DOGE unveils a roadmap, Unlocking GDP Growth, WW3 escalation, Fat cell memory
01:10:06 Share

Jamal, do you hear that Freebird got busted looking at porn on his computer? No, I did not. You got busted looking at porn? You want to know what it was? Yeah.

It was Elon of a Vakes Wall Street Journal op-ed. It was. I lost it. Oh, man. I lost it. It was too good. I think he was pleasuring himself to that op-ed. He was playing his skin flute. What happened? You had to go for a quick game of pocket pool. How'd you run it? Oh, my God. It was too exciting. You were beating the bishop. Allison came in and just like wondering what was going on. She grabbed my computer and she looked at it and it was an essay. Oh, my God.

Rain Man David Sacks. And it said, we open sourced it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Love you, besties. Queen of Kinwad.

All right, before we get to Doge, we got a little housekeeping, a little housey housekeeping. You know, we're getting into the holiday spirit here. It's episode 205. We're in year four and we're having a Christmas party. It's going to be great. The all-in holiday spectacular is happening in San Francisco on Saturday, December 7th.

I think the VIP sold out. There's still some tickets left. Go to all in.com slash events. And if you can't make it to San Francisco, I think you can buy a ticket for $50 on on the zoom. I think we're going to have it on zoom. Is that right? Am I do I have my facts straight there? Freeberg? Yeah, there's going to be a live stream. Thanks to zoom for setting this up for us. It's kind of interesting. They're doing this thing where you could kind of, you know, get access to live events.

So they're helping us get this set up. You want to watch the stream live on Zoom? Anything's possible. It could be spicy. Screw that.

True that. All right, listen, Bestie Elon and Bestie Vivek wrote an op-ed, a barn burner in the Wall Street Journal about Doge, the Department of Government Efficiency, and they laid it out. They want to cut overbearing and unnecessary regulation, obviously. They want to cut unnecessary administrative roles, save taxpayers money. They want to run it by founders, not politicians, helping

The Trump transition team find a way to hire quote, a lean team of small government crusaders. Team's going to work closely with the White House Office of Management and Budget. Here's the plan. First, take aim at 500 billion in annual federal expenditures that are unauthorized by Congress, then fix the government's procurement process by conducting massive audits during temporary payment suspensions. This is an interesting playbook.

that Elon has done before. So basically, suspend all the payments and hey, let everybody audit those payments. Drive change through executive action based on existing legislation rather than passing new laws. And two SCOTUS rulings are going to play a major role here. West Virginia versus EPA.

That's when SCOTUS ruled that federal agencies can't impose regulations dealing with major economic or policy questions unless Congress authorizes them to do so. And Luper Bright versus Raimondo, that's from 2024, and that overturned the Chevron doctrine. We talked about that in a previous episode. So according to Doge, when combined,

Quote, these cases suggest that a plethora of current federal regulations exceed the authority Congress has granted under the law. Doge will use software and legal experts to create a list of regulations that Trump can immediately pause. They're going to make some sort of a leaderboard, Elon said, and.

Vivek said he would do he suspended his existing podcast. I didn't know he had a podcast, but he's doing a Doge cast a Doge podcast. And so, Freeberg, this has been, you know, a major issue for you, you've been talking about on this podcast that the unsustainable existential issue for our country is all of the debt we have, what are the chances

that this is going to occur because obviously we all know the machine is going to fight to preserve the machine. Chances that we are sitting here in four years and we've seen meaningful cuts in spending and a meaningful reduction in size of the government.

Look, it's Doge has probably 18 months to do what they can do before the midterms. And there's going to be an inevitable amount of recoil and backlash that's going to arise from the actions that they're going to try and take. And President Trump's going to try and take under the recommendations provided by Doge. So they need to move fast and aggressively. And that's only going to cause the recoil to be harder and faster. There's going to be a ton of litigation. Obviously, everything's going to go to court.

It's going to be incredibly politicized. What is frustrating and challenging to me is that there is nothing that they said that doesn't seem obvious and right. I don't know how you can politicize the points that they're making. Put aside their party. Put aside who they are individually. Put aside how we got here.

At the end of the day, this federal government needs to be run more efficiently, more effectively. It is unfair and it is a tax on every one of us to have money thrown away, to have wasted capital, to have bureaucracy that gets in the way of people being able to do their jobs. It is a tax on all of us and our kids and our future. It needs to be fixed. If it doesn't get fixed, as I've said countless times before, we are in an arithmetic debt-death spiral. There is no way out of it.

So by resolving both the inefficiency, reducing the bureaucracy, stopping the wasteful spending, having accountability in the government, we can actually get the United States another 50 years, 100 years, whatever long we want. But we were literally in a death spiral leading up to this moment.

And I have no idea how we ended up on this timeline. I was over the moon and shocked when I read all of the progress over the last couple of weeks and putting this thing together. I did not know that this is where we would end up. I couldn't be more happy with what I think is going to happen with Doge and its effect on, if not actually making the changes, shining a light on the issues that need to be addressed. And I will say it is unfair to Americans for this to be politicized.

The Democrats shouldn't make this a Republican issue. This is not about Republicans doing damage. This is about doing the right thing for the government and for the country. And the Democrats had an opportunity to own this issue, and instead they've chosen to oppose it, which makes no sense.

It is frustrating and challenging to me as an American to think that this is even a political point. This should be a what's right for America point. It's almost like we're going to war, war with ourselves, with our bureaucracy, with the morass that's been built up over the last couple of decades. And I'm thrilled that this is happening. And frankly, put the people aside. Maybe it's the fact that you need people that are as outspoken, as challenging, as difficult as these two particular individuals are going to run this group.

but that might be what it takes for it to happen in the small 18 month window that they have. So I don't know, that's my rant on it. Yeah, great rant. And we had a Milton Friedman clip go viral and he spoke exactly about his positions on what he would eliminate departments like agriculture, commerce, education. Let's just play that clip. And then there was obviously the Malay interview by Lex Friedman earlier this week. Keep them or abolish them? Department of Agriculture. Abolish. Gone. Department of Commerce.

abolish gone Department of Defense keep keep it Department of Education abolish gone energy

Abolish. Health and Human Services? There is room for some public health activities to prevent contagion. We'll eliminate half of the Department of Health and Human Services? Yes, something like that. Okay, one half. There we go. Housing and Urban Development? Done. Done. That's gone. Department of the Interior? The problem there is you first have to sell off all the land that the government owns. But that's what you should do. But it could be done pretty quickly. It could be done. You should do that. Department of Justice? Oh, yes. Keep that one. Keep that one. Labor?

No. Gone. State? Keep. Keep it. Transportation? Gone. Gone. The Treasury? You have to keep it to collect taxes. All right. Collect taxes through the Treasury. Sachs, you see that clip? You see the activity going on with Doge. Would you think that the machine will allow what Milton Friedman is describing there, what Javier Amelay is doing in Argentina, and what Elon is proposing with Doge? Do you think the machine's going to allow

you know, the wholesale,

the deleting of Department of Agriculture, Department of Education at a federal level and move all that stuff to the states. What do you think is going to happen here? And how hard will the machine fight back against this in your mind? Because, hey, you might have some Republicans, some Democrats, they fought really hard to get jobs, to get subsidies, to put in factories, whatever from the federal government. Are they going to just give that all back? The clip is from 1998, by the way. Zach, your thoughts?

Well, that Milton Friedman clip, as great as it is, I mean, it really is outstanding, is setting expectations a little bit too high here. I mean, we're not going to be able to wipe out entire major departments of the government that are cabinet-level positions. I don't think that's in the cards. You know, what Milton Friedman's basically describing is a night watchman state, and I don't think we're going to get back to that. However...

If you look right now at the opinions on the legacy media, MSDNC, CNN, all that kind of stuff, they are forecasting that Doge is going to amount to nothing. They're basically saying that the powers that be in Washington are going to reject it completely. There's somehow going to be a falling out between Elon and DJT. They're just very cynical. And then you have people who are not necessarily dismissive in that way.

in the media, but just kind of long-time Washington insiders who feel like they've seen it all before and nothing ever happens. And so they're just very jaded and cynical. So I would say that, you know, again, I wouldn't have the expectations of the Milton Friedman level, but I think that the expectations for Doge right now are being set incredibly low by the media and by the Washington insiders. And I think there are good reasons to believe that the results will surpass those low expectations.

Number one is you've got Elon Musk running this thing with Favek. And Elon understands better than anybody the impact of deleterious regulations on business. So he could really put a microscope on that. He's got the largest speech platform in the world with X, the largest account on X. And he's also built a...

get out the vote operation that he funded in the last election that he's promised to keep around and potentially expand so his influence hopefully is not going anywhere he's going to be able to keep using that to help keep politicians on side here right yeah

So that's number one is no one's ever made money betting against Elon Musk. And I don't expect that to start right now. Number two is you got Vivek, who is co-head with Elon of this thing. And I think he's a perfect partner for Elon because Vivek, first of all, he's a brilliant guy with a lot of success in business.

but he's also a Harvard-trained lawyer. He's a brilliant legal mind. And I think you could see in that op-ed, I suspect the parts that were citing all those from court decisions were his influence. And so they figured out a legal roadmap here. It's not just a matter of kind of

going to Congress and hoping Congress acts, they've got a way here sequentially to do this through the executive branch, through executive orders, going through the court system. They've kind of got a game plan here that's not entirely reliant on legislation. So I think the Vakes influence and sort of legal strategic mind is a big asset here. And then I think the third reason to be optimistic is just the fact that this was printed in

on the Wall Street Journal op-ed page is suggestive in and of itself. What this shows is that this Doge effort is, I think, uniting both the kind of populist reformers and the establishment types within the party.

if Elon and Vivek were trying to get a mandate for no more forever war, I don't think the Wall Street Journal would be publishing that, right? This would not happen. So there are reasons to believe that this will not actually divide the party, that the party could unify around this. It could be consensus building, yeah. Could be, yeah. Now look, every congressman and every senator is still going to advocate

for their pork barrel project in their district or their state. And it's going to be very hard to push back on that. However, you could imagine a process like we have with the base closure commission when the United States needs to close a bunch of military bases and they created an outside commission to recommend the cuts and everyone kind of shared the pain equally. Maybe Doge could somehow play into that. Or trade a bit, yeah. So I'm not saying it's going to be perfect, but I do think that if Republicans...

share a principle across, again, both these establishment and the populist side. It would be in reducing unnecessary regulation and the number of regulators needed, the number of government employees needed to enforce all those regulations. So I'm hopeful that they'll be able to get something done within the party. And since the Republicans have the trifecta, if they've got

Trump's leadership and they've got the leadership of the Senate and House backing it, I think they'll be able to get something done. Again, it's not going to be Milton Friedman level, but I'm optimistic they'll get something good and important done. I think the easiest thing for them to get done with Doge is the naming, the shaming, the auditing, the transparency of what we're actually spending, because so many of the audits, Chamath, are just not completed. People don't know what's being spent. And if you show Americans that

a $12,000 hammer or people with job titles not coming into the office or coming into the office one day a week, one day a month, that's gonna infuriate taxpayers. And I think there's a very easy way to navigate all this. You just create the leaderboard and you not only shame people who are wasting our tax dollars, you celebrate the people who are heroes,

who start showing frugality and cost saving. And they're going to do this with a leaderboard of the heroes and the goats. This could be the unifying not just the Republican Party as a sax is pointing out, Shamath. I think this could unify the whole country. Is there anybody paying taxes that wants to see money wasted that wants to see us pay people high salaries to not come to work? Shamath, what's your take on the sequence of events here?

What are easy layups that they could actually get done? And then where is the machine going to fight and try to stop this thing? I think you are highlighting something that they can do right away, which I think is very powerful, which is just using these distribution channels that Elon has now to create a massive layer of accountability. I do think that Sunshine is a really incredible platform.

disinfectant, I think the best way that they could start, if possible, is to stop paying their vendors until you actually have some amount of accounting to figure out, as you said, how many $600 soap dispensers are actually being bought and sold. Now, that kind of, whatever you want to call that, corruption or grift

It's not going to account for hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars, but I do think that it is a very moral and symbolic win that says we're going to start to get much more rational. And it starts to allow the average American to actually feel like they have a little bit of control and they have a more vested interest

in how the government spends money. But I actually want to take a step back for a second. And before I talk about what Doge can do, I just want to highlight something that's been going on in California, because I think it explains a lot. In California, and I'm just going to read this stat because it's incredible. The regulatory burden in California as a state from 1997 to 2015, this is when the data is available that I found, has increased by almost 50%.

As of May of 2022, there are almost 61,000 individual regulations in the state of California. So what does that mean and where does it come from? And Nick, if you can just put out the tweet, it has happened over a period of time in which the government has been the absolute singular source of employment in the state.

And we talked about this before, where this is also a problem at the federal level when you look at GDP and job growth, because it looks like a lot of these jobs are actually fake, manufactured government-type jobs. So why is this a problem? You've seen in California, the issue that we have is that if you have a growth in the number of employees, in this case in California, all the job growth in recent memory,

has been state employees. What is the byproduct? Regulations go up. What is the byproduct of that? There are actually no private sector jobs and more to the point, the private sector flees. So now let's bubble that up and look at the federal government. Nick, if you want to just show that chart that I sent you. What is incredible, J. Cal, is that the more people are hired by the government,

lo and behold, what do you see? The number of regulations issued by federal agencies has just continued unabated year in, year out. You cannot run a country like this. So- Because these accumulate, right? Congress is doing less and less of a job actually trying to frame how the country should work

that white space is filled in, as Freebrook said, by these federal agencies, it compounds and accumulates. This is not replacing laws. None of these regulations have expiry dates. And so as a result, I think what you probably have is an incredible restraint on the US economy. I think that the US economy could be growing at four or 5%

But the reason that it doesn't grow at 4 or 5% is in that one single chart. It is impossible to be able to live up to your economic potential when you have this burden on your neck. So I think the real opportunity for Doge is to basically do whatever it needs to do using the law to wipe as many of these regulations off the books. We are better off.

cutting them all to zero, and then finding the ones we really need, and then repassing those, then we are going at this piecemeal. And there's some incredible ideas, by the way, that this creates. Nick, I don't know if you can find this tweet, but Doge asked what people think of the IRS. And there was an enormous amount of activity that essentially said, give us a flat tax and wipe out the tax code.

And people were very flexible in the amount of tax that they were willing to pay. But could you imagine the simplification in the tax code and the implications of that? I was in Singapore, by the way, 10 days ago when I started my trip. Nick Beep helped the name of the person I'm about to say, but I had a long meeting with who is there. And I was asking him the complexity of

of dealing with taxes, he's like, what do you mean? We pay a very simple tax system. There's no capital gains in Singapore. And so as a result, our filing requirements are de minimisly small. But as a result, people like him, meaning great entrepreneurs,

can spend all their time thinking about what to build, not how to- Not tax optimization. Exactly, or how to account for it. So could you imagine if these guys basically used Doge as a mechanism to shrink the tax code, create a flat tax potentially? I know that that has to be passed by Congress. I understand that. But the idea of just cutting this all the way down and then finding through that process what you actually need

I think, can find America 100, 200 basis points of GDP growth. It could be an economic renaissance. I mean, just to build on that, cutting all the regulations to zero, you might

have throw out some babies in the bathwater so why not put a clock on them and just say whenever this was enacted plus five years and then it rolls off or plus two years whatever number of months and then you could have them chamath rolling off every month i think that's a good idea but it has to be quarterly i think that's a good idea but jay cal i think you first have to cancel all these regulations and then say whatever we need we will reenact

To your point, on a five-year shot clock that then has to be renewed in a new congressional period. And I think that that's extremely healthy. Well, because you know what? People die. Paradigms shift. And then nobody even remembers these regulations. You have to do archaeology to figure out who created this, what was the intent, and you would never do that. You would never live, Sachs, with all of these rules forever. Just one last comment. In fairness to these government employees...

The one thing is that it's not their fault, meaning in the sense that they were hired into a regime where the incentive was to regulate so that you had things to oversee. And so they did their job. In fact, I would say they did their job incredibly well. But the point is that now we need to pivot for them to do a totally different job. Well, Chamath, I'll hand this over to Freeberg. Freeberg, if you...

were to get rid of regulations as somebody working in the government, you might work your way out of a job. So the incentive is completely perverse and reverse to what we actually need in the country, which is less regulation, more thoughtful regulation and some process by taking these things on and off the books and adapting them to reality. Yeah. This is where I think

I think we've talked about this many times in the past, but like all organizations have a natural tendency to grow. They want to grow. They're not like, find me one nonprofit or find me one university or find me one company or one government agency that's ever said, my job is to shrink myself. It's never happened. Right.

So why does that happen? Well, if you look at the like, day to day operating role of each individual, over time, like all individuals, they want to do more, they want to have a bigger impact, they want to have more scale, they want to have more leverage. So there's this natural set of incentives that drives a lot of choices and operating procedures on the ground.

that create more structure, more scale, more leverage and drive more hiring. Everyone wants to become a manager of people, they don't want to just be doing the same IC job forever individual contributor job forever. So if they want to be a manager, they got to find more stuff to do. And then they got to hire people to do that stuff. So all of these organizations, whether again, and we've all been on boards of nonprofits, I'm sure. And we've all been involved in this sort of thing. There's always this like, incentive to raise more capital to hire more people to do more stuff that sort of, it's

It's really unclear until you really dig into the psychology of each individual person working there, why this is happening. I don't think that the federal government is any different. Each of these people feel they want to be more important. They want to have a bigger role. They want to have a bigger impact. Make more impact, yeah. So if your job directionally is to regulate,

then what's the scalar on regulation, more regulation. So therefore, to do more, you have to regulate more. There's no regulator that says I want to regulate less over time, because we've created a system that's one directional. So you have to have these resets. If you don't have them naturally, they're going to happen unnaturally, in the form of social unrest and breakdowns of the economy,

and collapse of social structures, all these other things that happen way, way down. Or as Chamath is pointing out in California, in the economic structure of California, which I think is happening on a kind of national scale because of the outsized role the federal government plays in our national economy here today. So you have to have these unnatural forces come in and do this readjustment from time to time. Otherwise, it's just going to break on its own.

And Millay in Argentina has basically, I don't know, a year or an 18-month head start on us and has been doing this. He did a great podcast with Lex Friedman. They translated it. Actually, they dubbed it, which is kind of interesting technology. And in this discussion, they talked about reducing the ministry's agencies from 20 to 8. They fired 50,000 government workers, 15% of the total workforce.

There were 341,000 when he started. They implemented a daily deregulation process to remove inefficient policies. So they just do that day in and day out. They ended discretionary payments to provinces and cities. They restored market-driven utility prices, no more subsidies, yada, yada, yada, right down the line. Sachs, your thoughts on...

How many months it will take to do this? And there's this discussion, and I don't know if that's from inside the Trump administration of, hey, we got to get this done in 18 months. We got to get this done in 18 months. What can you tell us about the sense of urgency about getting this done quickly and why that's occurring?

Well, I think Elon and Vivek have announced that Doge will be sunsetting or disbanding at the 250th anniversary of America, which would be July 4th of 2026. So they've only given themselves about, what's that, 18 months? Yep. Which kind of makes sense, right? That's leading into the midterms, right? Right, exactly. You tend to have the most

momentum coming off an election like this one where you have the trifecta. So I think it makes a lot of sense that they're going to be able to have the greatest impact, let's say, in the first year after the new president of Congress gets sworn in. How do you get Democrats in on this, Sax? How do you push them to join the party, to join the movement, to be more efficient, to be more transparent? Is there a possibility for us to get some coordination here with the other side or no?

You might be able to get some support of particular Democrats on particular things. I don't want to say that it's not possible. Difficult, but not impossible.

But look, I think what Miele has done in Argentina is remarkable. I mean, that was a country that was a total basket case. Inflation was out of control. It's already because of the cuts he's made. They now have a more normal inflation rate. And they've gone from basically being uninvestable to investable as a country.

Now, the United States is not the basket case that Argentina is, but we are on an unsustainable fiscal trajectory. Doge is also not going to have the power that Malay has. It's not going to have the degrees of freedom to act, but we also don't have as big a problem. What we need to do is just bend our fiscal curve from being unsustainable to being sustainable. And if we can do that, it will have a huge impact on the economy. Specifically,

What we saw in the last election, the thing that probably hurt the Democrats the most was inflation. Voters clearly do not like inflation. They do not like the diminishment of their purchasing power.

But how do you stop inflation? You have to raise interest rates. And that's not good either, because that raises the cost of a mortgage, that raises the cost of a car payment. It's bad for investment, right? Because if interest rates are higher, then that means the discount rate on stocks and real estate on every investment class basically is higher. And

the hurdle rate for investments higher. So high interest rates are also bad for the economy. So how do you get out of that box where you either have high inflation or high interest rates? The only way is to bend the fiscal curve to that more sustainable path. And if you can do that, the bond markets will actually give you credit for it in advance because they know that they're not going to be flooded with the need to keep funding all of this US government debt.

So we either get to kind of, you know, startups have this saying about being either default alive or default dead. We either get to default sustainable or default unsustainable. Right now we're unsustainable. The bond markets know it. Inflation remains persistently high around 3%. The Fed has not been able to cut interest rates the way that they expect it to. Remember,

The markets were expecting seven cuts this year. We got basically three. We got a 50 and a 25. So it just hasn't been the cuts that people were expecting. And that's because inflation hasn't come down as much as people thought. So if Doge, working with the rest of the government, OMB, the Treasury, Congress, executive orders, can now convince the markets...

that the US financial picture is more sustainable, we'll get credit for that interest rates will come down. And that'll lead to a boom in the economy. So it's all win win if they can pull this off. Freebrook, any final thoughts here before we move on from Doge wishing Elon and Vivek as much success as possible? We've really I mean, everybody should be rooting for this. You want to give us your final thoughts?

I feel like America is Neo from the Matrix, where there was like a thousand bullets being shot at America. And we like literally had to dodge every single one of them in order to get to this point. Again, I am so shocked and surprised in a positive way

that we ended up on this particular timeline. Look, everything had to go the way it went for this to have happened. Biden decided to run for re-election. Biden stayed in too long. They didn't run a primary. They put Kamala in. Elon got off the fences, switched parties. Elon decided to throw 100 million bucks at the problem. Elon bought Twitter.

China had a real estate bubble. I mean, you can go down the list of things that had to go right for us to get to this very moment where a small group of people have recognized the fiscal death spiral that the United States federal government has been in and have the authority and the capacity and the skills to be able to go and execute against a solution that

I have no idea how this could have been architected. Maybe Sachs knew all along, and I convinced him two years ago that this was how things had to go, and he's been designing it like Emperor Palpatine. Maybe it's you talking about Ray Dalio and the end of the empire for three years on this podcast. Maybe you did it, Freeberg. We give you credit. As we remember, when we talk with Dalio about this, he's like, there have been a handful. And also around the relationship with China, which I think this is all very tightly related.

we may have dodged a lot of bullets. And if the United States can get its house in order, reduce federal spending while increasing economic activity, it can be a tremendous unlock for the US and for world peace. So because again, I think that conflict arises when we don't have our own fiscal house in order.

And so I feel very positive, more surprised and positive than I was a year ago, six months ago. It's just amazing we're on this timeline. And I do think the United States as NIO dodged a lot of bullets here. Well, Freiberg, I told you everything was proceeding as I had foreseen. You know what happened to the 10-year when Elon and Vivek wrote that essay? I actually don't. What happened? Yields contracted by five basis points. You know what the value of that is?

A couple billion? 15 billion per year. Yeah, yeah. So I think that it was probably a $100 billion essay just writing it. I think you will find that this doge is quite operational.

I mean, I think it's got a chance. I mean, if you can't. I just wish it weren't political. Right. I want I want all I want all Americans and Democrats to stand up and say this is the right thing for the United States. Absolutely. The essay saved us one hundred billion. Just the essay.

Here's the thing. You're going to need... They should write an essay a day. They're going to have to be very strategic about how they pick... If they detailed what they're doing, yeah. The Doge teams is going to have to be very strategic to pick things that are consensus building...

that don't make people feel like this is going to grind the poor more and make the rich richer. That's the expectation. That's going to be the negative framing on this, I predict, which is just a bunch of rich guys making cuts, talking their books, making cuts for things that are their pet projects, their investments.

They have to come out and not make it that. They have to make it, here's inefficiency, here's inefficiency, here's inefficiency. And a great way to do that would be to say the efficiency gains and the tax cuts are going to go to people making, let's say, under $250,000. These cuts are not being made just to make the rich richer. That's going to be the framing. But Jason, don't you think that that's going to happen no matter what? What? Which part of it? That they're going to say that no matter what. So I actually disagree with the first part of what you said.

I agree with you that the media, the mainstream media will try to characterize this as hurting the poor. I agree. And I'm not sure yet whether it's still or not. But I think the first part I disagree with is I don't think they should operate towards consensus. I think that they should do what's right. Well, you could do what's right and you could start with things that are the most wasteful. Like if you start cutting kids' lunches or Pell Grants,

or you start cutting people's jobs in healthcare education that people perceive are helping people, I think you're going to just feed into this narrative that it's a way to cut taxes on rich people. And you know what? You do need to build consensus. How does that cut taxes on rich people?

If you cut regulations and a bunch of our companies benefit from it, just to be self-aware, the framing is already that this is an effort for companies that we invest in to

have less regulation to make the equity holders in those companies more rich. You have to make sure that the hold on. It's for all. You have to make sure the savings is for all Americans and that all Americans benefit from it. And the way they benefit is the best framing they could do is your taxes are going to be lower because you're not wasting your tax dollars.

If they can keep to that, not, hey, we're moving regulations so that our companies get bigger. I think, to be honest with you, being a hairdresser requires more regulation than being any one of most of my companies. So I actually think it benefits other people way, way more than it benefits me. And you have to show it is my point. That's the point is you have to show people that you're doing this for everybody, not just for the people on this podcast and our friends. That's going to be the key.

What Shamov just said is so important. There's a great interview. I've mentioned this in the past between Tim Ferriss and Charles Koch from a couple of years ago, where he brings up this exact example about how regulatory burdens make it difficult for women to become hairdressers. It's like $7,000. So they don't have the capital to do that because of the regulatory burden to get there. Think about building your home or, you know, like, let's say you want to put a shower in your bathroom.

change the shower in your bathroom. You don't want to spend $15,000 on all the permitting regulatory stuff to make that happen. It's going to unlock value for everyone. That's a small example of kind of a regulatory problem, but this benefits everyone. And the cost of transportation will come down. And my point is you have to communicate that. You have to be able to communicate that. And that's where using Elon's platform. But Millay's point is it shows up in the economy. Millay did the perfect job of communicating this to people. And that's the playbook, Freeberg. That's my point.

People are going to fight this. You have to convince them. You have to show them that this is helping everybody. Can we just agree that they're okay, but that's different than how you started. You said only work on consensus projects. I know I didn't say that. I think you have to highlight those, do them first. I said do those first. Make sure that people understand this is to save them money. I'm not saying that you don't change regulations for spaceships and self-driving cars as well, but you have to make sure you show people that this can benefit them or else they're going to just fight it.

And that's going to be the whole, all this effort will be for naught. If you get a bunch of Republicans, Saks, who start fighting this and you have a splintering in your party because they feel like this isn't helping their local constituents, this whole thing could be for naught. That's my view. That story that you told is going to be told by...

by the legacy media and all the haters and the enemies regardless of what Elon and the bank do. I don't think so. I think you can win people over. You're going to win Kara Swisher over people like that? You show people a 22,000... Professional Elon haters? You're not going to win them over. No, if you show... I'm talking about the public who votes. We already won the election.

Now's the time to implement. When you show people $22,000, you know, hammers and wasted money, you will get 100% of Americans backing this. Yeah, 60 minutes, but after 30 years, nothing's happened.

We got to just act now. Yeah, act and bring people along with communications. I mean, if your premise is communicate poorly, great, go for it. Yeah, I'm not saying that communication isn't part of the job. In fact, this whole conversation started by us talking about an op-ed that Elon and Vivek wrote in which they're laying out their objectives and they're doing podcasts and Elon has the biggest platform in the world and biggest following. So I just don't think communication is going to be the problem. But you're also not going to be able to convince everyone

And, you know, we've already won the election. And now's the time to figure out very strategically how to implement as much as possible. Be humble by two million votes. Keep it in mind. You have to bring everybody along. You know what? If the legacy media was fair, it would have been 20 million votes for Trump to have won under these circumstances. And he won the trifecta. It's impressive.

Nobody's saying it's not impressive. I'm not minimizing it. I'm just saying, be aware, there's 74 million people who are rooting against Trump. And I think getting some portion of them on. That's not true. That's not true. I think there's a decent number of people who are probably very upset that, you know, Trump won, just like last time they were upset that Biden won.

including all Americans in this, is the most virtuous thing you can do. Everybody should get on board. I think it's deranged, the idea that 74 million people are actually rooting against him. I don't think that that's true. I don't think they feel good that they lost. People don't feel good about losing.

bringing those people on board is virtuous. Dude, there's already been a huge vibe shift in the country. Have you seen the Trump dance? I mean, there's been such a vibe shift. Let's see it. Let's see it. I'm not going to do it right now, but there's been such a huge vibe shift that the energy is so optimistic right now.

The energy right now is incredible, and I think people are feeling much more optimistic. Can you imagine what a downer would it be if, like, we were expecting President Kamala Harris to take the oath of office on January 20th? It would be a downer to me if they were still pushing a $7.2 trillion federal budget next year. That would be a downer. And by the way, I think that there is a deeply linked relationship between social issues, economic issues, political policies,

and foreign conflict. They all seem like they're four different things, but they're so tightly interwound. And it's interesting how everything kind of moves together with this shift in who ended up winning this election cycle. And I think it really speaks to the relationship between the four. Well, by the way, there's a great meme that was floating around where it showed a photo of

Trump, Elon, Bobby Kennedy, and Tulsi Gabbard. And it said that all four of these people used to be Democrats. Yep. Yep. Oh, and put Joe Rogan in it. I tweeted that. It used to be that Democrats were progressive. Progressive means progress, looking forward. And the last decade, the last couple of years in particular, I think a lot of people that I know that are former Democrats, and Chamath, you can speak for yourself,

feel like the Democrats stopped looking forward. And it was all about trying to like, it was pessimistic and grievance and victim culture. And all of a sudden, you've got guys like Elon, promoting themselves as Republicans highlighting that it's all this is the party that looks forward. This is the party that drives progress. It's an amazing shift.

I don't know if there's been anything like it that's happened this quickly. I voted more to make America great again than I did vote for being a Republican. I think that the Republican Party is less important than it's ever been. And I think MAGA is more important than it's ever been. I agree. And I'd say the biggest risk to the whole agenda probably is not the Democrats. It's actually some of these old bulls in Congress who...

are anti-MAGA for some reason. Trump is the one who just won the trifecta. He just won this big election. If you stick with the old Republican message, you're just a surefire loser. So give Trump his due as the leader of the party, realize it's now a MAGA party, and let's get some things done. If the reform agenda fails, to be frank, it probably is not going to be the Democrats. It's probably going to be these holdouts in the Republican Party who thwarted it. Yeah, that's interesting. Yeah.

Yeah, that was my question earlier. I think I asked it twice. I didn't get anybody to engage in it. How do you convince them? How are they being brought on board to this if they have all this pork barrel spending? Is there a strategy there? Would you have a strategy? I think Saks laid it out, which is that if you use the combination of the carrot and the stick, I think the carrot is creating transparency. And I think

The other part of the carrot is you'll have now an extremely well-funded PAC that can support people who are on board with this agenda. But the stick is, if you don't, I think that if Elon makes this a really concerted long-term part of his strategy, then I think you should run candidates who actually are aligned with the agenda

that the Make America Great Again movement wants. So I think that's the carrot and stick, Jason, which is like some of these old Republicans will have to decide, do I basically help invest in a renewal of the American spirit or do I keep pushing back because I like the way it was and I want to go to war and I want to cozy up to these lobbyists? I think those folks are going to have a very tough time

four and eight years because I think you'll see a bunch of MAGA candidates rising up to run against them everywhere in the United States. As you can see, my young apprentice, your friends have failed. Now witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational battle station. Man, I said be humble like three times. None of it's sinking in.

No, I just explained the risks. I've been very clear. You're not going to get Milton Friedman, okay? You're not going to get Javier Millet. What we can hopefully get is a bending of the curve towards sustainable. I'm setting my expectations to be realistic, okay? I mean, breaking even would be great. If we just weren't adding to the debt, that would be amazing. That would be a huge win, right? Look, if the federal budget gets to $3 trillion and regulation gets cut, if you get 50% of

the regulations in federal agencies cut, I think you unleash an economic sonic boom. I'm all in on Doge. I think it's the greatest thing that could ever happen. My gosh. Could you imagine America clocking in 4% GDPs? Do you guys deal with regulatory? I mean, how much do you guys stock with companies? I'm dealing with massive regulatory.

The regulatory stuff is brutal, man. I mean, it's legit brain-melting shit. Tell me your number one regulatory frustration. We can go around the horn. This is a great topic, actually. I don't have any. I think I'm very blessed to work in an industry that's very light with regulation. I think it affects many, many other industries that, if they were unleashed, could contribute to American GDP in exceptional ways. Real estate, construction, energy, infrastructure. I also think regulations are very regressive because they touch...

poor and middle income people way more than it touched folks like me. And so rip these regulations out.

Two regulations that do affect you, crypto regulation and capital formation. Both of those things are massive. They haven't hurt me. They haven't hurt me. This is my point of view, but they definitely are swaddling the economy, right? I can snap a finger and raise a couple billion dollars. That is not, so I'm in a unique position and I recognize that. What is much harder is if you're trying to be an electrician, if you're trying to be a hairdresser, if you're trying to be a massage therapist, when you have to spend 15, 20, 30% of your salary on licensure. Ooh.

Why? Totally. Why do we need these stupid rules? Totally. If you're a person that's trying to construct a home, why does it take six and eight weeks to get permits approved? Why?

And there are no good answers for these things. So forget about me. Like, it doesn't matter about me. But the mainline part of the United States economy, as I said before, is a coiled spring. If you get rid of those regulations, it disproportionately impacts middle income and lower middle income jobs. This is why if you see GDP, if America clocks in GDP at four to four and a half percent, watch out, folks.

Jason Lowery: Sonic boom, watch out. I'll give you two really simple ones. Allowing everybody in the United States to participate in company formation would change everything. 95% of the company cannot participate in investing in startups or any

you know, new company, which is crazy. The accreditation laws would be massive. I think it's more about just freedom to operate, just freedom to do stuff you want to do. Well, that's what it is. I mean, you're free to go to Vegas and gamble. You're free to, you know, play, you know, online sports. I think the next governor of California... But you're not free to buy Bitcoin. You're not free to buy... You are free to buy Bitcoin. Well, Bitcoin you can, yeah. But you're not free to create a token, right? There should be some clear path of regulation for that. I think there's many more traditional...

forms of economic growth that we can have before we need to make ICOs legal and easier. I want to say something. I think that the person that runs for governor in California should commit to cutting those 65,000 regulations down to 10,000 as needed to replacing the DMV with a digital app and to cut taxes to near zero and to create school choice.

Whoever does that will create a renaissance in California. It's the fifth largest economy in the world, folks.

And it can be a bellwether for the rest of the world. Well, you know, there's a lot of scuttlebutt online that Nicole Shanahan's going to run for governor of California. And I'd be all in favor of that. I would say that of all the political personalities involved in the election over the past year, she gets my most improved award. I remember when Bobby named her to his ticket, I was a little bit skeptical of that choice because of some of the causes that she had identified with or donated to in the past.

But she, I think, has ended up being a star. She's pretty based. She's a star. Yeah, totally. I mean, she's red-pilled and ended up supporting Maha and Maga.

And I don't think we're going to get anyone better in California. So if she's willing to do it and take it on, that'd be awesome. Sax, what about you? You don't want that mansion? It'd be a significant downgrade for me. I was about to say, you took the joke right out before I got to it. Damn it. That was such an easy one. Yeah, you could live in the governor's mansion, also known as smaller than your guest house. That would be your backup man cave. Well, actually, that's happened. People have...

In New York, I remember one of the governors was like, yeah, you know, I'm good. I don't need to live in the mansion. Where do you want to go next, boys? We have other things on the docket. Would you like to go to our war correspondent? Would you like to go Chrome, Google breakup? Would you like to go NVIDIA? Where would you like to go? World War III, I think, is important. Sax, you put World War III on the docket. Would you like to tee it up for us? Yeah.

Sure. Well, there's several events that have happened in reasonably close succession. The first thing to understand is what's happening on the ground in Ukraine. The Ukrainians have been losing territory at an accelerating pace. There's an excellent graphic in the New York Times that I'll put on the screen that shows this. It's not a stalemate. Remember, I said on this podcast,

six months or a year ago that it was no longer a stalemate. It was a war of attrition in which the Ukrainians were now losing. And every single month now, the Russians are taking more and more territory. Again, the curve is accelerating. We'd all invest in a business who had a growth curve that looked like this. So not good news for the Ukrainians.

In response to that, I think that's fundamentally the condition on the ground that's created the next set of actions, which is the Biden administration finally approved the use of long-range missiles, attack missile, storm shadows to hit territory deep inside of Russia. The Russians believe, and I don't know whether this is true or not, but what they say is that those weapons cannot be operated without Americans or British or

operators being there to, you know, they're too complicated for the Ukrainians just to use on their own. So they, the Russians view this as not just a direct attack on their homeland, on their motherland, but also a direct involvement by the NATO allies, United States and Britain in the war. And that is a big escalation. You know, a lot of people say that

the Russians have all these red lines we keep crossing and they don't do anything. That's not true. If you actually listen to what the Russians have said, there's only been two red lines. The first red line was they said they would not accept NATO expanding to Ukraine. And they proved their seriousness on that issue by invading Ukraine in February of 2022. The second red line is they said that they would not accept

American long-range missiles being used to target inside of Russia. And that line has now been crossed. So this leads us to the next set of events, which is Russia just used what may be, some people are saying it's an ICBM, but it probably is more likely to be not an intercontinental, but an intermediate range ballistic missile that hit a

Ukrainian city. And obviously, it didn't carry a nuclear payload, but it's the type of ballistic missile that is used to carry nuclear weapons. There are a couple of features of this

that I think are really important. Number one, it's a hypersonic missile. It hit the target at something like Mach 10. What that means is that it just can't be intercepted. It's too fast. The West and the United States in particular does not, as far as we know, have a technology to intercept a hypersonic missile like that. The second is that it had what's called a MIRV

warhead or payload. MIRV is multiple independently targeted reentry vehicles. Basically what it means is the warhead splits up. When it gets close to the ground, it splits into six separate warheads. And the reason for this, as I understand it, is diabolical. Again, it's just if you're launching a nuclear weapon, it just makes it that much harder to now intercept it because now you've got six warheads hitting you instead of just one. So, I mean...

As I understand it, a missile like this has never been used before. And what the Russians are doing, obviously, is sending us a signal. And what that message is, is that they're saying we have the means to hit any European city or any European asset with a hypersonic missile that you can't stop, that may or may not have a nuclear warhead attached to it.

And it's just a way of them expressing their seriousness and displeasure and reacting to and escalating in response to the fact that we are now allowing Western missiles to be hitting targets deep inside of Russia. So the bottom line is this war is escalating. It's escalating nowhere good. And at some point soon, we're going to have to get off of this escalatory ladder or we're going to end up in a really disastrous place. And just the last final point is...

It's absolutely remarkable that Biden decided to take us to this place with what, just six weeks left in his term? Completely. I mean, as a lame duck president, what is his mandate for doing that, for taking this extraordinary risk on behalf of the country?

The voters just voted for Trump, who made it really clear he wanted to end the war. And Biden and his team have unilaterally now escalated this war. They did it without consulting with Trump's team. At least that's what was publicly reported, is there was no briefing set up for Trump's transition team.

So you have here Biden and his team taking a unilateral action to expand and escalate this war, even when he's a lame duck president. And the question you have to ask is why? What is the point of this? Well, I think it's just completely deranged because it's not just that. Forget Biden and Trump for a second. If you take a step back, what was voted in was to end this war and for the United States to get our hands out of it.

So you couldn't have a clearer message to the sitting president in the White House, which is this is not what Americans want. And so to basically ignore the will of the voters and to essentially go and push another country into the brink, I think, is so incredibly responsible. And, you know, other times we've said in the past, take Donald Trump seriously, but not literally. Russia, you should take seriously and literally.

Because they actually write it down for you and tell you. And so when they said every act of aggression from now on is going to be viewed by us on a look through basis to the actual country that is enabling this to happen, you couldn't be more clear. But Americans couldn't have been more clear, which is we don't want this war anymore.

And I just think it's really deranged what the Biden White House is doing. It's incredibly dangerous. And by the way, not to mention, it's incredibly costly as well. I mean, we've had like some last minute efforts to sort of tamp down on these last minute budget approvals and whatnot. But we're talking about tens and hundreds of billions of dollars that we're giving on top of the risk of nuclear escalation. I just think it's absolutely crazy. It's absolutely crazy. Putin is not a dummy. He has heard and seen

Trump's campaign rhetoric. And Sachs, I don't know if this has been publicly reported that he had a call with Trump after the election victory. Does Putin not see that in a couple of weeks, a couple of months, there will be new leadership in the White House and there's going to be a path to a resolution here? Like, does that not give us all a little bit of reprieve that this is not going to escalate because everyone's waiting for January 20th?

Oh, I mean, for sure. I mean, thank goodness. I would say that we have a new president coming in who does not own this war. I mean, the problem with Biden is that he completely owns this war and he does not want to admit defeat. And so what you've seen is that over the last couple of years, every weapon system that Biden said he wouldn't give.

to Ukraine because it could literally cause World War III. These are Biden's words. He said it could be Armageddon if we gave Ukraine F-16s. It could be Armageddon if we gave them Abrams tanks. It would be Armageddon if we gave them HIMARS and ATAKOMs and could lead to World War III if we let them hit targets inside of Russia. These are Biden's words. And

He has basically given in on every single one of those points because he's so committed to this policy, right? He's in the quagmire. He can only double down. He doesn't know how to extricate himself. And now we don't know exactly what Kamala Harris would have done, but I think probably she would have inherited Joe Biden's policy and likely continued it. And I think we have a wonderful opportunity here with Trump taking office. He doesn't own this policy. He can look at it with fresh eyes.

And most importantly, he campaigned on ending the war. So he has the mandate of the American people to stop it. All I can say is thank goodness. And we just need to get through the next two months. We just need to get to January 20th without there being some new horrible escalation in this war.

He's by Joe Biden is martingaling. That's his strategy for the Ukraine, Russia war. Just keep doubling down and doubling, doubling down. Oh yeah. Do you want to explain what that is? Oh yeah. Sorry. Martingaling is a strategy in gambling where let's just say, you know, you start betting a dollar and you lose your next bet is $2. If you lose your next bet is $4. If you lose your next bet is $8 and eventually you'll win once is the theory.

But there's many times where martingaling does not work. But you only win a dollar. So you could be betting, you know, 80, you know, 40 bucks, 80 bucks, $160, $320. And then you finally win and you win a dollar. Right. Or you go broke. That's a great analogy because you can also go broke, right? Well, this is why they have caps at the roulette table.

One time I would do this as a joke. That's why all casinos have a max. Yeah, exactly. So I would do this as a joke with my wife when I was at the World Series of Poker. I'd be like, I'm going to pay for dinner or lunch or whatever. And I put $100 on black, lose, put $200 on black, win, go pay for lunch. And I did it one time at the WSOP. And I went $100, $200, $400, $800, $1,600. I ran out of cash. I got $3,200 from my friend. I put it down. The floor man came over and said, that's your last bet.

Oh, no, my buddy and I would go play. If you do this. Yeah. In our college years, early 20s, we would go to drink for free at the casino. You just sit at the blackjack table and just keep going. Yeah, I've been with you at that blackjack table and watched you drink. This was a long time ago. This happened last year. Well, I mean, if you bet a dollar and then you bet two bucks, you can just keep drinking for free for like two or three hours and then go out and enjoy your night. You've made 15 bucks and call it a night. Did I tell you about the losing a million dollars playing roulette?

No. What? Me. Nick, you got to beep out the names. Me. It was me. Oh, you did tell me this. You did tell me this. Yeah, this is so good. It says, guys, I've developed a system. It's full. Oh, no. That's always what happens before you lose a million. And he says that it's like we need to risk a million. We can win like two or three. And it's like ninety nine point nine nine six percent.

So I say to him, so are you really telling me that we just have to fade .004% chance of like total loss? And he says, yep. Well, guess what hit? The .004% shot. Me. Totally. And .

And it was devastating. I just kept looking at this thing like, what just happened? He's like, oh, we lost. And I was like, there it is, folks. Never again. I'm never going to play roulette again. I think the gambling analogies are the right analogies. Because look, I'm not saying World War III is going to happen. I've never said World War III is going to happen. I'm saying that there's a risk of World War III. And I don't need the risk to be very high to be very worried about it because it would be such a disastrous outcome, right? Yeah.

Exactly. So I want to minimize risk of ruin. I want to exactly. I want there to be hopefully a zero risk of that. But you know, what's interesting is remember just like a week or two ago, President Trump made that trip to D.C. and he met with Biden in the Oval Office and Biden had this. He was like all smiles.

And everyone's wondering, why is he so happy? And the speculation was that he somehow wanted a common to lose or something. But now you think back on this, he must have known he was about to authorize this decision. So what he's doing here, he's grin f***.

He's grin-f***ing Trump. He knows he's about to give Trump this horrible hand, right? He's about to make this situation in Ukraine so much worse so that Trump will have to inherit this mess. That is like the definition of grin-f***ing. Yeah, he definitely knew more than that picture let on. Because the interpretation of that picture was,

They are getting along. He's being super gracious. What an incredible gesture. It just looked like very... Yeah, he promised a smooth transition of power. And then we find out that he didn't confer with his successor about this extraordinarily meaningful decision to escalate the war. Escalation, yeah. It's like, that's just crazy. It's crazy. You guys want to do science corner? I got one for you. Yeah, let's hear it.

All right. Your super fans are desperate for a science corner. Give them one, Freiburg. Give them something. All right. I will give you guys... Give them something. Here's a depressing paper that was published in the journal Nature just this week. Research team out of Switzerland going over to the Swiss where they are conducting extraordinary research.

in the epigenetics of fat cells in obesity. - Oh, so we're gonna fat shame me on the science corner. Go ahead, great. - No, we're actually gonna understand perhaps why it is difficult for people that have been overweight to keep the weight off. - I did read this and I think it's fascinating. Yeah, explain it. - It is really incredible. So remember, we've talked about this many times in the past, but every cell has all your DNA, all your genes.

And certain genes are turned on or off in different cells. And those genes being on or off differentiates those cells and causes them to act differently. That's the difference between an eye cell and a skin cell and a heart cell is they have different genes that are upregulated, downregulated, turned on and turned off.

And even when you have different kinds of cells, you have certain genes that are overexpressed or underexpressed or overregulated or upregulated or downregulated. That means that those genes are turning, pumping out certain proteins that do certain things in that particular cell. So what these folks did is they wanted to understand what is the epigenome, meaning what are the genes that are turned on or off or upregulated or downregulated in fat tissue and fat cells.

And does the epigenome change

when an individual loses weight, so once they're obese, and they lose weight, do the fat cells actually change their epigenome? Or do they have an epigenetic memory, meaning that those cells, even though the person has lost weight, those cells still continue to act as if that person were obese. So I'll tell you, in humans, they basically took five individuals that were obese and lost more than 25% BMI.

And they looked at the epigenome, they looked at the markers of what genes are upregulated and downregulated before and after they lost the weight.

After they lost the weight, there were a set of markers that were still upregulated that are associated with poor metabolism and increased fibrosis and increased cellular death. So these are inflammatory genes. These are genes that are associated with the cells being inefficient at utilizing glucose to create energy. And so these cells continue to act like slow dying cells, even after the person lost weight. And they did the same thing in mice and they found similar results that they

caused these mice to gain weight, looked at the epigenome of the fat cells, and then looked at the epigenome after they lost the weight. And again, the mouse epigenome continued to act as if the mouse was obese.

And what this means is that the metabolism remained reduced, fibrosis remained elevated and likelihood of cell death remained elevated. So now they applied glucose in a petri dish to those cells, and they saw that the glucose had a harder time being fully being appropriately utilized from a healthy fat cell that hadn't been obese. So it actually permanently alters and creates an epigenetic memory in the fat cells after obesity. And this could explain

pretty significantly why when people that have been obese lose the weight, they are more likely to gain the weight back and have a hard time keeping the weight off. The yo-yo effect you're referring to, yes. And that makes total sense because anybody who's added weight, Chamath, if you add butt fat,

you know, you eat one extra Oreo a week, that's 3,500 calories. You do that over 20 years, all of a sudden you wake up one day, you're 20, 30 pounds overweight, like I was three or four years ago. And this is where I think Ozempic and Wagovi and Monjorno and all these things are so great because it does seem like it breaks you through that, no? Well, the problem, what we do see in all those results that when you go off of the GLP-1 agonist drugs,

you gain the weight back very quickly. This is some amount of the weight. Yeah, it's not a total amount. It's a pretty significant bounce back effect. So, and this is pretty well documented in,

And so I think that it speaks to the why. Now, it also introduces an opportunity. There are molecules that can turn certain genes on or off, can now be identified and utilized to change that epigenetic memory. So now there's a- So you can flip that switch in addition to taking Moldova, yeah. Exactly. This could arise from things like increased exercise. It turns out that when you do significant amounts of cardiovascular exercise, there are certain genes that are expressed that trigger other genes to switch on or off.

And so we can start to identify those particular molecules and produce either supplements or additional drugs or combo therapies that can both knock the weight off and keep it off by changing the epigenetic memory in those cells. And so it introduces a whole new class of opportunity.

for folks to explore how do we help folks that are obese lose the weight and then flip the switch that they can keep the weight off. I've been doing rocking. This is like the old man activity that Peter Attia and these guys are all talking about. You put weights on and you like go walking. I wear a, I started with a 10 pound weight vest. Now I'm at 35 pounds. I do a mile and a half hike every day with 35 pounds on. Man, I fall asleep immediately. And the amount of

intensity that puts on your body. You do it right before you go to bed. No, no, I do it anytime during the day. But I'm just saying it's, it's, I'm focused on four things right now with my health, diet, sleep, exercise, meditation, and I try to do all four each day. But the rucking specifically in the zone two stuff is what they say 40 50 year olds should focus on. So that's what I'm focused on. But that rucking man, does it make your whole body strong? I highly recommend it. It's really transformative.

My meditation is reading Doja Face. For Chamath Palihapitiya, chairman dictator, 80-90. He's running a software company, services company. Great. Look at you in the driver's seat. David Friedberg, your sultan of science, working on Ohalo. And the architect, the Rain Man. Yeah. Definitely David Sack from Craft Ventures. And...

Maybe it's going to be involved in Doge. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a Saks Doge hookup in the future. I don't know. I'm taking a guess here. I am your host here, Jason Calacanis. I'll see you all on December 7th, live or in person. By the way, did you guys see this? Did you see this tweet from Brian Johnson?

He tweeted out all of his blood levels. This is incredible. I love this guy. Look at these results. They're incredible. If he can break this down into like a turnkey thing that normal folks like us can follow. For people who don't know what this kid's doing is he is spending like $3 million a year or something to that effect on his own personal health, documenting it, sharing it, everything from sleep to

to his bone density, everything is an open book. And he's made some products out of it as well. So you can eat his pudding too if you're interested in it. But I don't think it's as good as soup. But how do you follow his regimen? You know what I mean? Like, it just seems too hard. You can't have a job. I mean, he's doing, it's like he's got two jobs right now doing all this stuff. His biomarkers are showing he's 10 years younger than his actual biological age. Dude, look at some of these results. His speed of aging. He says his birthday now happens every 19 months.

What the f***?

- Freeburg, I mean, Freeburg, you look at these-- - What do you think here, science, from a science perspective, any thoughts on all this? - Well, I think his nighttime erection rate is pretty impressive. Three hours and eight minutes for a nighttime erection. - Hold on. - How does he do that? - Wait, is he reading Elon and Vivek's op-ed column? What's going on? - He's reading it very slowly. Wow, he's got a 240 pound bench press and an 800 pound leg press.

Jesus. He looks like he's dead, though. That's the only problem with this. Guys, I gotta go. He's so pale. Sax has gotta go. DJT on line two. We'll see you all next time. Love you, boys. Bye-bye. Love you, guys. Bye. We'll let your winners ride. Rain Man, David Sax. And it said, we open sourced it to the fans and they've just gone crazy. Love you, West. Queen of Kinwa. All in.

Besties are gone. Besties are gone. Besties are gone. Besties are gone.

Ain't no league