I think we. have to just acknowledge that. if debt-to-GDP continually moves in. unison, the music isn't up for a very long time. That's just an observation. I'm not. saying it's right or wrong, it's just.

the observation. But, you got to find. ways of hedging and owning real durable. assets because the underlying currency. that is used in these economies, even on a relative basis, will fluctuate. wildly and just fall off of a cliff, which will mean that it will erode the. value that you have created for yourself. and your family. That, I think, is the. most important takeaway from all of. this, which is. we probably see. things like. gold. do much, much better over time because.

people will be afraid about the. durability of their dollar denominated. resources. But it will also be true for. all these other denominated resources. But I think that the GDP, quite. honestly, if I had to be a betting man, will trend into the two, three, four, five, 600 on a relative basis for all. countries because I just think the. governments of these countries are. addicted to spending. and there is no reason to stop safe of. some other planetary species invading.

planet Earth. Yeah. A a black swan event, yes. Yeah. There's. also a question of what. Fed action will do to the capacity for. excess deficit spending. So, if Kevin Warsh. really does want to tighten the Fed's. balance sheet and the Fed is effectively. the first-in-line buyer of Treasuries, meaning they are printing money to fund. the government spending and they slow. down or actively slow down and stop.

doing that, then there is a real um kind of question. on what action will Congress and the. administration need to take because what. what will happen, as you know, if. the Fed stops buying Treasuries, Treasury yields will go up. And if. Treasury yields go up, that means the. interest on the existing debt will start. to go up. And if that lasts for a period. of time and you start going from three. and a half to four to four and a half to. 5% on the short end of the the yield. curve, then it starts to become way too. expensive.

to fund this level of deficit spending. because the interest expense will just. start to climb and eat it all up. So, I. think like the Kevin Warsh question is. if he really is going to reduce the. balance sheet, what's that going to do. to rates, what's that going to. ultimately force Congress, force the. administration to do with spending? Jason, what do you think? Uh. you know, we are in a consumer-driven. economy and the employment rate in this. country is absolutely. fantastic. So, just three quick charts. here. You know, this is.

the number of job openings we still have. even after we burned off. in 2022 from 12 million to 7 million. jobs. We still have a ton of jobs. available. Then, if you look at our. unemployment rate, it's still at. historical lows for our lifetime. If you. were born in 1970, this is as good as it. gets. 4.456. is what it's been. It's ticking up. modestly, but still lowest of our. lifetimes. And then finally, the. employment participation rate, number of. people in our society who are working.

and able to work. It peaked at 68% or so. during the Clinton years. And this is still low, 62%. We still have people who could be. participating. So, all of these problems. will be solved if more people were to. participate and take those jobs. Why. don't they take those jobs? Sometimes. it's a geographic mismatch. Sometimes. it is a skills mismatch, but very often. it is the jobs are not paying enough. So, if you want to give Trump his. flowers, by closing the border, you've.

reduced the number of people taking the. jobs off the books, and then you have. the businesses are going to have to. raise their minimum wage. They're going. to have to raise their offering wage, which then might get the 7% or so that. are sitting on the sidelines to take. their jobs. Crazy prediction. I wouldn't be. surprised if we see Trump, who is. obviously a populist, and I tweeted. about this the other day, got almost a. half a million views or 400,000 views. What if.

Trump decides he's going to raise the. minimum wage? Not saying I endorse this. or not, but it's incredibly low at seven. bucks an hour. Obviously, in different. cities and states, it's 15 to 20. But what if Trump said we're going to. add a dollar to it or two dollars to it. over each year of the next three? This. would be incredibly popular, and it. would get some of those people off the. sidelines and maybe take these jobs. So, just a crazy prediction there, but I. think it's a possibility and I think. they're going to lose the midterms as it. stands right now. It looks like.

I think that's the consensus opinion. And they haven't been able to do. something with this affordability. Well, I think most Americans would say if you. raise the minimum wage, uh that that. would increase affordability. You can. make the counter argument it's going to. just be inflationary, but I think most. Americans are going to believe in that. So, I wouldn't be surprised if you see. Trump take action there because he does. take populist actions like this from. time to time. You actually. mean the economic literature on what. raising the minimum wage does?

Yes, it can increase inflation and it. could lower the It can raise inflation. and it can lower the profitability of. businesses, yeah. And move stuff. offshore, yeah. No, what it does is it. makes it illegal to hire someone whose. labor is worth less than the minimum. wage. And so, it is shown to create. higher unemployment in those segments of. the economy. It's like one of those core. findings of economists. So, yeah, it's. true that some people will be a. beneficiary of getting a higher minimum.

wage, but then there'll be other people. who just lose their jobs. And it creates an incentive for those. employers to shift more labor towards. automation. So, if you're already. worried about those people losing their. jobs to automation, that's a downside. So, anyway, if the minimum wage were a. panacea and it just increased everyone's. living standards without having. downsides, why wouldn't you make the. minimum wage $100 an hour? You know, why. wouldn't you you know, everyone would. just keep raising it infinitely. Obviously, it doesn't work because if.

you raise the minimum wage too much, which is to say more than the value of. someone's labor, then they just get. unemployed. Looking at what happened in. the different cities or in Australia or. other countries, they have a much higher. minimum wage and they have much more. happiness. Businesses and prices go up. about 20% 10 to 20%. So in Australia, if. you go to a restaurant or if you go to a. Scandinavian country, things might cost. 10% 20% more, but you have a happier. population and yes, it could lead to.

more you know, automation. We got rid of. cashiers because it became too expensive. in New York to pay 15 to 20 bucks for a. cashier. Sure, but we have really low. minimum we have very low unemployment. now and the businesses can clearly. afford to pay an extra buck an hour or. two bucks an hour. So there's the. theoretical academic argument which you. are correct on and I understand it fully. well and then there's the reality on the. field which is Seattle, San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, Australia, other. places have a much higher minimum wage,

they have higher happiness in the. population. I don't actually think it. will have any impact because I think. it's artificially low. But that's just one man's opinion. I. think it would change the game here in. America. And I think it would actually. do something to your concern Freeberg. about socialism. I think that if people felt that there. was a you know, kind of a backstop. against this low low cost of labor, it. might actually make people pretty. stoked, you know, that they could get a. higher paying hourly job and it might. take some of that edge off in the same. way universal health care might do that.

But again, just one man's opinion. I got. to say on all this economic data that I. I think we're kind of missing the lead. here which is we are at the beginning of. an economic boom. Again, we saw it in. the GDP growth rates in Q3 and Q4 last. year. Over 4% Q3, over 5% Q4. We just. had a January job report where the. economy added 172,000. new private sector jobs. This blew away. the expectation which was around 70,000. At the same time, the government shed.

42,000 jobs. The net of this was to bring the. unemployment rate down to 4.3%. So I. remember a few months ago J Cal, you. were ringing your hands about the fact. that the unemployment rate had ticked. up. Well, now it's back down. And you're seeing a lot of jobs being. created in construction, especially. non-residential construction. Has to do. with the data centers, the AI boom. that's going on. 33,000 new construction. jobs in January. You've seen in President Trump's second.

term, you've had 615,000. new private sector jobs have been. created. While, again, like we talked. about, over 300,000 government jobs have. been cut, which increases the. productivity of the economy, and it does. what Secretary Bassin says, which is. re-privatize the economy. So, I just. think that the overall economic news is. really good. Again, we have this AI boom. going on. There's a new chart showing. that the CapEx for this year that's. expected just from the four leading.

hyperscalers is $600 billion. Just from. four companies. That's a roughly 2%. tailwind to GDP growth right there. That is just the CapEx. That doesn't. include all the ROI that you might get. from that infrastructure, on the. software side, on the application side, the productivity side. So, we have a. boom going on, and I feel like. everyone's kind of black-pilling about. this. Uh you know, they're focusing on this I. agree. CBO report that has.

unrealistically low growth rates. >> We're going to print 6%. Right. Or. they're doom-scrolling about Epstein or. what have you. And I just think when we. look back on this period, it could end. up being a little bit like the late. '90s. Remember when we had you know, we. look back on the late '90s, we're like, "Wow, we had like phenomenal economic. growth.". >> Golden age. Golden age, economic boom. >> Labor participation peaks. It's not. happening there, too. Right. But. remember what politics were like at that. time period. All anyone talked about was. whether Bill Clinton got a blow job from. Lewinsky. So, my point is just, again,

I'm not sure we're focused on the right. things. I suspect we'll look back on. this time period as the beginning of a. new golden age. I agree. I think you're correct. And just in. terms of the hand-wringing comment, anytime a a statistic is 10, 15%, I. highlight it. I wouldn't use. hand-wringing. I would just say, we. generally look at that when we went from. 4.1%, which is where Trump inherited it, went up to 4.5, it's about a 10%. increase in 1 year. If that trend were. to continue, that would be notable, but.

to your point, it's gone down. And that. is because the border, I believe, the. southern border is closed. And as you're. pointing out, we've got a lot of good. news in the economy, so people are. hiring still. And uh so we are in really. good economic shape. I would say it's. hard to deny that. Yeah. All the job. creation has been enjoyed by native-born. Americans as well. All the job loss has. been on non-native born Americans, which. is pretty remarkable. So, that I think. is also going to accrue to the benefit.

of of more Americans. By the way, just. on the unemployment thing, there was a. slight tick up. in October because of the October 1. buyouts. Remember DOJ created the the. buyout program? And they were in. September or October? When did they have. It was October 1st was the deadline for. that, and so we had a tick up in. unemployment related to that. But. remember, all of those were voluntary. buyouts. They all chose the DOJ option. That's what created the tick up in. unemployment, but again, it was all. I think a good and voluntary tick up.

And now, the unemployment rate has. ticked down. So, again, the job creation. right now is strong. And to just put a finer point on it, the. top two areas where illegal aliens are. working in the United States, most. people don't know this, construction, number one. And the second one is. leisure and hospitality. So, you got two. and a half million people working in. those two categories, which is why I. said, if you want to see more Americans. take jobs, and you want to see wages go. up, if you went to those businesses and. you find those businesses for hiring. illegal aliens, which is the easiest. thing in the world to do, you just show.

up at a construction site, you take. pictures of everybody who is working. illegally, which is what they used to do. in the ICE agency. They would then do, um, you know, surveillance of. construction sites, and then they would. go and find the construction person, and. then they had to hire Americans, or that. construction company would get in. serious trouble. There's been. multi-million dollar fines done over the. last 20 years, specifically on. construction sites, and that would drive. more people to raise the wages of. construction workers, which would even. lower unemployment more, and increase.

labor participation. That's where the. big win is. Go to construction sites, go. to hotels. So, you want ICE to randomly. raid. employers, construction sites, and. hotels. >> Raid is, no, I surveil. >> And just check everyone's papers. You. want You want ICE showing up everywhere. checking all the papers. Okay, number. one, they're doing this already, gentlemen. This is well within their. purview. Look up the legal. They have. been doing this for 30 years. This is. actually the technique they used before. raiding cities in a chaotic way. They.

went, they surveilled, which is their. right to do. They have the right to do that. I didn't. say raid, I said surveil. That is a. peaceful, quiet thing to do, and then. they find business owners. The business. owners are the people who are causing. this problem. The If there was not a job. available in construction for 20, 30, 40. bucks an hour off the books and not. paying taxes, those. immigrants who are crossing illegally. would not be here. If they couldn't get. a $30 an hour off the books job working. at a hotel or as a dishwasher, they.

would not come. And the businesses need. to stop hiring them. Explain surveil. Explain surveil. Explain surveil. So, what is what How do. they How do they With a camera figure. out if someone's illegal? What's the. camera figuring out? >> Okay, so, you guys, it's very simple. I. And I'll. explain first. No, so then you'll know. who's a citizen. No, I want to hear I. want to hear I want to hear the surveil. misinformed the three of you are and. biased, I will tell you. You're all. misinformed and biased. This is what. happens when someone is out they're.

You go to the construction site. Everybody checks in there morning. They. have a truck. This has been done for. decades, gentlemen. They take pictures. of everybody. Then they go in at the end. of the day after surveilling for weeks, Chamath. And it's they have done this. already. This is all facts. They have. had multiple cases where they go to the. construction site. They take pictures. They take a video. Then they go to the. business owner and say, "Show us these. people's pay stubs." And the business. owner goes, "I don't have pay stubs for. these people.". And they say, "Okay, here's a video of. them working for 8 hours a day. Where's.

their pay stub? Show us their taxes.". The businesses are. paying people off the books. That is tax. evasion. And then they got multi-million. dollar fines. Here's a very important. case. This is from back in 2017. The. Justice Department and ICE went after a. group. which was hiring illegal aliens. This is. the largest payment ever in an. immigration case. 95 million recovered, 80 million criminal forfeiture, 15.

million in civil payments. That. represented, according to our Justice. Department in 2017, the largest ever. levied immigration case. We can solve. almost all of the immigration issues. with the exception of maybe criminal. gangs. Just by. doing basic surveillance, basic. you know, detective work, asking these. businesses to show the pay stubs of the. people working for them. And ICE has. been doing this. They've already been.

doing this. Your suggestion is to do. this for every company in America? Okay, so again, you're being hyperbolic. and you're not in You're not debating in. good faith. >> do you choose? I said. I said this at. the top. You pick the number one. employer of illegal aliens. 2.5 million. people working in construction. You. start with the largest construction. sites, and then you work backwards. Then. you start with the largest restaurant. and hotel chains and the world. If. Stephen. >> doing this, you'd say he's not. compassionate enough. You'd call him a. fascist. >> No, incorrect. Once again, incorrect. I. have stated publicly here on the pod and.

I have stated publicly on Twitter that. this is actually what Stephen Miller. should do. Because this would. go after the people who are causing the. immigration problem. The people causing. the immigration problem are the people. who are causing the Let me finish. Let. me finish, Sachs. The people causing. this problem are the business owners. They are providing the incentive to come. here. Stephen Miller. should stop doing the crazy raids and he. should go and just. >> You don't think it's the government. benefits that are incentivizing people. to come? I think that's like far down the list, two, three, four. >> Far down the list? Yes. Is the free.

health care and the free food and the. free housing. >> statistics. I can give you statistics on. it. According to this LA Times survey, 75%. of immigrants come here for better job. opportunities. People coming to America. illegally are coming here for economic. reasons. They are not coming here to. commit crimes. They are not coming here. to get benefits. That is way down the. list. That is a small percentage. How is. this going to. deport all the gangbangers, the rapists, the murderers, the ones who aren't.

working on a farm? They're not doing. >> That's a totally separate issue. They. should go do that. That's a separate. issue. They should go do those and go. after anybody. >> ICE was doing. They're trying to round. up the known criminals. for whom they get warrants and then they. capture them and deport them. That's a separate problem. Yeah, that Those are two separate. problems. I'm not talking about the. problem Okay, but yeah, but we're not. going to. >> You can do gangbangers. I'm talking. about If you actually want to move big. numbers, the gangbangers are small. number. The people working in. construction, the people working in. hotels are the big number. Yeah, they're.

both equally important, Sachs. We're in. agreement. Okay. Yeah. The The thing we're not doing at. scale. is going after. the businesses that are creating the. incentive for the majority of people who. come here. Ferrari. has a new car coming out. It's going to. be their first. all electric vehicle, very polarizing. Here's an illustration of the vehicle. from Car and Driver. This is not. the accurate one because it's going to. be revealed in May, but this is what.

they think it's going to look like. A. thousand plus horsepower, four electric. motors, zero to 60 in under 2.5 seconds, a 330-mi range. It's the heaviest. Ferrari ever. 5100 lb compared to the iconic F40, which was but 3000 lb. It's going to. launch in May of 2026. But, we got to see the interior, and this is. what everybody's buzzing about. It's. gone viral on the interwebs. Former. Apple design chief Jony Ive, uh on his. team with his partner Marc Newson, who. also designed the iconic Ford 021C.

concept car, were involved in this. Wait, what is that? Uh it's This is like if you're a car. nerd, this was like this incredibly. innovative moment in design that never. happened that Ford did. It It looks very. similar to an Apple product. Here's the key. for the new Ferrari. >> an animated character in Cars and things. like that, you know. You You have this. beautiful square glass key, like an. iPhone. You put it in, and the yellow. Ferrari yellow drains out and goes into.

the shifter. That was one nuance that. people thought was very beautiful. The. screen looks very Mac inspired, except. unlike Tesla, which is no buttons and. removing buttons, they're adding buttons here and making. the buttons very tactile. All the sports car enthusiasts love. tactile memory-based buttons that you. can just have fun with and flip and feel. like you're a fighter pilot. Finally, the uh turning the car on. is like starting up a jet. You have a. launch button, you twist and press, and.

it makes the whole car turn Ferrari. orange or red. And uh yeah, that's the. inside. Sacks, you buying one? You like it? I saw I saw everyone just, you know, all over this design. and I thought it was a little bit unfair. in the sense that I actually overall. like the interior. I thought it found a. compromise between you know, let's call. it the all-glass cockpit of a Tesla. versus.

a totally analog old Ferrari interior. Like you said, it it had a combination. of screens, but then also buttons and. they made a point of showing that. the buttons were not only nicely. tactile, but they also made pleasing. sounds and that kind of stuff. It seemed. very heavy-duty. So, I thought the interior actually was. pretty good. Again, nice balance between. kind of the interior of a race car, the. simplicity of for that iPad screen, but. also having enough sort of buttons that. you develop muscle memory around where.

all the controls are. You don't have to. go hunting for them through a menu. I thought the miss here wasn't on the. inside. I thought it was on the outside. I hate the look of the outside of this. car. It looks to me like. >> that look is what people are projecting. It's not the final version. >> this is terrible. This to me looks like. a Corvette, maybe or even like a Trans. Am. I mean, It looks like a Model 3. I. don't I don't like the What's that? Like. the black part of the front or and even. the the grill, it looks terrible and the.

things going on the sides and then the. back almost looks like a hatchback or. something. It's just, you know, a. Ferrari should look swoopier. It should. look curvier and there should be fewer. different pieces to it. 100%. >> So, I don't know, it doesn't look right. to me as a Ferrari, but I thought the. inside actually was was fine. I like it. Yeah. Chamath, you buyer? When's the last time you actually. drove yourself, Sachs? Have you. actually used a steering wheel in the. last decade? When's the last time you. actually used a steering wheel? Full self-driving has made me a driver.

again cuz I just set the full. self-driving. Wow. You driving yourself? Well, with with FSD. Yeah. Okay, so you're now driving around. Texas. I like it. With FSD. Okay. Because they Uber takes forever, so now I'm just like, you know. You you. like uh you voice like to drive Chamath, I think. You you driving yourself these. days or you uh I drive myself in a Model. Y with FSD or I take a Waymo, one of the. two. Yeah, Waymo's in the valley now, yeah, on the peninsula. I've had a. Ferrari.

What I would tell you is that there's. just something that's very unique. There's a Ferrari experience that's. different from every other car. And I think that the new CEO, Benedetto. Vigna, is a very talented executive and I think. that he's probably going to land. something beautiful. The thing is that we are racing against. time. and I've said this before, but FSD and autonomy is going to shift. the number of people that even know what.

it means to drive. It will feel like. when we look at somebody who really. embraces thoroughbred racing, it's just going to happen in smaller and. smaller places and less and less often. And that's not because these cars aren't. beautiful, but it's because the risk will not make. any sense for most people under most. conditions. And I think that's the big thing that's. going to change. Like the car culture in. America.

was a profound part of the American. culture. Yes. Driving from A to B on vacation, the sense of freedom, the building of. the Interstate Highway System. These. were huge parts of what made America. great and. the rails on which all this productivity. sat on top of. And now I think it's all going to. change. So, I don't know. I mean, I. think the car will probably be. beautiful. Like Ferraris are beautiful. There's a Ferrari dealership in Redwood. City. and whenever I drive by it, I slow down. and I look at Yum.

They make beautiful cars. Piece of art, yeah. And I think in places like China. and India, they're always going to have. a market. But I think in places like the. United States, it's going to become so. expensive to pay for the insurance if. you are driving yourself. That the idea that you would buy any car. is going to feel tougher and tougher. just because I think the math is going. to be tough. But the experience inside. of the Ferrari is second to none. So. probably is that there's going to be a.

bunch of high-end cars like Ferrari. where you pay for the experience, you're. in a position to pay for the car, you'll. pay for the insurance, the luxury, all. of it. Yeah. >> [clears throat]. >> the rest of us will be using FSD or. Waymo. 100%. I We have two Model Ys and we have to. get another car and it's like, well, what else can we buy? We have no choice. See, they're buy one of the last Xs or. Model Y. >> Well, deprecating the X really bought. So, I have a real problem now which is I. have five kids. So, Yes.

>> the X is the only car that can manage. seven people. So, I need I need a new. >> three-row by the way, Model Y, but it's. a bit tight. >> It's a bit tight. It's not good. >> It's a bit tight. I This is I. I wish Elon would have made the minivan. or the three-row SUV. And who knows, maybe he does someday. When I was in Abu. Dhabi, I saw. my dream car. It is this Lexus minivan. And the doors open. >> and it's like first class airline seats. Yes.

And the front is completely blacked out. so you have total privacy. This car. Yes, this car. >> Yes. I This is not a It's not for sale in the. US. >> in America. Why is this car or minivan, whatever, not available in the United. States? I think it's the Lexus LM and. then there's the Alphard. >> it's exact. It's incredible. This car. Where is the Where is the interior? This. is the car. This is two captain's. chairs. It's got a full screen and a. divider between the two. With the. drivers in the front. And then you have.

this Those aren't the captain's chairs. Show the captain's chairs. There's the. captain's chair. >> beautiful captain's chairs? They're. gorgeous. It's basically like an. executive van. These are like Etihad. first class airline seats. It's. unbelievable. Look at these Look at these two seats. Unbelievable. Gorgeous. And you have a. full monitor in front of you, David. You. press a button and the monitor rises and. falls so you can talk to your. >> or have CNBC on. I like getting in and. out of SUVs or minivans. I think the the. height is good for me.

So easy to get And the Alfred is the. other one. None of these are available. in the US. These are the number one cars. in China, Singapore, the Middle East for. chauffeur driven cars. They're. incredible. It's called what? An Alfred? What's that? Alfred is the Toyota. version and then Lexus is obviously the. higher brand of Toyota and they make I. think it's called the LS is the name for. these. Cannot get them in the. >> boys. I love you very much. That's. another amazing episode of the All In. podcast. 261 weeks and counting. Wow.

Episode 261? Yes, 261. Yeah. All right, back at you. Let's get out Love you, boys. Love you, besties. >> [music]. >> Let your winners ride. Rain Man, David Sachs. And I said we open sourced it to the. fans and they've just gone crazy [music]. with it. Love you, besties. >> [music].

>> Besties are back. >> [music]. >> We should all just get a room and just. have a one big [music] huge orgy cuz. they're all just useless. It's like this. like sexual tension that they just need. to release somehow. B P What's your B P? What? We need to get merch. I'm going.

I'm going all in.