Jason: All right, everybody. Welcome back to your favorite podcast, the AllIn podcast. Today we have a conspiracy corner episode for you. We're going over the 9/11 inside job. We're going over flat earth, 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 here. Our guest today, Alex Jones.

Chamath: How many views did it get? Nine views. I mean, it's tough when you have one out of four besties. It doesn't Michael Tracy is on standby.

Jason: Not true. I can carry an episode for at least 400,000 views. I mean, you might. You might. I like your Hey, for people who don't know, Jimoth has his own YouTube channel. He's got his escape hatch for when this train wreck burns to the ground. He started his own YouTube channel. He's hedging his bets. Freyberg's working on his solo project. Everybody's doing solo project. The band's got a lot of solo projects.

Sacks: The Beatles are experimenting. The Beatles.

Jason: They're experimenting. We had a little Yokoono situation going on here. You know what the number one topic for this show was by the all-in AI bot sacks. What's up? The number one was Daario versus Hegs, the uh Department of War versus anthropic was the number one topic selected by our AI bot as a programming note 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 clawed kill list has expanded and an AI fanfiction substack 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 they took the the mantle from Brad Gersonner uh tanking the market.

Sacks: The Enthropic list.

Jason: It is February 3rd. Anthropic announces, hey, we got a legal plugin for Claude Co-work, Thompson Reuters, Lexus, Nexus, Legal Zoom, 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. Crowd Strike, Cloud for Octa, 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.

Friedberg: Healthcare runs 95% of ATMs in the US and it powers social security payments. 85% of all coal code runs on IBM machines. So IBM decided they would tank 13% on Monday, their worst day since 2000. 31 billion in market cap losses.

Jason: So let's stop here before I get into the fanfiction piece. What's your take here of what's happening in the market, Shmath? 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 stocks because it solves a lot of problems?

Chamath: 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 are at a moment in time where a lot of the smart money hedge funds are starting to massively degross. 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 deg 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.

Chamath: 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 Lily'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. Okay. So if you you know 20 times PE that's a 5% yield. The second is a revenue multiple. And the third is what's called your weighted average cost of capital.

Chamath: Which is to say, if you look at the next 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?

Chamath: Could they fall off a cliff in year three? Is there some AI model that's going to come around the corner and obliterate this business without me knowing it? And because they'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 pees 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 it three times. You take the whack way up. 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.

Chamath: That's what's happening right now. It has a lot of ripple effects that we can talk about. Freeberg 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 a business which really directly tied to stockbased comp and all this other stuff. But let me just stop there. So we are we have moved away from a when to now an if and I think that that is a very smart question to be asking. The answer may be from any 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.

Jason: Got it. Okay. So the second part of the story Friedberg and Sachs is that a Substack post fanfiction uh taking place in the fictional 2028 uh 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 Substack 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 staff. Their margins go up, similar to how Amazon has, you know, 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 it creates a death spiral where the companies keep deploying AI to try to hit the margins, cutting staff, and the entire economy collapses.

Jason: Dr. Doom level stuff. Unemployment's at 10%, S&P 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 stable coins. All the financial stocks got hit on Monday. Amex down 8%, Capital 1 down 8%, Mastercard 6%, Visa 4%, yada yada. Finally, this piece got a lot of push back. 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. And uh that's kind of silly if anybody's run a networkbased business knows. Sax, I assume you read this piece or at least saw the fallout from it. What's your take?

Sacks: Yeah. Well, I I know that this uh Catrini article got passed around like a join at 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, meaning 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-author is the managing partner of a $262 million SEC registered hedge fund who confirmed short positions in the companies the report named. So I think that's point number one is I just wonder did this article truly go viral or did the authors do anything to kind of amplify it and we just don't know the answer to that question.

Sacks: But regardless of that, let's just take the arguments on their face. I think one of the best responses to it was by another writer named Derek Thompson who wrote a article called Nobody Knows Anything, which I think is a reference to a famous take by legendary Hollywood writer William Goldman. In any event, 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.

Sacks: And he says, "That'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 effects 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 the Catrini report's going to come true. Something like 12% believe the Catrini scenario is going to happen. But the truth is, no one really knows. I mean, there's other dueling science fiction narratives where AI is 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 Ezra Klein.

Jason: This is why the market's getting whacked. I think that you're right, Saxs, nobody knows. So, if you can get 5% for owning government bonds, why are we taking excessive risk here?

Sacks: Yeah. Let me just build on your point about SAS. So the reason why there's so much uncertainty around SAS is that SAS 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'd have this initial period where there'd be this experimentation phase you have a bunch of different products that come to market. There'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 SAS business. You look at ARR, you say annually recurring revenue. You look at the net dollar retention you want to see depending on the phase.

Sacks: And so you know these things began to be seen as like a annuity with growth right because they were rock solid. Yeah. Because a good net dollar retention would be something like 120%. Which means that your sort of cohort of existing customers on balance would all renew the next year and actually they would renew at 120% of the previous year's contract values. And the reason you got that extra 20% is they would buy more seats or there'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 a growth annuity. And now all of a sudden you got to 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.

Jason: Yeah. Well, chaos is a ladder, Freeberg, and this means opportunity. So, if we look at this and SAS 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?

Friedberg: 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.

Friedberg: 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. Therefore, 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.

Friedberg: 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 SAS 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.

Sacks: well Jake I want to hear what you have to say because I know you're experimenting with this but let me just show you a few data points real quick um because 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 chat bots and we'll have agents later, but really it's all about coding assistance, right? And the ability to more easily create code. That's what's creating the disruption to the SAS category. Well, so let's just focus on the data we see right now around that. And there are a lot of people who are pointing this out that Enthropic right now has a job listing for a software engineer on their website right now for $570,000. And a lot of people are kind of pointing out, okay, so wait, so what 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.

Sacks: Something doesn't quite add up. Citadel Securities did a new report that rebutts that Catrini 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. And again, it all goes back to Jeban's paradox. But what Aaron says is that when you lower the cost of something that was previously supply constrained, demand for that thing goes up.

Sacks: 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 startups in 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 are now 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 includes all of 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 human. If you think about the current Fortune 500 company being one or two percent software, maybe they should be 50% software. I think what Aaron 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 in productivity without the massive job loss.

Jason: Basically, everybody's building the great, you know, as we talked about at the all-in summit like some of these companies are trying to build the best pilot in the world or Whimo's 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 like obsessed with claude co-work, but mainly OpenClaw. And so what we did was and 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 come in this weekend and they all got trained over like six or seven hours had to have their own openclaw 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 what advertisers they have. We trained an agent to go take the top 100 podcasts, look through the transcripts, 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 sales room. That was an SDR job that we wanted to fill and software we wanted to build.

Jason: The next piece we did was we gave my agent which is like the ultron root access to Gmail, calendar, zoom, notion, slack. And what it's doing is it's giving each person here's what you got done this week with their manager. Here's the emails you sent. Here's the meetings you took. Here's the contacts. here the threads you were involved in and then it's helping manage those people. We did another agent, how do you make better thumbnails? And we said, every Saturday in your skills, so when you build an open claw, it has like a soul file and it has a skills file. In the skills file, we told it sax 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, Chimath, somebody at Mr. Beast company talk 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 a thumbnail, it tell tells us based on its skill that it refineses 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.

Chamath: all these businesses are going to need to batten down the hatches and give themselves room to figure this all out right like if you take Sax's point like if you take your point Jal 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 out. 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 stockbased comp because they literally incinerate most if not all of their free cash flow fighting the delilution from stockbased 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 flow generative and really conservative in how you spend your money.

Sacks: Yeah, Saxs, 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 is 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 barrier 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 and faster.

Chamath: just to go back to what Jamath was saying there. I mean, you've got political forces that want to stop the construction of all data centers in the United States. So if that gains steam, then that's going to be a huge constraint on any change whatsoever. Can I tee this up for you, Jal? So I 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 I posted it on X. So Nick, maybe you can put this up, but it was really a a very small behavior which was pushing back on data centers and getting them cancelled. 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. If you take that 40% number and you apply this and then you multiply by the number of megawatts that they have announced. Last year we lost almost 5 gawatt in terms of cancel projects. This year coming in 26 we have about seven that could be cancelled if you use this math. If then you flow that through open AI Sarah Frier said this that every gigawatt for her for open AAI is about 10 billion of revenue. So if you if you assume that that's roughly accurate plus or minus a billion here or there. What that means is that 2025 the industry as a whole lost 50 billion of revenue and this year if 7 gawatt gets canceled it's about 70 billion. Now you're talking about 130 billion of lost revenue over these two years that'll 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.

Sacks: Well, the president announced in the State of the Union last night that he supports a rateayer protection pledge which requires uh 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 Chamas, 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 has said that he's committed to not allowing residential rates to go up as a result of data centers. It's pretty straightforward. You get the big tech companies, the hyperscalers to pay for the increase in the electricity cost or you let them set up their own power behind the meter. I saw a funny post calling it bananas which is build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone. So this is the bananas is replacing the new nimi. So you just can build absolutely nothing. I think the president's approach 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.

Friedberg: The data coming in and out of data centers moves at 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. 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. If we don't put them here, someone else will put them on their shores. Someone else will put them in their country. Someone else will 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 acrue elsewhere. Such a good point. So, yeah, it's not going to like just go away. The the demand is there. The economy is 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.

Jason: 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 of Trump's approval rating being super challenged. He started his first year at plus 11.7%. Now he's negative 14 14.3% 26 point swing.

Sacks: 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 twothirds of the people that CNN pled, so twothirds of CNN watchers said it was highly effective and something like threearters of CBS news viewers said it was highly effective is because the president laid out 8020 issue one after another, right? Or even 9010 issues or 955 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 supposed to wouldn't even give it applied applause. And that is different than than in the past. And you can say that's because of hyperartisanship and polarization, but it's also because of another thing. It's because the Democrats have become a party of radicalism and extremism.

Jason: But the truth is Trump is the divider and chief chief. He always is attacking people. He's always mocking people. So, they don't want to play ball with him. So, I do think you can both choice in politics. You got to counter punch. Uh 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 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 a bipartisan. You did have you did have Elizabeth Warren stand for uh stopping Nancy Pelosi from trading stocks and that gave Trump his best oneliner of the night. That was his best oneliner clearly and they stood for Iran too and stopping Iran from being a nuclear.

Friedberg: 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 Shina Yamanaka that we found later that when applied to cells, mamalian cells can actually reverse the age of those cells, reset the epigenetic clock, reset the epiggenome, which is the little markers on top of the DNA that turn genes on and off back to a youthful state. extraordinary groundbreaking work that was done that won the Nobel Prize led to the foundation of several companies.

Friedberg: he's a co-founder of a company called Life Biosciences, 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 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. 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 doxycyc. 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 deage will get youthful and their vision will be restored.

Jason: All right, let's talk about our final topic. Scotas struck down Trump's emergency powers tariffs. Last Friday, Scotas voted 63 against President Trump's tariffs. Six judges voted against. three conservatives, Roberts, Barrett, Gorsuch, uh, and three liberals via Bloomberg. This is the biggest rebuke of existing executive policy in 91 years since Scottish struck down FDR's first new deal in 1935. He immediately said he was not deterred and invoked a 15% global tariff across the board via section 122 of the 1974 trade act.

Sacks: First of all, I don't think that the tariffs are going away. What the court basically indicated especially the 70page Kavanaaugh descent is that there's multiple alternative bases in law for the tariffs in existing law. The Kavanaaugh descent actually provided a roadmap for the administration to put in place tariffs using one of these alternate uh 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'll just say that the people who originally predicted that somehow these tariffs would be catastrophic for the economy. Those predictions all prove not to be true.

Chamath: I think we've proven the experiment has been successful. 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 dril that people just bought into. And if you strip all that stuff away, we had a hollowedout manufacturing class and we have a hollowedout middle class and the tariffs will create more equality for the American worker in the end.

Jason: I'll reiterate that this is a great moment, I think, for uh 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. We don't want an executive branch that can unilaterally just roll over the other branches.

Jason: All right. Listen, this has been another amazing episode of the All-In podcast, your favorite podcast. Uh, like, subscribe, whatever the hell you want to do on your own time for David Sachs, David Freeberg, Chamal Pia. Love you, boys. I am the world's greatest Monterey J. See you next time. Byebye. Byebye.