Trump's First 100 Days, Tariffs Impact Trade, AI Agents, Amazon Backs Down｜All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg

I got a wrap, guys.

I got to catch a flight to Miami.

Let me do a closing here.

If you want to keep going.

You're welcome to three planes, just Walker, just text the pilot and just tell them you're alright.

Listen, I'm not burning all the all in credits, so to speak and all of our kids.

I'm kidding. I'm kidding.

I'm kidding. Everything in the all in budget, and the rest of us are flying Southwest. Chairman Dictator, Jamal, It's a strange concept.

Yeah, David -sachs. What does that mean?

Dave, when's the last time you flew commercial?

Clinton. I haven't missed a flight in about 15 years.

All right, everybody.

welcome back to the number one podcast in the world.

We're back. We're back.

And what an amazing panel we have today with us?

Ryan Peterson, friend of the pod is back on the show.

He's the CEO of flexport.

How are you doing Ryan?

Did you get any skiing in this year?

I know you like to ski in the deep powder like I tried man, but it was a busy year for work and I got two little kids I did a few days.

Okay, so you're Oh, yes, we all forgot you gave control of your company to somebody.

It got a little shaky, got a little contentious.

And then you took the reins back.

How's it been being back in the pilot seat?

Oh, that was a year and a half ago.

So it's a distant memory for in Flexport time.

That's like a decade we've Yeah, I really had an amazing run.

And although this tariffs, I mean, I guess that's why you guys invited me on these terrorists and kind of made a lot of created a lot of new uncertainty and if like sports world.

OK, so we'll definitely get into that.

And of course, fan favorite back for his fourth appearance on the pond.

I was so versatile.

I saw the comment. I saw the comments last time I was on.

I'm I'm officially not a fan favorite, but glad to be back on.

And I will I will be representing free markets in in this in this version.

Yes, what are the common say about you it was like, you know like loves Biden Totally beta, you know all the Soy boy I think so.

Yes. I was trying to represent I was trying to represent libertarian values of the time, but I love the leftist or Embracing Milton Friedman.

I think it's all worth it if that's what comes out of all this is djoc is gonna be a complete free market person soon yeah free market months are coming soon racing free market values and the stock market right yes exactly does any decline in the stock market is Trump's fault so now they're embracing the stock market well unfortunately unfortunately the one day that he said it's Biden's market it was a it was a green day so that that didn't help the case I mean gosh well listen it's like another massive green day do you see this?

All that matters to me is that Uber is the anti -tariff stock.

It just does great.

It's not impacted by tariffs.

So here we go, Chamath, it started already.

We have TDS on both sides.

We've got Trump Derangement Syndrome from Aaron and Trump.

Defender Syndrome from Sachs, we've got both.

Defender and derangement, here we go.

How about Trump Bias Syndrome on your part?

Who, me? Me? I called balls and strikes.

What are you talking about?

OK, let's get started.

It's starting already, folks.

It's going to be a great episode.

Lots of excitement with us again.

Jason has the raiment.

Self sabotage, find every way to not get rich syndrome.

I do? What are you talking about?

You guys said you're buy me out of this thing and I can get the hell out of here.

You know how much my shares cost in all inner worth?

For the love of God, write a check, Jamath.

Get me the hell out of here.

I just may. God. I mean, I'm going to be a tariff.

Uber breaks 88. That's my number.

Eighty eight is the number.

You're off to when that happens and we're getting close.

All right. Let's get started here.

We have so many topics to get through.

With us again, David Sacks, hey, David, you're doing more episodes now.

The audience wants to know.

I don't know if we're allowed to make any initial announcements, but people are asking me on the streets in the airports, in the comment threads.

Is Sacks back? Well the ratings are back ever since that came back to show, that's for sure.

The ratings are back, so but is Sacks back?

Is Sacks back? Well, I'm back as much as I can.

Uh hum, and you are a partial employee of the government you can do 130 days a year or something.

Is that still the status?

Yeah, it's roughly half, half work days.

Got it. And so what do you do?

You have a punch clock there when you get to the White House, you punch in, you punch like Fred Flintstone or what are you keeping track of these days how do you do it I know why you don't know this because you have yet to be invited to the White House but that's actually interesting I got now how it works normally people just people just badge in and badge out like they badge in and badge out it's a normal place Jason I mean literally it's interesting there's a new private club it's incredible that you have thoroughly prepared for this week just like I'm always prepared interestingly I don't

know if you gentlemen know this Ryan and Aaron there's a new private club in DC that Don junior is doing and sacks is a member Tromat's a member and I just checked my gmail I checked all three my gmail accounts everything no invite must have gotten lost again Did you send a paper one was it like you sent a gold card or something sacks?

How do I get invited to this private club?

What is this private club?

Everybody wants to know well We'll be happy to have you as a guest Do I have to wear a maggot hats?

I have the courtesy maggot hats at the door if you want to be a member obviously there are dues and a membership fee.

And I just didn't want to waste your time with an offer that I knew you wouldn't be willing to accept.

It's only $500 ,000 is what I read.

Is that true? That's true for founding members who have additional benefits, but there's also a lower level that's the more reasonable membership level.

So I think people are getting a little bit carried away with that number.

Got it. That's why I wanted to clarify.

Yeah. there's like 10 founding members who have that level.

And then there's a lower level for a more average member.

Chamatha, you one of those 10?

Yes. Do you pay more if you have TDS?

Or how does that work?

TDS premium? We're talking about J Cal specifically?

Or what are we talking about?

TDS surcharge asking for a friend.

It's a TDS surcharge, you put the tower.

We just we want a place to hang out in DC.

All of us have been of clubs like The Battery or, I don't know if you go to LA like the, there's Malibu Beach House, there's Bird Street clubs.

There are places in Palm Beach that are really cool.

In any event, we wanted a place to hang out, and the clubs that exist in Washington today have been around for decades.

They're kind of old and stuffy, to the extent there are Republican clubs, they tend to be like more Bush -era Republicans, as opposed to Trump -era Republicans.

so we wanted to create something new, hipper, and Trump -aligned.

Since I'm in the government I can't be an owner but I told him I'd be happy to be member number one.

And so I, you know, said great let's do it.

And so we're creating a place for us to hang out.

That's basically it.

We want a place to go where you don't have to worry that the next person over at the bar is a fake news reporter or even a lobbyist or something like that who we don't know and we don't trust. So it's like any private club, you want to go somewhere that's highly curated.

This private club movement is happening all over the country, not just Washington, but we're creating something that didn't exist before in DC, which again is younger, hipper, Trump -aligned, Republican.

I actually started a Kamala Club in the Bay Area.

So so what we're up?

I don't think would pay to join that, though, is the problem.

Right. I mean, it's an open bar, and that's for sure.

Where do you guys meet up?

And like Redwood City?

We actually meet up at the at the at the trade ports.

All right. We're one hundred days in to Trump.

Two point. Oh, it's just a random hundred day thing.

But everybody's talking about everybody's hand ringing.

What has it been like for this first hundred days?

How does it compare to Biden?

How is it compared to Trump?

One point now, one hundred forty three executive order is the most ever in the first hundred days.

And they're moving obviously at a different pace to be generous.

Major indices are down seven to 10 percent.

Obviously, this trade war and tariffs, the year old on the yield on the tenure.

It's down about 40 basis points.

There's a lot going on.

Let's go around the horn.

Ryan, Aaron, you're our guest. What's your take on the first hundred days?

Is it what you expected?

Good bad and otherwise wins and fails everything.

Oh, first, I think it's a whirlwind.

I mean, if you look at the the john boy, the fighter pilot has this concept of the OODA loop, which is observe, orient, decide an act.

And the concept is that if you're in dog fighting, if you're able to maneuver through those OODA loops at a faster pace than your than your competition, they get disoriented and don't know what to do.

And I think that that's got to be how Democrats in Washington and maybe mainstream Republicans in Washington.

Certainly journalists are all feeling this.

The Trump administration takes action, and before anybody can respond to that they have already done like four more things and you're like, wait, I forgot to actually follow up on the other thing that they did that I didn't like.

And so, yeah, it's pretty disorienting if you're trying to ...

they can't find a line to fall back to and go, hey, we're gonna push back against this policy because they're already moving on to the next one, the next one.

So that's like my high -level interpretation.

Obviously I come at it from a trade angle.

I think everybody knew that Trump was gonna be, he told us during the campaign that the most beautiful word in the English language is tariff.

Don't tell them it's an Arabic word, but the most beautiful word in the English language.

And so we knew that was coming.

I think that the suddenness of it all caught people by surprise.

I mean, they told us April 1st, April 2nd would be liberation day.

They didn't tell us that it would go live the next week, you know, and the fact that you've already ordered these goods.

So that's one aspect that people are kind of disoriented about and we're going to unpack that.

Aaron, your thoughts on the first hundred days?

Obviously you are a Democrat and you were pretty vocal, not in support of Trump.

So what's your take on the first hundred days?

Any bright spots for you?

Things you support?

actually, SAPs world I'd say has has been a bright spot.

So especially I mean, I think we have a very clear message on AI.

And, and that that is, that's been a huge net positive is, you know, if you look at the past few months, out of all the the AI push from the administration, it's unmistakably, you know, pro open source, you know, pro, you know, bring as much AI innovation, you know, to the US, obviously, the tariffs, you know, add a little bit of a headwind to that, I have some very strong asks around high skilled immigration because I think that AI talent is going to be super critical to actually win the AI war.

So I'd say that directionally has had some positive momentum.

You know, from my perspective, this is kind of playing out almost exactly how I thought it would six months ago.

And then three months ago, I think there were some signs that maybe, you know, it wouldn't play out this way just based on some of the kind of early groups that were coming to the White House, the sort of deep business kind of centricity of the White House.

I think it was day one or two that Stargate was announced at the White House, we're going to go build massive infrastructure.

The case I'd like to make once we talk about tariffs is I think there's an alternative universe where you just lean into acceleration as opposed to adding headwinds, but so that would be the case of what maybe could have been very different as we just keep doubling down on doubling down on what's working while fixing the parts that aren't working.

But but that would be my judgment so far.

You've been talking about it here every week.

You and I have been talking about it pretty consistently.

So I don't think there'll be many surprises here.

But take a second and maybe assess what you think if you had to pick a singular thing that's gone really well.

And a singular thing you think could be improved.

What do you got? Let me give you my overall grade and then I'll tell you how I get to that.

I think the first hundred days have been a B plus and here's how I get to that score.

There have been two things where I think Trump has frankly hit a home run.

The first is all of the direct investment and specifically the foreign direct investment into the United States.

I think it's approaching, if not it has already exceeded a trillion dollars from corporations and organizations and individuals from around the world who have committed to bringing money into the United States.

I think strategically that's a legacy that will live past him.

So, I think that's been an A -plus.

The second is we had a very unsafe border situation and he ran on shutting it down.

I'm not talking about the execution of the deportations.

I'm just saying getting the illegal crossings to zero, and he's done that.

So that's been an A -plus.

I think what's going to be more controversial are these next three things, though.

But in my interpretation, I think the tariffs have been an A.

And I think that the market reaction, the stock market is only down 4 % and the interest rate markets are 4 .25%.

I think those have been an A.

Now, the reason I think tariffs have been an A is because it is uncovered, in my opinion, how beholden we are to a brittle supply chain and specifically to China who is a friend but who's also an enemy.

And I think that that's going to really severely complicate our flexibility and optionality in the future as they do what is in their best interests.

Okay, so where have they then not done so well?

I think the documents have been frankly a D.

We were supposed to get the Epstein files.

We haven't yet. We were supposed to get the Martin Luther King files.

We haven't. we did get the redacted JFK files.

I don't think there's been very good communication about why it's taking so long.

So I think it's a very small narrow thing, but I think it had a lot of attention on the way in.

I think the communications of the tariffs and the back and forth had been a C.

I think the markets were not led in enough of a way where they could absorb the volatility.

But if you take it all in its totality, I would give it a B plus.

I think it's been a very productive hundred days.

And when you look back, I think, in, you know, three years, four years, five years, OK, we've made some important progress.

Saks, obviously you're part of the administration, so I'm not sure exactly how to ask you this.

But you certainly heard some nice compliments about A .I.

from Aaron. I happen to agree with those.

I actually agree with a good portion of the crypto stuff, too.

I think actually getting those tightened up, which are your two.

zones of excellence and your area that you're focused on?

I think you've done a great job there, so just best to the best to great job there.

Yeah, thank you. What's your take overall?

It's kind of hard, I guess, to have somebody in the administration, to criticize the administration, but hearing everybody else's take, what's your response, maybe?

Well, I would highlight three main areas that I think are big accomplishments for the Trump administration in the first 100 days.

So number one has to be the border.

Like Chamas said, I think you have to give the administration an A plus on this.

they've completely stopped the border crisis.

I think we all knew that Trump would take action on this because it's one of the main issues he campaigned on, but I think if you had asked any of us, you know, four months ago, would this problem be completely solved, meaning border apprehensions completely stopped, border completely sealed within the first 100 days, I don't think we would have believed necessarily that it would get done so quickly, but it has.

Recall that for four years during the Biden years, we were told for the first three years that the problem didn't even exist. Whenever the videos were published of caravans coming or throngs of people running across the border, we were told that these were cherry -picked videos on Fox News, it wasn't real.

Finally, in the last year of the Biden administration, they said, okay, we're finally gonna do something about it, they took some limited actions, they said that doing more than that would require new legislation.

Well, all of that was just gaslighting it turns out.

Trump came in, he restored Remain in Mexico And other policies completely stopped it.

He had this line at the state of the union, which I think is exactly right, which is, we didn't need a new law.

We just needed a new president.

So I think that's area number one.

Area number two, I would say would be the vibe shift in the culture around wokeism and DEI.

You know, how quickly we forget about this.

But wokeism has completely collapsed.

I don't know that anyone is endorsing in a full throated way.

Moreover, beyond just sort of the cultural aspect of it, I think we've had significant policy changes on DEI.

Trump has basically ended DEI at the government level.

He also signed an executive order ending the use of disparate impact for affirmative action.

This is the policy that said that even if you have a policy that's applied in a completely neutral and objective way, if it results in a disparate impact where different groups are represented in a different way in the outcomes, then somehow that must be racist. And that led to essentially engineering the results of various populations to basically fit quotas.

And I think all of that now has fallen by the wayside, and I think that meritocracy and colorblindness are back.

The only holdout really has been these universities, where Trump is now taking action against Harvard. And I think that ultimately we will win that battle.

Well, you see that even in relatively liberal companies, the DEI departments have been canceled and they're moving back towards more of a meritocracy.

So I would say that that's like big shift number two.

And I think if any of us had tried to predict that 100 days ago, we would have thought, yes, Trump will do something about it, but I don't think we would have predicted the total collapse of wokeism and DEI so quickly.

And then I'd say the third area, which is still in flight, is the reprivatization of the economy.

That's a term that Scott Besson used.

I think that the Trump administration needs to re -privatize the economy.

And I like that framing of it.

And there's a bunch of different pieces under that.

I'd say number one is Doge, again ending this hogwall government spending.

I do think that Trump has come into office inheriting a very weak Biden economy that was being propped up by massive amounts of government spending.

that was not only stimulating the public sector but it was also goosing the employment numbers as well and we knew that that spending was unsustainable we have to do something about it.

So I think for the first time in decades we've actually started to make real cuts in government, real cuts in the federal workforce, and look we'd like to do more but that is a huge shift in the conversation.

There's other pieces of it as well, I mean President Trump has signed a significant number of executive orders on deregulation.

There's also been unleashing energy.

He ended Biden's Evie mandate.

And a lot of these like green new scam.

Projects offshore wind, and he's been encouraging oil and gas exploration.

So I think there's that.

And then I appreciate what Aaron said about tech innovation.

We did repeal Biden's exact order on AI, which was a hundred pages of unnecessary regulation on AI.

We've ended the war on crypto.

And I think we're trying to stop the regulatory capture that benefits large incumbents.

So you have all these things, and there's been other things that have been done on the economy as well, but I do think that this sets us up for a Trump boom in the future.

It's just that a lot of these changes take time to play out.

Great. Well done. I think when you actually be very pro, Chamath seems really pro, other than he wants like to alien conspiracy files released, which we'll get soon.

What is the view from J.

Calle, Wendy, where you're the left -leaning guy in the room?

I'm kind of independent, but yes, social liberal.

I look at what all Americans believe and try to build some consensus here.

One of the things I've been trying to do on the pod is look for where we agree.

Americans universally want the border secured.

They don't want illegal immigration, and they don't want fentanyl.

So this is the biggest win I think for Trump, which I think everybody on the panel pointed out and Sacks, you were dead right, like when we were seeing those videos, some of them were five years old, some of them were recent.

Biden really covered up what was going on in the border and it took years to figure out what was exactly going on there.

So that's the biggest win possible.

I give overall, just to be brief, a B for this first hundred days, and I give Biden like a C -.

The second thing that everybody agrees on is They want to downsize the government.

They don't want waste and fraud.

So I think Doge is the other huge win.

The things I think that could be improved, really just three simple things.

The economic uncertainty is really terrible for running a business.

I'm seeing a lot of folks in my circle on my podcasts this week in startups and here telling me, oh, I don't know how to plan for the future.

And we're going to get into that with this tariff stuff and the trade war.

And so I think economic uncertainty, we have to sort of slow down and maybe make it easier for to understand what the administration is trying to do.

I think rule of law really matters to people.

People didn't like Biden's pardons.

They didn't like covering up his mental acuity.

And I don't think people like the deportations without due process.

We talked about that on a previous episode.

Overwhelmingly, people want Trump and the administration to obey what the Supreme Court says.

They really want rule of law.

The third term talk, like eight out of 10 Americans don't like that kind of talk.

And then conflicts of interest. Obviously, people hated the Hunter Biden stuff, they hate the meme coin stuff.

And so that's where it could improve crisper communications, more thoughtful execution, maybe less trolling, I don't like the White House Twitter account trolling.

And then focus on what got Trump here.

You all said the same thing.

What got Trump in here was the economy.

And one thing that wasn't mentioned by everybody is the peace dividend.

And Trump is making massive progress in Ukraine.

Apparently, I don't know if it's on the doctor today or not.

But stopping the words and making the economy.

Those are the two most important things that I can build on that.

I totally missed that.

You're absolutely right.

That's another one where I would give Trump an A plus.

Nat and I had dinner with POTUS two weeks ago.

And you had dinner with Trump is breaking news.

Well, okay, whatever.

Yes. Well, I think it's remarkable how much of a Putin apologist Jay Cal's become.

I mean, you want to end the war in Ukraine now?

I've always wanted to.

You're just going to give in to Putin?

No, no, no. You're not going to stop Putin?

I'm totally in favor of what Trump's doing in negotiating a deal to get our money back.

Oh, you want to talk to Putin now?

I've always wanted to talk to Putin.

I just don't trust him, but you can trust him.

Let me tell you what Trump said.

So there we go. There was a handful of us at dinner and then he got up to say a few words at the end and he reminded me why I was so Inclined to vote for him, which is he talked about his uncle and he talked about how his uncle taught him about the severity of nuclear war and How people don't understand how intense and how destructive it is and the power of these weapons And he left that speech at the end saying, and this is why I'm so fundamentally against this thing.

And it reminded me to your point, Jason, it is so easy to forget that there's only one existential risk, save like aliens coming from the heavens.

There's only one existential risk where all these issues become fringe issues.

You mentioned rule of law, border security, foreign direct investment, tariffs.

It all goes out the window in a nuclear war.

And I was like, I am so glad this guy's in charge.

Because this one issue he never wavers.

And I think there's all kinds of complicated moments that could make this an issue.

And this was where my biggest issue with Biden was, was I did not know who was in control.

And I think that Trump in the first 100 days, to your point, I think has completely reinforced that there are no conditions under which he'll go to war.

He has time and time again showed find the off ramp.

And I think that that's really healthy for Americans to see.

To Ukraine is we were on a glide path before the Trump presidency.

The Biden had put us on a certain path.

Kamala Harris gave every indication she would have continued it.

What was that path?

It was a path of continued escalation and doubling down in Ukraine.

recall that it was by himself at the beginning of the war who said, that if we give Ukraine Abrams tanks and F -16s or attack them or high Mars or if we allow them to hit targets inside of Russia, it would lead to World War Three, he actually used the word Armageddon.

So at the beginning of that administration, they were very concerned about how an escalatory path could lead us into direct conflict with Russia, and World War Three.

And yet, despite that, at every fork in the road where they had a choice, they ended up doubling down.

They gave the Abrams tanks, they gave the F -16s, they gave the HIMARS, they gave the ATAKMs, and finally when Biden was a lame duck in his last couple months in office, they did the most reckless and irresponsible thing, which is allow American weapons to be used to strike targets on Russian soil, not just fighting in Ukraine but on Russian soil.

Moreover, we now know from a New York Times article that just came out in the last few weeks that it was American generals and American intelligence who are planning this war.

So when you're talking about striking Russian targets on Russian soil, it's not just the Ukrainians using our weapons.

They're using our targeting.

They're using our guidance.

They're using our satellites.

I mean, we are deeply integrating the kill chain.

This is the United States being a cobbler during the war hitting Russian soil.

That is incredibly reckless and dangerous.

I have no doubt that if the Democrats were still in office, We would be in an escalatory spiral right now with the destination being world war three And I do think that Trump has pulled us back from the brink there There's obviously still more work to do but I really appreciate the efforts that Steve wick off has undertaken where for the first time in three years we've at least had direct Diplomacy with the Russians we weren't even talking before we weren't even talking before talking is a great thing And apparently we're going to keep supplying with them with weapons as long as they pay for them

So it's going to be very interesting to see how this all hashes out over the next hundred days or so.

Let's keep moving. I don't think we know that yet.

Let's let's wait and see on that.

OK. Yeah, I mean, I think that's yeah, what was reported.

But you're right. We should wait and see.

OK. Downstream tariff impacts.

We got to talk about this.

And this is why we have you here.

Ryan, since you're in the thick of it, you tweeted a thread last week about the lag time of shipments from China.

And when you were on, I guess, during COVID, you really educated us to how the supply chain works.

And according to the thread that you shared, somewhere around early June, we're going to expect warehouses trucking the entire supply chain maybe to start to seize up or layoffs.

I don't know how you would frame it, Ryan, but are we past the point of no return with regard to the supply chain?

Is there an off ramp for this tariff conflict war negotiation with China in your mind?

What are you seeing on the streets and in the purchase orders and the invoices at Flexport?

Definitely not past the point of no return.

I think we're still right in the middle of the don't judge the cook while he's cooking, which is one of you know, like, let's see what the let's see what it tastes like at the end is I think a starting point here and we're still there's still an active negotiation.

So I don't think today's it's not static.

Now, So the world does want a lot more certainty, and that's a big cause of what's happened here.

And what has happened is a 60 % decline in bookings of ocean freight from China to the US.

I mean, so that's really, really pretty dramatic, like probably exceeding what was expected.

I don't think – when they issued – when they rolled out the initial reciprocal tariff plans on April 2nd, it was meant to be a 54 % tariff on China.

and you know, there's multiple cycles of escalation.

We ended up at what's now 154 % tariffs.

So this is just a lot higher than anybody planned for.

And so therefore I don't think anyone's planning for a 60 % decline in ocean freight.

Ryan, let me ask you a question about that.

Are people actually paying that 154 %?

There's been this discussion online and it's sort of unclear from the administration and from retailers, stuff that's landing that people ordered before April 2nd, are they actually paying the 154 % on top of what's landing?

It's live now, it was based on departure date, so goods that departed China after midnight Eastern Time on April 9th are subject to the tariffs upon arrival.

And so now enough time has passed that pretty much all the ships that are arriving now left China after April 9th, when that started.

So yes. What happens?

People are paying it or are people saying, I won't take delivery because it's too much?

Jason, you have to pay it, right?

And correct me if I'm wrong, but you have to pay it at the dock in order to get the goods released.

More or less that's true.

You have a bond in place, so you can pull the goods out before you pay, but the money's owed at that time, and then you get like a two -week time frame to actually make the payment.

There are strategies here a lot of people are doing that you can use what's called a bonded warehouse and move cargo into this warehouse, and then you only owe the duties when the cargo leaves.

That's what I was asking.

Is there a hack here?

That lets you defer things and it's very, very common right now.

People are searching everywhere for bonded warehouse capacity because in a bonded warehouse, not only you defer payment to when the cargo leaves the warehouse, but you only owe the duty amount based on at that date.

So if the duties come back down, which a lot of people are betting they will on the China specific duties, you'll actually lower your tariff burden.

and then there's another hack for this which is effective I use a Mexican or Canadian Bonded Warehouse so you move the goods into Mexico and then you actually only technically import them into the u .s. at a future date when tariffs are lower so I understand a lot of a lot of companies are doing that right now too we're helping some people with that type of strategy but yeah that's right Ryan do you think that the government will they view that okay that kind of hack and you were like you know like if you look at the GDP numbers one the craziest things was the inventory pull forward that people

did to your point like trying to get as much stuff into the united states before april 9th as an example yeah i mean it's not a hack it's a bonded warehouses have been around for decades and they're very commonly used i don't know that it'll be that material in the scheme of things that it would you know cause a change in the law around bonded warehouse so you don't think for example the department of commerce will have an issue with the strategy of sending inventory into Mexico that essentially, you're essentially, like, isn't it an ark though?

It's a workaround. Like instead of paying the China tariff, now you pay a Mexico tariff, which should be less.

Is that the idea? Well you can move it into a bonded warehouse in Mexico even and not pay Mexican tariffs either and you just wait until it imports.

But I mean, what's the department of commerce or the customs to do?

It's sort of you just delayed importing the goods.

You imported them in the future.

And you know, I wouldn't even call it a hack is just sort of people are going to get creative here.

You know what I mean?

That's the job, actually.

The government should set the rules, and the rest of us got to figure out how we're going to compete and make money in this environment that they've created.

So Ryan, in that tweet you redid, which was a pretty dramatic tweet painting a very, like, I don't know, a pretty dire situation, where are we at in terms of how dire this will get or resolvable?

Paint us the best -case scenario and what expect could happen in that case, or if this gets extended, are we going to see as you know, people are hand wringing empty store shelves, Christmas gets ruined.

And all these layoffs start happening in the supply chain.

Take us through the two scenarios that people are debating.

Yeah, I mean, the the bleak scenario, which is I don't really think it's going to happen.

I think that the administration doesn't want this to be their legacy that they like created a policy that just like kind of tanked small business and supply chain.

So I don't I don't actually think this is gonna happen.

But the bleak scenario is tariffs stay at this level for 145 percent on China, the 10 percent goes way back up to what it was originally announced in reciprocal tariffs, so there's no safe haven for tariffs, and trade just falls off a cliff and a lot of companies go bankrupt.

Especially small companies are the ones that are importing from China.

Reality is tariffs have been high on China for a long time.

Labor costs in China are not, are not there for cheap labor, you're there for quality manufacturing at this point.

Like, there's much cheaper labor in Southeast Asia or other parts of the world than there is in China.

So you're in China because of the manufacturing capabilities, the ecosystem, not just for cheap labor.

And if you could have moved, you would have already, with the 25 % tariffs from the Trump's first terms were pretty hot or high enough incentive.

And so, that's the bleak scenarios that small business starts getting wiped out, the ones that are buying from China.

And it's a lot of brands like it's not just Amazon sellers selling stuff that you don't It's like, all the brands that you know are like, you know, interesting brands, apparel brands.

I had CUTS clothing on this week and startups last week and he said, there's gonna be like, if this doesn't get revolve resolved.

And like, let's say two to four weeks in his group chats, people are going to start layoffs and they they can't physically restart the supply chain in Vietnam or wherever to make t shirts.

So Aaron, what's your thought on this as well?

Just bringing you in?

Sure. Well, first of all, I mean, Ryan has supplied me with a high degree of doom scrolling.

And I just like, a horror show reading his tweets.

First of all, I would feel better if the messages out of the administration were either more kind of consistent, or that there was a logical connection between do we either want to raise the kind of, you know, tariff revenue stream?

Or do we want free trade, like those things are working against each other, because like, depending on who you talk to, they say this is a mechanism to bring down income tax, which obviously then by definition means that they expect the tariffs to sort of persist, which is totally different from let's go negotiate deals that just allow for the, you know, free trade to actually increase.

And so are we worried about the reciprocity?

Are we worried about kind of revenue stream.

So that's a whole whole issue.

You also have this issue, which is the messaging from the government.

And this is the meta point I'll make in a second is about is about how we could have actually accelerated into the transformation of the economy.

But you know, you have folks like Lutnik, etc, you know, going on on TV talking about the the end state of our economy, which are actually probably, you know, fine messages, but but we haven't seen what that vision looks like, you know, so everybody is kind of confused, like, does this mean that we literally go into manufacturing plants, and we're like, the ones literally doing the screws on an iPhone, or is it a bunch of jobs, which are next generation, you know, jobs, which is like we're managing robots and, and like shipping logistics grows as a result of this and all of the surrounding kind

of supply chains, you know, start to grow so like, like, you know, like, there's a there's underlying, I mean, you know, most people on this call have managed teams, like you do change management, you lead people to the end state, that you want them to sort of see the potential in.

And and I think some something that kind of gets missed is and the part that kind of confused me is like, I don't know if, if you know exactly to Ryan's point, like people are in China because of the ecosystem of manufacturing, yet the messages you get out of the administration are like, Oh, you know, we're gonna have fewer toys in at Christmas time.

It's like, no, that's not the big picture.

Like the big picture is, like, like, you know, this is supplying the parts that go into building a manufacturing plant and building a car that allows us to actually, you know, be even remotely competitive in car manufacturing.

So where should in your mind this all lead?

Because you have some thoughts on American exceptionalism and maybe skating to where the puck is going.

So if you were to become an advisor, yeah, on this as a technology expert, and somebody who spent their whole career in it, what would you advise them to do?

I'd get rid of Navarro immediately.

And, and you would basically say, you know, mea culpa, like, oops, and like, obviously, you need to like land that with some really cool trade deals that make everybody kind of feel happy.

You basically say, you know what, like, let's go back to the first two days of Trump, which is let's announce massive deals.

We're bringing manufacturing here with Stargate.

We're doing TSMC. We're building Invidia chips.

We're going to do a deal, which is you get like 5 % tax rate if you build in America.

And so you just stimulate a manufacturing boom in the country.

You know, we incentivize automation across the manufacturing.

We use that as a competitive weapon to go and compete with the sort of lower cost labor that that happens internationally, you know, we find every incentive and tool we can we deregulate, you allow people to build these plants.

And so you don't have to go through the, you know, three year EPA process, like, like you, you just accelerate from from this position.

And you see, you see it all as upside.

And so then business leaders, you know, if you go talk to the fortune 500 company that actually has to build, you know, anything right now, you give them a path to say, Listen, we're going to help you transition away from your current supply chain.

And we're gonna make it even more competitive and more compelling in America to do that, you know, there's a reason that Elon builds in America like like he is he's actually made it be more effective to be able to do you know, bring automation to manufacturing to be able to build locally, but he wasn't forced to do that.

And so so I would just I would argue like you use as many carrots as possible, in some surgical areas and chamath.

I've heard your points about the net, like, you know, chips, pharma, you know, AI like in those surgical areas we get tough where necessary and and if we have to do you know a couple sort of very surgical tariffs you know to kind of make make people move the direction that we want that's totally fine but but I mean I like it's like that even arguing the premise is hard because because we act like like it's like countries that are screwing us but actually businesses are independently making decisions about where they want their supply chain to exist they have this scene and free market they've made

that decision they And they don't need the government to tell them where are they supposed to or where are they allowed to have their supply chain operate.

That ends up with just lots of economic distortions that everybody on the right would have called the left socialists for trying to kind of implement central planning around supply chains.

So, that's my piece.

Well, no, what do you think, Chamath, here, of this sort of reframing -slash -off ramp and sort of maybe the positive spin on it?

Hey, if you want to make T -shirts, you want to make commodity items, have at it free trade, You know, reciprocal tariffs, great check box there.

But here is a series of incentives and a path forward to do the advanced stuff, to do robotics, et cetera.

Let me answer this in a different way.

OK. A lot of those things, he's actually doing.

I think where we are is we're beyond TDS.

There is something that comes after it.

And I think that the mainstream media has just lost their mind to a degree that they hadn't even lost their mind in Trump 1.

I'll give you a couple of examples.

Well one example, by the way, just a shout out to our friend, completely brazen, ridiculous shitty reporting by the Wall Street Journal last night, when they were told that this you know, this whole Tesla thing was a total farce, they continued to publish it.

Okay, fine. They have a – You're referring to Elon, the board, starting a search to replace Elon and then the board said, well, wait, we told you we weren't doing that, and they didn't even mention that.

They communicated that directly to the Wall Street Journal.

The Wall Street Journal said, I don't care, I have an ax to grind.

Correct, yeah. I think that Trump has a strength, which is he shapes these potholes for the mainstream media to fall into.

The downside of that, though, is that the mainstream media then doesn't do the other part of the job, which is to tell the things that are important.

So for example, we spent a lot of time breathlessly talking about the MS -13 knuckles of the guy, Or then we spent a bunch of time talking about how MSNBC blurred out the names of the placards on the lawn.

Okay, but here's the other part where then they get so tilted, here's what they don't report.

They didn't report that, for example, when Trump took a shot at Harvard, he also reinforced and strengthened historically black colleges and universities.

Totally did not get written.

I'll give you another example.

This past week, Besant said that the tax bill will allow you to fully deduct all the PPE and all of the incidental costs of building a factory.

I heard that. I immediately went to my wife.

She runs a pharma business.

This is exactly what she's trying to figure out, and we now are like, how do you build the business case if this actually gets effectuated?

The point is, that thing would create an absolute economic bonanza if it were to get past. Other than people hearing it on this pod or randomly maybe finding it on a direct clip that Besson puts out on X, there has been zero coverage by the mainstream media.

Yeah, but first of all, yeah, okay, MSM and whatever we want to call it aside, that is still on the administration for driving a change management process that causes people to build on momentum and not cause as boards to basically say, oh, we're gonna pivot our entire supply chain this week because Trump didn't get a callback from Xi.

That is like, this is really not a TDS MSN issue.

If you talk to Fortune 500 CEOs - Did you know about the PPE thing?

No, but I don't need to.

The thing that - I know, but there are many other CEOs that do.

They're controlling trillions of dollars of capital allocation.

It's an important thing.

If we had, if we had Mary Barra on this call and, and we said, Mary, has, has, you know, Trump, increased your ability to execute and operate and accelerate the, the transition to the US, or has he had headwinds that make it tougher to navigate right now, which, which way do you think she'd go?

I think that she would give you a calculated answer that neither is pro or con.

I think, I think that answer changes by the day.

I think that if you talk to her last week, she would say this has been a major headwinds.

And And then yesterday, to Shema's point, they did this thing with you can depreciate, or fully expense in year one capital improvements, or building out factories.

But also, earlier this week they made it so that auto parts are not subject to the tariffs.

They created a huge exemption that wasn't there at the start.

Yeah, we exempt out everything.

It's great. By the way, if this was a bit better planned, it should've been there in the beginning.

Because these auto companies are saying, hey, this is going to bankrupt us if we have to pay taxes on the land.

Where I would take your side.

settling back to communication, and making a crisper and cleaner...

Yeah, you're right.

Aaron, where you are right is my expectation is it's my job to stay informed, okay?

As the CEO of my company, I try to stay informed.

And you're right, it is hard because sometimes I find myself hunting and pecking to find the things that matter.

But I do put a bunch of that responsibility into the lap of the people that are supposed to actually report the facts.

They can choose, they didn't have to run that article about Elon, which turned out to be total bullshit and horseshit on the front page of the Wall Street Journal.

They could have talked about what Ryan just mentioned as the first article and said, here completely changes your ROIC and ROE calculations for 90 % of the S &P500.

That was not the article they chose to write and to publish.

But I also think it comes back to my original point around the UDOT loops, that Trump is, the administration is running these very tight, hey, let's take an action.

Let's see what happens.

Let's see the reaction and then take another action And Washington's used to doing all these committees that plan everything for five years or something or whatever, 18 months, and then roll it out slowly.

And they're going, hey, let's roll it out.

Oh crap, we're about to cause this huge problem in the auto manufacturers, and they're all telling us they're gonna go bankrupt.

Okay, three days later they pushed an update to that.

It feels chaotic. Yeah, to summarize, Ryan and Aaron, your position, so we can keep going through the docket.

Hey, a little less shock and awe, maybe a little more predictability, a little crisper communication.

Chamath, I think your position is, hey, maybe the mainstream media can play a better role here in focusing us on what matters.

Oh, that wouldn't be my takeaway.

So yeah, okay. What's your takeaway?

I mean, like, like, zero shock and awe like, okay, like, not a little less like, like, like my strategy would be 100 % different.

Actually, Scott Besson has an incredible podcast from, like September of last year.

And he basically said, you know, Biden, Bidenomics got it all wrong.

And I was like, listening to it.

I was like, oh, okay, actually, this is kind of cool.

Like he basically says, deregulate the U .S., make it easier to build manufacturing, the U .S. increase the GDP, and then you'll be able to take in less tax revenue, spend less in the government.

And it was like, oh, this is actually like a glide path, we could take, we could take the fact that we did a soft landing relative to the rest of the globe.

We're winning in AI, we're winning in it, and in, you know, a, you know, number of categories, we obviously need more energy, we need we need to bring in manufacturing into the US.

And And so you have this great momentum which is we are the tech leader in the world.

Let's just pour fuel on that.

And so to pour fuel on that, you just do a series of carrots and the winds that build a flywheel of positive energy.

The reason why I take a little bit of exception to Chamas' MSM point is that I think to some extent Fortune 500 CEOs are not the ones like, oh, my gosh, like Rachel Maddow said this.

Like, I'm going to go and worry about this topic now.

Like the information coming at them is - I'm not talking about the information that's presented.

I'm talking about the information that's excluded.

How do you get the information that's not published and shared broadly?

Like Goldman Sachs and J .B.

Morgan are not writing reports on the fact that we might enter a recession because of MSNBC's reporting on this topic.

Again that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm saying like glad handing some high level prognostication, which nobody ever gets right, is, in my opinion, worthless.

What I'm talking about is the details.

So when you talk about something as narrow and specific as excluding PPE, or allowing you to double or triple depreciate something in a given calendar year, that is narrow, it's precise, it's specific, it's actionable, and what I'm saying is, if I surveyed the 500 CEO of the S &P 500 dollars to donuts, the overwhelming majority would not have known.

And had they brushed up against that somehow in their normal media consumption to then ask their teams, the odds of that would have been zero as well.

So I guess it's then, who do we blame for this, Chamaf?

Is it the administration's job?

Or Maestrae Media? But I bet you everybody knows about the blurring out of the stupid pictures on the lawn and the MS -13 knuckle tattoos.

OK, so let's wrap up on this.

Just really lightning around here, Amazon flip flopped on a new tariff notification on their websites Trump said he had a great discussion with Bezos he solved the problem very quickly he did the right thing good guy etc if you haven't seen this it's something that Timu is doing here's what Timu does currently today Nick you have that image if you could pull it up of just when there is a tariff they explained the tariff coming into the country they put it as like a line item I thought this was actually kind of cool I don't know why people take offense with Brian, this is pretty standard stuff.

So Amazon's competitor, Timo is putting in the import charges they don't say tariffs, they don't say taxes import charges.

This is like a standard thing happens in other countries to what is this what is Timo is like a dollar store?

It's basically like a dollar is this the last place you would ever buy it and everybody's a place where, yeah, you could buy $12 jeans.

Basically your left sock from L 'Oreal piano costs less than Timu's entire inventory of jeans.

The point being, I thought this was actually a plus for...

I think that Amazon totally misplayed this.

They did it. They rolled it out.

Then they got criticized.

I think they were called a treasonous company from the White House, by the press secretary.

They totally misplayed this because they should have gone and leaned into it and said, yeah, we're showing you all these tariffs when you buy from China.

If you buy from America, you don't have to pay any tariffs.

Look at all these other products!

No, guys, guys. Come on, come on, that would have lasted 3 and half seconds.

This is exactly consistent with the other issue, which is they're playing whack -a -mole.

Okay, we're going to do something with the automakers.

We're going to try and solve some problem with Amazon.

This is a sign that it's not a good strategy if you have to do this much whack -a -mole.

Like, they can't cover up what Amazon is going to end up dealing with because there's going to be 500 other retailers that don't get the call with Trump.

So this is like, to me, that's evidence of clearly this, they didn't think through the entire downstream set of conditions that are going to change as a result of this.

Yeah, I thought this was a big win, Chamath, because they could then have Amazon, here's a mock up somebody made, I'll pull it up here, it was interesting.

They could, to Aaron's point, just show, hey, here's a bunch of American companies, buy American when you do a search. That's Ryan's point.

I'm sorry Ryan's point.

Hey, here's what it might look like Pull out the oral B toothbrush one up by Nick if you got it right there So somebody mocked this up.

I think this could be the hugest win.

You could have the retailers do buy American Buy it once buy a high -quality product from America.

If you look here we don't have the products we it wouldn't work We don't have the products Well, I mean we do have for some products, you know American -made products, you know I buy my boots from Danner and those are all American made, so.

Yeah, so we should just go back to communism and we're all gonna make our shoes.

We're in a global market, we buy shit from everywhere.

Chamap, any thoughts on this?

Obviously, there's the whack -a -mole angle, there's buy American and be proud of it.

Here's the narrow question.

Here's the narrow question, I got a bunch of emails from people and a bunch of them were Amazon sellers And I don't know, Nick, if you can find it, but I posted their comments, and I reshared them just to kind of highlight the issues that they were going through.

And at the core of it was a feeling by them that Amazon had abandoned them as American purveyors and sellers of goods.

and that Amazon on the margins had a tendency to help competitors from abroad come stand themselves up and compete and essentially cannibalize on price and margin.

This is my view completely and that this is the biggest opportunity that I think the Trump administration's flying at 40 ,000 feet doing macro level negotiations and look and failing to see some of these micro optimizations that are really really real so you in the United States you can import goods as a foreign company.

You do not have to create an LLC or any sort of registered entity in the United States to import goods.

Sometimes they say oh, Americans pay the tariff.

That is not true. In many, many cases, the foreign company just imports this stuff and they sell on Amazon and when they get caught cheating, they can lie about the valuation and pay a lower tariff, they can change their classification and pay a lower tariff.

They can import stuff that is harmful to children.

Has lead paint, whatever else.

There is no enforcement at all.

You can't go after those people.

So you're saying Amazon's third party is a bit of a backdoor to abuse the system, right?

Amazon is just playing the game that's on the field.

But this is legal in the United States is these companies import stuff and I think it's 60 % of all the sellers on Amazon are these Chinese registered.

They're not registered in the United States at all.

Just Chinese companies sell it.

Which sounds profoundly unfair and true at a level playing field.

For sure. Can we just take a step back and also acknowledge that we are talking about a level of detailed issues that we would never have talked about six months ago, that there was no interest in even bringing this up.

Like, if Ryan wanted to bring up the sort of hollowing out of American salesmanship, let's say if you will, because of like this arbitrage that Amazon does for GMV, that would have been a snooze fest. Except today it can actually get a lot of awareness.

And, Aaron mentioned this, and I've mentioned this before, but like, I think that there are four things that really matter – batteries, AI, pharma APIs, and rare earths.

That now is on the agenda.

I think the positive way to look at this is the American economy is too complicated.

If you had waited, Aaron, for a study for all of the implications, we would have been waiting forever and nothing would have happened.

And I think that we've made macro -level moves.

you're right and now we are finding what the implications are in course correcting in real time and I hope what happens though is when we find these big thorny issues I think the Amazon thing is it is a pretty interesting issue actually about like American competitiveness now the question is do we follow through and get to the root cause of it and and fix it hmm and those feedback loops are there I mean the Trump administration's gonna act on this and if then there's an act that's coming out of Congress as well to shut down the foreign import of record so those feedback loops are there in ways

that I I don't know if they were there in the past. Go ahead, Aaron.

We can totally chaos monkey the economy, and just see what breaks.

I think that you sort of phrase, we could do the research paper, and we could do Aspen Institute as a bad thing, but also, it can be a bad thing if you're the small business owner right now who has 30 employees, and you just literally don't know what you're going to do next month.

So that's sort of then the argument to not...

It's like a counterbalance.

It's like why you do have some bureaucracy and you don't chaos monkey the economy and why Rand Paul is literally saying we shouldn't actually let you know have unilateral, you know control over tariffs So, you know interesting that that like dynamic there All right, it's actually want to wrap this up here or you want to pass Am I still in the pod?

Yeah, well you turned your camera off.

So look I spent 80 minutes to be in this topic with Larry Summers three weeks ago The point I made then is that we had in this city for 25 years a globalist consensus on trade that distorted a lot of outcomes.

I don't need to rehash that debate.

But I'll just recall that Larry Summers' main argument for why this would not work out is that the market was down.

Do you remember that?

That was his evidence that this wasn't going to The market is actually up since Liberation Day on April 2nd.

So, what happened three weeks ago was basically a panic in the market over this policy, and the media has been trying to fuel that panic.

Now, what I said as well is we do have to stick the landing on this.

I mean, President Trump shifted the conversation away from this globalist consensus, and he's now redefined the debate.

But it is now up to Scott Besson, the treasury secretary, Howard Lutnik, the commerce secretary, Jameson Greer, the US Trade Rep, and so on, the Trump trade team to now negotiate these deals, stick the landing.

And I agree with you to the extent that the sooner that is done, the better, because it is good to provide business certainty.

But the idea that so far this hasn't worked, I think, again, the main argument against that was a market reaction.

That now the market's now positive.

So, I think my point is just we need to give this time to work.

I think it's too soon to be judging this policy as if it hasn't worked yet.

It needs to be executed properly.

And, quite frankly, Ryan, I remember the last time you were on this pod, you were coming on about, wasn't there, like, some union deal that was supposed to shut down all the ports and all the shelves would be empty?

That never happened, either?

It did happen! It did!

They shut down for three days.

I don't remember the shelves being empty, which is now the new panic the media's trying to create so look there's a lot of pants wetting that's occurring here that's being fueled by the media.

I just want to bookmark one thing, the only thing I actually I was more frustrated listening to the Larry Summers and you have conversation because I was like why Larry make this point like come on like what don't go down the WTO rat hole like that's that's not relevant so here's the other thing.

Of course is relevant how we got here no it's like like as in like that's 25 years ago like let's worry about literally today.

And like, what do we do going forward?

And the only thing I just want to say, because I because I do think that, that, you know, I appreciate your point about, hey, there's like, you know, everybody's freaking out, whatever.

But to be totally fair, that some of that freakout, whether we can decide how emotional it needs to be, is the reason that then Trump walks back the things that then cause the market to correct.

So, so you can't just say the markets back and and like, see, we didn't need to freak out because it was literally we have to make the We have to stick the landing, but look, China over the last 25 years has been able to strategically annihilate our rare earth processing capability and our ability to cast rare earth magnets.

We just sat back and watched as the market basically went to the lowest bidder, which was being subsidized by the Chinese government, which the WTO allowed them to do.

Now we have a critical dependency in our supply chain on China for basically every electric motor in every product, including cars.

That was crazy. We should not have allowed that to happen.

How are you going to change that?

So we needed to shift the political conversation to recognize the ways in which free trade led to unfair trade and created unacceptable dependencies for the American economy.

Wait, I just want to make one point.

It's more than that.

Okay, final point and then I'm… This is the national security of the United States that's at stake.

Let's go take your favorite pet issue.

China invades Taiwan Okay, and we have to take a side Jason my patient.

Hold on. Let me just finish and and the Chinese say here are the implications of supporting Taiwan on this a BC &D you don't get any pharma API's you don't get any rare earths.

You don't get any batteries Okay, it'll it'll send life back 50 years or let's say China and India get into a fight and we're forced to pick a side Same situation.

The point is there's all these scenarios that we never even considered us being able to have strategic optionality to make the decision that's morally and ethically right for the United States.

And I think that we have learned through this lens that these are huge issues.

The thing that the Chinese did that was so brilliant, which we still don't have an answer for, is they have these national champions.

And being a national champion allows you, and we'll talk about this in AI, it allows you to blur the lines between the public and private partnership.

It allows you to blur the law.

It allows you to blur capital.

And I'm not saying we have to do that, but what I am saying is we need to have our own answer to it.

And that was never on the table until April 9th.

All right, so. Yeah, but like 100%, like do that strategy and then don't have a mad rush.

It is the strategy.

No, no, no, because if you have, you know, Ryan, what is the number?

I don't know, a trillion of imports or whatever, like, you don't need everybody then jamming the system to build their supply chain, you know, in the US to solve that problem immediately.

Look, if we're sitting here in nine months and you're saying this and there are no deals, I would say that you're right.

What Howard Lutnick said last week, and again, we may have all gotten caught up in the knuckle tattoos and we miss this, but he was very clear.

We have a country. A deal is already done.

We're convening Parliament.

It's gonna be the first of many.

So, for all we know, there's like 30 deals that are waiting in the wings, and the first one will set the tone.

And I think that Sachs is right here, which is, it's way too early to declare defeat, and that it was, quote unquote, chaos.

I think if we're sitting here in nine months, and foreign direct investment has shriveled up, and domestic investment has shriveled up, because there is just no continuity, you have a claim.

But that's not what we are now.

No, no, no, because I don't think that'll happen.

I don't think that'll happen.

I think we will end up in like I'm with Ryan like we will end up in a good spot because we'll iterate through this My only point is there's an alternative path that that could have occurred could have been done That's all in a more thoughtful.

Well communicated pattern instead of hey, let's do barrel rolls with the airplane I don't disagree with you Aaron and I could tell you We've already started to see layoffs and I wanted to even initiate the barrel roll guys.

Yeah We got it. It's like hey, I don't want anything to change.

I think we'll agree to disagree on this No, no, no. We've got to move on to the next topic.

Hold on. Hold on. This is one last point.

We're going to move on to the next topic.

Excuse me, excuse me.

You didn't call me for 40 minutes.

I just want to make one final point.

Here he goes. Aaron, where were you with this perfect plan ...

Yeah. Where were you with this perfect plan before Liberation Day?

I was telling Kamala about it.

You were telling Kamala.

Okay, great. He was.

They were having ...

But no where. Nobody, nobody ...

They were having mine ties, and they were talking about this specific issue.

All the people who suddenly know what the perfect plan is, and how to perfectly execute it, no barrel rolls, had nothing to say about this topic for 25 years, and all of a sudden they've come forward with their perfect plans.

I would say that's victory for Trump.

That's what I wanted to finish.

It's like look at this.

The best thing of all of this is that you've got the Liberals embracing Milton Friedman and their backgrounds on their ...

I love it, yes. All right, listen, we're going to agree to disagree.

We're going to agree to disagree on this one.

The Liberals love the stock market.

Listen, Sachs, Kamala is coming on next week.

We're going to make some cocktails.

It's going to be wonderful.

We will ask her some direct questions about, but I want to talk about AI agents.

2025 shaping up to be the year of AI agents, tons to talk about here.

Open AI is planning to charge between two and 20K a month for different levels of AI agencies.

These would be basically cron jobs.

They would run in the background and do things for your company that humans are doing right now.

You may have heard of this agentic tool.

Again, agentic is just a fancy word for agent, which is a fancy word for like a cron job that just runs, you know, prepare the site.

Yep. And Manus is the company in China that started this weirdly benchmark invested in it, that's created a whole kerfuffle on the side.

And Madison's website has a really good visualization of what these agents would look like.

So first of all, I think you're giving a little too much credit to man us then and come up with the agents, but I do think that they have a very good demo.

And it's hard to know exactly how real it is because everyone's used it.

But it's from China.

It's from China, I'll get to that in a second.

If you go to their website, you can see a bunch of their demos.

And I do think that what they deserve credit for is advancing the ball on the UI paradigm.

And it's not that other people weren't doing this.

I mean, I think notably Anthropic was doing this with its operator product.

But the basic idea is that you've got this two -pane view, and in one window, you've got the standard chat bot interface.

And then in the other you can see what the agent is doing.

And that agent has the ability to toggle between the currently four apps.

There's search, browser, code terminal and document editor.

And so when you give Manus a task, the first thing it does is create a to -do list in the document editor.

You can kind of see it there.

And then it works sequentially to achieve each of those tasks and then puts an X on them there.

And you can kind of see it working.

And I think what's cool about the demo is just the way that it seamlessly toggles between those four apps.

And you can see what the AI agent is doing.

And it's browsing the internet, it's searching for things, it's writing documents, it's crossing things off its to -do list. Now, I think it's pretty easy to imagine where this goes, which is you'll be able to connect an agent to all of your SaaS apps.

So it won't just be four applications.

It'll now be connected to dozens of applications, including ones that already have your data.

And it's going to know what actions it's possible to take in those apps So when it creates a to -do list, there's a much wider range of things that it can accomplish.

And in fact, there's a new standard called MCP, which is taking off like wildfire, which is built specifically to enable agents to connect with applications and understand the data and understand the actions that are possible in those SaaS applications.

So, look, Mantis is just at the tip of the iceberg here.

I think this will become a very standard UI paradigm.

That's the reason why I mention it, not because I am predeclaring them to be the winner in the space, but just because I think there's a lot of talk about agents and I think it's hard to conceptualize what that means without just seeing it visually.

Great. Great summary there, Sax.

And Aaron, I want to get your thoughts on it, because obviously you're running Box and you have your finger on the pulse of this.

We actually started building one of these in our venture firm.

We have 20 ,000 applications a year and we have updates coming in from investments.

We are now taking those sacks, Aaron, and we are having an agent sort them, and then look for competitors, and compare them to the last update, and we're looking into our notion, our coda, and saying, what other communications have we had?

What questions should we ask about this startup and about their strategy?

Then we're presenting that in Slack to our team.

This is coming fast and furious.

We spend, I don't know, probably 15 minutes on each of those incoming applications to start doing the math on that.

I'm talking about 5 ,000 hours of work.

Aaron, what are you seeing on the street?

What are you doing at Box in terms of agents landing right now in Q2 of 2025?

Yeah. I think it's actually represented well, which is you have to now think about AI as effectively being able to do anything on a computer or another piece of software as a human can do.

And the little distraction that I think happened two years ago after the Chat to BT moment was we sort of thought about that as, oh, we're just going to do like typing information retrieval, and that's a new paradigm for user interfaces, let's say.

So you just like talk to your software and you search Zillow via a chat.

That was sort of a little bit of a distraction.

That's super helpful when you want basic information lookup or whatnot.

The big breakthrough is starting to think through these things as full, effectively, agentic systems that operate on any amount of data, any amount of tools, for as long as you want to complete any tasks that you want, and this is sort of a big year where agents are starting to enter the vocabulary of enterprises, of IT people, of larger and certainly small organizations, and it kind of requires you to have a little bit of a reset moment on how you think about AI, which is it's not just now a kind of a copilot that you talk back and forth with.

It's actually something running behind the scenes that's now actually starting to deliver real automated kind of work for you.

And so lots of implications, like massive implications to what the software business model is in the future.

I would argue strongly that's a massive TAM increase because now software starts to go after labor spends.

It completely changes the dynamics of then how do you build a moat in a world of AI agents.

But I think probably - Unpack that piece there, Eric.

You said something very interesting.

Thank you. How software, then, is going to go over human spend.

Yes. Explain that concept.

I'll pack it for a second.

So, David and I, you know, we go way back in SaaS land, but, like, you used to basically just, you know, you built a piece of software, and you sell it for the number of people in the organization, and so, you know, the company has 500 employees, and you sell that thing for let's say 10 dollars, you know, a user a month, you know, 120 bucks a year, and you make 60 ,000 bucks.

And so, that's kind of the business model.

But now when your software actually brings the underlying work flow to the customer or the underlying outcome to the customer.

So that company might have 10 lawyers and so previously if you were selling software for lawyers you had a maximum amount of 10 seats that you could sell, now all of a sudden if your AI agents are doing the equivalent of let's say paralegal work or some form of professional services, all of a sudden you might be able to sell a multiple of the initial kind of 10 seats that you would've sold previously.

So you see it as a huge opportunity because now you're not enabling a human to be 5 % more productive, you're replacing a human or you're replacing one out of 10?

And actually I'm going to do an underscore on this point though.

I don't like the word replace because I think actually most of the upside is actually going to be for companies that now deploy labor at things that they wouldn't have deployed labor at before.

And maybe I'm biased from the view we have, but most of our conversations with customers are when they have AI agents, they can actually now go and actually deliver work in areas that would have been unaffordable previously.

So they actually, they weren't doing the work.

And so, yeah. Is it true in logistic?

So like we're making thousands of phone calls a day using AI calling truck drivers.

And if we have a load, we've got 400 ,000 truck drivers using the mobile app, Flexport mobile app.

I don't have enough loads to keep them all, checking it every day, to see if there's a load that matches them.

And if they don't check it, they're useless to me.

And it was too expensive to call the truck driver and have a human call and talk to them, even if it's a human in a call center in the Philippines.

Whereas with AI, it's almost free.

I'm calling thousands of them a day going, hey, this load looks like it's a good match for you, are you interested, and then we activate them on the platform.

That's new work that wasn't gonna happen before not just a replacement.

Yeah, so, it's interesting.

I think like, in the Valley, unfortunately, we've been co -opted a little bit somewhat with a little bit of a doomer mindset in some areas, and we think of then AI as, okay, like it's all fixed pie, it's going to replace things.

And on the ground with large enterprises, the vast majority of the use cases are, it's the ability to finally review the contracts that we never got around to reviewing.

It's the ability to finally automate an invoice process that we never did.

It's the ability to go in and just create marketing campaigns in every language that we never got around to.

And so I think that'll probably be actually like 90 % of the usage of AI in the future will be things that if we look back and we snapped the line right now, we said this is what knowledge work is today.

90 % of AI usage will be things that we don't do today.

10 % will replace what we're doing in some areas.

I think that's the right take, because Chamath, I can tell you in our firm we would never have associates or researchers or analysts, Sax, who were also in this line of work as well, venture capital.

You would never have them review legal documents.

That's something lawyers would do in the legal department.

But now because of AI, we have them say here's Here's the safe, here's the term sheet, here's the edited version, dump it all in, find out what the changes are.

What are the deltas here?

And then let's have a discussion about what the founder changed in a Sander document.

And we don't have to bother with an attorney, and maybe you wouldn't have even checked those documents if you were, you know, a seed funder and age you'll find you would just go along for the ride because you're the 10th person signing the document.

So what do you think, Sharmoth, here in terms of the premise that maybe it's 10 % replacing work that's happening, but this is blue ocean and we're going to do 90 % of like new stuff that we just never got to." Yeah, I tend to believe that's true.

I think the customers that we sell into at 80 -90 are largely large enterprises as well, so not dissimilar to Aaron's customer base.

What I would say is that what they are encountering is the trough of disillusionment.

I don't know if Aaron, you're seeing this as well, but every single CIO ran around signing up some sort of AI product, in large part because their CEO would say to them, hey, what's your AI strategy?

And the reason the CEO asked them that is that at some point somebody on the board said, what are we doing about AI?

So that's the bullshit cascade that we went through in the last two years.

And I think what has happened now is people have spent billions and billions of dollars, I think you can see it in the revenue traction of the AI companies, but I think where we are today is that there are some real technical complexities that have not been solved.

I'll give you an example.

We have a lot of customers in regulated industries, which is to say that if you make a mistake, you will get fined or you will get shut down.

Life sciences, healthcare, financial services are three examples.

People still don't seem to appreciate that when you replace software that is deterministic with software that is probabilistic, meaning software that somebody wrote for you, do A, then do B, then do C, with an LLM that can hallucinate, you'll have errors.

So what used to be a throwaway thing, which is quality assurance and QA, right?

Unit testing, integration testing, is now the only thing that matters.

Why? Because if you're a financial services institution and you're supposed to do KYC and it borks and now all of a sudden you send a wire somewhere in Syria, guess what?

You're in trouble. No bueno. If you're a healthcare company and you're supposed to do some clinical diagnosis to send out a drug on time and you don't do that because the the model hallucinates, that's a real problem.

And I'm guaranteeing you we have not seen the class action lawsuits that will come when those errors will eventually be made.

They're guaranteed to be made, we just don't know the scope and the scale of them.

So that's why I am sort of of this posture where I think we've sold in a ton of promise.

I think the reality is much more tactical, it's a little bit more banal.

I think we're sorting through the exact use cases where you can put guardrails around these error rates where it's okay and tolerable.

Like Ryan will probably tell you there's some number of phone calls that just sound totally fa cocked, but he's okay with that because the broader thing is okay, and air will probably, so I don't know.

So what I - Customers, though.

I have it calling truck drivers to offer them, you know, offer them loads, but I'm not having to talk to my customer.

Sorry, I meant your truck drivers, but my point just is that I think agents are real, but I think that we are far away from that because we're still at the phase of how do you build reliable software in production for an enterprise versus the toy apps that you see on the internet, which is like, let me vibe code something.

I think these things are worlds apart still.

OK, so let me get Saxon in here, and just to inform the audience, you heard trial of disillusionment.

This comes from the hype cycle.

This is something Gartner has been talked about for a long time.

So in case you were taking it for granted, and if you're watching, you have some sort of technology trigger like agents who have this like peak of inflated expectations.

Now we're in the trial of disillusionment.

Hey, this stuff doesn't work, it's hallucinating, but we're kind of going up that — No, it works.

It just doesn't work.

It doesn't, it doesn't.

I don't see the disillusionment.

I don't know where this is coming from.

I don't even think we're at the peak yet.

Oh, okay. So you think we're still going up, because a lot of people, to Shammat's point, were buying stuff and saying, hey, it doesn't work, and now we're in the messy middle.

Let me say differently, Sax, I think we have not yet figured out how to move the budgets from experimentation to mainline production, meaning where large chunks of the US economy are comfortable enough with the ways in which the hallucinations are managed such that they will replace legacy deterministic code with this new probabilistic model -generated code, meaning model -enabled codes.

Let's just put it that way.

And I don't see that.

I don't see the slope here, yeah.

Look, I would separate change management issues, which are always going to be important and there's always going to be big ones whenever there's a big disruption, especially in enterprise and especially around compliance and legal and all that kind of stuff.

I would separate that from the impact of the underlying technology trend.

I don't think the impact has come anywhere close to peaking yet and in fact, I would say the rate of progress is exponential right now on at least three key dimensions.

So number one is the algorithms themselves.

The models are improving at a rate of, I don't know, three to four times a year.

They're not just getting faster and better, but qualitatively they're different.

Remember we started with PureLLM CHATBOTS and then we went to reasoning models and the difference there is with a chatbot, it's like kind of a smart Ph .D. or college student giving you an answer off the top of their heads.

The reasoning models, it's more like the Ph .D. saying, OK, let me go off and think about that.

Let me do a project on that.

And it could work for thirty seconds or a couple of minutes.

I mean, as much as computers you want to throw at it.

And it will break down your complicated question into a bunch of sub questions and then it'll try different approaches and it can validate some of those approaches and come back to you with a much more impressive answer.

And if you've been using like the grok three deep research or the new chat GPT 03 to do these types of new reasoning models, it's pretty mind blowing what they're capable of.

Have we even come close to figuring out how to tap the potential there, especially in an enterprise context?

No. But my point is that the rate of progress on the algorithms is, again, three or Well, I was trying to lay out the dimensions of which progress is proceeding exponentially.

Okay, so one is the algorithms, okay, which is not just quantitative, it's also qualitative.

We didn't even get to the agents part of it yet, but that's the next big leap after reasoning models.

We're just starting to scratch the surface there.

Then you've got the chips.

I mean, the chips are getting better at I don't know, three to four X a year.

We've gone from, you know, the H 100 to the H 200.

Now we're on the GB 200 will be at GB 300 soon.

We'll be onto three times better per year, or did they get better three times per year?

No, no, no, they're getting the chips themselves, depending on how you measure it.

Each generation of chips is probably three or four times better than the last. Okay.

And Nvidia is back to rolling out new chip, new generation of products, roughly annually.

And I'm just using them as one example.

Obviously there are other companies as well.

Basically, the leap from Hopper to Blackwell to Rubin will be in next year and I think Feynman's coming after that.

Really an astounding rate of progress.

It's not just the individual chips that are getting better.

They're figuring out how to network them together like with the NVL72.

It's like a rack system to create much better performance at the data center level.

That would be the third area where you're seeing exponential progress.

Just look at the number of GPUs that are being deployed in data centers.

So when Elan first started training Grok, I think that maybe 100 ,000 GPUs.

Colossus was 100 ,000, right?

Now they're up to 300 ,000.

They're on the way to a million.

Same thing with OpenAI's data center, Stargate.

And within a couple of years, they'll be at, I don't know, 5 million GPUs, 10 million GPUs.

And you see that on the power side, right.

You're going from a hundred megawatt data centers to 300 megawatts to we're just starting to now see the first gigawatt power data centers.

I don't even think they're live yet, but this is where they're trying to get to.

And I don't think it's beyond the real possibility that we could be at 5 or 10 gigawatt data centers in the next, I don't know, several years.

So my point is just, look, the algorithms, the chips, and the data centers are all improving or scaling at a rate of, I don't know, 3 to 4X a year.

That's 10X every two years, OK?

Where people don't understand exponential progress is that if you're getting better at 10X every two years, that doesn't mean you'll be at 20X in four years.

It means you'll be at 100X, 100X.

So the models, the chips in the data centers will all be a hundred times more powerful in four years.

Let's say the end of this presidential term.

So you multiply those things together, the algorithms, the chips, and then the raw compute that's available.

You're talking about a million X increase, some of which will be captured in price reductions, some of it will be in the performance ceiling, and then some of it will just be in the overall amount of AI compute that's available to the economy.

But the impact of this thing is going to be absolutely massive and I think people still don't even appreciate that fact cuz they don't understand exponential progress.

Yeah. I think maybe just a square the circle though, because, because everything is that you just said, taxes, what I think is propelling the industry.

And then the reality on Tomas side, like like just just to connect the dots.

So we have an eval test that we do, where we run enterprise data through every model to kind of figure out its accuracy rate, and you know how much, it's not even hallucination, but just literally, how much data does it miss when we ask for facts, the best model in the world, actually, interestingly, we was got grok three on this particular test, we send it 500 documents, we ask for 40 data fields back from the documents.

And so it has to get every single data field correct.

And we only do a single pass.

So we send the document to the to the model, we get a single pass back.

Right now, the best score is about 90%.

And so you can imagine a number of industries where you can't have 90 % accuracy, if you give something, a question on 40 data fields.

Now, there's ways to solve it is you rerun it multiple times or you chunk up the document in the smaller parts, and so it doesn't get confused by the large context window.

But a lot of the people that were deploying AI a year ago or a year and a half ago weren't doing that.

And so they did have a kind of a pilot run of something, and it kind of worked okay.

And what they have to realize back to your point, Sax is like, this space is literally exponentially changing.

And so, if you don't use the latest methods of, OK, you have to actually run the data through the model multiple times and you have to chunk up the data into smaller parts and you have to use a reasoning model and you have to make sure that your prompt is hypertuned for the particular use case.

If you haven't done those four things, then you probably will actually end up with a project that fails.

And even so, even when you do all those things for even harder problems, you're still going to run into issues.

So, I think the challenge is that everybody is running a million miles an hour right now and they're trying a lot of things, some work, some don't work at the same time that the space is actually, you know, you know, changing at a pretty, you know, kind of crazy rate.

And let's take a look at our partner poly market and which company they think will have the best AI model by the end of 2025 and get feedback from our panel on if you think this is accurate and who you would pick here looks like Google is in the lead here.

41 % of people believe that they will have the best AI model by 2025.

I think the question is, what is the dimension?

You know, we use Gemini, so for many tasks at 80 -90 we use Gemini.

It's incredible. But for most of our code gen, we use Anthropic and Claude kicks ass.

It's exceptional. This is based on the best scores in the chatbot arena, so that is slightly different because Most people have gamed those tests so that is a rub there.

People are now building their A -model for the eval unit, right?

All the models are way over -fitted for these evals.

But if you had to pick who's your ...

I mean, so I guess, Chamath, you're saying it depends You have to tick task by task.

It depends on task.

I agree with that, yeah.

Well, what Zak said is right.

So it's kind of like, what problem are you trying to solve?

And then, you have to ride this technology wave that is compounding very quickly.

All I was just trying to get across is that the error rates have been diminishing but not nearly as fast as you need for some sectors of the economy.

So, you can use a model to generate deterministic code.

That's great. As long as you unit test it and integration test it, it'll be fine.

But I'm saying, if you're going to use a model in production, in an environment where if stuff goes wrong, there are consequences, we're not there yet.

You don't want to use this for healthcare yet, but you could use it for writing or writing jokes or maybe tagging.

That's too binary. Like it's already used right now in healthcare, but it's just the doctor's meeting notes that would normally take 30 minutes to go and transcribe.

So it's, you can't be too black and white on that one, yeah.

What's happening right now?

The reason why the progress is so rapid in coding assistance, and I think you're right that Anthropic with, was it Claude 3 .7.

Yeah, I think they're the leader and in fact, I think the Manus demo that we showed, it's not entirely a wrapper on Claude because they actually, they do a number of different things, But I think they are significantly using anthropic for the code assistant part of it.

In any event, the reason why the progress is so rapid with coding is because code compiles and you can determine objectively whether it works or not, you can validate it.

And so that makes it a perfect area for AI to get better at through reinforcement learning and test time compute is AI tries a bunch of things.

It sees what works.

It sees what compiles, sees what the user then accepts, and then to be able to to learn and iterate based on that.

That's why coding right now is really the big breakthrough application and use case.

But it's not going to be the only one.

I mean, math is another good area where I think AI is improving rapidly, again, because math, you have proofs and you can look at the results and see if it validates.

Now, I think one of the big questions in terms of AI progress is how extensible is the progress to other areas that don't easily validate that way?

So for example, legal work is I think, a really good area for AI.

But how do you validate that is correct, you would have to go to a court, right?

The court is the compiler like a lawsuit, or maybe the laws, or you could hire like 1000 lawyers or experts in the area to basically do, you know, reinforcement, you're human people through our doing human.

But it's not like a compiler, to your point.

It's not like the progress isn't gonna be as rapid, because it's harder to validate, but absolutely.

But my guess is that once they figure out how to nail coding mass, and the things that are easily validated, they can move to the things that are hard to validate.

And but I think this is one of the big questions is whether I think people just kind of assume that AI progress will be, you know, equally fast in all areas.

And I think it's possible that AI gets really good in some areas better than human, but it's sort of childlike in other areas.

And now, like major point, right, like with a finite answer or an answer we know is the This is the important thing about the agent kind of you know, let's just say framework or architecture You know momentum was was instead of just saying, okay We're gonna do a single pass through the model and then whatever it comes back with is we're gonna be satisfied Like, you know, the legal work might be might be reviewed by another agent whose job is to review legal work And so we can just throw more and more compute at the problem Uh, and we're just early in figuring out how to architect those, those

models, right? You could have, you would have philanthropic check GPT check Gemini.

When you have some anomaly, it spits back out to the user.

So human and the loop still matters in this type of process.

In the early days of OCR, you would have a computer say here's the characters in this legal document.

Then you'd have to humans type it in and then you would get a certain level of certainty.

You'll quickly find that when you layer these models on top of each other, the test time compute costs are astronomical.

And Aaron's probably dealt with this.

It's like I get a bill from AWS and it's like, oh wait, hold on a second, I just ...

100 ,000 this month?

What's going on? So we have to get to the bottom of that?

Well, that, by the way, is another major trend line, which is that the new applications that we talked about are all much more token intensive.

So we went from basic LLMs - Totally.

... which don't require that many tokens to give you an answer, to the reasoning model, where you can spend a thousand times more tokens just getting one answer to a question.

And now the agents are gonna be even more token intensive than that.

So the amount of compute required to serve all these new applications is gonna be massive, which is why I think the capex build out actually makes sense.

When you do a deep research to your point, David, you're firing off maybe 200 queries and it's asking, the AI is saying, hey, what query should I ask on behalf of the user?

And then you go down that rabbit hole.

It's basically doing 200 of them at once.

Ryan, your thoughts here on AI first companies and agentic computing?

Well, the one I really wanted to tie back to was actually our earlier conversation on tariffs.

And this is a real use case of LLMs is how do you classify a product?

And you'd like to get to what we see today when we did our first machine learning based natural language classification of a product.

You take a product URL listing page, a Shopify page or Amazon page and say, hey, what classification is this what duty is owed. Six years ago in a hackathon, we got to like 70 % accuracy.

We're now in high 90s accuracy versus what a human trained expert will get to.

But you actually get to it, which is not good enough.

You're wrong 3 % of the time.

You might have committed a violation of the law, for sure.

But actually, what is truth in that regard?

There's a lot of gray area in this, and truth, ultimately, is what does customs say?

What does the CBP determine is correct?

And those guys are using software that's a very simple algorithm, and it's a decision tree that's going, okay, is it a shoe?

Yes. Is the top made of leather?

Yes. Is the bottom made of rubber?

And they just go through a very simple, and that outputs it.

So on some level, if you convince the government to use your LLM, it becomes true, whether it's true or not.

I think there's gonna be some interesting cases like that that we haven't really thought through of when does the government adopt these to be the source of truth?

Okay, all of this speaks to this thing that's going to sound totally esoteric but, like, we all used to shit on QA, right?

Like, the least talented engineers were allocated to QA.

I think in the world of AI it'll end up being the most talented.

You know, we, internally at 80 -90, we call it improvement engineering, and it's a total specialty.

It's similar to when I kind of coined the growth team at Facebook.

I feel it's the same kind of moment.

Improvement engineering is really the skill that translates toy apps and vibe coding into something that's very practical and real.

And my team and the leader of this team, he's steeped in things like Japanese kata management from like Toyota and quality systems. These are all the things that matter when you're trying to just shrink the error rate down to zero so that you can use it in a reliable way.

and also to document it so that if people want to question what happened, or have a recompense or some way to come back and say, hey, that really harmed me, how do you even do that?

These are all very complicated issues that will get sorted out.

Super, I think, interesting.

Okay. Four. I've got to wrap, guys.

I've got to catch a flight to Miami.

Let me do a closing here, if you want to keep going.

You're welcome. Two, three, two.

Well, the plane just waits.

Just text the pilot and just tell them you're...

Listen, I'm not burning all the all in credits, so to speak and all of our tokens.

I'm kidding. I'm kidding.

I'm kidding. I'm not like Jimmy Furrier who's flying private and then putting it on the all in budget and the rest of us are flying southwest for your German dictator, Chemoq Polyopia.

You didn't miss a flight?

That's a strange concept.

David Saenz, what does that mean?

David, when's the last time you flew commercial?

Clinton. I haven't missed a flight in about 15 years.

For Ryan Peterson from Flexport!

Aaron Lieu from the Amazing Box.

Chamath Paihaapitiya, David Sacks.

Your Chairman Dictators are, I am, the world's greatest moderator.

Love you boys. We'll let your winners ride.

Rain Man, David Sacks.

And it said we open sourced it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it.

Love you Wes. The queen of Lila You should all just get a room and just have one big huge or because it's like this like sexual tension They just need to release Pete.

We need to get merchies rbranded!

[트럼프 행정부의 첫 100일 평가와 AI 에이전트 시대의 도래]-[Trump's First 100 Days, Tariffs Impact Trade, AI Agents, Amazon Backs Down]

📋 Summary

트럼프 행정부의 첫 100일: 성과와 과제

주요 성과: 국경 관리와 탈(脫) 워키즘(Wokeism)

경제 정책과 관세 논란

외교 및 평화 전략

AI 에이전트의 부상과 산업의 미래

AI 에이전트의 가치와 기회

기술적 한계와 '개선 엔지니어링(Improvement Engineering)'

결론: 지수적 성장의 시대

🎯Key Sentences

📝Key Phrases

📖 Transcript