Skip to content

Podcast

White House BTS, Google Buys Wiz, Treasury vs Fed, Space Rescue

All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg

Source ↗ ← All highlights
  • Besties visit the White House
    • Chamath Palihapitiya and David Friedberg visited David Sacks at the White House.
    • They toured the West Wing, saw Elon Musk’s office, and even briefly visited the Oval Office. Transcript: Jason Calacanis All right all right let’s get back to him let’s get back to it it was a triumphant week for our besties there were like uh little school girls giggling on the group chat oh my god i’m in the White house oh my god look i’m getting closer to power. What was it like? Your dream has come true. You came here to America from Canada, you built all this from nothing and you wound up at the White House. Chamath Palihapitiya Give it to me. It was probably the most intense three days that we had. Nat and I were there to see the president, but obviously we were there to see Sachs as well. But there was a bunch of other things that happened. Myself, Freeberg, New Money Sonny was there. Our bestie, Elon Musk, obviously we dropped in with him. So to recap, on Sunday we got in, it was just like raining cats and dogs, nothing to say there. Then on Monday, what happened was we basically had some meetings in the morning. And then David said, guys, let me just walk you around and just show you where I were. David Sacks By the way, we camped out in Sachs’ office for three days, which was awesome. So we had the passes to be at the West Wing and in the Eisenhower building. That’s Sachs’ office. And so we all kind of worked from there. And then we went and did our meetings from Sachs’ office. And Sachs’ incredible chief of staff, Tracy, escorted us around anytime we needed to go anywhere. Chamath Palihapitiya So then we started to walk through the West Wing. We dropped by. Look at Sachs’ office for a second. I love what you’ve done with the place. Jason Calacanis Were you allowed to put up a piece of art? And look at that desktop rig. Chamath Palihapitiya I think the most iconic part of the West Wing is the portico, where you see that those very famous shots of all these very important people. In this case, it’s just the four of us. But you can see, Nick, there’s the shot of all of us. David Sacks Well, the portico connects the West Wing to the president’s residence. Tracy, Sachs’ chief of staff, escorted us from the West Wing after we did an amazing tour of the West Wing over to the residence. I don’t know if we were really supposed to do it, but she has full access. So we were able to kind of go on the walk. And then we took a walk around the residence and saw all the rooms. But this is the entrance to the West Wing right here. So when you come in for meetings, administrators, so we walk in, Pam Bondi’s on our way out. We got to meet Pam Bondi. I mean, it really is amazing. Members of the cabinet are coming in and out of this door. Members that work in the West Wing are coming in and out of this. Or leaders. Yeah. And then we saw leaders coming in. Chamath Palihapitiya One of the most iconic things we were allowed to do was see the press room. By the way, the people that work, and we’ll get to it in a second because we met some incredible people that work in the White House, but some of the folks that don’t necessarily get a lot Of flowers, like folks that work in the upper press room and the lower press room, some of the kindest people. And what they did was they’re like, oh, guys, why don’t you come and see where they do the presidential briefings? And the one thing about the White House is everything is just like in a nook and cranny away. So this is where obviously you see the presidential seal isn’t there because the president is not there. But we were able to do that. We met some really in the press room here. This is the actual press room. This is by the way. It was just like a little small. It’s so small. It’s a little door off the side. David Sacks The whole West Wing is like disarmingly small. You can walk for 15 seconds between the Oval Office and pretty much everywhere else in the West Wing. It really is very tight. And Elon’s got an office in there that we got to kind of drop in and say hi. The president, obviously Chamath, went over to the Oval. Then there’s the Situation Room. I mean, everything is within a couple of steps of everything. And it really is. You’re in these kind of historic moments. As you walk through this, you just feel the resonance of everything that you’ve heard about and seen and all the history and legacy to everything. And it’s just all right there, compact in one space. You’re just overwhelmed. It really was overwhelming for me emotionally. It was overwhelming intellectually. You just kind of walk around and, you know, it’s just, you’re, you’re part of it. And it was so, I was telling Shamath, it was so emotional for me at the end of the day to just be like, man, like you come to this country, you come to America, you know, from wherever you came From and anyone can find their way into this historic space. That’s the beauty of this country. And I, it never really hit me until (Time 0:03:20)
  • Meeting POTUS
    • Chamath and Nat Friedman met with the President in the Oval Office.
    • They discussed important matters and watched the Dragon capsule landing with the President. Transcript: Chamath Palihapitiya I’m gonna i’m gonna describe to you a 45 minute or so experience in the oval so the next day myself and nat and sax go to see POTUS in the Oval. And there’s this incredible meeting room and you’re kind of, you wait there, right? The waiting room. It’s quite large. It’s very beautiful, you know, beautiful sofas, et cetera. And then they say, oh, the president’s ready to see you. And you get escorted into the Oval. And the one thing that struck me about the Oval is it’s also much smaller than what you would think. Like it’s a very good size and it’s a very natural size, but it’s beautiful and it’s inspiring. And our experience was Nat was in the front, I’m in the middle, and then David’s beside me. And as we were walking through, you could hear that there was this very important conversation happening between somebody else who I won’t say about something that I won’t say, but It was really important. And we walk through the oval and we walk through the back and we go into his private dining room. And that has all this incredible memorabilia sticking around, Nick, maybe you can show the picture of me, Nat, and the president. So we had this conversation. And in the middle of the conversation, we had a chance to watch some Fox News together because the dragon capsule was landing. And I texted Elon. I said, hey, we’re in the Oval. Do you want to come drop in? He texts back, can’t dragon capsule landing. I’m like, yeah, I know. We’re watching it right now. So Nat, myself, POTUS, Saks, we’re watching this thing kind of unfold. Anyways, then we have our meeting. It ends. And we walk out into sort of like this area where Taylor’s office is, like where that picture was. And we continue to just randomly sit there watching. And this is what you mean, Freeberg. Marco Rubio comes by. And so now we’re just standing around. There’s Marco Rubio. We’re talking about the landing. And then out of the left-hand side, Sheikh Tanun comes in because he’s there to say hi to the president. Then he comes in. Obviously, he says hi to Marco Rubio, says hi to me. We talked for a few minutes. He leaves. The intensity of the people just within two steps of each other you had you saw the CIA director walk in and out it’s just an it’s an incredibly mesmerizing place where irrespective I Think of your political ideology the minute that you’re there I think it’s hard to not be anything but Team America. I think it’s impossible, actually. And it’s really inspiring. And by the way, coming home, I feel like I’m crashing, meaning there’s such a level of adrenaline and dopamine. And we’re like these observers. So I can only imagine, Saks, what it feels like for you when you’re not in that environment. (Time 0:10:19)
  • Money for Purpose
    • Working in the White House offers a unique sense of purpose, even for those who’ve been successful in the private sector.
    • It’s a ‘money for purpose trade,’ according to David Sacks. Transcript: David Sacks Not expecting this on this trip at all. David Friedberg I think that when you work in the White House and you have been successful in the private sector, like Scott Besson or Howard Ludnick or myself, Or Doug Burgum. Or Elon, especially. I would describe it as a money for purpose trade. You’re giving up money, but the sense of purpose you feel working for the White House, for this president is just incredible. And I think you guys kind of picked up on that. And in my view, that’s a trade that you should be happy to make any day of the week, because it is really an honor to work at the White House and for this president, because he actually wants To get things done on behalf of the American people. The default state of Washington is just that nothing gets done, right? You guys know that. The bureaucracy and the entropy and the inertia just basically rule the day. And so it takes a president who, number one, has a mandate for the American people. Number two, has a tremendous sense of mission and purpose. And number three, brings tremendous energy to the job. And then I think finally assembles the right team around him. And those are the conditions under which you can actually make change, positive change for the country. And we have that. And it’s kind of a once-in opportunity. If we don’t get this done now, if we’re not able to cut the deficit and debt now, when are we ever going to do it? This is the once-in opportunity. And I think everybody there feels that. I think everyone in the White House is really proud to be there and excited to be there. And it’s fun. And part of it is that you can tell that the president, he makes this job fun because he’s having a great time. He was really, I think, born to do this job. I mean, in so many ways, he just brings so much energy to it. He’s indefatigable. There’s so many. David Sacks He’s empowering. He’s like everyone we met with, Zach, to your point, they’ve all been successful in another part of life and in business and whatnot. And they’re generally post-economic people, but he’s letting everyone run. We got to meet with several other members of the cabinet and they were all sharing with us that they’re being given autonomy and authority. They can just run. And I think that that’s really important. If you want to bring in high impact people, you need to let (Time 0:19:02)
  • Executive Function in Government
    • Individuals with proven high executive function should consider government service.
    • This “money for purpose” trade could significantly benefit America. Transcript: David Friedberg Totally agree. Chamath Palihapitiya I think Freeberg is totally right. If we can create a pattern where people with high executive, let’s just say that because that’s less of a loaded word than businessman or successful, whatever. People with high executive function that have proven it should at some point in their career step into government and replace money for purpose. If that is a trend that this administration creates, I think America is in credible hands. David Sacks Which was how the founding fathers operated the government originally. Chamath Palihapitiya There’ll be a moment, guys, where the Democrats win, right? There’ll be a moment when the Republicans return to power. There’ll be a moment when all the ideologies flip. But if in all of that, you can find people who are willing to pause their private lives, have demonstrated executive function and can make the trade, we’re going to just kick ass. And give back. It’s great. David, thank you. (Time 0:22:25)
  • Google Acquires Wiz
    • Google’s acquisition of Wiz for $32 billion signals a potential shift in M&A activity.
    • Wiz’s success highlights the importance of design and user experience, even in competitive markets. Transcript: Jason Calacanis I think, for the venture industry. This Google acquiring Wiz, I think this could be the starter’s pistol. Unbelievable. Yeah, it’s absolutely fantastic. Google has acquired Wiz for $32 billion in cash. If you don’t know what Wiz is, just imagine you have cloud services like Microsoft’s Azure, Amazon Web Services, Google’s cloud, Oracle’s cloud. You need to have security between these things. They help do that. It’s the largest deal in google’s history david was there i think for some of the other um big acquisitions there haven’t been a lot of acquisitions obviously we know the wrath of lena Khan was pretty acute for the last four years but uh looking back in history salesforce buying slack which our bestie chamoff here was an early investor in for 27 billion that occurred In 2020 and then we had a couple of things get blocked hp and was a juniper i believe for 14 billion last year got blocked and so and adobe figma adobe figma got blocked in the uk blocked in The uk but they you know assumed it was gonna happen here and this is actually we talked about this on episode 189, Shamath, Wiz turned down $23 billion from Google. They said at the time it was because they wanted to IPO, but now reporting is saying it was because of the antitrust stuff under Biden, plus the UK, obviously. Go ahead, Shamath, you can take it from there. Chamath Palihapitiya I think this is the Trump premium. I mean, the problem when that deal was being looked at back then was there was still a chance that there could be a Democrat administration. And it was very clear that they were anti-M and anti-tech, quite honestly. And when Trump won, I think it basically said, okay, we can now look at these deals. There’s another important part of this, though, and this was part of our interview with Howard Ludwig. I’d love to just play this quick clip. David Friedberg What I’m doing is I’m saying, okay, I got to collect tariffs, right? So I go to one of the great software companies of the earth, and I say, I want you to give me, you’re going to build for me for America you’re going to build the greatest customs processing Chamath Palihapitiya Ever but what’s incredible is you’re convincing these companies to basically like do right for America and build a software for you you think that’s going to be a movement throughout David Friedberg The government or is that here’s the idea I say build it for me for free yeah I put it in for free i don’t know what other countries in the world you think gonna buy now right if it works for Chamath Palihapitiya Us well remember you have to you have to connect to me yeah so every country’s gonna lie right this is what is he really saying what he’s really saying is there are all kinds of companies That are doing all kinds of work who Google famously has as 20% time. Could you imagine if some of this 20% time was allocated to rebuilding the core infrastructure of America and giving back to the country that gives you the ability to have a multi-trillion Dollar company? That’s but one example. So when you connect the dots, the way that I interpret it is that I think companies will be much more aggressive on M&A. Jason, it’s what you’ve been asking for. I think you’re going to get it. And I think the reason why you’re going to get it is you’re going to have a very open-minded administration that will let the M&A happen. But also there are ways where you can build goodwill by doing the kinds of things that Howard is talking about. I mean, could you imagine if somebody volunteered, let’s say Palantir, and said, hey, we can build the following software for the IRS so that we can just completely automate tax returns. And it’s okay for Palantir. There’s still a $200 billion company. They could allocate a small amount of time and get that done if Oracle stepped up and said something. And all of that goodwill will then allow America to just grow faster. And then under that economic umbrella, a little consolidation is not necessarily a bad thing. So I’m really interested in how all of these pieces move together. That’s the one thing I get. But I’d like to say something else very narrowly about Wiz, which is Wiz does not do something that’s necessarily unique, meaning there are other products in market, but they have done One thing better than everybody else. And I think it’s really worth rewarding, which is they have incredible taste. So if you use it, and all my engineers at 8090 live inside of this regime. When I asked them, hey, we need to implement something, they all picked Wiz. And if you ask them why, and if you ask our sysadmin, why did we implement it? Not only is it good, but it is the most beautiful, it is the most intuitive, it’s the most well-integrated. And it’s just an incredible lesson where even when other people do this other thing, you can build $32 billion of value by just doing that thing in a more coherent way. Jason Calacanis I mean, design matters, (Time 0:32:50)
  • Government and Private Industry
    • The US government should leverage private industry to solve problems, similar to SpaceX and Anduril.
    • This collaboration benefits both parties and strengthens the country’s competitive edge. Transcript: Jason Calacanis Mean, design matters, right? I think having taste and having taste matters. Having a perspective. It’s so great that that was rewarded. Cyan, what do you think of what I’ll call Lutnik’s lighthouse customer approach? In other words, make this piece of software for the US government will become your first customer, the lighthouse that pulls in other customers for free and for free. So we get it for free. We help you set the standard and then you get to use us as your reference client. Let’s start with that. Thoughts on that, and then we’ll get into M&A. Cyan Bannister I think that the government has long relied on private industry to solve some of its biggest problems, and that’s what sets us apart from other countries in the world. And so, you know, you look at some of the best companies like SpaceX, Andurl, et cetera. We need more companies like this if we’re going to compete. And so doing this absolutely makes sense. And it’s just going to help the sales cycle to get that sort of stamp of approval that, you know, our government is using that software. (Time 0:37:45)
  • Tim Walz Mocks Tesla
    • Tim Walz publicly mocked Tesla’s stock performance.
    • This was criticized as unprofessional and unsupportive of American businesses. Transcript: Jason Calacanis Vp potential vp candidate i have a real problem with this clip jason this was the most infuriating thing i’ve ever seen from a politician i mean, Tim Waltz gets on stage, pulls out his Stock app and starts mocking the greatest American car company ever created and that its stock is down. This is disgraciad.com to me. Play the clip in it. David Friedberg I know some of you know this on the iPhone. They’ve got that little stock app. I added Tesla to it to give me a little boost during the day. Jason Calacanis 225 and dropping. Cyan Bannister So, and if you own one, if you own one, we’re not blaming you. Jason Calacanis You can, you can take dental floss and pull the Tesla thing off, you know, and take, I mean, Chamath, you want to talk about this communist scumbag and what he did there? Chamath Palihapitiya No, I’m not going to say anything personal except to say that I think that it is incredibly lowbrow. At the end of the day, he represents the American people. He needs to be firmly on Team America. I don’t think he understands this because he’s never actually had a real job, but the auto industry is a vibrant part of how many, many, many Americans earn their living. Tesla employs 125,000 plus employees. There is no reason a politician should be wishing any American company to fail, period. I just think that should be the price of entry. And so to lack the basic decorum and understanding, and then to whip people up into wanting any American company to fail. There are many American companies, sure, I like or dislike, whatever. It’s not the point. There’s some that I’ll buy the stock of. There’s some that I would not. That’s not the point. You cannot openly and actively be cheering, as a politician at least, for these things to fail. That, I think, is just incredibly lowbrow. (Time 0:39:44)
  • Democratic Party’s Messaging Problem
    • The Democratic Party’s lack of clear beliefs allows the far-left to dominate their messaging.
    • This has led to declining support and a sense of disconnect among voters. Transcript: David Sacks There’s the Democratic Party with beliefs, and there’s the Democratic Party without beliefs. I think that the Democratic Party with beliefs is the one that’s very far left, and their beliefs are fundamentally rooted in concepts of socialism, Marxism. And they’re very clear about those beliefs, that traditional power structures need to be dismantled, and assets and influence need to be commonly redistributed. The rest of the Democratic Party, which people call the moderate part of the party, actually don’t really know what their beliefs are. When you talk to anyone in the Republican Party in a leadership position, you hear very clearly what their beliefs are. We saw it this week in DC. Every member of the cabinet that we met with, and there were quite a number of them, had the exact same message and the exact same set of beliefs of what this administration stands for And what they’re trying to do. You may agree with those beliefs or you may not, but they have stated their beliefs. The problem is that because the moderates in the Democratic Party have not stated a set of beliefs, a set of objectives, a vision for the country, a vision for their party, the party is Effectively being represented by this part of the party that does have beliefs, the deeply socialist Marxist beliefs. And they have basically subsumed the message. And as a result, this is why people have lost interest in the Democratic Party, because the moderate aspect has not been really clear on what their beliefs are. There is an opportunity for some of these moderate leaders in the Democratic Party, like Dean Phillips, like, and people may not like me saying this, but like Gavin Newsom, who I don’t Think is all the way over on that far left side of the spectrum, to be really clear and paint a better vision and really state the beliefs of the party and what the beliefs are that differentiate Them. And those beliefs, recently, the only thing that underscores what that party stands for is we’re not the other guys. We’re not the Republicans. And that’s it. And so people that don’t like the Republicans are like, well, I don’t know, because then I’m subsumed by the socialist Marxist rhetoric. So I don’t know if I want to be a part of that either. And that’s why I think a lot of people feel left out. And that’s why I think the recent polling data, if you pull it up on the Democrats, it’s like 23% or something in this country now. It was like 30s or something. Chamath Palihapitiya Did you see the crazy clip that did the racial demographic split on some key issues like things like DEI? Jason Calacanis Is this the one that says white college age women are just like this weird? David Sacks Anyway, I think Tim Waltz, like a lot of others, because there’s no other beliefs to stand for, you end up being subsumed by the part of the Democratic Party that does have beliefs and You don’t have anything else to say to state and to show what (Time 0:42:49)
  • Fed and Treasury Disconnect
    • The Fed’s actions seem disconnected from the Treasury and government’s efforts to control spending.
    • Jerome Powell appears unwilling to cooperate, potentially creating economic risks. Transcript: Jason Calacanis Thoughts, Shema? Chamath Palihapitiya Let’s add some color from Scott Bessett. One of the biggest mistakes that I think Janet Yellen affected was this continued issuance of money on the short end of the curve to finance these deficits, which gives you, you inherit An incredibly difficult challenge, I think, over the next nine months. I think there’s like nine or 10 trillion that has to get refinanced. Do you want to talk about that? Yeah, look, I thought that it, that when rates were low, you’re supposed to turn out rates. Exactly. And instead, the Treasury for the past few years has pulled rates in. And I think part of that was to keep rates lower. They changed the issuance schedule when rates moved back up towards 5%. I have maintained that policy, but I’m maintaining it because—let’s go back to David’s question—and I think it’s a very important thing. When are we going to see the results from getting the government spending under control? And I don’t think the markets recognize it yet. Okay, translated for Chema. So he’s saying a couple of things. He has inherited a problem that he hasn’t quite yet changed. What is that problem? That problem is that when rates are low, you want to borrow for as long as possible, right? You don’t want to borrow for the shortest amount of time. And now that rates are high, you’re in this difficult position where you have to refinance all of it at a much higher rate. That’s effectively the net of it. What I took away, and you can see more and understand more when you watch this whole interview with Freeberg and I, but I think that there’s been a fundamental disconnect and break from The Fed and the rest of Treasury and the government. And I think that Scott was very clear, like he views that as an independent organization, and it should continue that way. But it was very clear to me that they are singing from their own hymn book. And it just doesn’t seem to me that Powell really understands the gravity of this situation. And I don’t think that he’s really willing to play ball. So he’s probably on the margins. Again, this is my total interpretation of this. Would rather wait longer than necessary because I think it’s almost like a political gambit. And I think that that’s very dangerous. That’s again, just my own interpretation. I just do not think that Powell, A, has the data to make a very clear decision, and B, will act unless it’s totally necessary. So I think there’s an overcorrection here that’s happening, which I think is dangerous. And I think it’s going to slow down the pace of cuts, which I think will then create a lot of other pressure in (Time 1:01:19)
  • Complex Economic Landscape
    • The current economic situation is complex, with factors like tariffs and immigration adding to uncertainty.
    • The Fed’s cautious approach reflects this difficulty, but clearer communication from the administration is needed. Transcript: Jason Calacanis Yeah, Cyan, I’m not sure if the Fed and the people in the administration can’t communicate the strategy perfectly well and the Fed can’t interpret it. I don’t know that we’re going to solve it here, but any thoughts on this? David Sacks I don’t know if they’re not communicating it well. Bessent did that. It’s the effect that it will have ultimately on the economy and over what timescale. That’s what’s uncertain right now. Sorry, go ahead. Well, specifically the tariffs. Jason Calacanis I mean, you know, if they’re on, they’re off. To what extent? You know, I don’t, it doesn’t feel like the entire administration is on the same page. That’s just, you know, based on everybody I’ve talked to. Chamath Palihapitiya The Fed is not part of the administration. Of course not. Yes, they’re independent. And the quote today in the Wall Street Journal, Nick, you can look for it, is Powell’s statement basically blamed rising inflation in the short term period on exogenous factors. He said our job was getting the job done and now there’s exogenous inflation. And I think what he’s pointing to are these potential tariffs or something. So I think it’s less that they’re not coordinated. I think that they are on very different pages and I don’t think the Fed wants to play ball. Sorry, Sian. And then I have a story at the end. Cyan Bannister Just quickly, you know, one of the things that really concerns me is how we’ve been so high on cheap supply for so long. Like if you look at Shein and Timo before this podcast, I wouldn’t look up that their prices are up by 27% or something like that. And so when you used to be able to get a garment for $18, you’re now paying $37 and Zara is like 75 for an equivalent. And I think people really liked getting packages in the mail and feeling like their dollar went further and it’s not going far. And so when you have a bunch of people who can’t buy anything and consumerism is a big part of our, unfortunately, in some ways, our culture, you know, what does that do to our country? You know, if you’re looking around, there’s urban blight everywhere in retail. And, you know, we can’t fill our malls. We don’t have brick and mortar stores. They’re shutting down. Forever 21 just shut down. You know, these are the types of things that, you know, people really care about is whether, especially in a time where, you know, you have a recession, people want to buy a tube of lipstick Or, or a dress to feel better about their life. And right now, they can’t even do that. And so that’s, that’s what concerns me is thinking about the retail future. And then, you know, the consumer landscape of how this all affects everybody. Jason Calacanis Yeah, and consumer confidence is not good right now. People are feeling like a little bit concerned about it. And this immigration plays into this. We’re supposed to be deporting 20 million people. Maybe it’s only going to be a million. Who knows about that issue? Who’s going to actually work in these factories? Are people getting laid off? Or are they not getting laid off? Like there’s just a soup of issues here that makes the Fed’s job extremely difficult. So in an extremely difficult, confusing storm, what is the best thing to do when you’re driving the storm is just maybe try to keep the car going straight, not hit the brakes or not hit The gas. And that’s what they’re doing. They’re taking a wait and see. And let’s see if the administration can be a little bit crisper, I think, in their delivery of what their plan is, because it does seem chaotic to me. People here might disagree. Jamath, you said you had an anecdote? (Time 1:07:57)
  • SpaceX Rescue Mission
    • SpaceX successfully rescued two stranded astronauts after the Boeing Starliner failure.
    • This highlights SpaceX’s reliability and cost-effectiveness in space travel. Transcript: Chamath Palihapitiya Shine. Jason Calacanis We have not one, but we have two amazing space stories in Science Corner. First up, SpaceX successfully rescued two astronauts. And when they landed, there were dolphins breaching around the capsule. It was absolutely magical to see. Congratulations to the SpaceX team on that. And then Firefly Aerospace completed its moon mission after achieving the first commercial soft lunar landing. Take it whichever way you want, Freeberg. Which one of these do you want to start with? And then maybe we’ll open the discussion up to a little bit broader discussion about the moon itself. David Sacks SpaceX was able to rescue the two astronauts that were stranded by the Boeing Starliner debacle nine months ago. We talked about it on the show. You can go back and watch the episode. Jason Calacanis Episode 192. 192 in August. David Sacks Episode 192. And so having spent far more on the Starliner program than on the Crew Dragon program, the Starliner program is gone now. It’s basically done. And the Crew Dragon program has now done 16 crewed flights to space, 11 for NASA, four private commercial flights, and continues to perform. So congratulations to the SpaceX team on making it to ISS and bringing the astronauts home. Another successful mission for SpaceX. Jason Calacanis You know, there’s a lot of hand wringing. Oh my God, you know, conflict of interest, Elon with SpaceX and Doge and being close to the administration. When we look at what SpaceX has accomplished, I’m not a shareholder, but I know you are, Chamath. I’m not sure if you have folks in the panel. You are as well, saying? I am as well. Okay. Congratulations, everybody. But putting aside our personal investments, when you look at how much they’ve reduced the cost, is anybody even close to matching their cost to getting to space? Great question. Because this kind of like takes out the whole hand-wringing around the conflict of interest with SpaceX, both on Starlink and on this, seems ridiculous because their price is so cheap. It makes no sense to even complain about it. We should just be giving Elon a high five and saying, thanks for charging us such a low rate? Chamath Palihapitiya It’s a great question. Jason Calacanis Cyan, you want to take it? Cyan Bannister Well, you know, obviously Boeing is the big loser here. You’ve barely got to, you know, it’s interesting to me how bad they just fumbled this. And then there’s the political element. I don’t know if we want to get into it about how we weren’t able to save these astronauts and they were stuck up there. You know, we were seeing it landing in the water, but what you’re not seeing is they couldn’t walk when they got out and they were only supposed to be there for what, like 10 days? Chamath Palihapitiya And- Eight days and it ended up eight months or something. Cyan Bannister Yeah, eight months, which is horrendous because one of the things that I believe that America stands for is we don’t leave people like that. And it’s an American issue, not a political one. And so there’s no reason why we shouldn’t have engaged SpaceX sooner. It was offered. And they turned it into a completely political issue. And Boeing fumbled the ball. Really well said. And so, you know, I think hopefully this is a message that’s loud and clear. And one of the things I’m so excited about is little kids watching this and seeing this and what it means for the future of our country. Because they’re looking up to people like Elon and they’re going to be the next political class in the future. And that will matter. You know, this is the equivalent of the moon landing. And to see somebody in private enterprise do what Elon has done is just outstanding. So that’s basically my comment on it. Jason Calacanis Any thoughts on the cost versus conflict of interest, I guess, hand-wringing? Look, there’s a couple of startup alternatives. Chamath Palihapitiya I’ll put alternatives in quotes because they’re not really GA. They’re not generally available. They’re not really launching. They’re still in this early experimentation phase. One is Blue Origin and the second is Relativity Space. The problem with both of those two approaches, well, the feature of both of those two approaches is theoretically that there’s a different economic model there. The reality is that SpaceX is the only company that has consistently been able to take these costs and just crunch them down to more than one launch a day this year, I think. It’s just an incredible scale and pace. So no, there is no economic alternative. They are the absolute cheapest in the market. I mean, I’ll tell you a very quick story. I was also an investor in relativity. I think I owned about 10% of the company. And I just got recapped out of that business because they needed a lot more money than folks were willing to give it. And then Eric Schmidt just up and offered, I think, $3 billion to the business. And I kind of said, no, I’m done. I’m out of here. So, you know- Recaps are painful. You put all that money in- I think I took like a $380 million loss. It was not a good week two weeks ago. But anyways, that’s not the point. The point is SpaceX is the best. There is nobody even close. The next closest alternative is years and years away. Would we benefit from more capacity? Sure. But the reality is they are the only solution. And they’re safe. And they’re reliable. And what Sian said is so true. When the hell does America just abandon people? Why do you do that? Especially in space of all places. Jason Calacanis I mean, that is really dark. Cyan Bannister You would think this would be a Mark Watney story, like the Martian. Look, you have WNBA players that get put in Russian jail. Chamath Palihapitiya We’re willing to swap them for arms dealers in the last administration. Insight. Yeah. Fine. So we didn’t abandon her, but then we let these two people flounder. I just think it’s really inexcusable. That makes no sense. Jason Calacanis There definitely needs to be an investigation into what happened there. A lot of speculation. It doesn’t look good. I’m going to take Elon as a word that he offered. I mean, I don’t see any reason why he would not offer. The astronauts even confirmed that he offered. Cyan Bannister Oh, they did? Okay. Yeah. Jason Calacanis I mean, I know that people were saying like, unconfirmed if the Biden administration assumed. Chamath Palihapitiya They were like, that’s their way of saying, come get me. Yeah, please come get me. They’re like, I’m literally withering away in space. Please come get me. Jason Calacanis They put their thumbs up. Okay, (Time 1:12:58)
  • China’s Space Race
    • China’s space program, particularly the Long March 9 rocket, is rapidly advancing, mirroring SpaceX’s Starship.
    • This signifies a new space race, highlighting China’s strengths in automation and industrialization. Transcript: David Sacks Here this is basically what i think is going to end up being the story over the next couple of years is the space race between effectively spacex’s platform and technology versus china Which has effectively ripped off spacex as this is kind of being described here in this article So you can kind of take a look at the Long March 9 rocket is what they call it. Fully reusable first stage powered by 30 of their particular engines, which is comparable to SpaceX’s first stage being powered by 33 Raptor engines, also fueled with methane and Liquid oxygen, each with a thrust of about 280 tons compared to the Chinese at 200 tons. This is kind of a very kind of equivalent design. Jason Calacanis All right, here’s a look at it. Yeah, there’s the model of the reusable. David Sacks Yeah, so this is the Long March 9. This is their super heavy lift rocket that they kind of first started talking about, call it a decade ago. The rocket has three stages, solid motors, they’ve recalibrated the design, and it effectively has now kind of become a clone of Starship. And so this whole system is going to be the big race. And as we know, the way the Chinese operate when it comes to kind of industrialization is they can move fast, they can move big, they can move heavy, they can dedicate resources, they Can dedicate an entirely vertically integrated supply chain to achieving an objective. So this will end up being kind of, I think, the big race over the next couple of years. Slave labor. Jason Calacanis I think they’ve got a lot of resources at their fingertips. David Sacks You can kind of say that, but I don’t know, you know, a lot of people use slave labor in China as kind of a hand wavy way of describing their competitive advantage. But I think this is really important. China has actually much more of an advantage in automation. And so if you look at many Chinese factories that everyone assumes are cheap, because they have cheap slave labor, which is kind of the Western and general kind of media perception of What goes on over there. There’s actually a lot of automation and engineering that’s gone into building these systems that allow them to have much higher throughput at much lower cost. And I think that this is a really kind of key point that the Chinese kind of industrial base and their manufacturing base is so superior to the United States in this moment in time that The US has to figure out a way build its manufacturing base up to be competitive in an age of automation, not on a kind of labor to labor system, but on a system of production to system of Production basis. And so this is really where we are lagging deeply as a country. And it is part of you saw JD Vance’s speech this week on revitalizing kind of manufacturing in the United States, but it has to be advanced manufacturing. It’s not just about opening a warehouse and putting- Which means robots, not humans in it, because we’re- It means both. It means both. But it’s about smarter systems. It’s about designs on how you do manufacturing. It’s about using new things like 3D printing, like automation, coupled with great labor, coupled with great people working. But it’s about designing entirely new ways of doing manufacturing. And we’ve stalled out over the last three decades in the United States, as we globalized, and we handed off all manufacturing to the East, and the United States basically just imported Manufactured goods while they invested in all of the infrastructure to deliver advanced manufacturing at scale. And so we’ve got a lot of catching up to do. Otherwise, China will get ahead of us in any product faster than we will ever be able to kind of stay ahead of the game on. And I think we’re seeing that in the space race now. And it’s definitely worth taking note that this is kind of one core example of this advantage that they’ve developed (Time 1:19:19)