Software Stocks Implode, Claude's Hit List, State of the Union Reactions, Trump's Tariff Pivot

episode for you. We're going to go over the 9/11 inside job. We're going over Flatter, JFK assassination.

It's going to be all conspiracy all the time. After our amazing blockbuster episode during ski week,

“we're going all conspiracy our guests today. Now, it's Jones. How many views did it get nine views?”

I mean, it's talk when you have one out of four besties. It doesn't. Michael Tracy is on St. Mike. Not true. I can carry an episode for at least 400,000 views. I mean, I like your, hey, for people who don't know, Trump has his own YouTube channel. He's got as a scapehatch, but when this train wreck burns to the ground, he started his own YouTube channel. He's hedging his bets, free birds working on his solo project. Everybody's doing solo projects. The bands got a lot of

solo. The Beatles are experimenting. They're experimenting. We had a little yoke along. It's the situation going on here. You know what? The number one topic for this show was by the all in AI bot sex. The number one was Dario versus headset. The Department of War versus anthropic was the number one topics selected by our AI bot as a programming for folks. That decision will be made end of the day Friday when this podcast comes out. So we will talk about it next week. But let's get

to work. We've got a full docket. The Claude kill list has expanded and an AI fan fiction sub-stack tanked your 401k on Monday. Let's get into it. Anthropics generational run continues. They're now three for three in tanking different market sectors in February. Congratulations. This is like they took the mantle from Brad Gersner tanking the market. The Anthropics Sh*tlist. It is February third. Anthropic announces, hey, we got a legal plug-in for Claude, co-work. Thompson Reuters,

Lexus, Lexus, Lexus, Lexus, Legos and all down. At least 10% since February 3rd. Then on February 20th, Claude code security is announced in a limited research preview. Stocks tank again. Crouch right cloud for octah all down. Then February 23rd. Anthropic announces Claude can modernize cobalt databases. If you don't know cobalt, that's the like oldest coding language in the world. That's where Sachs learned code when he was in college in the 70s. It's used for banking,

payroll, government, healthcare, healthcare. It runs 95% of ATMs in the U.S. and it power social security payments. 85% of all cobalt code runs on IBM machine. So IBM decided they would tank 13%

on Monday. There was day since $2,000, $31 billion in market cap losses. So let's stop here before

I get into the fan fiction piece. What's your take here of what's happening in the market, Chemop? Is this simply people are looking for an excuse to trim their positions? Because things

“have been top ticking all time highs and people are just looking for an excuse. Or is this reality?”

Is this the go-forward reality that AI is going to compress these kind of socks? Because it solves a lot of problems. I'm going to give you two explanations. I don't know what percentage I would allocate across the two, but I think one is tactical and one is much more strategic, but I think both are happening. The tactical one is that we're at a moment in time where a lot of the smart money hedge funds are starting to massively digros. And what that means is they're trimming a lot of

positions and they're just taking on a lot less risk. Why? I don't exactly know. It could be motivated by the second thing that I'm going to talk about. But the point is in a degrocing cycle, you tend to be trimming risk and making your position sizes much smaller. So the longs become less long. The shorts become less short and you just shrink. And so there's just general downward pressure.

“That is a clear behavior right now. But I think the structural change is the more important one.”

And this is sort of what I talked about this morning. In a normal functioning market,

what we are always debating is when a set of cash flows go from becoming highly confident

to less highly confident. It's a when conversation. So when will Coca-Cola's cash flows be impacted? When will Eli Lilly's cash flows be impacted? When will Meta's cash flows be impacted? And the answer to the when gets translated by the public markets into three things. Your price to earnings multiple. Where if you invert that number, what that is equivalent to is the yield on the money that you get. So if you're 20 times PE, that's a 5% yield. The second is a revenue multiple. And the third

20 to 30 years of earnings and you want to figure out what that is worth today. You have to

“discount all of these back and you have to assume a percentage of interest effectively that it takes”

to get there. And the basic math of this is that when you have a high whack, it's called, you're massively discounting these cash flows. When you have a low whack, you're assuming that these things are very durable. Okay. So what is happening? We used to debate when this is no longer a when moment. The market is very much in an if mode. Are these cash flows durable at all? Could they fall off a cliff in your three? Is there some AI model that's going to come around the corner

and obliterate this business without me knowing it? And because then you've shifted into this if mindset, your risk becomes totally different. You have this event risk that you don't know how to price. And whenever the market shifts into that mode, what you see are that the holders of those equities want a massive margin of safety. What does that mean? They have to take PE's way down.

“If you used to trade at 40, you should trade at 20. If you used to trade at 20, you should trade at 10.”

They take revenue multiples down. You used to trade at 10 times revenue. Now you're going to trade at three times. You take the whack way up. You used to be a 6% discounted weighted average cost of capital. You know what? I'm taking you to 12 or 13. That's the market's way of saying, I'm now debating if these things will even exist. And so I need to give myself a huge buffer to own this stuff. That's what's happening right now. It has a lot of ripple effects that we can talk

about. Freebreak and I have talked about this a lot. The most obvious impact is how these tech companies recruit and retain talent because the biggest thing that it starts to eat into are the cash flows of the business which really directly tight to stop based on all the stuff. But let me just stop there. So we are, we have moved away from a win to now and if. And I think that that is a very smart question to be asking. The answer may be for many of these companies that they will survive,

“but we don't know how long and until that becomes clearer, you have to give yourself room to be”

wrong. You said when, then if, do you mean if? No, no, no, no, no. We've always debated when.

When will these cash flows disappear? Now it's like, will they even exist? Got it. Okay. So the second part of the story, Freedberg and Sachs, is that a sub-stack post fan fiction taking place in the fictional 2028 global intelligence crisis went mega viral, 28 million views on x. It was posted Sunday night. It made the market tank on Monday. In this fictional sub-stack post, the author said there's going to be essentially a death spiral that happens because of AI.

How does that work? Well, first companies embrace AI. Everything goes right. They're able to cut stuff. Their margins go up similar to how Amazon has trimmed their white collar staff. Then, they're so successful at this that they lose their customer base because consumers don't have discretionary funding to spend. Then the creates a death spiral with a company's keep deploying AI to try to hit the margins, cutting staff in the entire economy collapses. Dr. Doom level

stuff. Unemployment's at 10% SNP goes down from 38% highs. After this piece came out, which speculated that agents would get rid of all the 3% interchange fees and move everybody to settle transactions on stablecoins. All the financial stocks got hit on them. The mx down

8% capital 1 down 8% massacre. 6% piece of 4% yada yada. Finally, this piece got a lot of pushback.

There was a silly piece in it, or a section in it where they said AI agents would vibe code their way to displacing door dash. That's kind of silly. If anybody's running network, based business knows, sacks, I assume you read this piece or at least saw the fall out from it, but you're taken and then we'll go to your free pair. Yeah. Well, I know that this Citrini article got passed around like a join in a grateful dead concert. But I'm starting

to question how legitimately viral it really was, there's some information that just came out that the attribution of the article has been amended. Me, the co-authors have been amended to include a short fund that was shorting some of the names mentioned in the article. This is according to another post that just came out. According to this post, the authorship attribution attributed to market moving was changed after publication of the co-authors, the managing partner

of a $362 million SEC registered hedge fund. Bomp and phone short positions in the company's

go viral or did the authors do anything to kind of amplify it? And we just don't know the answer that question. But regardless of that, let's just take the arguments on their phase.

“I think one of the best responses to it was by another writer named Derek Thompson wrote a article”

called Nobody Knows Anything, which I think is a reference to famous take by legendary Hollywood writer William Goldman. In any of that, what the article says is no one really knows what's going

to happen with AI in two years, never mind, 20 years. And so they resort to science fiction writing,

masquerading as analysis, and the author here, Derek Thompson says that the conversation about AI is really just a marketplace of competing science fiction narratives. And he says, there's not to say I think the technology is a parlor trick, but rather that the level of uncertainty is so high, and the quality and supply of real-world real-time information about AI's macroeconomic effect. So poultry, that very serious conversations about AI are often more literary than genuinely analytical.

So in other words, what he's saying is, look, this guy is writing very compelling science fiction, but there's no real analytics behind it to defend it. And yes, this could happen. Here's a prediction market on whether people believe this is a training report. It's going to

come true. It's something like 12% believe this is a training scenario. It's going to happen.

“But the truth is no one really knows. I mean, there's other dual-ing science fiction narratives”

where AI's going to create such a world of abundance that we're not going to need for anything. And just by the way, Derek Thompson is one of the abundance guys with as recline. This is why the market's getting whacked. I think that you're right, Sachs. Nobody knows. So if you can get 5% for owning government bonds, why are we taking excessive risk? You know, let me just build on your point about SaaS. So the reason why there's so much uncertainty around

SaaS is that SaaS used to be such a easily modeled and predictable category. And you know, I saw as a VC, we saw the same story play out across many, many different categories of software. You know, this initial period where there'd be this experimentation phase. You have a bunch of different products that come to market. They'd be a battle. And then the market would eventually settle and they'd be a category leader. And they would capture most of the market share and the

vast majority of the market capitalization. And they would have very, very predictable metrics. It was very easy to grade a SaaS business. You look at ARR. You say, Emily recurring revenue. You look at the net dollar retention. You want to see depending on the phase RPO, RPO revenue and the performance. And so, you know, these things began to be seen as like a annuity with growth, right, because it's rock solid. Yeah, because a good net dollar attention would be something like

120%, which means that you're sort of cohort of existing customers on balance would all renew the next year. And actually, they would renew at 120% of their previous year's contract values. And the reason you got that extra 20% is they would buy more seats or they'd be additional products or features they would upsell. It got to be very, very predictable. And so, when people were buying software companies at, I don't know, 13 times ARR, they thought they were buying it growth

annuity. And now all of a sudden, you've got a factor into that. Well, wait a second. What if AI

disrupts the whole market? What if it doesn't eliminate, I don't think AI is going to get rid of Salesforce, but it could eat into their growth opportunity. We just don't know. What if it changes the pricing model? I mean, it just creates a whole lot of unknowns. And I actually don't believe in this attorney or the doomer take on this, but I can see why the market would feel this level of uncertainty. 100%. Given how predictable a category SaaS used to be,

just say a year ago. Yeah. Well, chaos. 100%. Is a ladder freeberg. And this means opportunity. So if we look at this and SaaS has headwinds, then is there a winner? Is open source the winner or is this all deflationary in your mind freeberg? And we just make less money. And the earnings of these companies get compressed, the size of them gets compressed. How do

“you think about it? I think fundamentally if you're driving productivity with AI, you're driving”

leverage on human time and leverage on capital. The question is how quickly can you drive that up? And that's a function of how much consumption there is, how much capacity there is for consumption. So on the one hand, I'll just speak broadly. I think like humans have this desire to improve their livelihoods by roughly 10% every year, meaning like your income and your ability to purchase stuff that's new relative to where you were last year has to go up by 10% for you to be happy.

If it's less than 10% you're probably unhappy. Is that that's your anecdote or that's like, that's just like an anecdote. Like, I think that's sort of like my rubric for thinking about like

you're not happy. If your earnings go up by 10% and things stay the same price, you got 10% more than you had last year. You're going to be happy. I just think like,

“all humans are driven by this need to consume more each year than they did last year. So I think”

for me, that's like the lower limit on consumptive capacity in the world.

The question that we're now facing, which we've never faced in human history before,

is there a upper limit on consumptive capacity because AI creates such a profound shift in productivity and in leverage that normally you would say, hey, when we get a new tool or we get new leverage in a system, we build a new technology, we can make more with less. There are four, everyone gets access to more things for the same price or the cost of things that they consume come down by a certain price. But there may be a situation now where the ability to make stuff

exceeds the capacity to consume stuff. And that is something that I don't think we've faced before. And I think that's sort of where a lot of the models start to break. Just general economic models, just general productivity models, and general social models. And this goes to the point

“about like, what is everyone going to do? In the same way that I think we've argued that maybe”

SaaS was a transitory business phenomenon that existed between the foundation of the internet and the era of AI. It may be the case that knowledge work in general is also a transitory phenomenon that only existed between the foundation of the computer or computing tools and the existence of AI generally speaking. And if all of that goes away very quickly, and all of those people can be redistributed and recast into doing other higher-level, more creative things,

their productivity goes up by 100x. Is there really a consumer on the other end of all of that productivity? Is there really enough consumptive capacity? And I think that's the profound question that we all face. I don't think that there's any of that, is that really the way of saying that SaaS goes to zero? Or that's your way of saying these companies go to zero? I'm just saying knowledge work in general, like the like what is the implication to do this? This is just another

dueling science fiction take. I mean, or what's your evidence for this? I think it's fine to have a sci-fi take about intuition. I think because I can show you some data that I think contradicts

what you're saying. And I have some first-hand sort of, in the sense that there is more leverage

“facts that people are able to actually live. Logic, I want to hear what you have to say because I know”

you're experimenting with this, but maybe to show you a few data points real quick. So I think this is relevant. So we're really talking about the disruption caused by coding assistance, right? This is like the first big killer app of AI. I mean, I guess after writing and research for the chapauts, and we'll have agents later, but really it's all about coding assistance, right? In the ability to more easily create code, that's the screen to disruption to the SaaS category. Well, so this

is focused on the data we see right now around that. And there are a lot of people who are pointing this out that anthropic right now has a job listing for a software engineer on their website right now for $570,000 in a lot of people are kind of pointing out. Okay, so wait. So when anthropic is saying is they're still trying to hire software engineers at a very high wage, but somehow they think these jobs are going to be eliminated. To mock might apply for that job, he is. Yeah, I'll start

it. I'm pretty good to me. That's a lot of money. To mock my dish that job, and then just have AI do it for me. No, I'm worried like I hope my 80, 90 team doesn't see that offer. That's a big number. Our equity is way higher, but our salaries are not that high. I mean, you look,

you put these things together. It's like that equity is money. Good. The reality is like those

guys are doing $5 to $6 billion structured secondary every year now, or they're starting, which means that they will, that's like cash compensation. So for for me to match that, I need to be 3x higher than that. Right. And I think a lot of you are kind of pointing out. Well, this is a contradiction. And anthropic doesn't really seem to be practicing what they're preaching, if they're paying enormous amounts still for software engineers, even as they claim

they're obsolete in the entire category. Something doesn't quite add up. Citadel securities did a new report that rebuts that's a training report, and they show a couple of stats here, which I think are really interesting. So job postings for software engineers are rapidly rising. They're showing, I think it was roughly a 10% year over year increase in the demand for software engineers. On a related note, they also show that company formation is also rapidly expanding.

And that may have something to do with AI making it easier to start a business or to get leverage to your point freeberg. So look, there's a couple of competing effects going on here. And I think Aaron Levy had a really good explanation of why you might see something very counterintuitive happening.

cost of something that was previously supply constraint, demand for that thing goes up. Software engineering is just one of the easiest examples to contemplate, but there are going to be many other jobs like that. But think about software engineering, even among stars as Silicon Valley,

“which I think are probably some of the most attractive places for software engineers to work,”

there's always been a chronic shortage of them. Then you've got the Fortune 500 companies,

non-tech companies, which have always had an even harder time hiring technical talent. So you have this massive, unfilled need for software engineers across the entire economy. Now you're going to be able to get a lot more leverage out of software engineers. It doesn't mean they're going to get fired. It just means that now maybe you can have a lot more 10x software engineers and they're getting those jobs you're not being spread throughout the whole economy. You know, I also think

just to put some numbers on this, I think the cost structure of the average Fortune 500 business is something like 5% IT. And that includes all their IT, not just their software. You know, what should it be? What should the percentage of software be in an enterprise cost structure? Elon describes companies as cybernetic organisms that are part software, part payment. If you think about the current Fortune 500 company being one or two percent software,

“maybe this should be 50% software. I think what Erin is saying here is the market for software”

and software engineers was so constrained by the lack of availability that even if we 10x or 100x the productivity of software engineers, the demand will be there to absorb this new supply. And so it could lead to this explosion and productivity without the massive job loss. I think you're right. I think the thing that I would look at is I would expect opx as a percentage of revenue to fall off of a cliff. But within that opx, the percentage of it

that you allocate to technology and technology related things probably goes way way up than what it is today. Okay, Jason, the batch of people that are applying for launch has SaaS stop has software stopped. It's AI first companies obviously and people are they rebuilding traditional SaaS tools just cheap. Basically everybody's building, as we talked about at the island summit, like some of these companies are trying to build the best pilot in the

world or way most trying to build the best driver in the world. People are now trying to build the best SDR in the world, the best salesperson, the best executive coach. And so we have been obsessed with

“cloud co-work, but mainly open-cloth. And so what we did was, and I think it's not developers that”

are going to do all this work, it's knowledge workers. So we had we have 20 people in our firm, we had 15 of them coming this weekend and they all got trained over like six or seven hours, had to have their own open-cloth agent and we started building it. Every piece of software that we

wanted to buy or build over the last 10 years that we never got to. My people are building in the

last 30 days as an example, you know, when you're selling ads for a podcast, you want to check all the other podcasts and when advertisers they have. We trained an agent to go, take the top 100 podcasts, look through the transcript, figure out who the advertisers are, check those advertisers in pipe drive, tell us when the last time we contacted them and put it into the salesman. That was an SDR job that we wanted to fill and software we wanted to build. Then we wanted people to start

looking. That was a that was a human that you were paying money and now you were placed with software or that human still exists and now they just do it in a better redeploying that human. We have a human doing it, we're going to redeploy them to do other things and the consistency of this Chema and the accuracy and then it's doing it all night long. So we have like seven of these agents in these kind of roles. The next piece we did was we gave my agent, which was like the Ultron,

absolute access to Gmail, calendar, zoom, notion, slack and what it's doing is it's giving each

person, here's what you've got done this week with their manager, here's the email. Here's the

meetings you took, here's the context here. The thread you were involved in and then it's helping manage those people and so we are all that all that to me says you Jason, despite all your domerism, seems like you're growing and you're going to be having more people and you're more productive. Am I getting this wrong? I'm not domerist, but I think it's going to happen in this future. But you're growing and you're going to be hiring more people. We're not going to

add more people. Definitely not adding people. The people we have are becoming 10 or 20% more efficient every week because the software we would have paid for or built from another vendor if we had the time or we wanted to build custom software we had 10 engineers. It's being built by our OpenClaw agents. As an example, when we make clips for this podcast, other podcasts, we have it go and look at like this week and start our episode from 10 years, tell us the three best moments

room. That was something that was going to be a full time job. So we're getting 10, 20% more efficient.

Then I started doing it at home. So I had to take our Instagram, pull out the last 10 orders we did and then tell us what we ordered most of the time and then it's going to automatically build a car for us. Every single knowledge where job is being automated right now and you can take it and if you're a business process head, you know how to do a business process and you can structure it and write it with an agent. It'll just run it every day, every week. We did another

agent. How do you make better thumbnails? And we said every Saturday in your skills. So when you build an open cloud has like a soul file and it has a skills file. In the skills file, we told us that every week go out and look for people discussing how to make better thumbnails on YouTube, how to make better titles. It found this week, you know, somebody at Mr. Beast company talked about how they're

using heat maps. It was an article I would have never known. It added it to its skill and now whenever

we post the thumbnail, it tells us based on its skill that it refines every week how to make that thumbnail better and it's starting to make the thumbnails. This is becoming recursive. So you keep the same number of people but they get 10 or 20% more efficient. I don't know what this means for the larger economy. All I know is it's the most exciting time I've had online since the web came out since the internet came out. It is so much fun to automate all this stuff. The big question that I

am thinking about that I haven't gotten a good answer about so I don't I don't know what you guys think is all these businesses are going to need to batten down the hatches and give themselves room to figure this all up. If you take sacks this point, if you take your point, shake out which is the young nimble companies like yours are going to be rapidly experimenting. The bigger larger companies are going to slowly onboard themselves to start experimenting. All of that means

we're going to get much clearer answers to all of this. But what it also means is that you're going

“to have to have time so that you can figure this all up. And if you want to buy yourself time,”

you're going to need a ton of cash. And if you're going to think about saving cash, the one place tech companies literally incinerate cash is how they do compensation. And so I kind of think like at some point the next shoe will drop and all of these tech companies have to really look at stock base comp because they literally incinerate most if not all of their cash flow fighting the delusion from stock base compensation. So if you want five or six years to just be in the arena

on the field, figuring this out, you're going to want to kind of be very cash-lo generative and really conservative in how you spend your money. Yeah, sacks the people who embrace this I think become five or ten times more valuable than the people who are not. That's where I think the opportunity in the economy is so unless you think humanity's going to run out of problems to solve, I think it's going to be boom. It's going to be boom town. And I think people are going to

start more companies because the the battery to start a company is no longer three or four million

dollars. You can just have two or three people and you start setting up these agents and man, you can make software, you can do sales, you can do PR, everything is getting faster and faster. So the time between like conceiving of a product and publishing it and finding a developer, you don't even need a developer. You can just publish software. The wake-up moment for me was we were talking to our agent about, hey, we want to get this functionality out of slack. And it's like, yeah,

“slack doesn't have that, but have you considered Matterposed? I'm like, what's Matterposed?”

Like, oh, it's an open source project. I can spin it up this weekend, export your slack, instance, and put it there. And I was like, I don't do that. And we were only spending six came a year on slack or 10k a year. But the software is building CRM systems for us. It's building agents for us. And it wants to just build all the software stack. So you could when you renegotiate with slack or hub spot or whatever company you're working with, you're going to be able to

say to them, hey, we could roll our own. And when you want to upsell us on this latest thing, like you talked about sex, upselling a such a big part of SaaS, you're like, I can actually build that software myself internally. I don't need you to do it. Ryan Peterson just posts on X. Claude for legal seems to work just as well as Harvey, by the way. Now, the SaaS policy is going after private companies now too. Well, I think for a while now, there has been a question of which

layer of the stack is going to capture all the value. So is it going to be the model companies or could it be the applications that are built on top of the models? Or, you know, if there's a lot of

“competition of both those layers of the stack, do the chip companies get it all? I think it's an”

unclear question. But totally. Yeah, I think, you know, for any given vertical application, you do have to defend why you think your value prop will be sustainable as the underlying

Kimmy 2.5. Can do about 80, 85% of the jobs. So we lowered our token bills massively when we stood

that up. All right, listen, this is TBD. We got a lot more to think about on this topic. Just on this point of a lot of these debates about AI are doing science fiction narratives. I just think that

“the doom or narratives are inherently more appealing to people. I mean, I think it's partly just”

you look at most sci-fi movies or dystopian, not utopian. In addition to that, I think we have a bunch of heuristic biases and favor the doom or narratives. So one of them is the scene versus the unseen. It's a lot easier to see the jobs that that already exists that could be obsolete. And then it is to imagine the new jobs and the new business models that haven't been created yet. And that will likely take some great innovator or a genius to think of in order to create.

So we have that huge heuristic bias of not being able to see the creation that's coming. It takes

way less creativity to think about the production. And then finally, I think, you know, the other heuristic

is just the whole fixed-py fallacy. Most people do tend to think of the economy as a fixed-py. This is why you see so much anger against, you know, millionaires and billionaires is because of this idea that if someone's getting rich, it must be the expensive someone else. That's not actually the case. The economy itself could be growing larger as a result of someone inventing something new that increases production.

It really good line from another article that was written in a couple weeks ago was the economy is not up a pie. It's a garden and technology is rain. So again, you know, all of this technological innovation is going to increase the growth rate of the garden. It's not a fixed-py. And just because you see an expansion and productivity in one part of the economy does not mean that you're going to see job loss in another part of the economy.

“Yeah, I think the job people are not seeing, but I'm seeing right now is the person who creates”

agents, manages them, and is the micro of the agents, the person who can take the business process, explain it, and train the agent to do it. And there are certain people in business who are just really good at operations. You were one of them, sacks running companies. And like, that person who can fire up an agent, train the agent, and figure out how to manage

them and figure out how to increase their skills. With any new technology, there's always a huge

change management aspect with enterprises because it's hard for them to adapt and change. And the people in the organization who can lead that change management are the ones who are going to create an amazing career opportunity for themselves. But it's hard to do, and that's going to slow down the rate of change, just the amount of inertia in the economy. And also, one other constraint is going to be that at some point here, we may be token constrained, right? I mean, we may not have

enough energy like we've talked about, even though the chips are getting so much better or that tokens per second and tokens per watt and tokens per dollar are all increasing very fast. But we're still going to probably be constrained in the next couple of years on some dimension, whether it's land power shell or just energy production or maybe chip production, there are real world constraints on just how fast we can scale the infrastructure. And that will mean that these like

hyper-utopian or hyper-destopian narratives will be wrong. I don't think there's time in the next few years for the whole economy to change in the way that the extremes would present.

“I think you're right. I think you're going to see a ten-axing in”

the demand for tokens. But I also think you're going to see a 90% price reduction in the cost of an output token probably by the end of this year. So I think that to your point, like it's it's going to just create an enormous upswallow of demand because we're going to be able to cut the prices of an output token so dramatically. And I think that's the way that discussion we had for a month last week when we talked about the tokens outpacing the employees salary and just

wear these tokens all going to come from. That was our most viewed clip or one of the most viewed clips in the history of this podcast. So people are actually really focused on this. I had my teammate 89. We read it our cost model. And now we have that as a line item when we think about fully burdened costs of employees, we now factor that in because we're at a place for some of our engineers are just rocking up ginormous bills. And then separately, just general runs that we do

for general purpose stuff that we need to just run our product is it's so expensive. So I am waiting with baited breath for what's outside, which is like we need an explosion in the capacity that's available because I do think that the silicon solutions are coming that will cut the cost, but we need a large block of land power shell ready to then turn all of this stuff on so that we can actually take advantage of it. Rumors the new max studios coming

it for models. So that could be an incredible turn to events. Everybody's desktop running the

“local model. Sex, you want to have the final word here free or freeberg before we just go back”

to what Jamoth was saying there. I mean, you've got political forces. I want to stop the construction of all data centers in the United States. So it's crazy. If that gains steam, then that's going to be a huge constraint on any change whatsoever. Can I take this off for you, J. K. Also, I went back this weekend and I looked at the number of data centers that have faced local opposition and whether there were patterns. And I posted it on X and Nick maybe you can put this up. But it was really a very small

behavior, which was pushing back on data centers and getting them canceled. We had about 25 projects total of which 20 were just in Q2 alone. There are 100 data center projects right now that are facing some form of local opposition. So interesting. Whereas if you take that 40% number and you apply this and then you multiply it by the number of megawatts that they have announced, last year we lost almost five gigawatts in terms of cancel projects. This year coming in

26, we have about seven that could be canceled if you use this map. If then you flow that through

open AI, Sarah Fryer said this that every gigawatts for her for open AI is about 10 billion

a revenue. So if you assume that that's roughly accurate, plus or minus a billion here or there. What that means is that 2025 the industry has a whole lost 50 billion a revenue. And this year, if seven gigawatts gets canceled, it's about 70 billion. Now you're talking about 130 billion of lost revenue over these two years that will go forward in time.

“That we miss out on. I think that that's really bad. We need to figure out a way to”

nip this in the bud. So confounding because we were sitting here five years ago, 10 years ago local municipalities were fighting and giving discounts to try to get these data centers open to get the jobs and get the revenue. And now we've got people trying to stop them. This is a perfect transition for the state of the union before we get there to important programming notes. All in is going to host two events in 2026. One of them liquidity made 31st to June 3rd in Yon Phil up in wine

country, Chemoth is taking control of the event and he has set a standard for who gets on stage. None of you mids can control the programming. I just said, Chemoth came in. He dropped the hammer. Who do you got so far? You want to tease a couple of people who you invited to come speed? I'll tease two. Okay. First is an incredibly dear friend of mine. The acts of acts is Dan Lobb, who founded third point, who was an unbelievable investor in

literally every domain. Private credit, public equities, private tech. He's just the, he's just,

“he's a good get. He's a good get. So he'll be doing a really important keynote. He has not done”

one of these public speaking thoughts in a very long time. And then the second is the CFO of Opening Eye, Sarah Freyer, unbelievable star. And we're going to double click into the entire business model of OpenAI on stage. So go to all-in dot com. And then for those of you who plan ahead for travel, more coming more, more coming every coming. If you are an all-in summit fan, a camp, a leave it freedberg. We're going to be in our fifth year, September 13th, it's a 15th.

Only gets better. Get better every year. I can have some good parties too. I mean, that back to the future and the blade runner parties, those were epic. All-in dot com slash events. Hey, can I give a plug to friend of the pod, Bill Garli, he's got a new, is a new book, for running down a dream. Please. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Oh, sorry, sorry, I was running down a dream. I just want everybody to stop the pause the podcast.

I want you to buy three copies. Give it to two young people and a parent, you know. This book is incredible. It's a great book. It's a great book. It really is inspiring for kids and Bill Garli,

friend of the pod he always shows up for us. Jake, I'll do an impression for us of what it would

be like if you and Bill Garli started a podcast together. All right, everybody, welcome to the JCBG podcast. I'm your host, Jason Calacanis. And I'm Bill Garli, and we're here in Texas, that Terry Blacks, where we're getting some beef ribs and we're in a discuss, invest in in marketplaces as well as my new book, run and down a dream, which will teach your kids how to not be f*** ups. And if your kids are f*** ups, you can hit him in the back of the head with the book. Texas, that one of the big topics,

and I think something you're working on with President Trump's acts is this energy pledge. I've been

around these data centers and energy. Well, the president announced in the city that union

last night that he supports a rate payer protection pledge, which requires the major tech companies to provide for their own power needs for AI data centers so that residential consumers do not

“see their rates going up. I think this makes total sense. I think Jamoth to your point, this is the”

reason behind a lot of the opposition to new data centers is that the local residents fear that their electricity prices are going to go up. And that shouldn't be the case. And so the president said that he's committed to not allowing residential rates to go up as a result. If data centers pre-strate forward, you get the big tech companies, the hyperscalers to pay for the increase in the electricity costs, or you let them set up their own power behind the meter. The president's been

talking about this for over a year that our biggest AI companies would also become big power companies because we had let them stand up their own power generation behind the meter. So these data centers don't even have to connect to the grid. They could just do colocation themselves. But also, I think that with this rate payer protection pledge, what you're going to see is that it could actually bring down consumer prices because what happens is that when these data centers then

set their own power and connect to the grid, they can give back the excess to the grid. Also, they will make investments in scaling the infrastructure. So although electricity is priced at a meter rate, the cost to generate it are not all variable. There's a lot of huge fixed costs in there. So when you increase scale, then you can actually reduce the the meter rate. So again,

“you know, this is really, I think there are a bottle to Bernie Sanders who just wants to stop”

all progress whatsoever. I saw a funny post calling it bananas, which is build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone. So this is there. That's not just bananas. This is replacing the new NIMB. So you just can build absolutely nothing. Yeah. I think the process that finds a very good balance here, which is look, we can have progress. Just don't make residential consumers pay for it. Let the big tech companies pay for it themselves. And I think you'll see more coming out. It's about this

from the White House next week. Quite a deaf move freeberg. How should America be thinking about this great data center build-out energy usage? You know, if you expand it out over the coming decade and how do you sell that? To the backdrop that you talk about, the socialist movement, you got a great interview coming out with Ray Dollio on the all-in interview program. Next week, how do you think about those competing forces? You've got the socialist saying bananas,

NIMB, slow down, desal, and then you've got this incredible race we're in for efficiency and

“this opportunity and abundance. How would you sell it to kind of bring these two sites together?”

Or is it just impossible? The data coming in and out of data centers moves it roughly the speed of light. So you could put them anywhere. And I think that our policy makers need to be very cognizant of that fact. You have and we do connect the internet using high speed cable, high speed, fiber optic throughout the world. And so theoretically, if we don't embrace and allow the economic development of the data center industry and it will fundamentally

be an industry because it is almost like the new sort of oil. Where the oil rigs going to go, where the railroads going to go, where the telegraph line's going to go, where the factories going to go. If we don't put them here, someone also put them on their shores, someone also put them in their country, someone also put them in their jurisdiction. And a lot of the economic value that arises from the people that will build those facilities, the energy that will be installed

to produce power for those facilities. And then all of the second and third order industries that

emerge as a result of those installations, that value will accrue elsewhere. Such a good point. So yeah, it's not going to like just go away. The demand is there. The economies moving forward, AI is moving forward. We live in a world with 196 countries. And data centers do not take up a lot of space. They're very small relative to the economic value that they produce. If you zoom out on the map of the world, all the data centers in the world fit under the tip of a pin. And so this is a

very small footprint. And if we're going to give up hundreds of thousands of jobs and many billions of dollars of economic value creation, we're being pretty silly and pretty obtuse in our view of the world. I would just like encourage the system that I think is the right system. And when we talked about this last time, we're provided data centers are producing their own electricity. That means that you're taking our electricity consumption off the grid because

other residential and industrial users. So it's silly to think that we need to put a more 20-month data centers as soon as you do that, the companies that use data centers are not going to slow down. They're going to go put them somewhere else. And we're going to miss out. And it's such a good point, Shemoth, because you were recently in the Middle East. And I've been there a bunch in Saudi UAE. These are the folks who built a large portion of those oil refineries.

“And they are savvy to this. And what are they doing in Saudi UAE Qatar? All of these regions?”

They're doubling down. They're 10Xing their data center bills. So to your point free bird, either we build them or they're going to go somewhere else. And there are people who are willing to underwrite these. And they're willing to take out the red tape from the process here. And move quicker than us. So we, I think this is a pretty deaf move by President Trump to say, hey, you guys should all just guarantee that consumers don't get impacted. The water thing is a total

hoax. Like the water is recirculated. That's a hoax. I think this is really smart. I think that what the President's doing and what Sachs is doing is really smart. The thing to keep in mind is that they're still a risk that prices go up. And it has nothing to do with these data centers. And it has everything to do with the business model of being a utility. Because what happens is in order to get a license, a monopoly license in an area to provide energy to generate energy

“for a community. The exchange works in the following way. You go and you present a”

capx plan to the public utilities commission. That's effectively your budget. That says, here are the lines. I'm going to upgrade. Here are the generators. I'm going to upgrade.

Independent of data centers. The reality is the draw. The electricity consumption of individual

Americans is going up because we have more devices. We have cars. We have all of these other things. So what we also have to do is we have to look at how utilities is business model actually incentivizes them to increase prices by making all kinds of investments. So we have to do a good job of making sure we hold everybody accountable because otherwise what you could see is that the data centers taking on the burden for themselves. But prices still continue to escalate because a utility

says, I need to spend a billion dollars this year to upgrade my infrastructure. And what that allows them to do is take that billion dollars and essentially invest it for return. That's the business model of utility. And this is really happening in blue states. Micron has a hundred

billion dollar mega fab in your and there's a lawsuit by six one two three four five. This is

six insurance citizens. That's shameful. And the budget has taken twelve hundred days, twelve hundred days, between their announcement and the groundbreaking. And they spend six hundred twelve days on the environmental impact study. People wake up, just go to Texas. Elon built his factory here, the giga factory in under like 18 months. This is the greater state of Texas come here. We'll build it for you. And you'll be done. Yeah, I don't know

anyone bothers with the blue states anymore. They make it to our to build. It's return. It's so dumb. It's such a self-owned too. Like, don't you want to be part of the future? You're literally anchoring the entire country to scratch the odd. By the way, there are a lot of people in New York who want to work. This is not a case actually of this new fab being unpopular. The majority of people in the area actually want this plant being built. They want the jobs

here and they come there. A lot of people say they don't have to create a lot of jobs. This is actually a chip fab. So we'll create a lot of jobs. A lot of good high paying jobs. People want it. Those six people can stop it with a lawsuit after it's not even through a two year environmental review. It's not blue and red states. These are nonprofits that get organized to create this kind of chaos. I remember looking at a massive lithium investment in Nevada.

And the whole point was to domesticate lithium production. And what was interesting is this enormous deposit that's just sitting there right for development right before they were about to get environmental approvals right after there was a lawsuit by people who wanted to protect the upper land gross. It's seared in my mind that the upper land gross of Nevada is the reason why

“we do not have domestic national security around lithium. And you have to ask yourself, why is this”

possible? And it's possible because you have these environmental nonprofits that can go and create this chaos with absolutely no risk to them. Zero. They can fundraise around it and they can create this chaos. I mean, Nick to this point. This is an example of Greenpeace. And specifically here, they were pushing back on an oil pipeline to such a degree and they created so much chaos that they were sued and north Dakota judge just said that he's going to order Greenpeace to

pay damages that should total almost $350 million in connection to those protests. And it should

right. Well, I think there's and I just want to highlight this important point. There's not a lot of logic and reason. You guys are right. But I do think there's a lot of emotion and there's a huge aversion to big tech, a huge aversion to wealth creation by selecting individuals, select companies, a huge aversion to economic growth that doesn't benefit everyone. There's a fundamental kind of

“underlying left behind emotion that drives a lot of this. And I've said it before, but I think”

unless there's systems or mechanisms that get folks to come along with the value creation ahead and help them connect their own lives to the value creation that's being realized. They're not going to be supportive because there is this kind of diametric opposition towards big tech, towards the wealth gap, towards value, accrual to a select few companies or select few individuals. And this fuels and feeds that. So I think fundamentally, maybe it's not just about giving

the data centers their own power capacity, but there's got to be mechanisms and tools that helps the broader population understand or recognize or get some benefit from it as well where they're an owner in it or participate in it because they have the power as we're seeing. They have the power to stop it. Therefore, they want to have some benefit for providing authority to do it. And these six people are concerned about housing costs, worker exposure to toxic chemicals,

pollution, air, water, greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, flooding of the wetlands, all these things that obviously could be mitigated. All right, let's keep moving here. We got a lot more docket to get through state of the union came in at 108 minutes. And it's the longest in 60 years. Actually, the longest since they started tracking this, the theme of President Trump's state of the union this year, America at 250,

strong prosperous and respected. Trump took a bunch of victory laps, inflation jobs, closing the border, all those have gone really well. But this comes to the backdrop. None of Trump's approval rating being super challenged. He started his first year

at plus 11.7 percent. Now he's negative 14.3 percent, 26. swing.

Economy started plus 3.4 down to 18.2 and trades are at a 5.9 percent. And we'll talk about the tariffs of later. And went down to 22.7. So let's call balls and strikes here. Gentlemen, favorite moments. What were your favorite moments from the state of the union and just

“general impressions of one of how pretty five minutes of Trump going to town?”

I thought it was great. Favorite moment? Favorite moment or two? Well, I had a couple. One was the Elon Omar Rashida play Death Stair and then just like losing their minds and and screaming. I just thought it was so

un-American. The second was when he was calling for law and order where

and focusing and prioritizing un-American citizens and none of the deco aliens. And none of the Democrats stood up. I thought that was kind of foolish. It was like obvious things and the Democrats wouldn't applaud, but this time they did like they did for the hockey team, which I thought was like the right thing to do. And then the fourth thing is just the shadow to our friend Brad Grocery, who got a big shout out from the president. I don't know Sax, if you engineer that or not,

but that was fantastic. That was fantastic. You got like a whole shot out. It was like a double tap. That was really cool. That was surreal. Our group chat went crazy. That was really cool. Those are my four highlights. Great. Here's your here's your clip of yeah Democrats not standing for Americans over illegal aliens. 20 seconds. If you agree with this statement,

then stand up and show your support. The first duty of the American government is to protect

American citizens, not illegally aliens. Well, I wouldn't just stand for that. That's an easy one to stand for. Does it make any sense? Would you stand for Chicago? Yeah, I mean, I can be anti-ice, but I'm pro American and I'm pro reasonable immigration. Like 90% of the country is, so it doesn't make any sense. Do you think Americans citizens should be prioritized over illegal? Of course. Of course. Yes. Of course. Yes. And then I also think there should be a path to citizenship for people

“opinion for a while. And I think that's what the majority of the people think as well. Your point is,”

I can hold two thoughts in my head. So I would have stood if he asked me. Yes. Obviously, we should take Arab American citizens first. Yes. And we should deport violent criminals. We've been over this like a

everybody else's said when they're like, we cannot stand for this side. I mean, I think it's like the

“tower of thing. It's like the ice thing. These two sides cannot work together. It's just the most”

polarized. It's never been Trump is not like the kind of guy to reach across the aisle. The

Democrats are now digging in. So we just have a dysfunctional government where, you know, in a more functional time period, like under Clinton, let's say, or Bush, people would have gotten together jumping ahead to the tariff discussion. And they would have said, yeah, of course, tariffs are done in Congress. That's the law. Whatever, what are your thoughts, Mr. President? How can we support your tariff program? But now it's like, oh, well, we don't work together. We don't actually have

discussions anymore. There's no bipartisan, you know, collaboration, all these politicians are disgraceful. The scratchy ought across the board. They should be working together for the American people, if the president wants to do tariffs. Are you reasonable about it and give him the power to do reasonable tariffs? And he should be reasonable and say, hey, I understand that's your power. Let's get together and we'll chop it up and let's have dinner together. But they're just

too polarized. It's just disgraceful where this country has gotten to. I blame both parties.

Whenever the Democrats get smoked out as being radicals and extremists, you always want to basically

say a pox on both your houses and blame their Republicans and Democrats equally. The fact the matter is the president said to the audience, to the members of Congress, hey, if you agree with the statement, stand up. And of course, every single Democrats set their stone face and refuse to applaud or acknowledge what he was saying. This was a very easy test for the Democrats to pass. What did you say? In fact, it was what I said. In fact, it was a political risk for the

president because it was so easy for the Democrats to demonstrate that they're operating good faith and they're willing to be bipartisan and they're not extremists and they're actually common sense, sickle and logical. And they completely failed the test. And by the way, it wasn't just on that one. I mean, me just telling you some of the other ones, where they refuse to applaud. So they refuse to applaud the grieving families of innocent American women and children murdered

by criminal legal aliens, including the mother of Irina Zeritskaya. That was very sad. That was unbelievable. They refused to applaud for securing our homeland and ending the invasion of criminal legal aliens, killers, rapist gang members and traffickers. They refused to applaud for unifying against political violence. So the president mentioned the assassination to Charlie Kirk. They would not even do a polite clap for Erica Kirk and unifying against political violence.

They refused to applaud for keeping violent criminals locked up. They even refused to applaud for low prescription drug prices for millions of Americans because it was President Trump who

“orchestrate that policy. And there were so many other examples like that. And you know, I think”

the reason why this speech was so effective. And by the way, it's not just me saying it, something like two thirds of the people that CNN pulled. So two thirds of CNN, watchers said it was highly effective. And something like three quarters of CBS News viewers said it was highly effective is because the president laid out 80, 20 issue one after another, right, or even 90, 10 issues, or 95, five issues. I mean, these were all issues where the overwhelming

number of Americans, I think agree with the policy the president laid out. And in every single case, the Democrats opposed to wouldn't even give it a plight applause. And that is different than in the past. And you can say that's because of hyper partisanship and polarization. But it's also because of another thing, it's because the Democrats have become a party of radicalism and extremism. And the viewpoints that they expressed through their aesthetics, the other night, they do express those

things in policy and in speeches all the time. So it's not just like a one-off or, you know, somehow like, you know, misconception of who these guys are. I think, you know, the big line of the night was when Trump just sort of said these people are crazy. I mean, he said it in like almost mournful and regretful way. He doesn't want them to be crazy. He wants them to be rational so he can work with them. I mean, but I think that point, I'll still point the other side, which is

this has been going on for a couple of, you know, state of the unions here across this. The

“Republicans didn't stand for the Democrats often. And it's a bit of showmanship, but the truth is,”

Trump is the divider in chief, chief. He always is attacking people. He's always mocking people. So

they don't want to play ball with him. So I think you think you can both trust a policy. Okay, you can. No, I don't think so. That's actually the, that's actually the problem with the, that philosophy, Trump's philosophy of, we have to counter punch. We have to attack. We've never have to apologize. We never have to be reasonable. That's part of what's broken down in our politics. And these two sides should work together. We should go back to what I've parted to say,

about. But you said we are a hold on, I'll finish my statement. You asked a question. I think

Trump is the mirror of that. He has been hostile towards these Democrats. He doesn't give them an

“inch. They should be more collaborative. That's what the balance of power between the executive”

branch, you know, and these, you know, congressmen and the congressmen in the Senate, like this is how it's supposed to work. And these two sides need to learn how to get back to listening to each other, understanding each other's positions, and then finding a middle ground. And that's why the Democrats lost last time because they didn't have the common sense to say, hey, everybody wants the board of close to your point. It's a 90% issue. And Combo Harris was too

dumb to just say, yeah, we should have closed the border. It's close now. And we've got it. Anyway, the whole thing is a mess. I understand you got to fight for your team. You just don't like

the counter. You just act to make the key point. You made the key point, which is underlying the

optics and the polarization. You have issues. And on those issues, President Trump is on the side of the American people. The issues where 80% of the American people are great. Some issues percentage. I don't know exactly what it is. Things that the Somali daycare fraud in Minnesota was an outrage. And the president is right to point that out. And what's the Democrats reaction? You've got Elon Omar screaming from the audience at him. Yeah, she's a loon. I mean,

at the end of this, they did have, he did have Elizabeth Warren stand for stopping Nancy Pelosi from trading stocks. And that gave Trump his best one liner of the night. That was his best one liner clearly. And they stood for Iran too and stopping Iran from being nuclear. I give Elizabeth Warren credit for that. There you go. You don't have to punch her back? There's a drop inside her trading act

“without delay. Yeah. See, that's something bipartisan. Look at that, Zach. That's what you”

need to get the country back to me. Okay. Hold on. But this, this just proves the point you're making before. You said that it was polarization for that I can't believe. Can't believe Nancy Pelosi stand up if she's saying the same power. Good job. That's why he's so good. Is he's in the moment and he's reacting to what's happening in the chamber. It's got good timing. He's not just reading from a telepathic during he nailed it. But look, that moment disproves where you're saying

Jay Calc because this is not just about polarization. On that issue, Elizabeth Warren was willing to stand because she actually tore her credit once to ban insider trading by members of Congress. Yes. But on the rest of those issues, like securing the border, she did not stand. Why? Because she does not agree with the president on that issue. We just have to get back to these sides working together. That's my personal feeling. Freeberg any thoughts on the

atrex and Trump's first year writ large and the sort of back and forth. Is there any hope

that these two teams could collaborate at some point on something like say the ballooning deficit, which Trump has not gotten under control in his first year and it's going to be $2.5

“trillion added. What are your thoughts here on them collaborating on anything important, Friedberg?”

That's probably one thing they can agree on. It's just keep the money flowing. Got it. Both give them a standing ovation for burn more capital and put us more in debt. Well, said, my guy, David Friedberg, salt in of science. It is your time to shine. The world's greatest moderator has decided we're going directly to science corner. This is your time to shine, excited when it acts as time to drop a juice. That's what I mean. Yes, he has to drop it here.

Let's go. What do you name me for? This is very important for you. Freeberg's going to talk lightning around for science going to go. Freeberg. Wait, are we doing any more topics after this or can I just leave? Yes, tariffs. Yes, we're doing tariffs. Why would we do that? Because I want you to get paid to sleep. I'm not saying science corner doesn't have its audience. Listen, you can go. I wouldn't we do. Yeah, exactly. Look at you. You're like screaming. That can be

his work. Three. Let him to let him cook. Let him cook. Freeberg tells us about this harbored speaking of science. I think that there's a very important moment happening right now. We've talked a number of times on the show about yamanaka factors. These are these four proteins that were discovered by Shinya yamanaka that we found later that when applied to cells, mammalian cells can actually reverse the age of those cells. Recept the epigenetic clock. Recept the epigenome, which is

the little markers on top of the DNA that turn genes on and off back to a youthful state. Extraordinary ground-breaking work that was done that won the Nobel Prize led to the foundation of several companies. There's a Harvard scientist named David Sinclair. He's a bit of a controversial character. You guys know him? Thank you guys one or two of you made men upset. Jemoc, you ever met him? Yeah, I followed him. I've seen his stuff. Sinclair is kind of

bemoaned a little bit by the scientific and academic community for being a little too over-hiky, snake oil salesmen as some of folks have claimed because years ago he sold a company to

working and he's promoted certain supplement companies and so on. So I want to preface with that

“before I kind of underwrite what he's saying with this next thing. But he's a co-founder of a company”

called Lifestyle Sciences and they've reached a major agreement with the FDA to be the first company to treat humans with yamanaka factors. Specifically what they're doing is they're going to be delivering these yamanaka factors. These are these proteins that rejuvenate cells and make them youthful again into the eye. And so their first indication is to actually inject them into the vitrital fluid in the eyeball and they'll affect the retina in the eye to address people that have gotten blind from glaucoma

or one of these kind of stroke-like diseases that happen in the eye. And the expectation with this phase one clinical trial is that the delivery of these yamanaka factors into the eye will rejuvenate the retina make it youthful again and restore vision. If it works, which it's expected to because we

see this result happen in animal models, it could be an extraordinary breakthrough, not just in terms

of blindness, but in terms of the first human application of yamanaka factors to reverse aging.

“The way they're doing it is they're actually packaging up DNA that will make these proteins”

into viruses, an AAV virus that is delivered into the eye. The virus will then go into the retinal cells and then will deliver this payload for this DNA to make these proteins in the eye cells. And it can be turned on and off amazingly. They've created a switch mechanism in it where the protein production, the production of these yamanaka factors, can be turned on and off by taking an antibiotic called doxocycling. So the person that gets the delivery of this drug

takes the antibiotic turns on the production of these yamanaka factors and then theoretically their eye cells will be aged, will get youthful and their vision will be restored. So phase one clinical trials underway, first time in human history we're seeing yamanaka factors being delivered into humans, literally the tip of the iceberg, there are now over a dozen startups that are trying to deliver yamanaka factors which are these proteins or some other sort of protein that can actually reverse aging

by restoring the epigenome and cells and make them young again. So this is the beginning of a wave

“of what I think will be the most extraordinary revolution in human therapeutics and ultimately”

could lead to some people would argue the fountain of youth. Is this just a talk study? So there's one. Well they'll see results, they'll see results, but they're going to keep

dosing low, but you will see results. God, that's going to be incredible.

It's going to be incredible. By the way, the number of other folks that are gearing up for phase one using, if not the yamanaka factors, other factors that they've identified or designed as an alternative to yamanaka factors, again, to rejuvenate the cells. And just to remind folks the way this works is it was discovered that these proteins when they go into a cell, they take all of those little markers that sit on top of your DNA, the turn genes on and off,

and they create a system that causes them all to move to the right place. So it resets the markers so that those cells will start to operate like they're supposed to when they were young again. It's going to be incredible. Do you think like people in all seriousness, people's needs or joins or where do you think it could flow to next? Right. And by the way, when applied and if it's distributed in the skin, they've seen some results in monkeys where like wrinkles go away.

It like literally makes these cells all work youthful again. And so a lot of the damage that happens over time is not damage to DNA. It's damage to the epigenome. It's the parts that sit on top of the DNA that turn genes on and off, and they get moved to the wrong place as you get older. And by resetting them and getting them back to the right place, boom, the cell is young again, the organ is young again, and suddenly you look and act and feel young again. It's an

incredible technology. We're just at the early stages, the early innings of turning it into therapeutics.

Again, the discovery goes back to 2006. And now we're starting to see it get into clinic. So let's rejuvenate some hairlines on this podcast. That would be next up. Speak for yourself. I don't know. You got a little, you got a little peeks going there, my friend, brother, a little peek. What are you talking about, bro? My hairlines is incredible. 150. I mean, it's not bad for 50. I'm going to give you credit. You're holding your own.

All right. Let's talk about our final topic. Scodes struck down Trump's emergency powers. Hariffs last Friday. Scodes voted 63 against President Trump's EEPA. Tariff six judges voted against three conservatives, Roberts, Barrett, Gorsuch, and three Liberals. Vioblumberg. This is the biggest review of existing executive policy in 91 years. And Scodes struck down FDR's first new deal in 1935. U.P. Martin analysis says the tariffs

This is going to take some time to sort out on the courts. Two thousand reporters have already

“filed for refunds. We talked about it here. I think the majority of people felt like this”

is the way the decision would go. And we talked about here that there were other options for President Trump to pursue. He immediately said he was not stirred and invoked a 15% global tariff across the board by section 122 of the 1974 trade act. Here's your polymarket. Will the court force Trump to refund tariffs 18% chance, but spike to 40% after the Scodes decision? How are Congress reacts? Polymarkat says 3% chance. Congress passes any

tariffs by March 31st. So again, as I referenced earlier, these two sides just can't seem to work together. And that would have resolved the whole thing. Sachs, you want to give us your

take care? First of all, I don't think the tariffs are going away. What the court basically indicated,

especially the 70 page cabinet descent, is that there's multiple alternative bases in law for the tariffs in existing law. So for example, section 122 of the trade act of 1974 enables temporary 150 day tariffs of up to 15% to address balance of payments issues. And the president has already invoked this. So we are now operating under that. What the 150 days is going to do is buy the administration time to substantiate buy a studies and agency reviews. What it needs to prove

in order to invoke more sweeping tariff authority under section 301 of the trade act and under section 308 of the tariff act. Section 301 authorizes tariffs responding to unfair foreign trade practices. Section 308 of the tariff act allows tariffs against countries discriminating against US commerce. The cabinet descent actually provided a roadmap for the administration to put in place tariffs using one of these alternate bases. So I think that one way or another, the tariff policies

of this administration and the favorable trade deals that they allow us to strike with many nations, they will continue. And I think the court seems to know that because the majority is opinion as concurrence is collectively said nothing about how the administration should go about refunding the tariff revenue already collected. I think that if they expected this decision to end the tariff policies altogether, they probably would have said something about that.

“And I think that brings up a really important point just on the merits here, which is”

why would we want to give back hundreds of billions of dollars to a bunch of importers when we're a trillion dollars in debt. And I'll just say that the people who are originally predicted that somehow these tariffs would be catastrophic for the economy, those predictions all proved

not to be true. So I think that this is ultimately, I think, going to be a popular policy.

The administration will figure out a different way to do it and I predict that future administrations whether they're Republican or Democrat will keep some version of the tariffs in place. But I think that they will be ultimately popular on the long-standing basis. Tramathi or thoughts? I think we've proven the experiment has been successful. What was the experiment? We needed to smoke out what the right balance of trade should be

“between the United States and all of its partner countries. I think that what we uncovered is”

that for the most part, they were structural imbalances that were made not because they made economic sense for America. But it was just part of a hodgepodge of globalist drivel that people just bought into. And if you strip all that stuff away, we had a hollowed out manufacturing class and we have a hollowed out middle class. And the tariffs will create more equality for the American worker in the end. So now I think the debate should be about how to implement these in a structural

impermanent way. I think we talked about this before Jason that this was sort of expected and there are many other mechanisms. I think the president activated one of them immediately. I don't think this is going away and I don't think it should go away. So I think now the point is Congress really should ratify these things because it is clear that it was the right thing to do. And if they don't then the president still has a lot of room to get these done.

But these make smart economic sense in my opinion. Freeberg any thoughts on the ruling. Does it give you some, I don't know, um, respect for the courts that they made a judgment not along party lines for once? Yes. Is it? Yeah. Okay. And I think that all, I think all Americans should feel assured

degree of partisanship. The fact that the president, despite having a majority of what others would

think were kind of politically aligned, appointees on the court had a ruling that he did not want. I think should give everyone good faith that the system that the founder set up is working, that there is a judicial branch that adjudicates the law against the executive branch when they think

“that it doesn't map and I think that that was very important to see. So, you know, clearly, the debate”

about tariffs, the economic effect of tariffs, the security, structural trade relationship, effect of tariffs and the importance of that is a separate conversation. But I do think that the read of the law being what I would say is nonpartisan with respect to the court's action is important and probably very valuable. I'll reiterate that. This is a great moment, I think, for the Supreme Court to make a thoughtful decision. And I think we need to think about executive

power a whole bunch, whether it's Biden with student loans or Trump with tariffs. We have this beautiful system set up by the founding fathers. I know it's frustrating, gridlocks, frustrating, having to work together, it's frustrating. Trust me, we all come to this podcast every Thursday, we have to work together. It's hard to work together. It's got to learn to work together and we don't want an executive branch that can unilaterally just roll over the other branches. And that's

going to end. I think Trump's going to lose the midterm, so we're going to get to work chaos again. And it, we might as well start this reconciliation process of these two sides stopping their law for again, see each other and working together for the American people on the important issues. The tariffs, there are some fundamentally important things that Trump was doing there and they were working. They could have been chaotic. That's a reasonable, you know, criticism of them because

business owners didn't know what to do. So Trump did it in a chaotic way. That's just the fact.

“You should have done it in a more thoughtful way. And the Congress should have been”

alongside him saying, hey, what tools do you need? How can we help support this? We know that there's trade imbalances. We know that people are being unfair. Let's work together as one America to negotiate these things. So both sides start having dinner together, start playing cards together and do what we do here on this podcast, which is your fight it out. You argue, but then you come together and try to find some resolutions for this stuff. So they should go and tell Trump,

hey, we'll approve all the tariffs you did. We will not force you to get refunds. The Congress should come around just say that. And then they should say, hey, and when you want to do them in 2026, just run them by us or ask us for some parameters that you want. And let's just be thoughtful about these are our concerns. That's it. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk. As do one of those things. I'm sure you have some debate club points that you want to point that. Well, I just want to make

one. I mean, do you think Susan Rice is going to respect your call for comedy and basically working

together, Kumbaya? She just read the course. No, I don't. I think both sides. She just had a diatribe where she basically said that Republicans and actually not just like partisan Republicans, but even tech companies that merely were working with the administration should expect to get prosecuted. I mean, she was basically out by saying she and the Democrats are going to pursue law fair as soon as they get back in charge. They're absolutely going to do that. Just like when Trump

got in, he went after Komi. He went after Jerome Powell. The law fair is happening on both sides. Both sides need to drop the law fair. We need to get rid of these partis. They're ridiculous. And these teams, we have to be a team. So let's just get some a spirit of corruption team

“we're going in Washington, D.C. And that's what we should vote for in the midterms. We should”

vote for moderates who want to work together and in 2020, we should have some kind of moderates and tickets that want to work together. That would be better for all Americans. This

kind of chaos is not good at folks. All right. Listen, there's been another amazing episode of

be all in podcast. Your favorite podcast. I'd like to subscribe whatever the hell you want to do on your own time. Four, David Sachs, David Freedberg, Chamapile and Habitia. Love you boys. I am the world's greatest moderates you can. See you next time, my back and bye bye. We'll let your winners ride. Rainman David Sachs. We open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy weather. Love you, West, I swing, I can walk. We should all just get a room and just have one big huge or

he can do all his music. It's like the sexual tension that we just need to release now.