Inflated GDP?, Google earnings, How the media lost trust, Rogan/Trump search controversy, Election!

we had dinner last week and sax and I got bombed last week we had dinner and we drank a quadruple Kasa I've not seen jcal drink like that before I stopped in for a few minutes drinking I mean Kasa aul he tore my house apart getting back in oh my God like a bear like a bear I went Brooklyn sth he was like a bear he was like a drunk bear but I I spoke to the lady of the manor and I will be staying at Sax's house next time so I will be able to refresh the ranch's soap and towels yeah I'm staying in your place I need you know what I forgot to get towels when I was at shiman has got these amazing embroidered towels so I'll just hit those up when I hit your place um it's really funny to go to jcal Ranch and there's going to be a big S on his towels like wait why why is there an s on I got the on it I've got a robe on the back it says Maga I took all the Maga robes from what is What is the stand for is grifter oh it's so funny steals Ste he's got a bunch of towels that say c as well [Music] cheap let your winners ride Rainman David and inste we open sources it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with Love Queen of all right listen happy Halloween to everybody and we've got a great docket for you today but I just upfront wanted to let people know that we will be having the all-in Holiday Spectacular on December 7th at the Palace of Fine Arts in San Francisco it's going to be amazing allin.com events and next Tuesday that's right November 5th if you go to our YouTube at 7 p.m. Pacific Time 10 p.m. eastern time we're going to do an election Night Live stream for the fans we're almost at 700,000 subscribers so subscribe to comment and join us on our live stream on Tuesday night there'll be guests right there's going to be some fun guests I think helth is still banned by chamath for life but I may bring him on and let give him a second chance chth is that okay I bring him on for a second chance sure okay so we're gonna give helth a second chance we'll see be a tight leash if he makes it about himself in s seconds or less 7 Seconds to Phil hel youth he's going to get kicked right off the show okay holiday party did we announce that yeah so the holiday party go to allin.com events if you want to come it's going to be great you guys aren't going to be happy but we are setting uh we are GNA spend a million dollars on this party how do you spend a million dollars on a party dude did you see the s belt last time for that sounds like a lot of founder that's a lot of yeah about 300,000 we'll probably lose money on the party but it's going to be it's not meant to be call it a profit Center but it's just going to be super fun be a great part you cannot put a price on a good time and you know if you're going to get that premium founder mode did you always want to be a party promoter when you were like in high school and in college so when I was in college I had a DJ set up I had like synthesizer setup which I plugged in and I did live electronic music with my DJ set I'm going to drop the beat jth I'm GNA drop the beat here it comes a couple of uh my startups now are doing something interesting Athena bought like a pack of tickets and they're doing like a holiday party there with their top for our event for our event they basically bought a bundle of VIP tickets and they're giving them to the top customers and their top employees to come that's cool and make it like their holiday party in San Francisco with their customers so that's kind of neat smart move by them and so if you uh have a startup and you want to bring your startup you can buy a a pack of tickets as it were that's actually a really good idea a bunch of these small startups should just co-opt our holiday party as your holiday precisely yeah just buy 10 tickets and come hey freeberg is gonna go below a million bucks co-opted I'm hopeful today we're gonna sign this DJ um which is everyone everyone knows the DJ and it is gonna be pretty sick if we can get degenerate Gambler we know him we play bker with him whatever we pay him he's going to lose twice as much at the poker game let's just let's call it what it is SX can you host Um poker at your house after the party yeah no what a team player he built an entire poker building and he's used it like seven times f David saaks is just the absolute best all right let's get to work you know what's winning as well is the US GDP here we go it grew uh slightly slower than expected but the top line numbers are healthy looks like soft Landing might be baked in we'll see on Wednesday the Department of Commerce reported that real GDP grew 2.88% in Q3 uh that means it's adjusted for inflation and um you know you can't look at these things in a vacuum you have to look at the other Western countries and their GDP Japan 7 Australia 0.2 Germany .2 Canada 0.5 the world is not growing us is growing briskly and um in terms of how the think about it 2 to 3% is uh sort of The Sweet Spot for mature economies above 3% positive but can also signal overheating like we experienced during zurp and in 2021 under 2% yeah stagnation uh US GDP was 30 basis points below the Dow Jones consensus forecast of 3.1% there's your chart if you missed it and um obviously inflation we talked about this last week is at 2.4% very close to to the 2% Target unemployment 4.1% close to Historic lows 10year Treasury 4.3% and obviously stock market at its all-time high again there's your S&P Dow and NASDAQ as we've talked about over in over again shth the federal debt is the issue 35 trillion in debt we have a trillion in annual interest payments on that debt and freeberg your pet peeve 23.5 million directly and millions more indirectly as we know Federal government employees now at 3 million it's about 1% of the country and uh state government employees 5.5 million local governments 15 million put it all together and we got almost 25 million people working for our government what do you think the prescription here is freeberg as we uh come up on Election Day and we look towards next year do you believe we can cut this crazy spending and what do you think's going to happen to the economy will it overheat soft Landing you're running a company now so you have to think about this obviously oh well I'll separate running a company because I think that's got to be treated independently from macro you can't build your business run macro but 10year treasuries are sitting at just around 4.3% I think what the market is telling us and remember that's off of a low right when the the rate Cuts were happening if you'll remember in mid-september we got down to just around 3 and a half% the market is telling us that with the sort of econom growth we're seeing low unemployment and you know call it modest inflation this is not the time to be cutting rates and the market is saying we are expecting higher rates for longer so I do think that that's one big kind of turnaround that's happened in the last 90 days which is really I think a big surprise to a lot of folks is just how robust things are relative to where folks thought that they were about 90 days ago urging pleading and supposedly needing a big rate cut to get the economy moving again but I think at the end of the day everyone's looking to the election as kind of the next big moment in the economy both Trump and comma have made fiscal proposals that would be deeply expensive if you assume the you know these these budgeting groups that go out and take their policy proposals and try and build a model against them that they're both going to add trillions of dollars to the debt they're going to increase deficit spending Etc but the reality is that neither of them are actually going to end up theoretically being able to ex all those policies and there will be some degree difference end lot of talk about Doge the department of government uh what is the last word efficiency efficiency efficiency that Elon might be collaborating on where do you think the chances are he said there could be two trillion in in savings that could occur what are the chances that any meaningful Cuts happen and we reverse the trend in if Trump say he wins and and he and he creates that position I think the first question that'll inform how dramatic the cuts are is whether we organize ourselves around an accurate sense of where the actual economy is if you look at the print today it would actually tell you that things are pretty okay and that we are not sort of near an unsustainable Turning Point however and Nick if you want to just throw up this chart if you back out the percentage of government consumption that is included in GDP you start to see a very different picture which is that over the last two and a half years all of the economic gains under the Biden Administration have largely been through government consumption what that means is that private industry has been standing on the sidelines somewhat and that actually maps to a lot of this intuition that I've had over the last few months when I've said I think we're in a low-key recession because what I could never figure out is why I would look at the earnings transcripts of a bunch of companies who would constantly talk about softening demand and by the way this is across the board it wasn't just cpg companies but Dropbox as an example same sort of thing they just laid off 20% of their staff and the and the memo was about weakening demand so this is a broad-based softening as far as companies experience the economy but the high level number is positive which would make you think that everything is fine but when you look at that chart and you back out the percentage of the positive news that the government is responsible for what it means is the economy is flat and the economy isn't growing which means that roughly there are a bunch of folks that are seeing contraction so I think that if you normalize on that view of the world I think the cuts that Elon will affect will be meaningful and necessary if you uh pull up this chart Nick of the uh Federal net outlays as a percentage of GDP I mean you're basically at an you're you're at a flat stalling economy well if you look at this you know we we basically have had High Teens during our lifetime Clinton era 70s and 80s and then uh it's gone up into the 20s now so that is definitely something the amount of spending we're doing sorry just to again this is where you can get a little confused by data Jason this is net outlays Y and that's different from total gross government spending which also includes QE so if you go back to the other chart why is this one going down and the other one represents 85% of GDP it's because that one is a more accurate sense of what the government is doing across all of its tentacles in the United States economy it includes the money printer going bur which the net outlays chart doesn't include so just to be clear about what's happening 85% of this quarter's GDP was induced by the government if you sub if you sub it out so take 2.8% and multiply it by 0.15 that is the true growth X the United States government that exists in the United States economy today saxs your thoughts here on the GDP obviously looks pretty good for Biden Harris to have all these stats going in their favor but there is the caveat obviously about the government spending in there yeah no I think that's right I mean I I think that for Harris and the election it's probably a little too late for this GDP report to be helpful if you go back all the way to 1992 where the whole election hinged on the economy remember that was Bill Clinton running against George HW Bush and Clinton's message was it's the economy stupid Y and um Carville right came up with that Carville came up with it and and Clinton beat Bush because we had a recession in I think 91 but by 92 it was over already and in the final week of the campaign Bush tried to tout a similarly positive GDP report that showed 2.7% growth that report would later be revised up to 3.9% growth so the recession was definitely over and the economy is growing again and nonetheless Bush lost because voters impressions of the economy had already formed and solidified by the final week of the campaign so I think it's probably too late here for the GDP numbers to have a big impact on the election I think the other thing is that voters impression of this economy isn't based so much on the GDP numbers it's really based on their perception of inflation over the last four years and there's no question that cost of living has increased a lot over the last four years and voters are really feeling that and that I think is is playing into their perceptions of the economy and I don't think that Harris has a great answer for that so so I think the the bottom line here is I don't think this report going have a big impact on on the election in terms of where the economy is going the the thing that I would come back to is interest rates and this is the thing that freeberg was talking about which is even though the FED has cut rates by 50 basis points the long-term rates the 10-year treasury has not gone down in fact it's gone up slightly you know it's gone up to call it 4.3% and so we have this real issue where as the FED is cutting short rates long r rates are not going down and I think that is because of the government deficit and the government debt and the fact that there's so much debt that needs to be serviced by the bondet market for treasuries just the the buyers are all leaving the market for treasuries the Chinese we talked about this last week have been selling down their treasury position there just aren't buyers anymore which is and I think this could this could ultimately have a very detrimental effect on the economy you already saw that I think uh this hasn't been widely reported but I think it should be a major piece of news which is the prime rate hit 8% today so it now it had a seven handle on it before and now has an eight handle on it well this matters a lot if you want to buy a house and get a mortgage it's much more expensive then you got to think about all the people who already have debt doesn't this look recessionary totally because a few years ago you could get a a home loan at a 3 to 4% interest rate you know and amortize that now your debt service costs can to be twice as high so you just can't buy as much house it's a very bad place if the economy is in the toilet but we can't even talk about it because there is no structural way to get an accurate read because the government just perverts the effect it has in the economy like have yeah Distortion fine you you cannot have a nonprofit entity representing the plurality of the economic activity of a country and expect the capital markets to function properly at some point the capital markets will basically throw their hands up in the air and puke it all out and say no and I think that you're starting to see a little bit of these fissures so I think we're going to have to clean up our balance sheet pretty aggressively here yeah and if you look at the importance of that rate that rate drives the value of bonds as the current market rate for treasuries or for the prime rate climbs the value of a existing bond that pays interest at a lower rate goes down because you have to pay a lower basis in order to get back to the new high rate that the market is telling you so there are several trillion dollars and we can pull up the the graph here Nick of loans and bonds that are sitting on the balance sheets of many commercial banks in the United States that are now so significantly underwater where the value is now below the book that they paid for those loans or that they issued them at that those Banks now have unrealized losses and I think that this number is one of the other kind of facts you see a few articles come out here and there about this but the number as the rates go up the number of unrealized losses but the dollar value the unrealized losses at Banks balance sheets in the United States has climbed so considerably that it represents a real crisis in fact the unrealized losses on banks balance sheets today is higher than it was 8 it's trillions it's trillions Buffett warned BFA public he's been selling off he sold off right B well he warned BFA publicly although a bit obliquely last year during his annual conference and it was very clear it's like listen this is an opportunity for folks to just Mark to Market these Securities properly and or sell them and get them off the books I don't think B OFA acted quickly enough and so what did Buffett do he just basically started dumping and he's almost completely out of B BFA if not completely out altogether so there's a lot of talk a crisis of brewing there's a lot of talk in fin twt if you go into sort of like the the Deep far-reaching bowels of of the of the Fint community on X that there is a huge credit crisis looming amongst some of these large Charter holding Banks because of this exact issue and the relation between the fed and the prime is typically 3% so the FED Cuts rates and then the banks put 3% on top of it when they give people creditworthy people mortgages and credit cards so as the FED Cuts this should come down but if it went up what explains that I'm curious if anybody knows well the FED sets short rates it sets the the FED funds rate which is the the rate of overnight lending between Banks but it does not set the 10year treasury for example the long-term the market set Market and the market now requires a higher rate of interest in order to accept you know the risk of investing in those bonds or it's not really since it's a US Treasury it's not really risk it's more about the time value of money and their expectations of inflation how much that money is going to be worth in the future so I think what we're seeing is that the FED can cut short-term rates but it hasn't had the impact on long-term rates that everyone was expecting I think everyone was expecting that we had this sort of um burst in inflation the famous 9% inflation rate I think people were expecting that that would work its way through the system and that we'd get long-term rates back to where they were but that's not happening and it's not happening for the reason we're saying which is there's just too much debt out there so now think about the impact on the real economy let's say that you're a home buyer and you got like a five-year interest only arm type mortgage for your house Tick Tock yeah so now you know you probably got that in the 3 to 4% range if you have to refinance it this year at 8% your monthly payment's going to double that has a real impact on people's wealth and on their spending power maybe they can't even support a payment like that now go over to the commercial side and it's it's very similar there's a lot of commercial real estate out there you know buildings and so on where they've got debt on it you can't get 30-year mortgages and Commercial the typical commercial loan is 5 to seven years okay we're now coming up I think in the next few years on a lot of that that debt will need to roll it'll need to be refinanced if it gets refinanced at twice the interest cost roughly a lot of those buildings may be underwater I mean they may not be you know in there may be no equity value and a lot of people know this now but they don't really have to mark those positions to mark it if they did their zero but they're kind of all on borrow time right now hoping that rates will go back down and what we're seeing is that the long rates are not going back down it's a pretty scary proposition and then of course you know a lot of the the debt on those buildings it's all owned by the commercial banks that you're talking about the regional Banks so they're sitting on a lot of bad debt that they haven't had to Mark to Market and they're just kind of hoping that this problem will get sorted out before you know before there's a default and by the way as these numbers climb the cost to borrow for the federal government climbs so the new bonds we have to reissue a good percent I think nearly $10 trillion doll I think of our debt has to be reissued in the next year that's going to get reissued now at this higher rate and that higher rate means that the annual expense just to pay the interest on the existing debt is now climbing at a faster rate and that means you've got to issue more debt to pay for your interest on your current debt it's quite paradoxical that the FED sets that rate right well this this becomes the compounding problem when your G your debt to GDP reaches a certain level and you don't reduce federal spending fast enough it becomes a compounding problem you cannot get away from and this has been the beginning of the cataclysmic economic collapse of every great Empire in the last 500 years I know I've said this you guys can joke about it all day long but this is how it starts is it starts at a point where you're at rithmetic not able to get out of your debt spiral and uh the markets are telling us that if the US doesn't drastic action in reducing it spending and reducing the deficit levels so that we can actually address the payment obligations on the outstanding debt that we've already issued the US dollar is going to have a real problem and the creditworthiness of the United States is challenged that's what the market says but I know that there's other issues with the fact that there's no other better place to put money today and there's not a lot of other you know great economies out there and so on and so forth but the stability of the United States the hegemony of the United States and the dollar is challenged in part by the fact that you've got this bricks or gation out there now that has greater GDP and aggregate than the US and so there may be an alternative that emerges in the next couple years and maybe everyone's kind of putting their assets away in in gold and and other and Bitcoin and other stuff while they're waiting for the transition to find another place to buy we'll see all right well but what it what it implies if if rates have roughly doubled let's say in the last few years and they're going to stay at that level they're not going back down it implies there's going to be a big deleveraging right because you know you can't support those interest payments I mean let's say that you own a building right and now all well tax that's it's actually deleveraging or inflation because the alternative is the fed monetizes the debt they start buying all the bonds which means you're pumping more US Dollars into the market and that means that the cost of everything goes through the roof so you have this effect of economic inflation which is the way that you inflate away the debt problem assuming people still want to use your currency yeah well I mean that's at the government level I mean I was talking about the the private sector I mean just think about it at the level of like an individual building you've got a loan on it now you need to refinance the loan interest rates are twice as high that let's say that that doesn't the building no longer produces operating income at that level of debt so you have to pay down some of your debt it's called an equity in refinancing where you're not pulling money out you're putting money in you have to deleverage in order to make your sort of income statement work right it's just too much debt at at that new level of interest rates so if rates stay high there's no choice but for many people to delever whether it's on the commercial side or the or or on the consumer side you just can't afford as much debt right at that higher interest rate so think about the impact that has on the economy when everyone has to delever that's a very negative effect and then of course you like you're saying at the government level you have to figure out what to do about that because our interest payments on the debt are already what 20 to 25% of federal revenue yeah it's about trillion five trillion so you already see there where there's less money to spend on current programs because you're paying for interest on the debt so what do you do about that so I I think that the next president's going to face a pretty wicked set of problems in tradeoffs here even though the GDP numbers are fine they're good I still think there's like a wicked set of problems related to government debt and interest rates yeah and there's no way to really skin this without some some I think there yeah there there I think the only path is you have to cut spending which is recessionary government spending which is recessionary so you're going to trigger an economic recession you're going to have to have some amount of inflation and you're going to have to have a spike in unemployment and if you don't do the first two things you're gonna have a lot more inflation which is really hard to get out of so well I I agree agree we have doesn't seem to be a win a win win scenario here there's there's no yeah I agree we have to cut government spending I don't I personally don't think it's recessionary I think it helps the private sector When government gets cut right uh however because Sachs that means seor gets to service that function the government won't be consuming all these resources that the private sector could use better it also won't have as many government bureaucrats acting as break pedals on the private sector so I tend to think that the government the the real economy will perform better with a smaller government however I I think the reason why it won't happen is because it's politically difficult it's extremely difficult to cut spending politically right right well I mean as we saw this cycle every single proposal seemed to be a payoff to different constituencies it was like right CAU in the budget somehow right somebody somebody fought for every single line item in the budget some special interest and they're going to fight like hell to keep their appropriation it's not even special interest it's the representatives in Congress doing their job which is to fight for their con getting their fair share or their Fair shake at the money that's being spent and that's just the way that the legislative branch has evolved over time if someone's getting something in order for me to vote for it I want to get something too and so the whole thing over time becomes functionally inflationary right I think that whole shell game might just be over now because there's no more money left I mean it's all been spent in fact you know what I mean so like all the federal government probably will end up doing in the near future is entitlements and defense that's it because those are the core core functions of the federal government I think everything else that's that's sort of quote unquote discretionary is probably GNA get cut because there's no more money left tragedy of the commons folks uh everybody acting in their self-interest and yeah not a lot of coordination or ability to win office if you actually do what's in everybody's Collective best interest and take the medicine moving on through the docket Tech earnings this week Google had a great quarter let's go over that a bit here you're all mamada freeberg they beat Top Line and bottom line stock popped 5% looks like cloud and YouTube are the story here total revenue let this sink in 88.3 billion up 15% year-over-year search was uh 49 billion of that and uh their operating income is now up 34% year-over-year I think the CFO is getting some work done there 28 .5 billion and net income was 26.3 billion interestingly people are expecting even larger profits they got a new CFO over there who said they could push a little further on cost cutting and she said the company will use AI to cut costs by streamlining workflows and managing headcount physical footprint I think that means more layoffs are coming to Big Tech YouTube had a tremendous quarter add Revenue 8.9 billion jamath that's up 12% % but Sundar said something interesting he said YouTube surpassed 50 billion in total revenue over the past year and so if you do a little uh B math that's the back of the envelope math for those of you at home who haven't heard that acronym Google doesn't report YouTube's not add Revenue but we know YouTube had 35 billion in add Revenue over the last year that means they're doing about 15 billion in premium paid products YouTube TV NFL Sunday Ticket YouTube premium which is the greatest product ever takes ads out of YouTube and makes it usable so 7030 split Cloud had a blowout quarter Google Cloud I see that all the time now 11.4 billion in revenue on 35% annual growth with 1.9 billion in operating profit I mean it's printing money there are seven quasi monopolies in the world they're all American and if we allow them to flourish will be good if we hamper them a little bit and allow other companies to pick up the whites space will be great over to you okay there's your that's called analysis Cham and if we break them up I think that you'll have a lot more the the sum is greater than the parts I mean clearly YouTube would be one of the great companies right now you take the perspective of if you own stock in any of these companies the some of the parts analysis would tell you that the breakup value is greater than the way that these companies get discounted you can look at the multiples that they trade at and you can see that so if you're a shareholder of the company you actually silently probably want them broken up because you'll get individual shares that are each will be worth more separately if you are a shareholder of the United States economy you also probably want them broken up because then you'll just have many more companies creating economic value which then drives the tax roles which benefit the United States balance sheet it's hard to see unless you're an employee of the company or you derive a lot of ego from the existence of a company the way it is that you would need it to stay where how it is well let me challenge your point on two fronts in Google's case both YouTube and gcp required many many many many billions of dollars of investment over many years same with weo by the way at this point that took a long time and a lot of capital to get the payback on if those were Standalone businesses and they didn't have the profits being derived from search and ads over many years they would not have been able to build those incredible businesses so if you do break these businesses up what you do lose is the ability for an American Juggernaut to be able just like Amazon did with AWS and apple did and we can go through the list to build these new businesses that require the cash flows from the old businesses as separate companies it becomes much harder to make that degree of an investment that that angle that angle of belly aching is not going to pass muster because it's all about litigating the past and you got to play the ball where it lies where it lies is this business is in a position where you can probably demarcate four or five logical business units again I'm not saying it should Happ but it will happen and and the the argument of but the past is not going to work no no no I'm not yeah I'm not disagreeing with your point about like hey if these things broke up people would make money I'm just I'm just trying to understand this point about American dynamism or whatever you want to call it that these companies are all in America they've all been successful because they've been led by amazing Founders they've reinvested so much of the profit they've generated back into building insane new businesses that took a lot of capital and a lot of time and eventually they paid off and they became the next generation of ginormous new businesses that would not have possibly existed if not for the will and the cash flows coming from those old businesses you also have a companion economy in the capital markets where there's hundreds of billions of dollars that go and fill in the gaps and I think the reality is the people in the capital markets are not stupid and if these big companies hadn't spent hundreds of billions of dollars the capital markets would have so I don't gole if Google let's just play a scenario and I'm I'm not trying to relitigate the past but if Google did not own YouTube what do you think would have happened you would have gotten funded and it would have been fine it would have raised the billions buil the because you do you remember YouTube had a real infastructure serious lawsuit I think they would have shut down the reason is because people are smart enough to understand when then there's the potential to make money okay and the free markets do a really good job of highlighting where that's possible again there is no point Rel litigating this but I think yeah gcp AWS get funded with billion yeah I guess that's what open is right why does why does cor weave get funded today how is cor weave allowed to even exist why doesn't it all go because investors are smart they see that there's an economic rationale for there being multiple players and then there's a smart founding team that creates a justification that gets it going so the era of the monopolies Monopoly on building new monopolies is over I don't think it's I don't think it's ever existed but I think the point is that big businesses are there to eventually grow at GDP so that they can be disrupted by small companies that's what you want because if you had the same seven or eight companies then you could make the argument that we should have stopped at the East West India company and everything would have been great I mean it is what we did with the railroads it's what we did with the AT&T it's what we did with standard oil like when when these when these monopolies were built in the US they were all broken up and but hold on it's not necessarily what we did it's the conditions that enabled other people to then go fill the gaps and I think that that's economic boundary conditions you know Saks had this great tweet this past week and I almost quote tweeted it but I thought I don't want to create a lot more noise where there doesn't need to be Zach is paying attention now but he had this tweet about taking back the licenses for the main broadcast channels and I thought that was an excellent thing and I quote tweeted something where I was like yeah we should buy that that for all in and I said it half jokingly but I didn't because I think that if those licenses were up for grabs what would happen is a bunch of private Equity people would get behind Rogan a bunch of private Equity people would get behind us and we would all bid and the outcome would be better so the point is that these small structural changes and I know that it may seem large to break up Google it's not it's a small thing in the grand course of American businesses it's not going to really matter that much would be good generally through the lens of the individual shareholder and through the lens of the shareholder of the United States that's it sax can you tell us about the broadcast licensing comment that you made I thought it was actually pretty good too yeah there's a history to this I mean originally in the US we had three major broadcast networks ABC CBS MBC and they were given licenses of public Spectrum from the FCC and those licenses were free but in exchange for them the major broadcast networks had these various requirements to serve the public interest to be fair this was pre pre- cable and this was broadcast this goes back like a hundred years and just to be it's I think it's important to be clear because I I I don't think everyone understands that back in the day all the TV networks only broadcast over the air so they needed radio spectrum allocated to them to to do that which was a you know 100-year old kind of that's a 100-year Old Situation doesn't exist anymore sorry go yeah it was the only way to get information broadcast on TV was through this this public spectrum and so it kind of made sense in a world in which there were only three networks because that was the only way to get information to have these fairness requirements and public interest requirements and so it was heavily regulated well now it's a century later and there's so many ways to get information you've got cable obviously meant that we went from three or four networks to hundreds and then of course you've got the internet and you've got streaming so there's now an infinite number of ways to get information in real time including video and and that sort of thing you've also got social networks you've got X and all the rest so there's no shelf space limit anymore there's no scarcity and so therefore tying up this very valuable Spectrum by giving it for free to the to the broadcast networks just doesn't really make sense in the same way and what we should do is just auction off the Spectrum use the money to pay down the national debt and and in that way it'll go to its most highly valued use the market will figure out what that use is if the broadcast networks are the most highly valued way to use this spectrum then they'll win the auction but I suspect they won't exactly they did this auction in 2016 right for 15 years they've been gradually auctioning off more Spectrum but we're talking about here this is like the most Choice valuable part of of public Spectrum so for example one of the reasons why the spectrum is valuable is because it can easily go through walls right like you can watch your TV inside your house and yeah this broadcast spectrum is good at getting through those walls imagine the types of GPS apps you could enable with that kind of precision right so there's many other ways in theory that this spectrum could be used and you would be able to unleash I think a lot of innovation in Next Generation Wireless apps if the Spectrum were available I don't think the public would lose anything because ABC CBS NBC first of all I mean these networks are basically a commodity now there's so many other ways to getting used and they'll still be available through the internet and through cable so you're saying to speed up these auctions because they do occur every 15 years or something to that I think what happens is that the um the licenses are actually granted to local stations like your you know your local ABC whatever yeah and then collectively they have a Lobby called the NAB or National Association of broadcasters and this is why they have so much power is you've got all these local networks let's call three or four of them in every geography and they all come together as part of this Lobby and so this is why nothing ever changes but does this model still make sense no I mean it's completely obsolete but those local networks will all go crazy if they lose their free Spectrum well they pay for it they don't they don't pay for it now they get a a free license from the FCC in exchange for the fairness requirement and these other requirements I think that they pay billions of dollars for these and like hundreds no every six years or so they come back up and they get renewed by the FCC H I was just talking about the Spectrum auctions I'm looking at it right now that's different yeah okay all right interesting no look the the FCC has auction Spectrum before but not the spectrum that the broadcast networks are sitting on which is some of the most valuable Spectrum got it and the only reason why it's being used this way is because of Legacy because this is how it worked 100 years ago well and then this parallels into I think some of the research that's going on right now around Legacy Media and Trust in Media bunch of reports have been coming out about this it's not shocking to anybody who listens to this podcast but confidence in institutions is tracked by a number of different organizations Gallup being one of them and if we look at how Americans feel and Trust has generally been going down in everything the military it's also being it's also being tracked in the wapo upad section yeah exactly are you g pull that up jcal do you have that or no uh we'll talk about that yeah but here if you take a look at from 2021 2022 and into 2023 television news went from 16 down to 11 and back up to 14 but is amongst the lowest in terms of trust in and 40% of Americans have no Trust in Media at all according to this Galla poll here's uh how it breaks down by party Republican independent and Democrats confidence by the Democrats 58% Independence 29% Republicans 11% in mass media your thoughts fredberg as we look at just trust in general in institutions this transitionary period we in and specifically the media I do think we've talked about this a number of times in the past so without rehashing too much I think that many of the institutions that have offered media have had to move away from providing data and information because data and information has commoditized it's available broadly through the internet and other places so the actual Gathering of information is now democratized you know agencies put their data on their website stock stock markets are published on the internet so the internet has democratized access to information so the media companies that have historically been Arbiters of information have had to become effectively content businesses they've had to provide more than just information and what has happened is a iterative feedback system whereby the more kind of angry they can make someone the more upset they can make someone the the more emotive they can make a reader or a viewer or a listener the more clicks they the more the kind of lyic system triggers that consumer to come back and consume some more of their media and so the iterative development cycle is that things look like they're one side versus another side in nearly every context in every piece of media everyone is opinionated and making a position point from a side from a perceived side that they are representing because it is a motive to the readers and the readers come back and they align with that side and they want to have more of that because it incites their limic system that's what happened and as as a result when people look at it and assume that it's what it used to be which is objective truth fact finding information gathering and it is not that they're like well this isn't even news anymore and the truth is it's not because information is democratized it's available to you anywhere and everywhere you want it you can get it through citizen journalism via blogs via podcasts via Twitter via many other places and so the the Legacy Media companies have effectively become emotive content companies in order to drive clicks Drive views sell ads that's really all this whole story is and I don't think that that's going to shift I don't think that Jeff bezos's attempt to try and return wapo back to being a fact-f finding organization is going to be successful I think all the consumers that read wo today they love the one-sided nature they love the bias that they read it makes them feel good I think that the people that work there love the bias they love writing those opinion pieces it makes them feel good I don't think anyone actually wants boring news anymore because you know what they can go to a website from the government itself or from a company itself and just read the information and frankly if they want to get unbiased honest factual information there's a hundred other sources well and then here the commentary the comment yeah the commentary about off the cuff Etc you know what that is that's called authentic conversation that is how people speak when we all get together we are not journalists we are not necessarily well-versed let's be honest we mess things up a lot we say off the cuff comments that are wrong very often but that's just how people speak and it feels authentic and when we do have signal I think that listeners and viewers are smart enough to separate that signal from noise and they are going to make their own decisions about what they find to be truth and factual and what they're going to use to make decisions in their life and that's I think how people want to consume information now it's not being told what the truth is by some fake Authority and here is a clip from the podcast last year podcast could play a huge role just like in 2016 social media broke through and played a huge role I think in 2024 I think that podcast could break through the way that unorthodox candidates get their message out could be the way all candidates get their message out we're moving from traditional media defining these candidates to direct to Consumer direct through Twitter SLX direct through podcasts this podcast included what we're witnessing right now is the transition from traditional media and the establishment defining who the great candidates are to the public and the people on podcast in social media who are the tip of the spear and the Vanguard they're going to pick the winners I love you both you guys totally nailed it look at that sax your thoughts on this sort of transition interestingly as we know Rogan had Trump on over 40 million views now I think they're up to 100 million views now for that Rogan Trump interview oh including the fact that you literally could not find it if you search for it in Google or YouTube it's quite amaz well we'll get to that in a second yeah that's an interesting one I got to take on that but what do you take from Rogan getting let's say many more views than the last two presidential debates Trump Harris 67 million viewers Trump Biden 51 million viewers I think maybe Rogan combined with his two episodes will get more than the first two debates yeah look I think this is the first podcast election where you can make the argument that podcasts will decide the election and there's a couple of reasons for that one is podcasts have gotten big enough that there's enough audience that they just have the reach now to play a big role second the format is is highly informative to viewers you get to see a candidate expound in long form being asked questions and having to go for potentially hours at a time I mean Trump went for three hours with Rogan impress and it's very hard to hide who you are when you're going for that period of time in an unscripted environment I would argue even the hour that Trump spent with us demonstrated that he knew a lot more about policy issues than people were giving him credit for and it's and it also showed his personality was a lot different than the media had portrayed him so I think that podcasts have been a great Advantage for Trump he's been willing to do them and I think he does them quite well I think it's particularly helpful to him in a context where the Legacy Media has been trying to portray him as a very extreme figure as as literally a Nazi or literally The Reincarnation of Adolf Hitler when the media is is telling the audience that you're that and then you can go on Rogan for three hours and show that you're a normal funny guy who actually knows a lot about policy it's just such a different impression than what the media is trying to portray that it's been incredibly I think useful and advantageous for Trump by the same token KLA Harris has not been willing to do Rogen at least not on Rogan's terms apparently she was willing to sit down for one hour with him but but not in Austin according but not in Austin but Rogan said is no we have to sit down in our studio for three hours so far she hasn't been willing to do that I think that speaks volumes in and of itself is that she hasn't been willing to subject herself to the same sort of you could call it interrogation or really just longform conversation that Trump has been willing to but in any event just I think my bottom line on this is that I think Trump's biggest challenge in this election is just to get people comfortable with the idea of a second Trump term to get people comfortable with him and I think that him going on all these podcasts including ours including I thought that Andrew Schulz Swan was really good too has helped him I think just get people comfortable with the idea of of trump which I think was just his biggest obstacle in this election because people definitely want to change and they're not happy with Biden Harris you know the one thing I say is before you go on Rogan there's a sense of anxiety that I had which was do I have enough interesting things to say for three hours that was really at the top of my mind I think Jason I talked to you right before yeah I went on and and that was a big thing for me and then you go and you get in the seat and he's incredible in the way that he kind of like moves the conversation along and then you end up you're like oh it's already been 3 hours that's his superpow the reason that she should find a way to go to Austin and do it is because he has the ability to allow you to be your true self over a long period of time and I think again just going back to the basics she deserves for herself for the American people to vote up or down who she really is and all the campaign strategists aside and all of the other nonsense aside I would want if I was running for president one shot at people being able to see me for who I really am and that's why she should go on R I think she's afraid of that I mean she has mostly ducked media interviews and ducked any podcast that would be perceived as ever she's definitely gone with the friend but she sto she stopped ducking them I think In fairness to her like maybe after she was like in the third or fourth week she started yeah she's done call me daddy she's done Howard Stern knew would be super friendly yeah of course yeah doing adversarial is don't you think that Trump did our show because he thought it would be friendly yeah he started with friendlies yeah yeah why would he do opposition when Trump did I mean we were one of the first podcasts he went on went on that fox she went on that Fox News thing she did Fox News for 26 minutes freeberg and her staff was waving they were on the sidelines waving frantically to get her off of there um but any event was was were we the first podcast to interview Trump second nek boys were first I guess we were second I think that it was really unclear what would happen when you you know put a major candidate for president on a podcast for an hour at the time he did it I think he took a little bit of a risk um and I think it worked out for him and then he's done a lot more since then I mean other than Rogan Rogan and us have consistent tried to get everybody on all sides to be on the podcast I think we did a really good job looking back on we've gotten everybody except one person K yeah I mean I wish I had time to have asked January that get to on my question we had all The Independents and we had all the credible Republicans and to his credit we were the first for RFK right we were the first with first for Dean Phillips Dean Phillips and V were the first for V and so yeah I give us some some credit there on the um search issue I looked into that there VI sorry I always get that wrong the search issue there was some complaints that YouTube might have been like I don't know hiding the video which didn't make much sense to people so I did an investigation of that sax you're laughing go ahead well finish what you're saying no no no I have a different point of view than you on this but I didn't get my point I know I've seen it on Twitter but keep going oh well no I did um a search on you're going to defend Google I know no no I'm not defending Google I'm just explaining to people how search works independent of it I went to Bing dock Dogo search. brave.com Google YouTube Google video and what people don't understand about how the search algorithms work is they are designed to increase advertising dollars and freeberg will back me up this he worked at Google and session link that's the goal am I correct freeberg with algorithms whether it's Tik Tok YouTubes Etc yeah I I know more about search results I don't know as much about the video stuff so so when you look at that it's it's a very nuanced thing but Joe Rogan doesn't monetize his search he does not make any money for them and then Clips do make money for YouTube and the clips have flooded the zone so if you do a search on any search engine whether it's being or Brave or duck ducko Google or YouTube any of them what you'll find is the clips beat out the main episodes all the time this happens to our podcast when people clip our podcasts they will do keyword stuffing and they'll beat us and it will beat the algorithm because the algorithm wants to get ads and we don't have ads turned on either so people have this frequent frustration with this weekend startups my other podcast all in here and Joe Rogan that anything that's not monetized on YouTube doesn't rank high and if you look all of the clips and this makes sense if you just think logically the clips will will generate more engagement because you get to watch the highlights so it's kind of like sports highlights sax would you like to conspiracy theory this and tell us that Sergey is sandbagging for the Democrats or something by hiding YouTu conspiracy theory you can just I mean if you go to Google every single day and just type in a trump related search term versus a Comm related search term you'll see the difference in coverage but back to the the Rogan thing look Google is a search engine this is what they're supposed to be good at you have an interview between the biggest podcaster in the world and a former president who's probably the most famous person in the world it's massively trending it's got something like 100 million views at the time that people noticed that you couldn't find it on YouTube it already had something like 34 million views what I'm saying is you have to work pretty hard as a search engine for your algorithm to be so bad that you can't find that interview okay when I went to YouTube and tried to find it at first I typed in Trump Rogan interview couldn't find it then I typed Trump Rogan interview podcast couldn't find it it was just Clips then it was Trump Rogan full interview full po podcast still couldn't find it there's no question that just is a factual matter this episode was suppressed in YouTube search if you went to the main Google search engine and did a similar search what you would have found as the number one search result was an article from the Arizona Republic which is a publication I've never even heard of that would have told you that the Rogan interview with Trump was a brain rotted waste of three hours that's the number one result somehow Google decides that his number one result for the Rogan interview was this Arizona Republic story okay I I mean that is not a search engine doing its job so it's pretty obvious to me that they're using other factors in deciding what to surface here and somehow the results end up being almost universally negative towards Trump and almost universally positive towards kamla I think you've got to at this point have your head buried really deep in the sand not to think that Google is incredibly biased in this election against Trump let me pull up some facts to show how wrong you are if you pull up you here's an image of the YouTube search results that I just did for the Trump Rogan and what you'll see is as I explained previously Clips perform better and make money they make money so the algorithm favors those and what you'll see here is Fox News Etc and all these clips and then eventually you get to The Joe Rogan interview and if you look at Bing search results for Rogan Trump interview what you'll see is all the search engines put news up first then they go to organic so it's just a fundamental misunderstanding of of how search is designed for users they start with news on every search engine today and then here's Google's same thing and then what you'll see here is on the Google and on the bang images you have a collection you know typically five or six news stories then they go to the first organic so people just don't understand how search works it's always news first when you type in a politician's name and then when you look at the news or you it has New York Post right leaning you have people who are dead center like AP in there and you have Fox News there in the Google one so of the first five two of them are right leaning and AP is obviously in the middle Forbes I don't know maybe Forbes is Right leaning too freeberg over to you well I was going to say I read somewhere so I have no direct knowledge about this I actually hanged several people at Google to ask them what was going on and I did not get a clear response I I so like I have no insight as to what actually happened but what I read online somewhere was that someone reported that someone at Google said that there were there was kind of a a whole bunch of people that clicked inappropriate content flagging on the video so like anti-trump people went to the video clicked that it was inappropriate and when when YouTube gets that many people clicking that this is inappropriate it automatically fling yes it is a technique people will use they've used it on our program here where they right so if you get like a million people that say at once like hey there's inappropriate content here the default is hide the video to hide the video from search results while it's investigated but clearly there's something messed up here because they should have been on top of that and responded immediately with the video that has such a large number of views and such a large audience to allow that to happen and and drag on for so long but someone said that that may have been what happened and then they fixed it I so I don't know but I just want to point that out that it may not necessarily have been kind of overt action by Google but just the way that the system is set up that anyone can flag and if enough people flag you get this s and I can tell you I know firsthand that Google is aware of the claims of bias and you I think you're starting to see it just like CNN is aware of the claims of bias added CNN is aware of the claims super I mean like all these companies are super sensitive to so Facebook Mark Zuckerberg's very sensitive to it I know Sundar himself is very sensitive to it I I don't want to kind of hide the fact that these people think that they're going out and being biased that they have these kind of information Empires because they know that they're going to lose trust and they're going to lose customers and revenue and Etc CNN has done I think an exceptional job I don't know if you watch it at all saxs but they have been having Trump supporters and right-wing commentators in CNN on the desk every yes it's really changed the nature of it from being like MSNBC or Fox did you know being something in the midle I've never I never watched I never watch these shows but like before we go off on this topic people throughout this election have been post in Google search results when you just type in Trump versus Harris and I've done it every single time it's massively biased I mean let's just go through them this was a search result I got months ago where I just typed in Donald Trump and you the first Carousel was about kamla Harris I remember joking on the Pod that if you want to find the latest news about KLA Harris just search for Donald Trump and then you go down and the first Carousel that's about Trump is negative stories this one was about project 2025 which has nothing to do with Trump nonetheless this was a major Democratic talking point at the time is that somehow that project 2025 is what Trump would do in a second term I just did this and it's different now obviously this is you said this is a few months old I've been doing this on a recurring basis over the last few months and the point is that whenever you search for the candidates the news is very positive towards Harris and it's very negative towards Trump and even when you search for Trump they'll give positive news about Aris now go to the go to the podcast se you don't you don't think this is a function of the fact that so many media Outlets are being so negative about Trump and positive about Harris and so therefore the ratio is just off how does the Arizona Republic end up being the first choice when you search for Rogan Trump they're not you know like page rank can't explain that they're just not a major publication they're not being linked to by a lot of people doesn't make any sense here's another example okay stay on this one for a second this was after Trump went on the Andrew Schulz podcast that podcast was a very positive experience for him as we just talked about helped his campaign a lot what's the number one result when you look at for that new Republic podcast host laughing Trump face as he struggles to defend rambling that's when he had that hilarious story about The Weave if you actually watch the clip the podcast hosts were they were definitely laughing with him they were not laughing at him that was a ridiculous mischaracterization the new Republic is not the objective uh source for anything I don't know how you could say that objectively page rank should get you to the new Republic as the number one source for the Andrew Schultz interview of trump that is bias I mean it's just biased you there's been so many examples of Google giving these ridiculous results and they find obscure Publications and obscure articles that have no basis in the truth to to elevate to the top it's almost like they're trying to find the most negative article they can find on Trump and make that the number one result yeah it's not the search engine it's just the Corpus of media that's being indexed um if you look here at Google why is New York Times then that's the number one thing well I mean just you know here if you look at Donald Trump you know if we were to look at these new sources there's NBC NPR Politico and New York Times are left leaning if you were to do this on um I think I have bang as the next one you can open and you can look at the next one Nick which is duck Dugo in all of these cases the problem is only 3 or 4% of journalists at Publications today are right leaning and most of the right leaning Publications are opinion Publications like Fox Etc and so you just you don't have a lot of representation in the index of Republicans and that's like a big opportunity I think for Republicans is to make more Publications or take more Publications over like we're seeing with the LA Times and Washington Post think going to Publications if Google would choose to surface them but it decides that it doesn't want to it's it's on a percentage basis it's very small as the problem here you go this is Arizona Republic rocketing to the top of search results for Joe Rogan Trump interview that's a publication that is local to Arizona that no one's ever heard of it has no basis being the number one result in Google New York Times is second okay I can see the logic of that because New York Times is a big publication then you go down one row to the Carousel oh there's new Republic again why because it's calling Trump appearing on Joe Rogan shady and then you've got another one another one there from the Independent calling Trump a predator I mean come on this is ridiculous okay so you've shared these examples um what I what I would recommend is I think we get someone from Google on the show we could arrange that and they can kind of talk about how the algorithm works because I don't think any of us are going to be able to provide a reasonable Counterpoint or understanding of what's going on and if there is bias um and there's some kind of manual intervention in this in this process maybe it can be kind of discussed and talked about why and how and you know what the automation is that causes this to happen and let's just try let's try let's try and cover I'll I'll take that as a to-do and I'll try and find someone that we can talk with listen to have a conversation they do I I look I mean I've talked with a lot of people over there and I have heard from a lot of folks that this is a real issue that folks are trying to address internally so that there's this perception of bias that they're trying to get rid of and they really want to address it this is what I've heard from people at Google so I want to give them a chance to come talk pull up the look rather than having us all debate it or I don't even have a strong point of view on this I'd rather just bring someone in and talk about it so just as a counter point here Nick pull up the B I just did for Donald Trump and we'll just if you do it as an exercise that's always the way to find the objective truth here is to try the independent search engines or other search engines duck ducko bravex perplexity do that as well we'll see but anyway if you look here this bing one if you take out MSN well no woke woke search.com J MSN USA Today Charlotte Observer Seattle Times Washington Post I think these are all left leaning so that is more to my point that like the entire Corpus of news reportage is 95% left leaning that's what's happening here and so they need to they're going to need to manually Sach say these 5% should get represented 5050 in the search results to please the other side even though that's not what the Corpus is and the number of stories written by left leaning just is probably 50 to one to right leaning moving on I have an alterate explanation can we just pull up this this it's got some data I'd like to just pull up this data if I could if you look at employee donations to party we've tech companies it's all 90s something percent goes to Democrats except for that's a pretty simple explanation for why the Google search results are horribly biased in One Direction Uber's 18% all right let's go to our final segment here we'll talk a little bit about the election why don't you te us up here Freer all right guys I'll quickly uh introduce our final political election update before our live stream on Tuesday obviously a lot of daily freakout daily efforts at having an October surprise that will take down the other side all sorts of drama all sorts of insult not a lot of love in America right now super depressing and sad all sorts of stuff happened this week jcal why don't you kick us off what do you think's going to happen on Tuesday what are the things that you think are going to move people between now and then it's a tossup I mean that's what everybody's saying it looks like Trump's got a slight lead and so I think it's going to be a tossup saxs agreed are we 6535 as poly Market predicts or are we 100% Trump are we 90% K La Harris what are we uh looking well you definitely can't say it's going to be 100% anyone I mean but if again if you look at all the data the data is definitely pointing towards Trump having an advantage it's U obviously the prediction markets are almost two to one in favor of trump the polling shows that Trump is ahead narrowly in this in all the swing States I think every single one of them even the uh sort of blue wall states of Pennsylvania Michigan Wisconsin that Harris must win I think in order to have a path to Victory whereas Michigan and Wisconsin are very very close like 1% or less in the swing state polls Pennsylvania polling shows that Trump is ahead by I think two or three that's what I've seen today so it's it is looking good for Trump and if you look at the numbers that elon's group The that America pack put out it looks like the early voting in Pennsylvania is trending 500,000 votes better for republicans in the early voting than four years ago but is that just pulling votes forward some folks have said it could be instead of showing up at The Ballot Box on Tuesday a lot of folks are doing mailin and making sure they get their vote in in mail instead of going in first there's so then you got to look at polling of people who say they're going to vote but haven't voted yet in Pennsylvania who say they're going to vote on Election Day and I think those numbers are running about 18 points ahead for Trump which is about double what he needs to win so he just to be clear the early voting favors Harris but not by the same percentages that it did four years ago so right now it looks like Trump is tracking to win that state but look I can't guarantee it I'm not representing that you know that's exactly what's going to happen but right now the numbers are looking good remember Biden only won Pennsylvania by 880,000 votes and again the swing so far is uh Republicans are doing 500,000 votes better than they were doing four years ago so there's a lot of stories coming out on Twitter on Independent Media and on mainstream Media or Legacy Media as we might call it now talking about hey I live at a house I got 15 ballots mailed to me all with different random names and these sort of anecdotal stories are being pushed and then Amplified by folks that are involved in the election chamat is this kind of dangerous do we think that there really is a lot of this kind of election meddling happening and if not or if there is is this kind of a dangerous thing to happen where a lot of people are talking about this where no matter what happens on Tuesday people start to question the results of the election how much should we be kind of worried about this rhetoric I think there are two things there's the substance and then there's the strategy the substance is that does it really make sense that the most advanced and important country in the world doesn't have a uniform system where one ballot is given to every single American citizen who is eligible to vote that probably makes sense so we should probably just figure out how to do that separately the strategy of it is for both sides to lay the groundwork to say that this thing somehow wasn't totally right down the middle I am hoping for a very clear decisive Victory and frankly whichever candidate wins I hope that it's very clear and decisive so that everybody is forced to deescalate and move on now that said I think what the early voting data shows is something that you haven't seen in the past which is that there are a lot of Republican people that are voting early I don't know what that means for election day but typically it's the Democrats that dominate these early voting processes and they build What's called the firewall and in these swing States these firewalls become very important going into election day and as saak said a bunch of these states are different than they've historically been in the favor of the Republicans I saw an article today that just said that they've basically considered Nevada now in the Republican Camp because like there's been so much early voting that it's about 60% of the total votes they think have already been cast since they they have a very clear Republican lead going into election day so there's all kinds of stuff here that's new I just hope that it's just an absolutely crushing victory in One Direction or the other so that we deescalate and get get on to the business of running the country so I'm going to break with my most my Republican Brethren on this and say I think early voting is actually a good thing it's it's very convenient right like why force people to only vote on just one day because what if you get sick or a kid gets sick and you have to pick him up from school there's a lot of things that can go wrong it is more convenient to have say two or three weeks to be able to cast your vote I actually think that's not a bad thing and in terms of who it helps I'm not sure but I think that as the Republicans become more of a populist party and the Democrats become more of an elitist party I think higher turnout might actually might benefit Republicans regardless I think it's a huge convenience for voters and I think early voting is something that we should keep the thing we got to change is in the states where you don't have to present any voter ID to show who you are that's just crazy I mean you just you go up to the polling place and you give your name and I guess your address they look you up in a computer and they hand you a ballot and there's no verification that you're you are who you say you are that to me is crazy the other thing that's crazy is that you can even get registered and added to the voter roles in a lot of states without any proof of citizenship so there are states where you can go get a driver's license without proof of citizenship and there's just a checkbox to be added to the voter rules and no one ever checks your Citizen and now you're on the voter Rule and you can go pick up your ballot without any voter ID that's just crazy to me so I think that after this election there should be some sort of Bill that gets passed and signed by the president that sets a minimum standard for for voter integrity and federal election for federal election for federal election states can do what they want right like each state can states can do what they want but I don't think States should be able to do whatever they want in federal election I just want I want to point out that each state is effectively voting for the folks that they want to have go to the Electoral College and that's really where the vote for president is cast so but that affects all of us if there's hold on if there's cheating in several States and in a close election by the way I'm not I'm not accusing that of happening okay I'm just saying that if we have several states that don't have basic voter Integrity that affects the outcome of a election that has a huge impact on all of us let's just talk about this really important point which I think a lot of folks ignore it's not a direct democracy it's not like everyone in the united states votes for the president what happens is the states send a bunch of electors to go vote for the president the each state casts a vote for the president how each state ultimately decides who they're going to vote for for president is through this kind of process that we've kind of standardized across the states but each state is making a vote so shouldn't the states be able to kind of decide how they want to make their kind of voting process run internally to determine who the V are that are going to go to the Electoral College yeah I mean I think the Constitution specifies that the states will run their own elections and and I'm fine with that but what I'm saying is there needs to be a minimum standard to me the minimum standard is voter ID and proof of citizenship to get registered I'm in strong agreement with saxs on on this front and I've actually done a ton of research into it that I would like to share because I think this is an important service we can do here on the all-in podcast I think I had uh Hans so as a dieh hard moderate you agree with sex I I I mean as an American I don't you know putting political parties aside I had Hans Von spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation on this week and startups last Tuesday you can watch it and they have spent a ton of money and time on elction fraud and obviously they're a partisan organization they found 1600 cases in 40 years it's about 40 a year they found 23 cases in 2020 none of them were in Georgia you can go search those cases you'll find cases like this one here that Nick will pull up Randy Allen jumper who voted twice and the database is amazing anybody they're they're like crowdsourcing this and so putting all partisan aside the Heritage Foundation is doing great work here because sunlight is the best disinfectant and what's really important for Americans to understand is it is impossible right now absolutely statistically impossible to swing the presidential election with fraud the Brennan Center they're on the other side they did a report about voter fraud um and they put it at 0.003% and 0.0025% and basically you've got a much greater chance of being struck by lightning and let's just do a little bit of math here 158 million people voted in 2020 we'll have about 160 million this year if the estimates are correct and if you look at swing States right that's where I think a lot of people are concerned oh what if they could swing it in Georgia right and we all know from the famous phone call to Brad raffensberger who's a republican Secretary of State uh and Trump said hey you know we got to find these 11,780 votes that was the winning margin so if we were to talk about that right and we compare it to what the Heritage Foundation found 1,600 cases documented in 40 years about 40 a year now there could be a multiple of that freeberg 10 times a hundred times but to find 11,000 ballots this would require in Georgia for which has voter ID and by the way voter ID is in 35 of 50 states already after this election it's going to hit 40 because it's just obvious that we all want that Georgia requires you to have ID to vote in person and you have to water and they' Watermark the ballots so in order shth for somebody to do this they would have to fake 12,000 Watermark ballots and have fake IDs and have those 12,000 people not show up to vote and have two votes there then well looks like Georgia's got a great system but we're talking about the states that don't like in California they just passed a law saying that you're not allowed to look at voter ID right and so that obviously should change but the point is even in California which California California did that why do you guys think such a law is passed what's the justification for that they want to not have somebody who had a chance to vote vote and it obviously benefits Democrats if you believe that uh minorities don't have ID in some greater population which people have rightly called out is racist uh and there is this concept that black people or Hispanic people might not have IDs to the same extent and they would lean Democrat that is the cynical approach that uh people have taken but if we if we look at this it is impossible impossible to S the federal election sorry Jason you're saying it's a Dei thing that's that's what people claim I'm not saying I claim that's I think that's condescending and nonsense to act like minorities don't driver's license that's ridiculous ridiculous or some other form of ID I I think it's ABS your question Toth I don't think there is a a good justification there's none for rejecting voter ID and the law is even worse than that because it literally makes it illegal for someone to ask so if you go to a polling place in California they can't look at your ID even if you say well I lost my Ballot or something they just have to take your word for it you when they give you a new ballot there's a legal requirement for every employer when you hire somebody to make sure that that person is eligible to work in the United States if you're going to pay them legally right you get an I9 and they need to you know uh justify that they have a Social Security number that typically tells you whether you need a a supplemental work authorization or not so if you do that for normal functional employment why wouldn't you do it for voting as well of course you need an idea to get on a plane you need an idea to buy a beer right you need an ID to do all sorts of things in our society right so it's it's ludicrous I mean and and voting is something where you should need an ID because you have to say you have to match up that the person who's standing in front of you at The Ballot Box is the person on the voter roles well why is it more important to make sure that the person sitting in 23b on the United flight is who he says it is but it's less important for someone to just walk in off the street and vote for the president of the United States why is that because people believe that certain communities may not have ID and then they would be not right to vote why don't why don't you allow people to just get on an airplane and just fly wherever they want like why don't yeah or or drive without a driver 100% yeah yeah I mean it's I'm not saying I agree with any this I'm telling you what people have said is the reason I think it's it's cover I think that's total nonsense I think it's actually if you think about it it's insulting to minority groups to imply that they're inable getting a vo when you say when you say people you're saying people in charge the people in charge of California this is what they think yes and it turns out the only didn't have cheating we haven't had voter ID they wanted not every state has government IDE that isn't a driver's license right so this is Gavin new it's obvious to see what the effect this is going to be is it it it makes it easier to engage in cheating do you guys think if Gavin Newsome was on an airplane and we said half these people here have just bought a ticket but we didn't check their IDs would he get off the plane or stay on the plane do you think right and TSA requires ID so that they can do a check on everyone make sure they're not on a do not fly list and all that sort of stuff there's consensus that everybody wants voter ID I think you can kind of think about a there's a do not fly list and there should be do not vote list like if you're not a citizen you should be on the do not vote list meaning you have to be on the I can vote list in order to vote seems pretty reasonable and you know the fact that we've got a lot of federal agencies checking IDs to deter important Point here is there is no way to swing the election even if there is a moderate amount that's that is the most important for people to take out you're not worried draw that conclusion if people can cheat then you can swing an election you can draw it statistically based upon what I've just said which is the smallest race is 11,779 remember when Trump asked them to find those votes do you remember that you're talking about the state of Georgia which I think actually has Integrity we're talking about the state of California here that's the closest race just law so just in your mind in your mind logically think about what it would take to get 11,000 779 people to fraudulently do that and that they would go to jail and it would be a felony so this is that doesn't sound that hard to me I'm just saying like finding 11,000 votes or whatever doesn't seem that hard if there's no voter Ian if Trump couldn't do it how is it going to get done it's not possible where would you get 11,000 ballots maybe not in Georgia because they actually have voter in CIA where would you get a$ 11,000 CIA is hold on a second California is a huge State they allow ballot harvesting and they've eliminated voter ID yeah so telling impossible for someone to cheat nothing's impossible in cheat we all agree cheating exists like credit cud fraud exists what I'm saying is it's so manageable that it is farcical for anybody to think that we could swing the presidential election because Trump tried to swing the presidential election by asking to find 11,000 and he filed 58 lawsuits and lost all of them it's not possible folks do do you think so then what is the value then of having voter ID Jason if the cheating is so hard because it would add more trust to the system and it's always virtuous to add more trust I think they should also give you a receipt uh when you vote to make sure there's no Shenanigans and we want to build as much trust in the system as possible but the point receipt reduce fraud it would reduce people believing that their vote was changed after they left the box so if we all had a receipt and then there was some debate in a small area because of you know hanging Chads like in Florida everybody would have their and if you remember the hanging Chad's case there were people who said I voted for Gore I voted for Bush and my vote got counted wrong people don't remember this but you had to push through a card and it popped a Chad out of a little circle and there are people who did it wrong because the instructions were you know it's a physical thing you have to punch a hole into it I don't know who came up with that system as opposed to drawing a circle but that that was for years ago I'm sure that's CH by now there was a guy named Chad yeah but no now they are giving receipts to people so so the gold standard is giving a receipt showing ID and having multiple weeks to do it and so if anybody's taking anything away from this there can be cheating but it cannot swing the president okay so Jason's going in can I make a um a point so you mentioned uh I think fraud rates credit card fraud rates didn't you I think that's one of the things you mentioned well the same way we don't worry about credit C fraud because there's a certain tiny amount of it in the system now in this case it would be a magnitude more than voter fraud voter fraud is extremely rare because there's no there's no incentive to cheat that would be worth going to jail for and that's why people generally don't cheat in these elections because the cost is so great I was the COO of a payments company so let me actually sorry that was sax sorry go ahead s let me explain how this actually works since I was founding Co of payp massive amounts of credit card fraud can I just explain this to the audience sure you can create all the models you want and you can create an expectation of future fraud based on the prior fraud rates however if you change your verification standards that data is no longer relevant if you create a loophole big enough for a fraudster to drive a truck through then if a fraudster figures that out you could have infinite amounts of fraud the in other words the historical fraud rate may not be predictive of future fraud if you change the verification a standards and I would say that the state of California signing a bill that prohibits voter ID might be such a loophole so I don't see how you can say with this kind of certainty and confidence you're saying that no fraud could ever swing an election of course fraud could swing an election could swing the presidential election it could swing a tiny election in a state or in a local place of course it could because there's a very in finding out what I believe is that I'm talking logic would you do 11,000 th000 is the question it would be incredibly difficult to do 11,000 Trump tried to swing 11 if you create a big enough loophole it doesn't sound that hard to me it just doesn't matter of common sense I don't think you can say that something is impossible what we should do is simply tighten up these requirements we're agreement about that I'm just talking about this election voter ID in this election you don't have to worry 35 out of 50 starting in January we pass a national voter ID law minimum standard we all agree on that 100% we all agree on that yes I'm just saying this election practically 35 out of 5050 states have voter ID and the ones that don't the closest margin is 11,700 this time happek we'll see you we'll see on Tuesday night with Phil helmuth on a short leash for the dictator chath ptia your sulan of Science and the architect I am the world's greatest moderate moderator we'll see you next time [Applause] byebye let your winners ride Rainman David and in said we open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it queen [Music] of Besties are that's my dog taking I your driveway man oh man my habiter will meet me at we should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy cuz they're all this useless it's like this like sexual tension that they just need to release [Music] somehow we need to get [Music] mer I'm doing [Music]