AI Psychosis, America's Broken Social Fabric, Trump Takes Over DC Police, Is VC Broken?

26:10We had dial up internet. It was a very different world where we're all connected 24, 7 on our phones. I'm sure we all have average phone usage of seven hours a day today. So there's a lot more rabbit holes to fall into that reinforce this isolation. It doesn't actually solve your isolation or loneliness problem when you get stuck on a phone or stuck on the internet. It actually magnifies it, makes it worse, because you start to see all the things you don't have, and you start to feel worse about yourself, and that leads to all of these kind of, I would say, difficult social context that Shema's talking about.

26:44With respect to affordability, as you know, I think that that's a distinct point, which is related to our expectation that the government can and should always solve our problems for us. And as a result, we created the federal home loan program, much like we created the federal student loan program, both of which I believe created bubbles in those markets. We created this concept that every American family should be able to afford a home, and our solution was to pump a bunch of money into homes through the federal home loan program. And that ultimately led to bubbles of in affordability for homes.

27:17If we really want to solve this today, besides solving the government spending problem and inflation problem and dollar devaluation problem, which obviously require cutting spending, I think it's going to need to be some sort of set of rules around making sure that homes are not being bought up by institutions. That's one that I think is going to be a pretty popular point that's going to come up in the next year to, particularly in the next election cycle. So, you know, there's two sides to that. I think you're kind of dancing around the issue there, and I think it's very real, which is the financial piece of this, Friedberg.

27:49Boomers have just absolutely, these couple of generations, if you look at the cost of homes, like you mentioned, the cost of education, and then you just look at real wage growth, I don't know if I sent you a chart, if you can take a look at this. You know, the big problem in the United States is wages have not grown, except for people who have a lot of money already. And so if you wanted to start a family and you're in $100 ,000 in debt for your student loans and homes have doubled triple quadrupled in price when compared to your income. And we don't have real wage growth. That's an issue. And I think this will become the issue of the next election.

28:23We see Monday and the socialist movement we talked about it last week. If you really want to make a compelling argument for the next election cycle, I think it's real wage growth. And if you look at something like minimum wage and this disparity between what top earners make and minimum wage, here's a chart of where minimum wage is in the other developed countries, there is a real argument here, even though we might all be free market. There's a very different approach to higher education and literally all of those countries, except for hours. It's affordable. Well, yeah. And I think that we have to call a spade a spade.

29:01There was an entire generation, if not two generations of young men and women, younger than us, right? It's not in their late 40s, early 50s, who were told that they must, not should, not, it's nice to, they must go university. And these folks took out an enormous amount of financial support to do so. And part of the underlying reason was that they were told, and it sounds very credible. Technology is coming, and there's gonna be so much automation of all of the other kinds of jobs that you may do in a trade school, you should go to university and protect yourself. Well, lo and behold, it's turned out to be the exact opposite.

29:43So could you imagine where you could have gone to trade school, been an electrician, been a plumber, built, done something, welder, made a couple hundred grand, married somebody, you know, she does a good job. Now all of a sudden, she also makes $152 ,000 a year. You're making $400 ,000 and you have no debt. That is the key. You have no debt. But when you make 400K and have no debt, I'm sorry, but that is probably actually better than being the doctor making a million bucks. And then there are all of these other jobs that aren't a doctor where you're still saddled with the 300 ,000 and you have no way of paying it back.

30:19So I think that that's also a really important issue that we have to dig right at some point. There is a framing of the issue for an entire generation. That was probably wrong. If I had to bet, I would bet that engineers are more likely to have their jobs replaced in the short term than welders and plumbers. Okay, Sacks. I mean, we're talking here just about the American dream. Is it broken for these next generations, low wages, high debt, no ability to buy a home? And this came out in New York this week, pull up that chart, slow gains and jobs in New York City for the first half of 2025, feels like something's happening here with jobs.

31:01We talked to Vice President JD Vance about this. He had some concerns about jobs for recent grads. This is New York City. We have about 1 ,000 jobs we're at in the first half of this year. Don't know if that's specific to New York, but we had two months of data revised. We clearly have some issues with jobs here and young people are clearly having a problem economically. They might be upside down. What are your thoughts here, Sachs? Possibly too many different things here. I'm not sure how a specific data point around a few months of job supports in New York City Is really relevant to a trend that started in 1950.

31:41I mean, are we talking about this? I mean, this is the chart that went viral on X over the weekend and a lot of people are commenting on why this is which is starting in the 1950s you had about 50 % of 30 -year -olds were both married in homeowners and by the early 2020s, that number is about 10%. So that's the big societal change that's happened over especially the last 30 years and the question is why. And I think there's both economic factors and social factors. And I think you guys touched on some of the big economic factors. I mean, one is the affordability of housing, which I I think it's mostly due to the fact that we're not building enough, and that's due to the fact that in large urban areas, I mean, in these blue cities, you can't build anything because the cities have tied everything up in legal regulatory red tape, and that's the whole point of Ezra Clients book on abundance is to try and get liberals to change their point of view on that.

32:41So you've kind of got the affordability of housing, and then you've also got the college scam, which is you got these kids graduating from college with, I don't know, 200 ,000, $300 ,000 of debt because the cost of colleges skyrocketed over the last few decades, which you know, that was not true 30 or 40 years ago. You could get a decent college education without graduating so mired in debt that obviously there's no way you're going to be able to buy a house and start a family and that whole thing. So I think there are these important and economic factors, but at the same time, there are a lot of these social factors that you're talking about.

33:16It does seem like young men are less self -sufficient. I mean, you've got these data points around isolation and loneliness, but you've also got these data points around lack of self -sufficiency. If you could put up the FT charts, where they talk about the ability of people to make plans and follow through. I mean, there's been a big change among the 16 to 39 new roles in their ability to make plans and follow through in their perseverance in how easily distracted they are, how careless they are. And so I do think that there is, there is a sense that a lot of these young people just aren't ready to be the head of household, to own their own homes, to start a family.

34:07And I think there's some good questions about why this is and I wouldn't rule out the effective woke poison running through the school system here for the last 20 or 30 years. I mean, if you raise white males since kindergarten to believe that there's something wrong with them, they're the evil group in this morality tale of woke that's been told, they're going to internalize that in some way. And maybe check out maybe I think I think I think it plays out in a lot of different ways. And they opt out. but I wouldn't rule that out either. But it's hard to say, you know, I think that Jamathi mentioned the online dating sites.

34:39I mean, I think there is something to that where the dating sites have made the dating market more efficient in a way and more globalized. But is that a good thing? I mean, you used to have a lot of hyper -local dating markets and maybe it wasn't efficient, but maybe that was more conducive to average people hooking up, whereas like you mentioned that. Yeah, I mean, like you mentioned that. Remember, think of the number of people you guys know that met either a long -term boyfriend or girlfriend or a spouse at work. Yep. But if you ask young people today, is that even allowed? That is so verbote.

35:11It is like so off the... It's not allowed. You're not allowed to do any of that. Because of this latent fear of sex, as you said, there could be an accusation. How do I defend myself? And so there's a fear that has... I think sees a large part of our use. Yeah. What a great platform this is for either party or a new party to pick up just double the minimum wage take out all these regulations Bill more homes and make a college affordable those three things are such a winning platform Fibre you think that we should what do you do with the mortgage market you? God, it's so difficult. I don't know do you just basically privatize Freddie and Fanny and let them underwrite?

35:51I a hundred percent think you got to privatize Freddie and Fanny as a first step and then you have to stop underwriting student debt so that you don't underwrite through $200 ,000 degrees. I believe 100 % in ending the federal student loan program. And I think that it will force a restructuring of the entire higher education system in the United States, which no one wants to hear, no one wants to do, and everyone's against. But I think it is the only path forward. We have the chancellor of UC Berkeley and the president of Dartmouth coming to the all -in -summit to talk about the future of higher education.

36:21I think this is probably, in my book, one of the top three most important issues we should be discussing right now, we have to get rid of the federal student loan program and we have to force a right sizing of higher education and a restructuring of higher education such that the access to education becomes more ubiquitous. It's not this $300 ,000 debt load that everyone is forced to take on and it enables a more fair market and a more free market where people get what they pay for and ultimately people are going to have to make decisions about what majors they're getting and whether or not to pay for these colleges.

36:54Or whether they get an age or a result. Whether you get a major social, have the social acceptability to not do that. And another tactical thing for you, Bergus, is to just this accreditation scam where only certain people can give college degrees. If you allowed, you know, entrepreneurs to create schools, Joe Lonstell is doing here. He had to buy an accredited university to kind of back into it. But if you asked a bunch of entrepreneurs, hey, lower the cost of this degree from 250k to 50k, They would figure out a way to do it and it's already happening. People are now using chat GPT, using online tools to get their education and doing that around the existing system.

37:33So, you know, life finds a way. These young people are finding a way. They're finding ways. I'll be honest. I really like Trump's attack on Colombia, UCLA and Harvard. Because I think that Those were these sacred cows that were always left alone. They were meant to be these signaling mechanisms of elitism and quality and future prospects. And those institutions ran totally amok. Totally amok. They started to do things that just made absolutely... There was sense. To your point, there was a really good article. I think it was in the Atlantic this weekend about how the humanities captured science.

38:10So basically these universities get a large amount of their federal funding by getting research grants allocated to the university and then they get an administrative topper on top of the research grant. Historically at Harvard, that administrative topper is 60%. So if a researcher gets a $3 million grant at Harvard to work on cancer research, $1 .8 million of administrative fees are paid to Harvard University. A lot of the universities use those fees to expand and grow out their administrative staffing and also to expand and grow out their humanities. These aren't bad programs per say, but it basically meant that the science funding was being used to kind of create what some people are now calling social engineering, that these universities that engage in overall several of your period.

38:55One of the other key questions about the future of higher education is should science and engineering be coupled with the humanities from a funding perspective or should those institutions be so? Peter Tio has a very funny saying about this, which is anytime you have a concept that you want to fund that has the word science after it. It's not a science. So just kick it to the curve. Yeah, physics is physics, social science, political science or social science. Yeah. What is that? In China, in Germany, in Russia, there are science and engineering institutions that are separated from universities where you can go and learn the humanities.

39:34And I'm not discrediting the value of learning the humanities. If you can afford it, if you think that there's value in doing that for yourself in your career. Yeah, they ought to go for it. Good luck, et cetera. If you're wealthy and you want to engage in that because that's something you want to pursue, society needs that. We value it. Great. Go for it. But the problem is the research being separated from the humanities is critical. Sachs, if you want federal funding, shouldn't we put and you want non -profit status for your giant endowment? Why not require these schools to increase the number of Americans that they're educating and to lower the price of the education?

40:07Now, if you want to do it privately, fine, but if you want federal funding, if you want taxpayers to underwrite these incredible institutions, double the number of people you're teaching, triple the number of American teaching and lower the cost 10 % a year till more people can afford it. Like, we have to hold them to some standard here for increasing the number of Americans who are educating because those institutions now are global institutions. There's very few Americans going going to them. Listen, we've seen with all sorts of goods and products that when the government is paying the bill, the price always rises.

40:39You always get inflation because the government is relatively insensitive to cost. Whereas if you look at technology products, the price keeps going down over time. There's a really good chart on this, right? We're like all the sectors of the economy that are experiencing a matter of inflation. How is it? They're all funded by the government. Healthcare and housing education are an issue. So look, that's what's going on with higher education. But I want to bring one other thing into this, which is, you know, we spend a lot of time talking about higher education, we don't really spend that much time talking about the quality of K through 12 education.

41:07And my sense on this is that over the past 30 years or so, there's been a shocking decline in the quality of American elementary and high school education. I think it's so bad. So bad. If you look at the performance on standardized testing, they even do testing anymore. You see pretty sharp declines in the quality of education. But there's a lot of places now where they're trying to abolish testing. They're abolishing gifted programs, math programs. This is like a big issue in California, San Francisco. They try to get rid of those gifted schools because of so -called equity. In other words, they want to define the standards down to the lowest because it would be supposedly unfair for some kids to experience the advancement of being in a gifted program.

41:53And that, of course, you get into the behavioral standards. I mean, we've all seen these viral videos of fights happening in schools where, you know, sometimes the teachers are in the fights, sometimes the kids are in the fights. This has been a total decline of behavioral standards in schools. You know, I remember back in the 1990s, Bill Clinton got a standing ovation in the state of the Union because he said that they should have school uniforms. And there was a sense that you should have disciplined in schools and high standards. And now, like, I mean, I actually think it's a good idea. Yeah, I mean, I actually think that we need to.

42:26Uniforms and no and have phone lockers, no phones in the school. You check your devices. There's a lot of things that could be done to raise the bar. What is this? Is it a Brooklyn in a school? This is what goes on in China. Oh, look at that teamwork. We should do that at the summit. The four of us should bounce basketballs and show that we're a team. So they could team build the exercise for the all in return. Remember, like, you know, the schools are in America. at the public schools are not run for the benefit of the kids are run for the benefit of the teachers unions and we saw this during covid where ranny wine garden insisted that the school stay locked down and close far longer than was necessary when everybody else had already realized that these lockdowns did not make sense that putting the desk five feet apart was absurd it was a placebo a bastard who made that statement sex because I remember this happening.

43:20I remember the union guys fought against reopening the schools. Absolutely. Who, like, there was a guy you meant to... It was Randy Winegarden in the teachers unions that were fighting the school reopening and they kept it closed for a year longer than necessary. I mean, in California, it was closed for roughly two years. You know, there's absolutely no justification for that second year, even if there was for the first one, which was highly questionable. And then the way they were having, you know, five year olds were masked to school. Yeah. I mean, even in our schools, I mean, my five year old was like, they're trying to like, put this like mask on him and.

43:58It's so sad. And then it was absurd when I had to fall off and. It was like the police didn't even, it was always like the nose was out and you're like, okay, this is so performative. Yeah. And it was taught in any way. It was. But I mean, this is, we talked about the storing COVID, like, what is the damage going to be to these kids? and we're seeing it now in a range of things. I remember when I got rid of the masks, my nine -year -old who was maybe five, maybe six years old at the time, she refused to take it off and she was scared. She's like, no, Dad, I can't take this mask off. I don't want to die.

44:29And I'm like, what are they telling you? What's going to be? You're not going to die. Nobody's wearing a mask anymore, unless you're at the Socialism 2025 conference, whatever. I don't know if you saw that. This is a 2025. They're literally after they do their land acknowledgements, they mask up. So it's a panel of people in 2025 wearing this. Wait, is it really a socialism 2025 conference? We have to go next year. I think we should host an all -in panel at this. We should definitely do some programming at the 20, 20, 6 socialism. It's amazing. It's like the Democratic Socialist Party. Oh my god.

45:04It's incredible. It's incredible. I might have just there for the party to get the invite. We should totally go under cover. We should wear like, we should get go teased and suspenders and go as baristas like and just talk about how we're going to seize some other action. Here's, you'll be so great. All in undercover, if you look at the red bar here, just in current dollars, the average tuition fees, you know, when we went to school, it was two to three thousand a year on average, and then now it's at 10. And that's an inflation at $1. If you put entrepreneurs on this and just said the problem is the socialist mindset is is that the way to solve that is to get the government to do more and make it more free.

45:43And the reality is that the reason this happened is because the government began to provide student loans unlimited to everyone that got a scholarship. That's what's running education in the administration. Let's talk to them about accreditation and cracking that open. That's not even the issue of accreditation. We can invest in a company to do this. There was plenty of bullshit private universities and private schools out there. The problem is they all get access to the capital. It's not about accreditation. and it's sure, like make, make creditation more easy, but at the end of the day, you need to make capital more efficient.

46:13You need to get the government out of the role of allocating capital to education. That's right. There's actually a really simple fix to this. Somebody needs to close the loop so that when you say you want to go and get an art history degree, the answer is you could do it, but you need to pay for it. And no loss. In other words, what you're saying is there needs to be a restoration of underwriting criteria for this type of I said forever. That's right. Exactly right. But also, I mean, if you do next price, you said, what's the least amount of money you could spend to educate somebody to be a lawyer?

46:47You would get entrepreneurs. You'd be like, oh, that's a great business. Entrepreneurs don't go after this because the accreditation process is decades long. It's impossible to do because of regulation, civil servant, David Sacks. Let's put this on your shirt. AI is going to be an accelerant here, David, because I do think that with AI, it's a great equalizer. There was a company I was talking to the other day that does AI education and They are having an absolute lift off in their business in South America and in South Asia and in these markets There's a dearth of qualified teachers to stand in front of a class and teach folks and so by using AI These kids are now getting ahead of American kids and other words They're advancing through AI psychosis because they're spending 12 hours a day on AI Right.

47:31Well, probably two hours a day. I mean, that's probably what's going to happen is the AI is a great leveler because you can basically get all the world's information at your fingertips in a way that's fully interactive and personalized. Well, that's it. That's it. That's it. Some trial lawyers going to end your ability to get that because they're going to call that AI site. The technical term is adaptive learning and I don't know if you guys drive your own cars anymore, but in the Tesla, they just add I'd go to the dashboard if you long hold the Siri version in there, turns into GROC, and I did a thing where I said, hey, test my vocabulary.

48:04It's already giving me words. It would ask for my definition. I'd give it the definition. It's saying, you're close. This is a better definition. And my ride's tuned from the office now. I'm doing like vocabulary tests. It's increasing my vocabulary and testing me on higher and higher. So you're now like third or fourth grade or like what? I mean, my vocabulary's already been off the charts. I guarantee my verbal score would be higher than the three of you. Guarantee. What does AI say about the correct way to pronounce monetization? When it's, I've been working on that. And you know what? It's, I'm correcting that.

48:38Do you, but make fun of me because of my take out this laxia. I need an accommodation. I actually personally, I prefer J. Kells version. I like it a lot. Monetization is, I can monetization. Lean into it, folks. All right. Let's give some red meat to Sacks. He took the time to show up. Trump said the National Guard into DC folks seem to be generally in support of it. Two weeks ago, Doge staffer big balls was badly beaten by a group of eight to 10 teenagers in an attempted car jacking. And he truly has big balls because he tried to protect his woman and just fought hard. Trump posted a bloody picture of a bunch of social saying in DC that crime is totally out of control and he decided if DC, this is what he said, if DC doesn't get its act together and quickly we will have no choice but to take federal control of the city.

49:29I run this city how it should be run and put criminals on notice that they're not going to get away with it anymore. Well he did just that on Monday Trump. Invoked section 740 of the DC Home Rule Act of 1973. It allows the president to take control of the district of Columbia and for up to 30 days. So Daddy's home and 800 National Guard troops are in the city. I mean, if you told me you could send 800 National Guard to the tenderloin and get rid of the fentanyl dealers, I'd be like, all for it. Sacks your thoughts on this move. Obviously, some media elites or people are hand -ranging, oh, this is Trump trying to be emperor king, but he's legally in the right, right?

50:10He has the right to do this in DC specifically. And what are your thoughts generally? Is he going to go roll into New York, San Francisco, and LA next? That seems to be the hand -ranging, or is this an isolated kind of DC specific? Well, no, the federal government has the right to run DC. And I think it did until the 1960s, and then you had this experiment in home rule. And I think you'd have to say that the experiment has not worked out that well. So last year, Washington, DC had the fourth highest homicide rate in the US. its homicide rate was nearly six times higher than New York City, which wasn't great.

50:44The homicide rate exceeded Atlanta, Chicago, and Compton. It also has one of the highest robbery and murder rates among US cities. And there's been numerous assaults and robberies on congressional staffers and members of Congress. In May, you had two embassy staffers were murdered in June. A congressional intern was fadly shot. This is a short distance from the White House. and then of course, a week or two ago, you had that attack on the DO staffer. I think his real name is Edward Constantine, aka Big Balls, who was mercilessly beaten by a group of, I think, teens. That's been a big issue, is that juvenile crime is a huge issue in DC because there's just no punishment.

51:27I mean, they're caught in the release. DC's had a policy of zero bail, which we've seen in many cities, but what that basically does is create a revolving door at the jail, soon as someone's caught their release. And then you've also got vehicle theft in the districts over three times the national average again because even when they catch someone, they just let them go. You've got repeated arm car jackings and violence again by teenage gangs. And the liberal media's favorite talking point on this is that somehow violent crime is down in DC, which is the exact same thing we heard about San Francisco.

52:00Remember when Chase the boot team implemented the zero bail policy and crime was going through the roof and CVS and target were shutting down all the stores were basically locking up the toothpaste I mean people could feel the crime But no one was reporting it because they just knew that nothing would happen So I think this is the typical gaslighting we've seen before and no one really can trust these stats I think they know they all have stories about about crime. There's a bunch of of commentators on CNN and MSNBC have been trying to make this argument about the crime being fictitious and they've been bringing DC residents on the air as gas and every time they try to do man to get them to blows up in their last.

52:43Yeah, they try to get these DC residents to support this crime is down narrative and then every time the DC residents start telling stories about them or their friends being and victimize, it's like, oh yeah, I know. This friend of mine got shot or this person got car jack. And it's become comical now. And a lot of these videos are going viral. Well, this is much good about the murder statistic is that you can't make that one up. Murder story. That was harder too, right? Yeah, you can't cover up somebody getting shot. And you know, we had the same exact thing that happened in New York when brother was a cop in the 90s, we had stop question frisk.

53:17People called stop frisk. People were overwhelming in favor of this. now listen, people shouldn't be randomly stopped and we all have concerns about that. But crime was so bad in the 80s in New York when I grew up there that in the 90s, people are like, yes, stop question and frisk. Anybody hopping a turn style. And that's how we got all the guns off the street and then New York became incredibly safe under Giuliani one point. Giuliani, yeah. And the number. And we got Dinkitt's 2 .0. The Blasio. So if you remember, the theory back in the 90s of how you reduced crime was the broken Windows theory, which is that you get rid of the entry level crimes and you get rid of the visible manifestations of lawlessness and chaos because when you create an environment in which it appears that those things are tolerated, then you will end up getting more of it, especially I think by juveniles.

54:15So that was the theory in the 90s and absolutely worked and what you've gotten DC is the opposite of it. And I think what President Trump has said is, look, first of all, we're going to get rid of the homeless encampments. So that's being removed. You're going to get rid of the graffiti. We're going to stop the zero bail. So once people get locked up, they're going to stay in jail. And we're going to start treating these teenage criminals as, you know, we're going to punish them. We're not going to let them off the hook if they're committing adult crimes. There's going to be adult punishments.

54:42I mean, this is the right direction to go if you want to reverse this law, system, DC. And I think it's going to have an impact very, very quickly. I think it's going to work very quickly. And I think that Democrats who are denouncing this are falling into this trap that I think we saw on the border as well, where they appear to be supporting criminals and gang members, just like they did on, you know, with the deportations, where they start resisting the deportations of MS -13 gang members, they fell into a trap there. I think they're going to fall into a similar trap here in DC because I think this is going to work and I think it's going to provide Republicans with a very important counterpoint because I think one of the problems with crime is that is a local problem and the truth is that it's been very bad in blue cities and Republicans this haven't had power there in order to effectuate a change that they could point to as a solution.

55:37And I think that DC provides that opportunity. If Trump's plan works, I think it'll show that Republicans have the solution on on crime and it'll hopefully help provide an alternative in these deep blue cities. And here's a chart just to put some numbers behind it. This is Gunna Salt Rates in Washington, DC. You can see it spiked under Biden. It went up a bit. 2024 came down at the end of his term and then it's lower this year in 2025, that black bar is the first half. So it is trending in the right direction, but it's still not acceptable. Sax, I guess the question is. I just don't know if we can believe all these statistics.

56:16So just last month, there was a DC police commander was suspended for manipulating crime data to make it seem lower than it actually is. And the DC police union says his practice is widespread. In the TV show The Wire, remember they called this juke in the stats. So first of all, you got the people in charge, the way that lieutenants become colonels is by manipulating the crime data. Then you've got the learned helplessness that we saw in San Francisco, which is once people realize that the jails are evolving door and nothing's going to happen, they stop reporting this stuff. Now, you're right, that the murders, I think, are hard to cover up.

56:50I think those probably are accurate, but the things like carjacking or assaults, things like that, or shoplifting or theft, I think a lot of that stuff just goes unreported. It has become a partisan issue and if you look at the partisan stats every time it flips just like the economy, Republicans think it's a disaster, Democrats think it's fine and then when a Democrats in office it flips. But I guess the question sacks is that I think people have a reasonable argument here. Is this going to be a strategy by the Trump administration to go into New York City next, First, LA next, San Francisco next, and would you agree with that or not?

57:30The question is what was the legal basis for doing that? Yes. I mean, in the case of DC, this is a longstanding situation where the federal government has the right to run DC and did run DC for many, many decades. And it was only more recently that this changed to this experiment and home rule. So there's clear federal authority for President Trump to do what he's doing, but I don't know if it would be the same for New York and LA. So I tend to think that whole issue is a red herring. Yeah, I agree. Yeah. I agree. Here's the Gallup free burger. I'll let you comment on this. But this is partisan's perceptions of local crime.

58:06I should see. You can see Trump's term in pink and then Biden's in blue and then before that Obama's. And Republicans think under Biden it was like a massive issue crime and Democrats thought it was no issue. And then you go to Trump's. It reverses slightly more Democrats think crime is an issue under Trump. Republicans think crime is gone under Trump. Then you go to Obama. Republicans think that crime is a disaster under Obama. Democrats think it's so you just have to look at the more on numbers. But the fact is homelessness is a major issue here. Freeberg. So I'm curious what you think about what should our policy be on, you know, let's call it what it is junkies.

58:46It's not homeless. It's not a homeless issue. These are people addicted to super drugs. Should they be allowed to be on the street? Should they be round up and put either in a mental hospital in jail or just generally not allowed to be on the streets in a major city like San Francisco? What do you think, Reaper? I don't think that we should allow people to live on the streets because it's community property. It's not for individual use and you know, I can't leave my stuff on my sidewalk. The city will come a clear it away. Why can someone choose to live on the sidewalk? I think, you know, that's just the rule of law is just, you know, enforcing.

59:22What should happen to those people addicted to Fentanyl when they get picked up? What should happen next? There was a case that led to shutting down many of the mental hospitals in the United States. Yeah. People were being abused in them. So then we had people. Yeah. And so the response was get rid of the mental hospitals. But unfortunately, like the mental health crisis is real. We talked about it. The drug addiction crisis is real. And I do think that for the sake of the community and the sake of the social fabric, that is a very good way to spend taxpayer dollars is to create treatment centers and mental health facilities to take care of people in need.

59:55In that particular context, I think that it is a heartless thing to leave people living on the street like that, and they should be cared for. So I would be all in favor of I don't use the term round them up Jason, but I would say provide like access to care and effectively move them if they're not going to move voluntarily move them into those care facilities. the great recovery for that. I don't think that we should have homelessness on this. I am 100 % agree with you. It's totally compassionate to take them off the street and not subject them to life on the street. Now they are not in a mental state to make their own decision is the key issue, Chimoff.

1:00:29So if you had God forbid, a family member who is on the street doing fentanyl, you yourself, I think all of us would say, yeah, pick the person up, don't let them live on the street. And they won't go to jail. I mean, then they have to go to jail. I mean, it's just the nature of you. Somebody know this, but somebody in my family has struggled with mental health pretty severely has been in jail. You can't do anything. You can't force them to take their anti -psychotics. You can't do anything. Yeah. So unless the rules change, these things are like, but for our ability to intervene, this person would be on the street, as my guess.

1:01:10Yes. Well, I agree with what Friedberg said about this. And does another case is City of Austin, which is a deep blue city within a very red state, but they had a very permissive policy towards letting people camp out on the sidewalks. And it ruined the downtown. And then they passed a ballot initiative there. And they moved the, I guess you call them homeless people to a campground. So yeah, I mean the best solution would be to movement to treatment or some sort of mental institution, but if they won't go to that and they insist on living outside, then at least if they're going to insist on camping put them in a campground, you don't put them in the middle of the sidewalk in public places where it's extremely disruptive and threatening to the safety of everyone else.

1:02:00I mean obviously having people camping outside our national monuments has to be the worst possible place for these people to be. I they have been relocating homeless people to campsites and it's plenty of land here to do that. And when seems to be a lot of art. Yeah, B and DC. They're there. Oh, this is perfect because I have to be there in September. Nick, I sent you a picture of what I'm going to do. This is what I intend to wear in DC when I go. That's what I'll be wearing. I'm just going to wear his gold chains again. You feel safe enough to bust out the blame. You look good in that photo.

1:02:40I like the mustache. I don't know why you shaved it. I was so in favor of it, my friend. I'm going to break this out from September. Well, here's the thing is, if you actually spend time in DC, then you're very happy about these changes. You're very happy about the National Guard coming in and making it safer. for your happy about the homeless being moved out. And this is why Mayor Bowser, who's the DC mayor, is playing it very carefully. I mean, she's a Democrat, so of course, she's denouncing the takeover as authoritarian. That's not a surprise, but she's also acknowledging the legality of this by the Trump administration, and she's been pledging to cooperate.

1:03:18So she knows that cleaning up DC is gonna be popular with the residents, even if it offends the groups. So I think that's pretty interesting. Yeah, that she sees that this is gonna be popular enough that she has to play carefully and I think that Dispolitically speaking that if Democrats keep opposing this I think they're following into a trap that Trump is late for them 100 % I mean if you asked and I tried to find some statistic like this It'd be great if somebody would do this one But if you ask people with families, let's say who live in DC are you in favor of this or not? people will actually have to live under these conditions.

1:03:55I'm guessing 80, 90 % are like absolutely this has to end and if this is the quickest way to end it, sure, send in the National Guard, it'll be a good deterrent and get a little extra support. I don't understand why the Democrats don't do anything other than say, yeah, the situation is untenable, we'll take all the support you can give us. That's the right answer. Well, the Democrats, you know, one of the problems here is that the DC Metro Police Department is one of the most dysfunctional in the country, and a big part of the reason why is because of DEI. The person who leads the department, the chief of the Metro police, she had spent 23 years on the US Park Police Force, and then spent one year as DC Metro's chief equity officer, and then was promoted to being the whole chief of police.

1:04:42So basically, they promoted the DEI person to being the chief of police for the whole department. and when she was asked about what the implications would be for the chain of command, she didn't know what chain of command meant. Oh yeah, that was a weird moment. This is an interview that's going viral right now. It's a kind of a last kind of moment, like maybe this person isn't up for the job, let's say. All right, listen, it feels like a bit of a distraction of an issue. It feels like just good policing and yeah, if the place has a problem. As a distraction, I think it's core. I mean, look, like, there's a media reaction to it with like, oh my God, Trump's gonna be a God king and he's gonna go into every city and do martial law.

1:05:25I think that piece is the distraction. I think this is probably just good policy if it has the right to do it and the place is out of control. Clean it up. Let's go on to our next topic. We got a one or two more topics we want to hit here unless anybody has something they have to get to. Chimac, you wanted to talk about VC returns versus public markets. I know Freeburg, you brought this up on a previous issue that you could just set it and forget it on the Mag 7 back in the day. So we're going to revisit this topic public markets. Here we go. They've been on a tear 2023 up 24 % 2024 23 % 2025 or a 10 % so far.

1:05:57Here's just a chart of it. We had one down year obviously 2022 and it's been on a tear and it's only happened one other time before that the we've had three straight years of this kind of 15 % performance It's very rare. You see we highlighted them there on the chart. The dot com bubble in the late 90s, and then before and after peak syrup and then now. Now you can compare that to the private markets. Venture Capital. Here's a chart from 2020 -12. The reason I'm going to show these is when you looked at Venture as a category versus say the S &P or a couple of lines up from that, you see the NASDAQ.

1:06:41Venture was extremely, extremely attractive, according to Cambridge Associates, which tracks us. They have the best data because they've been doing it the longest. Then we go and we look at the same chart in 2018. Hey, look, the NASDAQs doing pretty well when compared to venture in large part because we had some of these mega hits. The Googles and Facebooks and Amazon the world's you know coming to fruition and just going on a tear. And then here we are in 2018. Public markets really start to rip. Same chart just different time period. here's 2020 and maybe venture isn't doing as good when you look at it compared to the markets.

1:07:19Of course, you can't do this for the last five years or six years of venture because they're in the J curve when you do venture investing, you're expecting it to pay off seven, eight, nine years. But the trend here, I think, Shema that you were pointing out is public markets, liquid, no fees, low fees, minuscule fees when compared to venture, and maybe a better bet for investors, and that's challenged the venture industry. Was that your sort of point to bringing this up? I think the venture model is broken, but it's broken for two different reasons, not totally correlated to each other. The first is purely mathematical, which is when the public markets provide a consistent rate of return.

1:08:01It doesn't matter what that is, but let's just say, you know you average it out it's 15%. The question is what is a private investment have to give you so that it's worth putting it into an a liquid instrument where you don't get your money back for some number of years. Now problem number one is it used to be that you could get your money back in six or seven years and the fund would liquidate after ten. Now you don't typically start to see returns until year ten and oftentimes year twelve or year year 13, which means that they don't really pay out until year 16 or 17. What the math of that would tell you is that you need to generate somewhere between 6 to 10 % more in terms of the gross return so that on an apples to apples basis, you're being compensated for all of that illiquidity, right?

1:08:54God forbid something happens or you want to buy a house and you need the money in the stock market, you just sell it instantaneously. In a venture investment, you're going to call somebody, they're going to probably care -cut you by 30 to 50 percent and you're going to sell it because it's a liquid. So if the public markets are giving you 15 percent, the reality is that you need to get 25 percent plus. So then the question is, what venture investors generate 25 percent plus IRRs over a 17 -year period or a 15 -year cycle? And it turns out that every fund has a very low statistical probability of doing it.

1:09:33Every fund manager, if you're in the top, you know, handful, we all know who they are, they'll always at least have one that doesn't. So the problem is you have one that doesn't, then the next one that doesn't, then the next one that's even worse, then maybe one that comes close. And so there is no systematic approach to the return stream. So how should you look at venture capital, I guess, is one question. And I think the way that one should look at it is, look, in a portfolio where you have a lot of liquid assets, it's a small piece that essentially is a mechanism to learn about the future and to understand how your other assets are going to perform.

1:10:15I think it makes a ton of sense. But if you're trying to crush it, I think the only people that will really make money in venture capital are the GPs building a fee generating business around it. Now that then gets to the second question, which is then, okay, so if you do invest in venture, what's the next big problem? The next big problem is in a world of AI, do you just see the amount of money that's required to build a really big success shrink? And if that happens, then how much money can you actually really get working? So if you look at companies like Mid -Journey, that's a great example of a business where these guys are like 40, 50, 60 percent team generating hundreds of millions of revenue, very profitable.

1:10:59They're not going to be raising an enormous amount of money. So I think that these two things are very complicated for venture. It doesn't mean that people will stop investing. But Preberg, you want to chime in on this, I think? Yeah. Yeah, so I pulled some data together Nick if you could pull up the basics I know we talk about this a lot but I thought it would be good to show the difference between kind of a normal distribution and a power law distribution like venture returns or I don't like to call adventure return, but I do think the returns generally in free markets Create value creation in a power law distribution, which means that a few of of the many that count for the vast majority of the capital appreciation of the value creation.

1:11:43And that's because of the power of compounding. If you build a better engine of technology, a better business engine, you will compound and that means that over time you will accumulate more and more of the market in an outsize way. As you accumulate more of the market, you actually move faster in accumulating more of the market and eventually it comes to run away flywheel, no one can fat job. That's the key return profile in free markets generally speaking. A manifestation of that is that is also the return profile in venture in technology venture investing because when you find that one or two great hit, the Uber that has a great network effect or the Airbnb or the Google, it has a runaway effect in the market and it accumulates all the capital and becomes really valuable.

1:12:27You can see this in the returns. So if you just pull up, this is the latest card of data. So this shows what the IRR by the vintage that the fund was raised and then also by the size of the fund. And by how the fund has performed on a percentile basis. Look just at the 2017 row. So the top desial funds are doing call it 30 % versus, you know, the median fund doing. Well, they're not. These are all markups. These are not. These are all bullshin numbers. Okay, fair enough, but I'll make your case in a second here and these are not DPI's. It's not distribution and cash out. This is just marked up value and this is eight years old.

1:13:04This is the 2017 vintage. But just the difference between, you know, call it a 30 % IRR and a 10 % IRR, that compounds over 10 years. So the multiple difference at the end you should expect is the difference of making 14 times your money or 2 .6 times your money. The difference between 10 % and 30%. And that's kind of what this shows roughly is at the difference between a 15 % trial. And the problem with the data though is this is card is product is used by a small number of people for a small number of years. That's why the other data we showed from Cambridge is much better because the 2018 forward are still in the J curve.

1:13:41So they and to Chimaltz point their paper. So I knew we'll make sure to have there. Yeah. Okay. I knew we would go down this rabbit hole. So I shouldn't have shown that. But like that's okay. There are two key points I wanted to make and just pull it up again. The first key point I wanted to make is because of the power law, the job of investing is to find the power law winners. It is not to buy the index. If you buy the index, you are losing to the market, even if these numbers are correct, which they're not as we talked about, you're losing to the index if you're just buying the venture index.

1:14:12It's probably way worse than this. You have to get the winners. And so what this does show though is that the smaller the fund the less diversified it is which means the more they're likely to capture the winners and you can actually see that the smaller funds Generally have better performance than the bigger for sure they do because they're getting in earlier as well freeberg And they're paying less value lower valuations. So yeah But they're not they're not getting diluted away by the index and the index generally is gonna return negative It's gonna be a negative returner And I think I told you guys, I went to an LP conference years ago, one of the biggest venture funds.

1:14:47And they showed that 45 % of their capital went into flat or down rounds and they had a negative net return on that allocation of capital across 13 funds. And if they had put that, if they had never invested in flat or down rounds, then they would have doubled their IRR overall as a, as a, as a fund. Really important point that the, the power law matters, which is your job is to just find the winners. If you find the winners, they're going to compound. So I'll put that translate. So go to the next slide Nick. So this is the one that I shared in 2023 that go cool Roger ROM of published on Twitter and that's where I first saw this which is if you buy just the top 10 companies in the NASDAQ and You just held it you would have made a 24x multiple over a 24 year period versus if you had just bought the the NASDAQ So just owning the best companies in the NASDAQ is by far the best way to drive multiple of return over a 10 year period You made a 9x multiple 9x just by owning the top 10 companies in the NASDAQ and this was through roughly the end of 2023.

1:15:49So now let's pull this up. I pulled this analysis together this morning for our conversation. And this shows that the venture returns don't stop when you stop being a private company. That the real return and this highlights the point that most of the value when you find that power law winner. Most of the value is created when they are a public company. So, Palantir went public after 17 years and their market cap was 16 billion. So they created 16 billion of equity value over a 17 -year period. Since they've been public in five years, they're now worth 436 billion. So they've created another $420 billion of equity market value in just the last five years, probably eclipsing all venture returns that have been made during that same period of time.

1:16:32Airbnb went public after 12 years worth 47 billion. In just five years, they added another, call it roughly 30 billion. Uber went public 75 billion after nine years as a private company. And now they're worth 190 billion. So they've added 120 billion of value in just six years since being public and Spotify. Another good example, 27 billion market cap when they went public after being private for 10 years. And then they added another 120 billion of value in the seven years they've been public. And I've got the whole list here. This is all these companies that have 100 billion plus market cap. And when you find the power law winner, the value continues to accrete, it continues to compound.

1:17:11And you're better off just buying the public stocks. And I think that this was my big kind of conclusion as I went through all this data. Like, Chamat is exactly right. When you're in the venture market, you learn a lot. And ultimately, I think you probably want to learn a lot to then allocate your capital more wisely Now that you've identified are the power law winners, where most of the value continues to accumulate whether they are private or public. And having an IPO is just a transitionary event for these companies. Their compounding engine will continue as a public company if you've identified them.

1:17:41Facebook, such a great example, eight years as a private company, 100 billion market cap at IPO, added another $2 plus trillion in the year since. Yeah, I think you've - The freeberg, you've cherry -picked all the winners in hindsight the biggest winners for that list. What if you were just to create a list of every tech IPO and how it's fair it afterwards? Right. No, it's a fair point. There'll be a lot of stinkers in there that you have included. But my point, but my point, Sachs is just find the power law winners and then that's where all the value of the first. Well, I mean, that's hard too.

1:18:10Yeah, I think you have to look at how we got here. I started doing this just, you know, my second decade and companies decided to stay private longer. That was the big trend. And then there was a lot of reactions to that. secondary transaction started occurring, and then you just couldn't get DPI. You had to hold it forever. And now the industry is responding to this. So now we have something called strip sales. We have people creating continuation funds, ways to take those early investors and get them out into a new vehicle or to create some liquidity. And Shamaat's point is really important because you do get so much intelligence and what I learned having been an investor at Uber and Robinhood when they were 5 million and $20 million companies.

1:18:56That was like first investor into those companies is when they crashed in the market. When Uber hit 30, I bought up a bunch of it as a public investor, even though I had a ton from when I was an angel investor. And I did the same for Robinhood at $12 because I knew the management. I knew Vlad, I knew Travis, I knew Dara, and I had that understanding of the market. And the same thing I did with Facebook, having listened to Chimoff talk about it all these years and Brad Gerstner talk about all these years, I backed into it when it was $92. So what's happening now is what rule off did with his continuation fund and holding the private ones is in the theme song of this podcast famously when Saks said let your winners ride.

1:19:34That is the overarching thing here. The industry, the venture industry is in massive transition. It's going to start looking a little bit like private equity and a little bit like Gavin or Brad where they're private and public market investors and you're seeing buyouts So people are saying, hey, this SaaS company's undervalued, we're just going to buy the company, we'll start operating it. So Ventures in a massive transition, but I think what comes out on the other side is something that looks a lot more like public -private investing, like Ruloff Pioneered at Sequoia. And we're going to talk to him about that in the summer.

1:20:07I'll just respond to your last comment and Jekyll it. I appreciate you saying that because Ruloff is coming to the summit to talk exactly about this, which is going to be great. But that is the job of being an investor. Here point you're like, hey, you know, you cherry pick the winners, but I think that's the point the point is that the returns a crew To these power -law winners and the job of being an investor shouldn't be to index a market Anyone can index a market the job of being a great investor is to find those winners And the question is how how hard that is or easy it is and I think your list Makes it sound like oh all you have to do is wait for these companies to go public No, that wasn't my point.

1:20:43Yeah, that wasn't well I got that too. I was just saying that the power law winners continue to accrue. In fact, not only do they accrue as private companies, and then if you get one of them, you have these 14 X funds, but as a public company, they continue to accrue. And so, you know, this isn't just limited to being a venture investor. Pretty much anyone has access to the public markets and can make the decision that they've made a bet on a power law winner. There were a lot of people who were very vocal supporters of Palantir, very vocal supporters of Uber, of Spotify, when these companies were in public.

1:21:15And a lot of people said, no, they're over there. I think the problem that you would have had trying to implement the strategies, it would not have been clear what you would have been underwriting. What would you have been underwriting it in video for, you know, not the last five years, but the many years before then? You would have been underwriting video games. Video games, yeah. And you would have had this like very odd data center business that didn't make sense that, But, you know, Jensen took a lot of heat for that he had to defend. And it didn't actually make a lot of financial sense. So I'm not sure.

1:21:47I will give you a counter to that, and I'll call him out, and I'll make fun of him now. My co -founder at Climate Corp, his name's Theraj, he's probably listening right now. He bought, in video, years ago on the thesis that these GPU chips would eventually be used for AI models, because he did all his work at Stanford and distributed computing. He did early work in AI. He was very close with that. But that's different than what you were saying before. I get it. He's a smart guy who made a huge winner, but I'm saying the problem was he sold in big too soon because he's like, oh, they're not actually saying like there's probably a person that was the smartest Roger butt Intel.

1:22:16And there was another person that bought AMD like I'm not sure what the point is. Here's the point about venture that I think is worth noting. It's an exceptional market that gives the practitioners an incredible edge if you build the business around the information a symmetry that accrues. Yes. That you can ask. Yes. After that, the only business model is building an asset gathering machine to generate fees. Because even the consistency of being able to generate these power law distributions in successive funds doesn't exist. And you can look at all of the data. Game Bridge has done this. A lot of these guys have done this.

1:22:57All the big LP fund to funds like of course the bridge have done this. Having a killer fund has zero correlation with your ability to then have a next killer fund. As an LP, and I showed these returns on screen, although we blanked out the names, and I'm in all of them, it is really hard to be consistent. It's hard, but I think - Yeah, we make two points about this. Okay, then I got one close and point again. So first of all, Chamath is right that if you look at the data, the recent data, say over the last decade or so, you don't want to be the average venture fund. You'd be a lot better off just being in the NASDAQ or in some other public stock market index because A, your return to be higher and B, you don't have the illiquidity.

1:23:37So you can always trade out if you want. So it's true that you don't want to be the average venture fund. As an asset class, the average is not great. This goes to Freiburg's Point about the power law. You really want to be at top quartile fund or even better top desk style. And that's what LPs are looking for when they're underwriting. VCs is they want to be in top not portal, not the average. So I agree with that point. But the second point is that things can change very quickly in the SaaS at class, precisely because of the power law and how spiky it is. So just to give like one micro example, take Figma.

1:24:13You know, we talked about on this pod was a year or two ago when the government held up their acquisition by Adobe for $20 billion and everyone thought that was a disaster because people thought that was a huge premium to the actual valuation. And if eventually they now had to go public as a result, they might IPO at 10 billion. And so it was a big haircut for all the VCs. Well, a couple of years later, they just IPOed that a huge pop on the first day has come down somewhat but the public market valuation is now 35 billion. And there's three or four VC funds that have made $56 billion, $7 billion.

1:24:48And those three or four funds are now 10x funds. So just boom, in the blink of an eye with one outcome like that, it totally changes the performance of those funds. And then that's going to trickle down the performance of the asset classes as a whole. My guess is that we're in a pretty good time for VC because of AI and the disruption is causing and the potential for value creation. It's creating. It's sort of restocking the pond with opportunities for many more big companies to be created. And I think ultimately they'll be very good for the asset class. I mean, just look at OpenAI. I mean, look, we're a long way off from OpenAI being liquid and you don't want to count your chickens before they hatch.

1:25:33But just two years ago, on the heels of Chatcheebeteer launching, the company raised money at a $30 billion valuation. Everyone thought that was crazy at the time. Now they're at a $300 billion valuation and there's news reports that they're going to raise it 500 billion. So if this keeps running and again, there's a lot of ifs there. I mean they could still lose. They could sell 20 % is my best advice. They could still lose to some other company or whatever, but it just shows you how fast things can change. I mean they could be a trillion dollar company in a couple of years if the trend continues.

1:26:07So So my point is just because of the power law, it only takes a few big winners to change the economics greatly for particular funds and then that eventually trickles down. To the mean, but again, you're right. You don't want to be in the mean. You want to be top core tile. There's just two quick points I want to make as we wrap on this and great episode, gentlemen. The first is also the wrath of Lena Khan occurred for years. So DPI and exits were muted. So that also plays into a lot of these statistics. And now since President Trump, number 47, David, we have had a tear of M &A and a ton of IPOs, right?

1:26:45That's actually gonna be probably a big factor in all of this hand -ranging around venture. But I just wanna give two anecdotes here. You know, when you have the inside information, Shmoth, it's worth I think being a venture investor because of that data again. And I was just always perplexed when I would hear people on CNBC talking about Uber and Robinhood specifically because they would be talking, oh my god, they're losing so much money, they lost a billion dollars this quarter, they lost a five billion dollars last year. And we all knew that there would be no difference in consumption of a new Uber if it was 13 or 15 dollars.

1:27:22And that at any point you could just turn the dial and slow growth and show profitability. And what happened? That's exactly what they did. And I made that call and I said this on CNBC. Like, is anybody not taking an Uber for a $1 or $2 difference per ride? It's like 2 % of people might stop taking it. Sure enough, they did that. Then fast forward Robinhood. Everybody's like, oh my God, this company is like, it's sideways. The market's corrected. People are no longer trading stocks. And I was like, but they keep releasing exceptional products over and over again. And that was always Vlad's key perspective was we're just going to keep adding every product.

1:27:56529, 401K is margin loans, crypto. We're just going to keep adding products every six months, and then we will be the default place where all your finances exist. And when it was at $12, I was just like, oh, well, this obviously is undervalued. I'm just going to buy more. And now it's at 120. It's like one of the best is it's well -bagged or in the public markets. So that reason alone, if you just have enough surface area and enough patience, you're going to hit Robinhood, Uber, like I did when they're tiny companies. And then you're going to get to have all that intelligence into the public market, which is why I started doing public market investing because I could just see all these very clear opportunities where things were obviously undervalued.

1:28:31It was just like so obvious. Well, when you talk about service area, what you're talking about is diversification. Yes. Right, but the way Freiburg just showed us the winners, and yeah, and that's kind of my point is it looks really easy when you just look back over the last 10 years and pluck out the winning companies and the winning funds and the winning asset classes. The question is, XA &T, how do you create an diversification to get exposure to that? And that is why venture is still a popular asset class is because it is very spiky and you do want to be in those power law funds and power law companies.

1:29:07And it might be a percentage. The percentage might change. Maybe, you know, yeah, I wanted to get to 25 % or whatever. And maybe the right number is 15. You could change over time based on your own individual needs. I still think it's magical asset class. Chimapi went a repissup. I did that job for seven, eight years with outside capital and now the last seven eight have been entirely my own. The difference, as I would say, is that it's much, much harder to run a very successful venture firm in my experience. It's much easier actually to be concentrated and to use the information asymmetry in your favor.

1:29:45It is an exceptionally difficult job to be a successful fund manager. Like what you guys do, I think is extremely, extremely hard. And to be of that quality, it's very, we both started our own firms for unique. That just increases the degree of difficulty because you have to build a team, you have to build an LP event. So if I get, if I get own pieces of the GP of both of you, I would, but as a person today, I would not start my own fund. It's just very difficult. Well, it's a very competitive industry and there is a lot of capital. Very competitive. It's super competitive. But I would also say that, and that's a supply capital.

1:30:19If you look at demand for capital, I do think that there is more legitimate demand for capital now than there has been in a long time because there's this new, you know, you've got this incredible opportunity. You're saying real businesses want to be funded. I agree with that. Well, there was a, I think there was a feeling, you know, five years ago, let's say, where all the big platforms were getting a little bit long in the tooth. You know, social, mobile, cloud, SaaS, it felt like, again, that the pond had been fished out a little bit. Yeah, yeah. And you need a big disruption to, again, to restock the pond.

1:30:52And I just think that AI is a mother of all disruptions and it's creating a lot of opportunity. All right, everybody. This has been another amazing episode of the All in Podcast 4, your Sultan of Science, David Freiberg, your ZAR. David Sacks, double servant, David Sacks, doing the work for the American people. And for our chairman, Dick Taylor. I am the world's greatest moderate. Jason, how can I say that? I'm the greatest moderate. Love these guys. Love you guys.

1:31:34Oh

1:31:51I am, I am the cashier who meet me at the police station. We should all just get a room and just have one big hug or two because they're all It's just like this like sexual tension that we just need to release them out. What your, the beef, what your, your beer, beef. Beef, what? We need to get merch. I'm going on, lilin'

1:32:16I'm going on, lilin'