Dream of Semafornication (w/Reed Albergotti)
Newcomer PodSeptember 21, 202201:10:1396.43 MB

Dream of Semafornication (w/Reed Albergotti)

This week on Dead Cat, Reed Albergotti — the technology editor for the soon-to-be launched media startup founded by Ben Smith and Justin Smith — joined the show to talk about the Biden administration’s executive orders shaping how the U.S. does business with China.

Albergotti reported earlier this month that the Biden administration is looking to crack down on American investors cutting checks in China.

He wrote for Semafor:

Administration officials were particularly alarmed this March by a report in The Information that the Chinese arm of the Silicon Valley venture firm Sequoia Capital has begun raising a new, $8 billion fund for investments in Chinese technology, according to people close to the administration. A Sequoia spokeswoman declined to comment.



The details of the order could still change, but the administration has considered at least two ways of dealing with U.S. investments in China. One approach would be to require disclosures for any investments in semiconductors, artificial intelligence, quantum computing and potentially other industries like rare earth minerals and electric cars. The other would be to set up a system that would give the government the ability to block investments outright, in the way that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States can block inbound investments from China and other countries.

A third option being discussed by those involved is to do both. Biden could require disclosure and then, if something problematic arises, take further action to block it. That option is more appealing to U.S. companies and could be just as effective.

Relatedly, the New York Times reported on another executive order that would expand the power of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to block Chinese investments in the United States. The Times reported that the executive order “directs the committee to consider whether a pending deal involves the purchase of a business with access to Americans’ sensitive data, and whether a foreign company or government could exploit that information.”

Albergotti helped make sense of the Biden administration’s various executive orders — both planned and announced.

Albergotti, with co-hosts Tom Dotan, Katie Benner, and Eric Newcomer, speculated about whether a TikTok ban was forthcoming and reflected on Senator Josh Hawley’s TikTok grandstanding.

In the latter half of the episode, we turned our attention to Patagonia owner Yvon Chouinard’s donation of the outdoor clothing retailer. We discussed the New York Times’ glowing coverage of Chouinard’s donation.

Or was the media being unnecessarily dour? Was the media being too skeptical by declaring that Chouinard had avoided $700 million in taxes by giving his company away and by comparing him to the shadowy donor Barre Seid, who donated his device manufacturing company to support conservative causes?

Give it a listen.

Read the automated transcript



Get full access to Newcomer at www.newcomer.co/subscribe

00:00:05
Welcome. Hey everybody, Welcome to Dead

00:00:14
cat. We've got Eric newcomer here,

00:00:16
Katie better and me, Tom, Dayton, joining us this week is

00:00:21
our good friend. Read albergue, Audi read

00:00:24
longtime business reporter. We work together at the

00:00:27
information for a few years. Reed is also So a veteran of the

00:00:30
journal and the post-launch, the sports section at the journal,

00:00:35
write your part of the founding team there and it was that.

00:00:38
Okay. I was okay, I'm so excited to be

00:00:40
on here. I'm just a huge fan of your

00:00:43
podcast. You guys are awesome.

00:00:45
Not because I know you but I really enjoy it.

00:00:48
I'm excited to have you read Because what I like about read

00:00:51
reason that you're our friend, is that you're an interesting

00:00:54
person to talk to like a lot of journalists are excellent.

00:00:57
Like fact gatherers like that's the skill.

00:01:00
I think you're an interesting thinker.

00:01:01
Like I always want to hear your opinion on things and you're not

00:01:05
as cynical. I think is a lot of me.

00:01:07
You're not as cynical as I. Yeah.

00:01:09
And it's a good topic to have you on today because we're going

00:01:12
to talk about a story that you that you broke.

00:01:14
As I believe the first official story for the new publication

00:01:18
that you work for which is semaphore, you're the first 774,

00:01:24
Indian myth and Justin Smith's new publication.

00:01:26
That's started advertising on my Twitter feed.

00:01:30
Incessantly and is preparing for a buzzy launch, this fall?

00:01:34
Yeah. They have a real, some of, for

00:01:35
Nia. I, we haven't actually decided

00:01:37
on official an official term for, what is it semaphore?

00:01:40
Ian or some of them, some of fornicators.

00:01:44
Maybe we can maybe your listeners and right in because

00:01:47
I'm a flurries, yeah, you guys should you guys should license

00:01:52
Californication by the chili peppers and make that your like

00:01:55
launch song. Sam Farr case, Yeah, we can't

00:02:02
afford that sound drop right now.

00:02:05
So some of our do you want to give us?

00:02:06
I mean you know Eric said it's a it's the Smith and Smith Coast.

00:02:10
Ben Smith has been a guest on our show but do you want to give

00:02:13
us like the rundown on what semaphore is and why we should

00:02:15
be excited about this is the newest beacon on the media

00:02:18
landscape. Yeah.

00:02:19
I mean, so it's a new, it's a new publication, and it has a

00:02:23
couple of things that I think are different than what other

00:02:25
people are doing. And one is, it has this

00:02:28
International angle, so the The thesis is that there's this

00:02:31
underserved English-speaking audience around the world that

00:02:35
doesn't, you know, trust or want to read the local news they're

00:02:39
looking for, you know, news from outside the country from trusted

00:02:44
sources. But you know, the big

00:02:46
Publications that they might read are not really writing for

00:02:50
that audience, the writing for an audience back home where the

00:02:53
publication is based, you know, we've already launched semaphore

00:02:56
Africa. So we're going to hire people

00:02:58
in. African countries who are based

00:03:02
there and will write stories that, you know, we hope are

00:03:04
interesting, not just to, you know, Western audiences but

00:03:07
audiences in Africa and then the goal is to eventually expand to

00:03:12
lots of different places and then, you know, I'm covering

00:03:15
technology. So you know what I think is

00:03:19
exciting for me is that we're also going to experiment with

00:03:22
story forms. And so we're going to sort of

00:03:24
separate out the facts, the news from the analysis and so each

00:03:29
Each article will have you know the reporters Viewpoint and

00:03:33
really the reporters Viewpoint in my might the reason that's

00:03:36
valuable is not so much because I think people care what

00:03:39
reporters think but because we want to be transparent and not

00:03:42
have readers kind of guessing Okay.

00:03:44
What is this person's angle you know based on who they decide to

00:03:47
quote and how they frame you know certain you know sentences

00:03:52
and then you know we'll offer other points of view to.

00:03:55
So here's an opposing point of view or here's a here's a

00:03:57
different way of looking at it, or here's a way.

00:04:00
Looking at it from an international perspective.

00:04:01
So the way I think of it, sort of like every story becomes kind

00:04:06
of a discussion around the news that you broke rather than sort

00:04:09
of. Here's, here's our Publications

00:04:11
world view and this is the only way of looking at it.

00:04:15
And, you know, Ben was actually in the Bay Area last week and we

00:04:18
were doing a bunch of meetings and one of the people we met

00:04:21
with reached out the next day and was all excited about this

00:04:24
idea and referred to it as our talmud approach to news, which

00:04:29
Tom, I know, You'll get just a, just a lot of chin stroking, as

00:04:33
you read the article. I think the idea well read and

00:04:36
you shiva's in New York. That's my long awaited

00:04:40
excavation. Yeah, you guys are you guys are

00:04:42
publishing some before an Aramaic now, so you can get,

00:04:44
well, read all those Highly Educated Hasidic schools.

00:04:49
Exactly. Here's the rabbinical view,

00:04:51
yesterday's news like it. And, and so, it's because the

00:04:54
article that you wrote, which I believe was the first official

00:04:57
article. It didn't even log, right?

00:04:58
You guys were like, fuck it. It's like we're going to publish

00:05:01
before. We're even ready to go, which is

00:05:04
always fun. I remember relation to that with

00:05:06
the mirror, he was just getting so many scoops on Google and

00:05:08
their cars that like we're just not be back when we were

00:05:11
publishing. Jessica lessin.com.

00:05:14
Yeah, Jessica lessons.com brought to you by Amira Friday,

00:05:17
I think The Branding at the time and by the way, that is, what

00:05:20
website is still up? I was looking at it the other

00:05:22
day when I said, yeah, because I saw reads scoop and I was like,

00:05:25
huh, I wonder what the story is with, you know, Jay elle.com but

00:05:29
But so the story that you wrote though, like, does that reflect

00:05:32
the semaphore style? I mean, are you guys still

00:05:36
workshopping it? Like, did you, are you?

00:05:38
Yeah, I mean, is that is that a preview of what's to come?

00:05:40
Or just kind of like, you had to get the news out.

00:05:42
I think there are some clues in that story for, for what the

00:05:45
form is going to be. Like, we didn't really break it

00:05:47
out into sections, and we're still experimenting with exactly

00:05:51
how that's going to work. We're sort of writing articles,

00:05:53
I mean writing real articles, but not publishing them, and

00:05:57
sort of just kind of to test what?

00:05:59
Like, you know, writing in this form.

00:06:02
The, I think you'll notice that in the medium article, I did, I

00:06:06
did sort of include more analysis with with the news.

00:06:10
And so, in that way, it is kind of a, it is kind of a taste of

00:06:13
what's to come. All right, let's not just have

00:06:15
second order conversation. I think the actual story itself

00:06:18
is, right? Right after the audience is

00:06:20
screaming right now, be like, what the fuck is the story?

00:06:23
The story itself is actually interesting, and hopefully the

00:06:26
heart of this conversation, the story is about a Biden's, -

00:06:30
order on China that basically puts the screws to the country

00:06:33
and brings us closer to something that I would describe

00:06:37
as basically a trade war between the US and China over Tech.

00:06:40
And then so you have the scoop on the order, the order actually

00:06:43
does come out a couple of days later but read, why don't you

00:06:46
just tell us what you were hearing as you as you got the

00:06:50
scoop and you know what? The nature of the conversation

00:06:52
was on China? The u.s. yeah.

00:06:54
I mean, I don't know if I would, if I would describe it exactly,

00:06:56
like, putting the screws to China.

00:06:58
I mean, I think with their what, I did ministration is trying to

00:07:01
do is kind of walk, this tightrope between, you know,

00:07:05
there's there's China Hawks, who kind of believe we should

00:07:08
completely decouple with this country and have so that they

00:07:12
have zero leverage. Because essentially, in their

00:07:14
view, a war is coming and then there's, you know, the more

00:07:19
moderates who kind of view that at War as, you know, somewhat of

00:07:22
a possibility. But, you know, decoupling and

00:07:25
and taking extreme, you know, measures We will essentially

00:07:30
hurt us, business hurt us, interests in the short term, and

00:07:34
maybe even increase the chances of war in the long term.

00:07:37
So, what Biden is planning to do, and the order that came out

00:07:41
is sort of related, but not exactly what I was writing

00:07:43
about. They're planning to do is add

00:07:46
more controls on investment that, you know, comes out of the

00:07:50
US and goes to China. The order.

00:07:52
The other day was sort of the opposite.

00:07:54
It was expanding, you know, the cepheus, which regulates inbound

00:07:58
investments from So, this and what was sort of interesting to

00:08:02
me was that there was actually an article in the information,

00:08:05
they broke the story on Sequoia China, which is the separate,

00:08:10
but related to Sequoia in the US investment firm, one of the

00:08:14
raising of teachers in the world at one point there were fears.

00:08:18
The Sequoia China was almost like to good relative to Sequoia

00:08:21
us, where it was like, should kneel shed and who runs that fun

00:08:24
be in charge of Sequoia overall. Then of course, this whole

00:08:28
geopolitical thing got much worse.

00:08:29
So I think it was less much less likely that the US would lose

00:08:34
its grip on Sequoia overall. And so we saw rule off, take

00:08:38
take over. But but yeah a fascinating

00:08:40
mini-drama instead of one of the most powerful or the most

00:08:44
powerful Venture investor in the whole world.

00:08:46
You know, us and China. That's right.

00:08:48
I mean, yeah. Derek, you probably know more

00:08:49
than anyone about that and I think what was interesting was

00:08:53
in inside the National Security Council, when that story came

00:08:56
out and got sort of passed around its Raised alarm Bells.

00:09:00
It's like okay this story you know, hugely important

00:09:04
investment firm in the u.s. is now like amid all the tensions

00:09:09
with China. This is back in February is now

00:09:11
doubling down on their Investments there.

00:09:13
And I think it kind of lit a fire to push to push this agenda

00:09:17
forward. Some of this was actually

00:09:19
originally in the chips act or what became the chips act and

00:09:22
then was removed. So this is kind of an attempt to

00:09:25
do it with an executive order. And what I hear is they want to

00:09:28
do it before the Midterms and there's a couple of other orders

00:09:31
to that, we wrote about which is, you know, one is something

00:09:35
related to really to tick. Tock, it won't these won't name

00:09:39
Tick-Tock or even China, probably.

00:09:41
But they're really, that's what they're really targeted for.

00:09:44
It's an attempt to kind of reduce the data collection or

00:09:48
sharing of foreign firms with, you know, that are their own by

00:09:53
parent company's other countries.

00:09:55
So it would essentially create some kind of firewall between

00:09:59
the US Tick Tock and China, to take talk in terms of data

00:10:02
collection. So it's kind of a, it's kind of

00:10:05
a middle of the road approach. I mean, if you remember Trump

00:10:08
actually banned Tick-Tock which turned out to be illegal and it

00:10:12
wasn't, you know, the eventually it was going to be sold to

00:10:15
Microsoft. And then, you know, the whole

00:10:17
thing fell apart people. I think.

00:10:19
Yeah. And Walmart think I was bidding

00:10:23
on it for a second. Yeah, better appears this Dark

00:10:27
Horse candidate. Really plummeted, I felt yeah,

00:10:33
yeah, very interesting. Can sort.

00:10:34
Listen, Katie ran our College radio station at one point,

00:10:38
right? Aren't you're well-equipped to

00:10:40
you know if you can DJ you can DJ video consumption for the

00:10:45
Western Wall E. But yeah I mean that that never

00:10:48
happened and you know I think what they're hoping, what binds

00:10:53
hoping is that there's a way to do this legally and still

00:10:57
accomplish to ban. Same things are Legally.

00:11:00
No, not to ban it. They don't want to ban it from

00:11:02
what I understand mainly because that's that's not legal.

00:11:05
I mean there there there are Protections in place you know

00:11:08
the first amendment is one of them but there's also this

00:11:11
Berman Amendment which is sort of a cold war Relic that limits

00:11:18
limits what the president can do in terms of blocking

00:11:22
communication between countries. So, you know, while we were

00:11:27
fighting this cold war with the Soviet Union, we wanted also to

00:11:30
allow people to talk to people in the Soviet Union because that

00:11:33
benefited us like, basically, you can't stop someone from

00:11:35
sending like animals Animal Farm to the Soviet Union.

00:11:38
Right away is the way I think of it.

00:11:40
And so, you know, Tick-Tock is I think the idea is to Century

00:11:45
essentially bifurcate the communication part of tick, tock

00:11:48
from the data collection that doesn't exactly get around the

00:11:52
fears of tick-tock being used. As a, you know, a weapon and

00:11:57
information weapon like a propaganda tool.

00:12:00
B, right? I mean, that's the fear.

00:12:02
I'm not saying we know that it is so interesting.

00:12:04
Because first of all, I think that Sophia's is a little bit

00:12:07
misunderstood it's not a tool, meant to ban investment.

00:12:09
It's just a tool meant to like, say, what are the laws and how

00:12:13
do we make sure this investment complies with the laws and

00:12:15
mitigates risk? It's not in its it wasn't

00:12:18
created in order to prevent investment from happening.

00:12:20
So this idea of tick-tocking in discussion to get this over, the

00:12:24
finish line is simply like how do we make sure we're in

00:12:27
compliance and everyone's comfortable.

00:12:29
Its but reads talking about this bigger fear that China could use

00:12:32
Tick-Tock as a propaganda tool to push information into the

00:12:36
United States and then control the minds of tweens that I think

00:12:40
is sort of the more interesting idea because some might argue

00:12:43
that YouTube already does that and it is owned by a company in

00:12:49
the United States of America. Well I think the US government

00:12:51
wants wants their wants propaganda tools to be owned by

00:12:54
US Congress right. Under slightly and more or less

00:12:57
you know us media companies specific not Foreign countries,

00:13:00
haven't been able to use things like YouTube and Facebook to

00:13:03
push propaganda. Exactly, I want to argue about

00:13:06
Tick-Tock but first I'm very happy Katie brought up cepheus

00:13:09
because I feel like that's that's key to it and sort of the

00:13:11
boar like, no one is ever been happy to anybody in the United

00:13:19
States. Is that right?

00:13:20
It's interagency. That's true.

00:13:21
It's a committee. So, keep in mind, it's a when

00:13:24
you think about the government, it's like a little, its nesting

00:13:26
dolls. Inside the ultimate like deep

00:13:29
state, Like, in a certain way, it's like the government

00:13:31
decides, it stands for committee on foreign investment in the

00:13:35
United States. That's literally it's a

00:13:36
committee that looks at for Investments coming into the

00:13:40
United States interagency it includes the Justice

00:13:43
Department's National Security division.

00:13:45
It includes the National Security Council, which is right

00:13:47
in the White House. It includes National Security

00:13:49
advisors and of course treasury because treasury their larger

00:13:53
overarching. Desire is for investment, that

00:13:57
will benefit the United States to For the longest time.

00:14:01
Like SoftBank was very mindful of syphilis bizarre.

00:14:03
All these worries about like artificial intelligence and

00:14:07
they're just lots of sort of Chinese and Asian Investments.

00:14:11
Very worried about sort of big steaks from from u.s. players

00:14:15
over the years. Well, they also look at real

00:14:17
estate and I think that Sophia's actually was much more active in

00:14:20
the real estate space for a long time then in the tech space and

00:14:24
it's only be not only but because since the 90s with our

00:14:29
deepening relationships with countries like China and our

00:14:33
extreme is read alluded to before our extreme dependence on

00:14:36
China for like the the business dependence on China, in terms of

00:14:41
intellectual property, just on things like supply chain and on

00:14:43
things, like manufacturing has grown.

00:14:45
This is even before you get to something like consumer app, you

00:14:49
know, Sophia's became I think in the minds of people who even

00:14:52
know about this ridiculous, Acura acronym, became really

00:14:56
twinned with technology. And so in the most laymen terms,

00:14:59
if he is The main, the main piece of it and correct me if

00:15:02
I'm wrong has been sort of Defense related technology,

00:15:05
right? You don't want.

00:15:06
You know, a Russian Russian oligarchs.

00:15:08
Buying bonds already taken. Lockheed Martin.

00:15:10
Right. Exactly mr.

00:15:12
Then, this executive order is expanding, syphilis has power.

00:15:16
And some way, right? Or reader Katie do, what's,

00:15:20
what's the new power that syphilis?

00:15:22
Gets ya re-time. Not read the EO.

00:15:24
So you'll you'll tell us how this has changed.

00:15:26
Sophia's. No, I mean, the latest, the

00:15:28
latest executive, Order. Okay.

00:15:30
Well, the one that the one that came out a couple days ago which

00:15:33
is not actually when I wrote about it.

00:15:35
So it does. Okay.

00:15:37
No mere does exist. One about a different executive

00:15:40
order. Yeah.

00:15:40
That's that came its it is related to surface and it

00:15:43
basically expands the, you know, the Mandate like the types of

00:15:47
things that Sophia's should look at.

00:15:49
So it's kind of like a like a look at a broader.

00:15:53
Look at a broader number of things here like like biotech

00:15:56
for instance is something that now.

00:15:58
Yeah, they should look at it. The way I think of it is like

00:16:01
that executive order deals with inbound investment, what I was

00:16:04
writing about deals with outbound investment which right

00:16:07
now there's very few controls on.

00:16:10
They would also expand export controls so like the types of

00:16:14
things that us companies are not allowed to send to China and

00:16:18
other, you know, countries problem countries, essentially

00:16:22
would be expanded and then there's the data thing.

00:16:25
So, I think what you're seeing is, there's their ideas for New

00:16:30
types of like totally new categories of Regulation but

00:16:34
also expansion of existing ones like cepheus if that makes

00:16:39
sense. Read can just repeat that back

00:16:40
you make sure I understand. So in the executive order does

00:16:43
public cepheus, which is this review processing.

00:16:46
What can a foreign company invest in in the United States?

00:16:49
That is saying there should be more categories that Sophia's

00:16:52
reviews. Simply because technology has

00:16:54
changed so much. So maybe there was a time when

00:16:56
the idea of a Chinese investment firm.

00:17:00
Buying up shares of an agriculture business.

00:17:03
Wouldn't be a big deal but now because of the role agriculture

00:17:05
plays, National Security of seems like a bigger deal.

00:17:07
So there should be more there or more in medicine and then what

00:17:10
you wrote about was this idea of money flowing out of the United

00:17:15
States and into foreign countries and companies is that

00:17:18
right? Exactly.

00:17:19
Yeah you got exactly what so what's the level of ban are they

00:17:23
really going to ban the foreign investment or what sort of I

00:17:26
don't think anyone will ever ban for ya.

00:17:27
What's the restriction and What's what I would regulate

00:17:32
like it's just going to be scrutinized and and it'll give

00:17:35
the power to basically the White House and you know probably

00:17:39
other agencies as well like the Chester Simon treasury Commerce.

00:17:43
Yeah, to sort of look at these Investments.

00:17:46
So basically they'd say okay so Sequoia has this, this Chinese

00:17:50
arm like is that even? It's a separate entity.

00:17:53
So can we even regulate that? Like let's take a look at it.

00:17:56
See that's my question with the Sequoia thing because so far As

00:18:00
I understand Sequoia China its Affiliated but the LPS and

00:18:04
Sequoia China are in China. They're not US based and it's an

00:18:07
RM be denominated fund. So you know there's obviously

00:18:11
some sort of almost like licensing agreement between

00:18:13
Sukhoi us and Sequoia China, but it doesn't strike me as like,

00:18:16
you know, the the endowment funds and and hospitals.

00:18:19
That are part of us. Venture Capital funds are going

00:18:22
to be investing in, you know, the next byte dance in China,

00:18:24
right? Yeah.

00:18:25
Well, I think I think they're actually worried more about

00:18:27
investments in things like, semiconductors, Yes, and

00:18:30
artificial intelligence Quantum, Computing, they're worried that

00:18:34
us money's going to help China, like, Advance their riff

00:18:37
technological know-how and and it's not just, I think there's a

00:18:41
fear that also with those investment dollars comes, you

00:18:44
know, expertise, right. I mean Sequoia, would be able to

00:18:48
lean on it. They have a huge network of

00:18:50
people in these fields and could sort of help these portfolio

00:18:54
companies and it really impacts joint ventures to.

00:18:57
So, for a long time, there were a lot of joint ventures between

00:19:00
U.s. and Chinese automakers manufacturers companies like you

00:19:05
know, Bechtel infrastructure companies and a lot of Ip gets

00:19:09
passed and knowledge to reads Point.

00:19:11
Like one of the reasons why there's this big like fear of

00:19:13
Chinese Espionage and US corporations is because they

00:19:17
want the fact that we have advanced knowledge in so many

00:19:19
areas in order to benefit the greater Chinese government.

00:19:23
Right. Yeah I think I think also just

00:19:25
to take a step back. I mean Katie what, you know,

00:19:28
your do a good job of sort of like Explaining the background

00:19:31
and I think the other thing is just, you know, with the chip

00:19:34
shortage with the supply chain problems that came out of the

00:19:37
pandemic. I think that's just, it's so

00:19:39
front of mine. Now how vulnerable we are to

00:19:43
disruptions in the supply chain. You know, most of the advanced

00:19:47
semiconductors come from tsmc and Taiwan which, you know, is

00:19:52
being threatened by China. Now, so if trying to took over

00:19:55
Taiwan, theoretically, I mean, they could cripple us industry

00:19:59
right there. He's now fears that I think, you

00:20:02
know, we're pretty are pretty drastic.

00:20:03
So I think I think this is like these executive orders.

00:20:07
When you think about, if you think of it from an extreme

00:20:09
perspective like that, like they're not exact these

00:20:11
Executives or like are very measured I would say mean

00:20:14
there's there are people who really want even tougher

00:20:17
restrictions, wouldn't you say K and the restrictions aren't

00:20:20
going to help because I think I agree completely and I think one

00:20:23
of the reasons why restrictions alone won't help is because

00:20:25
we're looking at a geopolitical problem.

00:20:27
So like if the issue is that Relationship that Taiwan has

00:20:31
that, excuse me, China has with the greater China region Stark

00:20:34
strict business restrictions, are not going to really do too

00:20:38
much if China does attack Taiwan and that case, it's like what we

00:20:44
should have been doing is investing in our own high-tech

00:20:48
manufacturing change here in the United States.

00:20:51
Exactly. Because it's not just

00:20:52
manufacturing. You don't there a lot of

00:20:53
companies that are not as impacted by the idea of

00:20:57
instability in the in the greater China region.

00:21:00
That is I say greater tiny China region.

00:21:02
So as not to get a sense from the mainland, but we're huge

00:21:05
value in mainland China. Thank you for that coffee and

00:21:08
Mainland China. This podcast is adamant that

00:21:11
Taiwan is an independent country.

00:21:13
I don't know what you guys are gone.

00:21:14
Yeah. Our affiliation with that, that

00:21:17
sign is actually been a very successful joint pain, sir.

00:21:20
It's really more of a brand-new garment manufacturing.

00:21:25
Those those Supply chains and those manufacturing fact, those

00:21:29
factories. That's work.

00:21:30
That's like lower skilled labor and you can move it to Malaysia.

00:21:34
You can use move it to pack. We can all go naked for a

00:21:36
couple. Thanks for getting the but the

00:21:38
manufacturing for something like chips is actually extremely high

00:21:42
skilled labor for which nobody in the United States is trained.

00:21:45
And I say this, you know, my dad used to work in high school in

00:21:47
high Skilled Manufacturing. He worked in an industry that

00:21:51
doesn't exist anymore. So you know our IP but there's

00:21:55
no training to work on those Factory lines here in the United

00:21:58
States was not just a matter of building them.

00:21:59
Factories. It's big educational Challenge

00:22:02
and so I think that you know again going back to reads Point.

00:22:05
Why be super strict and restrictive when the bigger

00:22:09
challenge actually is here in the United States and like

00:22:11
filling in those both Supply chains in manufacturing, right?

00:22:15
And let's be clear about what's happening here from the broader

00:22:18
perspective with tech is that there's been kind of a hangover.

00:22:21
There was this, like, ecstasy over the fact that we could

00:22:23
export so much of our chip manufacturing to China, to our

00:22:26
Hardware manufacturing to China, you know?

00:22:29
It was very A lucrative seeming market for a while for US tech

00:22:32
company and it was coincident with the idea that China was

00:22:34
going to get to panaji. Become more democratic join the

00:22:38
WTO and basically shed all of its Global Ambitions to take

00:22:41
over the world that has had for centuries thousands of years

00:22:44
anyway, keep going. Yeah it's so so yes certainly

00:22:47
that didn't change over the course of a couple years of you

00:22:49
know bringing a middle-class into China and having a bunch of

00:22:52
manufacturing and you know, different provinces.

00:22:55
But now I think there's just a huge what I'm just sensing

00:22:58
talking to people in Tech is that there's a big, I said like

00:23:02
hangover or regret almost in what we have empowered within

00:23:05
China and the fact that yes it is allowed for cheap

00:23:08
manufacturing for a lot of u.s. goods in the tech sector but

00:23:11
there hasn't been a Level Playing Field.

00:23:13
We can't use China as a market when I say we I mean like us

00:23:17
tech companies can't use China's Market to release their their

00:23:19
apps and services. It's been a disaster for most US

00:23:22
tech companies that have expanded their you know, these

00:23:24
be actually yeah Airbnb. Apple to imagine like when

00:23:28
Russia invaded Ukraine and Apple's like we're not selling

00:23:30
anything else in Russia. Fuck that.

00:23:32
Can you imagine Tim Cook saying the same thing read.

00:23:34
What is the like Revenue worse? North America still number one,

00:23:37
but isn't China still number two for apples like, oh, you're 35

00:23:41
percent of all of its Revenue. Definitely, I don't know if it's

00:23:44
35, I have to look at the latest numbers, but like Tom said, I'm

00:23:47
an ideas, man, not a facts, man. No, but it is no, it is huge and

00:23:53
not it's not just their revenue though, right?

00:23:55
I mean, if if they couldn't manufacture in China that would

00:23:58
cripple All right, I'll cripple the company and the only thing

00:24:02
that kind of just like everyone thinks of manufacturing, but

00:24:05
like we sell a lot of shit to meddle class, Chinese people.

00:24:08
So I to yeah, I think I think the thing Apple has in its favor

00:24:11
is like it employs a lot of people there.

00:24:13
So that's like the one I think that's the one thing that's sort

00:24:16
of keeping oblongata have. It needs leverage to write.

00:24:20
Sure the freight like a company that can actually have some

00:24:23
leverage, you know, over a country.

00:24:25
Obviously not a and obviously it's a beloved consumer product

00:24:28
so there is Chinese. If people want to be able to buy

00:24:31
it to it's a sign of their Global status.

00:24:34
Right? But what leverage does Tim Cook

00:24:36
have though if there is instability and or violence

00:24:40
government-to-government violence in China.

00:24:42
Like just because he employs a lot of people they're not going

00:24:44
to do it totally know. I think if I think that's it, I

00:24:47
mean, if that's the only leverage it's like, hey, if you,

00:24:50
you know, if you heard us, you're hurting, you know, a

00:24:53
bunch of jobs in China, and to the extent that, you know, the

00:24:57
government there is willing to No, accept the loss of jobs,

00:25:01
like, that's, that's kind of it. I mean, I agree to me, the core

00:25:05
issue. Here is, yeah, the, the

00:25:07
inability of American companies to compete fairly in China.

00:25:11
And the need to sort of turn the screws to China.

00:25:15
Until like, to me I'm less like, oh, we need to get rid of tick

00:25:18
tock as we shouldn't have Tick-Tock as long as like, uber

00:25:22
can't compete in China and the the failure of the American

00:25:25
government to say, okay, if business is need To can operate

00:25:31
here. Then our business is shop right

00:25:32
there and I don't know I'm not a lawyer but I find it hard to

00:25:35
believe. The US government doesn't have

00:25:37
the tools to say like in a given industry.

00:25:39
If we're not allowed to compete in that industry and your

00:25:42
country, you can compete here. Like I would I be shocked if

00:25:47
American law makes it impossible to say, like, I mean, on, like

00:25:51
car manufacturing stuff, aren't there?

00:25:52
All these sorts of like crop? Like, we get to look at how you

00:25:56
treat our companies in order to decide how we treat yours.

00:25:59
Like I just don't understand why social media and and China is

00:26:03
the exemption here? Well, I think, yeah I mean I

00:26:05
think you're taught. I don't think you're wrong, I

00:26:07
actually don't know if you're wrong.

00:26:09
I think that the the issue with Banning Tick-Tock is that

00:26:12
they've done it using ayyappa that the international emergency

00:26:16
economic Powers Act, which is the framework that Trump use and

00:26:20
that is the framework that the B Administration will use in their

00:26:23
executive orders as well. So they're not laughing about

00:26:26
trade, fuck up the Chinese. In China, it's only fair like if

00:26:33
we're going to have Tick-Tock, like I just have them both.

00:26:36
In both countries, just sort of running rampant.

00:26:39
Think if we got rid of tick, tock that we would no longer

00:26:41
have political manipulation on social media.

00:26:43
No. But it would be American

00:26:44
companies. Doing it by foreign countries

00:26:46
though. I mean like, yeah, exactly.

00:26:48
Right. Countries can obviously use

00:26:50
Facebook to manipulate citizens. I like the idea of Facebook

00:26:53
coming to China. Now after they've been like to

00:26:57
talk and whatever the version of tick tock, he's not called tick.

00:26:59
In China but you know the you know, it's because it's such a

00:27:02
it's such an give me my Tick. Tock is extremely restricted in

00:27:04
China? Like they like, I think it's not

00:27:08
just that we can't put Facebook and China.

00:27:10
It's that we can track our troll armies, manipulate Tick-Tock so

00:27:15
that Chinese people, see terrible things about their

00:27:18
government and get mad. Whereas like, you know, troll

00:27:21
armies in, you know, reister in Europe, can infiltrate Facebook,

00:27:24
and make us see things that make a film.

00:27:26
But I also think people make this Some big like foreign

00:27:31
policy thing, which maybe there is, but just the fact that, on

00:27:34
sort of the minutiae, The Tick Tock is a Chinese company that

00:27:38
already has all these strong speech controls over how

00:27:42
Creator, you know, they don't say suicide.

00:27:44
They say all these contorted things and maybe that's the

00:27:47
right idea and maybe in America, but it but it's crazy.

00:27:50
That one of the most important cultural apps in the United

00:27:52
States, has the Norms set in China.

00:27:56
Now, of course, I guess this is what ever European thinks every

00:27:58
day. It's like why?

00:27:59
Americans deciding like the terms of the speech debate here

00:28:04
in Europe, but it's crazy crazy in America, that like such

00:28:07
Nuance, speech codes are being set by chinese company.

00:28:10
Well, I thought it was crazy during the Hong Kong protests.

00:28:14
When you had people in the NBA, I mean, the NBA was being their

00:28:19
speech, was being set by, you know, the Chinese government at

00:28:22
that point. Remember that's Grudge.

00:28:23
A legitimately believe that actually, I think he was

00:28:26
speaking from the heart and he was like, yeah, let's let's

00:28:29
talk. Look at it both sides here and

00:28:30
these Hong Kong protests, okay? That's possible.

00:28:33
Actually, I mean, you have a general manager from some NBA

00:28:36
team, whose, you know, probably has no connection right to China

00:28:40
whatsoever, who says, you know, I think democracy is a good

00:28:43
thing, right? In Hong Kong and they caramelize

00:28:45
it like a Robbie's out of China. I mean, if you do you remember,

00:28:49
by the way, when John Cena was giving some press conference at

00:28:53
a movie promotion and he mentioned Taiwan in a way, he

00:28:57
shouldn't have, and then later had to release it.

00:28:59
Apology for it, and did it in fucking Mandarin.

00:29:02
Like they had him speak as close to as a whole, you know, a

00:29:05
hostage video. I can get like China, China does

00:29:08
not need tick tock in order to force people to report with its

00:29:12
Norms around how you speak and yeah, like they think of the

00:29:15
most powerful wrestlers and made them say, whatever the fuck they

00:29:18
want them to their knees. I was covering Apple.

00:29:21
When Apple pulled its at or pulled the app that was it was

00:29:24
like the Hong Kong protests app that was allowing protesters to

00:29:27
see where the police were and I get a call from Apple PR and

00:29:31
they're like, briefing me on this and it's like basically

00:29:34
Chinese propaganda, like we ban this app because, you know,

00:29:38
these protesters were using it to hurry comply with the laws in

00:29:41
the countries in which they operate.

00:29:43
Yeah, they're like, we've been given like credible evidence is

00:29:47
being used. Yeah, and I'm like, I cannot

00:29:49
believe I'm on the phone with apple and like, they're just

00:29:52
basically getting a Chinese propaganda and translator of all

00:29:55
the supply chain is in China. And, you know, it's your second

00:29:58
largest revenue generating. Better believe.

00:30:00
That's the thing. This is what I find.

00:30:02
So fascinating, you know, in the beginning, you said there are

00:30:05
two competing Visions, you know, one is to be more hawkish and

00:30:08
the other one is to believe that will just hurt business and it's

00:30:10
like, well, can't these things both be true because I think

00:30:12
that there's going to be a moment where what happens in

00:30:15
that region? Just hurts business.

00:30:16
Whether or not, we've been hawkish for sure just to make a

00:30:20
zoom out, observation about the ideology that we're shaping on

00:30:23
this podcast. I do think I do think there's a

00:30:26
reality that like I'm a Warhawk. No, no.

00:30:30
No, I think this is shared but I do think there's this growing

00:30:33
question of whether we really want tech companies to be

00:30:37
responsive to local governments right on the abortion issue in

00:30:40
the United States. It's like how deferential do we

00:30:42
want them to be do? We want tech companies to be

00:30:45
differential in China? I think like the left and sort

00:30:49
of the pro-government crowd has for the longest time.

00:30:52
Hal. Das like a virtue that the

00:30:55
government can bring companies under their thumb.

00:30:57
But I think there's a rising question.

00:30:59
Just who whether we want these independent tech companies to be

00:31:04
sort of sovereigns to talk about apology or something and say,

00:31:07
sorry. Screw you, we don't have to

00:31:09
follow any one country's laws know, and I think another way to

00:31:12
look at that because I think that's exactly right.

00:31:14
I think another way to look at it is where are we right now,

00:31:16
in, in, in history? Right.

00:31:19
So, there was, I think, many people would say comply with the

00:31:22
law, but then, if you look back and see your 1955, if you had

00:31:26
companies stand up and say, you know what, though we actually We

00:31:29
don't we don't agree with Jim Crow and we're not going to

00:31:32
follow that law. We're going to break that local

00:31:34
law. I think there are some people

00:31:36
would have thought that was the right thing to do, in terms of

00:31:37
history in the 80s, you know, we don't like apartheid we're not

00:31:40
going to follow that local, or we're going to not do business

00:31:43
with you. People would say, that's right.

00:31:44
So, with questions like abortion, do you want any us

00:31:49
company much like company or any other flouting a local state

00:31:53
law, if they think that it's wrong, or do you want a large

00:31:56
multinational company saying, you know what, we think that

00:31:59
Happening right now in this other place in the world, keep

00:32:03
in mind we have a lot of data points to show that you know

00:32:06
imposing u.s. mores and morals on to another country.

00:32:09
Doesn't always work Afghanistan. But do you know to say like

00:32:13
should we be so upset by a human rights issue or whatever?

00:32:16
That we're just not going to comply with this with this

00:32:19
country's laws and I think that that's an open question now,

00:32:22
because we're still figuring out what's going on, histórico lie.

00:32:25
It's funny to me, there's so much press on what these

00:32:28
companies do in these other countries.

00:32:29
He's and the censorship that they're willing to go along with

00:32:31
and places like Russia and China and yet it hasn't really changed

00:32:35
anything and it's sort of like apartheid was a was a big public

00:32:40
push, right at like a public pressure push and that's what

00:32:43
really kind of turn the tide. I mean happened on University

00:32:46
campuses and it spread to is consumer up.

00:32:48
Yeah, yeah, consumer up. And like, it doesn't seem to be

00:32:51
happening now and I'm not really sure why.

00:32:54
But at the other thing I think about is and this is maybe

00:32:57
taking it in a Direction, you don't want to go, but like, This

00:33:00
to me is the biggest the best argument for something like a

00:33:03
new internet. Like a decentralized internet

00:33:05
that can't be that can't be censored because and also, I

00:33:08
don't know what that would look like, and I don't know if it's

00:33:10
technologically feasible but that this is like what I think

00:33:13
about when I'm free tornado cash, you know, right Campana

00:33:17
technology or whatever. It may be, what I think of when

00:33:19
I think of you no censorship in the Internet.

00:33:22
It's not like Facebook saying, you can't say Nazi or whatever.

00:33:26
It's this stuff. It's it's these countries around

00:33:28
the world that are Able to essentially manipulate, you

00:33:32
know, the base, the pipes of the internet and these large

00:33:35
corporations to, you know, to basically bolster their regimes.

00:33:39
And I think it's something we should be talking about more.

00:33:41
Totally, I'm curious. Like, could you expand on that

00:33:43
more? Because that's something that I

00:33:45
feel like I hear said on Twitter but then I scroll past it

00:33:48
because it's not enough. It's I don't like, it's only 140

00:33:50
characters. I keep going like what what how

00:33:52
would that like just how would a decentralised internet for

00:33:56
example, either free companies or prevent companies?

00:33:59
From giving in to what say, the Chinese government wants.

00:34:02
Well, I think I think the idea is that would get rid of those

00:34:04
companies. It would supplant them.

00:34:07
I mean, the turbulence answerable.

00:34:09
I mean, because if you're like you, if you're the government

00:34:12
has to go out to eat user instead of saying, hey Facebook,

00:34:15
like Chase down this user on our behalf, you know, it's like if

00:34:18
every node is sort of independent, then you have to go

00:34:22
after the user, right? I mean, yeah, it will reminds me

00:34:25
in a way of like, you know, music sharing at the, you know,

00:34:27
at the beginning of the 21st century where it actually was

00:34:30
fairly impossible for the record labels to stop Napster.

00:34:33
They had to sue people individually, and what basically

00:34:36
solved it for them, as that things got centralized again and

00:34:39
music. Downloading was taken up by all

00:34:41
the major tech companies, mostly apple, and suddenly, even, I

00:34:44
mean it first of all, it, put it into like a legal space but also

00:34:46
centralized it and it seems like what you're talking about read.

00:34:49
What? Again, sort of decentralized

00:34:50
things in a don't want to simplify it too much and say

00:34:53
like it's peer-to-peer again but that's the idea, right?

00:34:55
Is that it's kind of individually these, you know,

00:34:58
the data and the Is transmitted across smaller groups of people.

00:35:02
Yeah, it wouldn't, it wouldn't involve large centralized

00:35:04
company and I think if you include things like satellite

00:35:06
internet along with like decentralized protocols that

00:35:10
wouldn't allow for control. I think you could see

00:35:13
theoretically a world in which, you know, they're it's

00:35:16
impossible to I mean and that would create other problems,

00:35:20
too. I'm not saying that's a Utopia,

00:35:22
right? I mean, there are certain types

00:35:23
of speech that probably should be censored, right?

00:35:26
Totally, you know, I don't know. I'm just, I'm throwing it out.

00:35:29
It smashes speech is also like this larger question of like

00:35:32
what makes us feel like we're part of a community.

00:35:34
So I was like, for something else.

00:35:37
I was just rereading this Liz burning op-ed the happened after

00:35:40
you've all the, it was like the country that kills its children

00:35:43
and has no hope or I just butchered the headline.

00:35:45
But basically part of her thesis is that we do live in a society,

00:35:50
in which we Face our future together.

00:35:53
And I would argue that the more and more and more we live

00:35:56
online, decentralized, allying, ourselves, Communities far away

00:36:00
from one another and sometimes, not even the United States.

00:36:03
I think it's an open question, whether or not we as Americans

00:36:06
want to face the future together and figure it out together and

00:36:10
feel like we have a shared stake and I think with the more

00:36:12
important thing that even if you don't want to face the future

00:36:15
together, you realize you have a shared stake with your

00:36:18
neighbors. And I think that the more and

00:36:20
more and more we are Road at that, the harder is to see

00:36:24
country trying to solve anything together.

00:36:27
So I think that's not just like the matter of whether or Not

00:36:29
some speech should be censored, which I would largely agreed

00:36:32
exist. That's how to sort of teach

00:36:33
exist, but like as we decentralize ourselves from our

00:36:36
physical place, what impact does that have on our whatever it is

00:36:41
on our community? It's pretty ironic to me that

00:36:45
once you had the ability for anyone to communicate with

00:36:48
anyone basically on social media, Etc.

00:36:51
We actually became much which we were driven farther apart from

00:36:55
each other. You know, well, because the tech

00:36:57
itself is not really as See, when you look at Tick-Tock, it's

00:37:00
not that much of a person-to-person communication.

00:37:03
I mean, the idea of following is almost going out the window in

00:37:05
favor of algorithms, because the way people prefer to use tick,

00:37:09
tock is just like, showing their interests and then having the

00:37:12
robots figure out for them as it goes on.

00:37:14
I mean, we have, we have this really interesting conversation

00:37:16
with Taylor Lorenz, a couple weeks back where she was

00:37:19
bringing up this. I felt kind of amazing moment at

00:37:21
VidCon, you know, like the influencer Comic Con, where all

00:37:25
the Tick-Tock stars that were, there had basically no lines of

00:37:27
people, they had no fans. People wanted to Line up and see

00:37:30
them because people have no attachment to them, it's just

00:37:32
sort of entertainment that shows up in their feed.

00:37:34
That gives them a moment of dopamine hit joy and then they

00:37:38
move on to the next thing. And, and I think I don't really

00:37:41
know what the point to this is. Other than like, I don't think

00:37:43
social media as it was conceived, maybe in Zuckerberg,

00:37:46
's conception is that relevant anymore and we're moving away

00:37:50
from connection as the main force of these platforms,

00:37:54
because that's not what the platforms are optimized to do

00:37:56
anymore, just optimized to to Watch time essentially and give

00:38:01
us moments of entertainment but I so it's fundamentally.

00:38:03
I'm cheering for the erosion of like local community over global

00:38:07
Community. Like what?

00:38:09
Yeah I'm I'm more aligned in ideology, probably with this

00:38:12
driver Chinese Elite who are like doing business all over the

00:38:15
world than the person who's like, happy staying in their

00:38:18
Hometown in like Middle America, which totally is fine.

00:38:21
I'm just saying that once you start, once you start saying,

00:38:23
well, I just have more in common with these people.

00:38:25
Do you, then have the community will whether it's in your town

00:38:28
or your state to pass a Gun control law or you like fuck it.

00:38:30
This is just the work. I live in right now the issue or

00:38:33
not. I'm not saying that like of

00:38:34
course you have more in common with people who aren't, I mean,

00:38:37
I grew up in a small town in Vermont, you grew up in a small

00:38:38
town, in Georgia, we probably have more in common with one

00:38:41
another. Then we do with a lot of the

00:38:42
people who grew up and we would leave.

00:38:44
Right that we would leave is the key thing.

00:38:47
There are still things that because I'm old I still feel

00:38:51
very connected to a small, much more Blue Collar town in Vermont

00:38:58
than I do in a lot of ways. Will the people?

00:39:00
I spent a lot of time with in Washington DC or New York and I

00:39:03
think it is that connection that makes me want to solve a problem

00:39:06
like. Well I don't want kids in

00:39:08
Vermont getting shot, I think that's bad but the more and more

00:39:12
I don't have that connection then I'm like yeah, I keep a

00:39:16
promise that we have these are the government is set up like we

00:39:19
have a bunch of Californians upset about what's happening in

00:39:22
like Alabama Mississippi and it's just like to some degree,

00:39:25
the composition of our government doesn't really align

00:39:29
Line with this Society, we better just if we just like had

00:39:32
governments that were more reflective of the populace.

00:39:35
I mean the the minority rule in the United States, being a being

00:39:38
a key problem. And I had to solve that, I'd be

00:39:40
more inclined to split it up, then to live under minority

00:39:43
rule, you know. Yeah, and you're right, like, so

00:39:45
if people like I think education is an interesting problem like

00:39:49
very wealthy people in California, New York and stuff

00:39:52
started trying to buy Local School Board elections in states

00:39:57
where they thought they could make more of a difference than

00:39:58
California. York but it's sort of like bolt.

00:40:01
Maybe if you felt a little bit more attached to your community,

00:40:05
you could just try to solve the problem of that state like state

00:40:08
governments and sort of like what's going on in States has

00:40:11
been really impacted by the phenomenon, just described.

00:40:13
But I mean I think it's another version of well the more we see

00:40:17
ourselves as detached from our communities and more you know

00:40:21
like-minded with people who are not anywhere geographically near

00:40:24
us and we want to affect change at that level.

00:40:27
There is still some governance happening.

00:40:29
Below. You just are not attachment and

00:40:31
then you get kind of surprised when I work out, right?

00:40:34
The back to how that related to tick.

00:40:36
Tock and Tom's point about the line, you know, the note the the

00:40:39
short, the short lines are no lines to see the TIC top

00:40:42
celebrities. I mean, I think there is

00:40:45
something about Tick Tock that's missing that kind of that that

00:40:48
attachment. And I think that that's not that

00:40:50
that's going to be their Achilles heel.

00:40:52
But I think it's important to remember that, you know, there

00:40:56
are all these new apps always coming up and you know, The

00:40:59
youth, whatever the youth culture, isn't, I'm like

00:41:01
gravitates toward these apps, right?

00:41:03
And like I remember it was interesting at the code.

00:41:05
Conferencing Evan, Spiegel up on stage, getting all these

00:41:09
questions about Tick-Tock and I could almost see like him

00:41:13
thinking, like, well that I was Tick-Tock, you know, like four

00:41:15
years ago like everyone was like Snapchats going to take over the

00:41:19
world and now it's sort of this also-ran and Facebook is still

00:41:23
just as powerful as they were then.

00:41:25
And you know I could totally see that happening with Tick-Tock.

00:41:29
I mean it Eventually, like, I don't see that becoming the new

00:41:32
Facebook. I see it becoming more like a

00:41:34
Snapchat in the future. As some new thing comes out that

00:41:37
attracts the young people. Yeah, I actually had a piece

00:41:41
this week but showed that tick-tocks year-over-year growth

00:41:44
is slowing. So, it's not like, you know, I

00:41:46
think there is an expectation that it's going to continue on

00:41:49
this Torrid Pace forever. But, you know, that's just not

00:41:52
possible. In terms of the law of large

00:41:53
numbers. And there probably is also going

00:41:55
to be like a generational issue. At some point with the users.

00:41:58
The there was a pretty Fascinating hearing that

00:42:00
happened this last week. It was another one of those you

00:42:03
know, Congress drags a bunch of social media Executives and brow

00:42:08
beats them for like a couple of hours on C-Span to type

00:42:12
hearings. But this one was interesting to

00:42:13
me because Vanessa Pappas who is the CEO of tick-tock was there

00:42:17
and she really got a grilling from a lot of the top lawmakers

00:42:21
including including Josh Howley, who basically.

00:42:26
I mean he went like toe-to-toe with her wasn't we can we go

00:42:28
toe-to-toe with us Editor. Basically, he was trying to get

00:42:31
her to answer the question of like, how many people in the CCP

00:42:34
work for tick tock or work for B dance?

00:42:36
Which, you know, she's like doing her best to avoid that

00:42:38
question. Because, you know, we don't

00:42:40
give, you know, whatever party affiliation test of people that

00:42:43
joined the company was like, I don't know, all of them, but

00:42:46
also their. Right?

00:42:47
There's like not only gives you can be like, I'm trying to use

00:42:51
it but I'm sort of like, not into the like, I I supported

00:42:55
different. I supported different political

00:42:57
party in China. I'm with the greens.

00:42:59
The lot of greens over in B. This know there's a bunch of I'm

00:43:04
sure the place is mostly full of, you know, CCP members and

00:43:07
she's like doing the alternative is.

00:43:09
There is no alternative. You are PCP member essentially a

00:43:12
citizen in China. You don't want to be like, fuck

00:43:14
it. I'm a Libertarian.

00:43:15
It's obviously an insane Quest me.

00:43:17
You're saying this Katie but I mean, it is the wrong question

00:43:19
because total a, if you ask people, if you ask people in the

00:43:23
US like at, you know, how many you know how often do you like

00:43:26
comply with national National Security?

00:43:29
Guests from the US government when it's like, like we'll all

00:43:31
the time. Like, that's what we do.

00:43:33
We're Americans, right, we're gonna support the American

00:43:36
government. I think it's just like all these

00:43:39
things about like, well, there are laws in China that Force

00:43:42
these companies to share data. If they are asked and it's like,

00:43:45
we basically have the same thing here, it's just the differences,

00:43:49
you know, we're a country where a democracy, we have rule of

00:43:52
law, you know, obviously there are flaws, but like, you know,

00:43:55
we're not we trust our government because it's ours, I

00:43:57
mean, to some degree, I think what we're saying, We don't need

00:43:59
the questions. It's like it's obvious like

00:44:02
yeah, China is a controlled country by a single party that's

00:44:06
like hostile, the United States in a lot of ways.

00:44:08
And like, why do we need to interview Tick-Tock about their

00:44:11
policies to come to a decision? Like either?

00:44:13
It's like we're okay, well, because they want the audio B,

00:44:16
they want to break. Yeah.

00:44:17
Video clip right? Let's just like do it or don't

00:44:19
but like I don't know what information you're getting out

00:44:21
of this laughs cause Josh Holly's going to probably run

00:44:23
for president and so he's going to use that clip.

00:44:27
It would be great if a republican had a, you know, A

00:44:29
policy agenda. I'd love to see it, you know,

00:44:31
Peter teal actually gave an interesting speech at a national

00:44:35
conservative convention and he, well, of course, most of it was

00:44:38
spent criticizing the left, which he basically described as

00:44:41
like, the California ideology the sort of rallying Cry of this

00:44:45
speech was that Republicans are fundamentally running on like

00:44:49
nihilism. They don't have any real

00:44:51
legenda. They need like a substantive

00:44:53
policy agenda. So it was, it was sort of, I'm

00:44:56
not the only one saying it, I'm saying, Peter teal is also

00:44:58
critical. Of the lack of Republican agenda

00:45:02
at the moment anyway, right? Yeah.

00:45:04
The Peter teal ideology, though is like getting lots of like

00:45:06
German blood, infused and so, like our eldest smartest

00:45:09
Americans that we can rejuvenate our thinking class.

00:45:12
Okay. Okay.

00:45:15
Yeah, I know. But anyway, just to finish it

00:45:21
off with Tick-Tock. I mean, I feel a little bit for

00:45:23
Vanessa, Papa's over a tick tock, because she's really just

00:45:25
like a punching bag for these people at this point.

00:45:27
And I don't think she has this. She's getting paid.

00:45:29
Before. Well, it's also the role of

00:45:30
anybody who goes before a congressional panel, right?

00:45:33
But she in particular because she has no control over this app

00:45:36
and what we've seen with with Tick-Tock is they've tried over

00:45:39
and over again to put on all of these safeguards and

00:45:41
transparencies and things that they claim can do to avoid like,

00:45:45
some sort of, you know, some sort of incursion on American

00:45:48
data. But when it comes down to it,

00:45:50
this is a company that is owned by a massive Chinese.

00:45:55
You know, a massive Chinese company whose like own CEO is

00:45:58
sort of afraid of the CCP. And so there's just no way you

00:46:01
can put any sort of Safeguard in there that's going to one pass

00:46:04
muster in the US but also meaningfully change.

00:46:06
The fundamentals of how this company works and so it's all

00:46:09
kind of an insane. Kabuki theater that I mean, we

00:46:12
sort of touched on this earlier but I just don't see how it

00:46:14
doesn't end towards some sort of like amputation.

00:46:16
Thank a tectonic. You read his piece is saying

00:46:20
that he thought a band was coming or I did.

00:46:22
He say it expressly or seems like it's getting bipartisan,

00:46:25
right? I guess that's sort of the point

00:46:26
is that you're seeing now, I guess, ban is a tricky word

00:46:28
because it As you know, read and Katie point out earlier there

00:46:31
are like First Amendment issues when it comes to that, but I

00:46:34
just don't see how we're not going to end up revisiting the

00:46:36
entire cycle that we had in summer of 2020, where it really

00:46:39
looked like Tick-Tock was going to have to be amputated.

00:46:42
It would have been funny if Trump did it.

00:46:43
Like is classic Trump that it's like to try it.

00:46:46
Do something, you know, I've complicated well, he couldn't do

00:46:49
it. I mean, he tried, right?

00:46:50
You actually have to be able to get the bureaucrats below you to

00:46:53
do it, you know, he was basically going to lose.

00:46:55
He actually had to work through the lovers or government to

00:46:58
articulate an Right. Like he's like, he's like

00:47:00
they're a threat. But then the people on this

00:47:03
committee have to actually show where it as a threat he was

00:47:06
going to lose in court but the bipartisan point is a good one.

00:47:09
I mean if there are new laws created, right the right law

00:47:12
could potentially indirectly or maybe directly result in a for

00:47:17
all intents and purposes ban of tick-tock, right?

00:47:20
I mean that could happen but I think any time you're talking

00:47:23
about laws and bipartisan you know like high-profile balls

00:47:27
being made like it's a big if right.

00:47:29
Right, so I'm not holding my breath but I do think

00:47:32
something's gonna happen. I also I wanted to ask you guys

00:47:36
though what you think about this?

00:47:37
Because I have this question all the time when it comes to data

00:47:41
and Tick-Tock it's like well we we read all the time.

00:47:45
You know, the New York Times as a great job of writing these

00:47:47
stories about the data that you can just buy on the open market

00:47:51
about people that's been collected from all these firms

00:47:54
and then combined, and it's like, couldn't they just buy

00:47:57
this data? I mean, I'm at data so they'll

00:48:00
kind of don't need Tick-Tock for collection.

00:48:01
That is the thing that like I think that no politician wants

00:48:05
to say because everybody's trying to run on this issue but

00:48:08
like China, it literally does not need to have any apps in the

00:48:12
United States. It can just buy the data

00:48:14
collected from all the other apps in the United States.

00:48:17
That then bundle it and make a significant amount of their

00:48:19
revenue just selling it and that is fine.

00:48:21
That's an open Global Market because hackers buy it,

00:48:25
criminals by it, why not the Chinese government.

00:48:27
They're not restrictions I really My concern is, it's not

00:48:30
about the data, it's the control to me.

00:48:32
I mean not, I mean, I know people talk about the data but

00:48:35
like if Tick Tock said, oh, we want Americans to think 20% more

00:48:39
about sports and 20% less about politics because that's in our

00:48:42
like that would have a huge impact on to do.

00:48:45
You mean like, I just feel like there are a lot of subtle

00:48:48
already do that. Like no.

00:48:49
Yeah, Katie makes a good point. Yeah, but at least Facebook does

00:48:52
it Facebook doesn't because of some like, you know, terrible

00:48:55
corporate interests. That's when but to have faith to

00:48:58
have Tick, Tock, do it? Where it's like, perhaps in the

00:49:01
National interest in some subtle way.

00:49:03
That's like, that's really our, that's the thing.

00:49:06
That's what the CIA wants, you know, like that's has real power

00:49:09
to and Samaritan, I mean, but it's America, but that doesn't

00:49:13
mean it works in American interest.

00:49:14
The idea that Facebook is working in American interest,

00:49:17
has been disgraced so many times.

00:49:20
Ben Shapiro, into your veins, like the video.

00:49:23
I mean, just the amount of effort it took to get social

00:49:26
media companies to not show all those beheadings.

00:49:29
That were being used in Isis recruitment for months and

00:49:32
months and months and they refused to take them down.

00:49:34
It's like, anybody could tell you that, that would be in the

00:49:37
National interest to not be used as a tool to recruit for Isis.

00:49:41
And the tech companies were told that and they even agreed, but

00:49:44
they were like there's a lot of traffic to these beheading

00:49:46
videos. So I mean, I don't think that

00:49:48
you're you could say that just because they're American

00:49:50
companies are working in American interest, but I'm sure

00:49:53
this argument that you two are having right now is the right

00:49:56
argument to have. Because, if the, if Katie's Then

00:50:00
there's really no point to doing any of this until like, any of

00:50:04
this Tick-Tock stuff until you Shore up the whole market,

00:50:07
right? Like you have to fix data

00:50:09
collection, on the whole from any company and you have to fix

00:50:13
the abuse and manipulation of social media, whether it's based

00:50:17
here, or anywhere of my face is gonna get spy.

00:50:20
Did I want to spite my own face? I don't want someone else biting

00:50:24
my face, we could be in a really funny position where Tick-Tock

00:50:27
is far more regulated and Farm. More safe than any American

00:50:30
company, right? It's like, it's like you have a

00:50:36
little tiny leak that you're plugging with your finger.

00:50:38
And meanwhile, like there's just waves crashing over the side of

00:50:42
the boat and like sinking you. It's like what's the point,

00:50:44
right? I can see it.

00:50:46
I want to see the moment in America.

00:50:47
Let's just go down this road where they met somehow.

00:50:49
Magically do decide the band Tick.

00:50:51
Tock the like 24 to 72 hour period.

00:50:54
Where the teens are like not allowed teams.

00:50:56
That don't know. I gonna do, I'm gonna be like a

00:50:58
lot of my thoughts. We're going to make a little

00:51:00
Revolution. It's like, what are we supposed

00:51:02
to do now? Well, if you're smart, you'll

00:51:03
lead that Revolution. Because I think it is going to

00:51:05
be tens of millions of people who are going to go through

00:51:07
serious withdrawals that have no idea.

00:51:10
You know, how to manage themselves on a, you know, an

00:51:12
hour by hour bait minute, second-by-second basis, it'll be

00:51:16
a crisis of its own. You know, it's like investment

00:51:19
over here. Five minutes until right.

00:51:21
Yeah. The rise of Yik Yak again, just

00:51:23
wait it out. That's right.

00:51:26
Right. Okay.

00:51:26
So in our last couple of minutes here I thought we could Do a

00:51:29
shark shark, swerve away from Tech and talk a little bit about

00:51:33
philanthropy. Do you guys want to talk a

00:51:34
little bit about Patagonia? Yeah, sure.

00:51:37
Is it controversial article now, that's why I'm okay, why is it

00:51:40
controversial explain that part to me.

00:51:42
Okay, can we just quickly Define it before we get into the car?

00:51:51
And you're arguing about it, hopefully somewhere some diem

00:51:53
threader. Okay.

00:51:54
So the CEO of Patagonia decided to sell his company.

00:51:59
To a trust, a sort of trust and series of nonprofits, that will

00:52:03
basically push all of the company's annual profits, which

00:52:07
were like a hundred million dollars a year to go towards

00:52:10
efforts that are to fight global warming just Pro environmental.

00:52:13
Causes he still remained has voting control of the company,

00:52:16
but it sort of has raised the question again of philanthropy.

00:52:20
And whether or not, this was truly an altruistic way to take

00:52:25
his largesse and fight global warming or he just wanted to do

00:52:28
a giant tax. It's Dodge and avoid putting

00:52:31
that money through the levers of public control that would have

00:52:35
probably done just to be clear the extended to tax Dodge.

00:52:38
It's that he didn't like sell his company.

00:52:40
It's it's not like he's using this to hide taxes.

00:52:44
It's that if he had exited in normal way.

00:52:47
You would have had a big tax bill which to me is a pretty big

00:52:50
intellectual contortion as a tax Dodge attacks judge to me, is

00:52:54
normally, you have a tax bill and you pay less on it because

00:52:57
you're using the Some not just like you're not selling

00:53:01
something you're not making money off of it.

00:53:02
Yeah, there's there's a complications around that in

00:53:05
multiple ways. And also, I do think we can just

00:53:07
add very quickly here that this is like a couple of weeks after

00:53:11
Republican, or conservative billionaire.

00:53:13
One of the bad guys. Yeah, one of the bad guys are

00:53:15
basically the same thing donating his his company to us a

00:53:19
501 C 4. Oh yes which all of that money

00:53:22
is going to go towards, you know, fighting, you know,

00:53:24
transgender bathrooms or some shit like that.

00:53:26
We against voting rights against climate.

00:53:29
Reform against what's the third pot?

00:53:31
Helping helping the fucking the Federalist Society or whatever.

00:53:35
Stack, the court with Republican judges.

00:53:37
Like, it's like, it's like Godzilla and Camara of

00:53:40
billionaires on the left of which is this is spoil my

00:53:43
framing. If it's not obvious to me is the

00:53:45
obvious like, good bad. What's the difference with

00:53:47
journalists? Like I want to I want to cut to

00:53:49
read on this point because you know, long time Outdoorsman

00:53:54
there's a lot of Patagonia lives in Marin County, the Patagonia

00:53:57
Capital. It is the only one Among Us.

00:53:59
Actually enjoys nature on a regular basis.

00:54:02
The rest of us to do disproportionately by from

00:54:04
Patagonia, if you're Outdoors, where II don't think I own any

00:54:08
Patagonia stuff, but I do look. I think I think Vaughn jernard

00:54:12
is like the real deal. I think we kind of all agree on

00:54:15
that, right? I mean we're not.

00:54:16
The argument isn't whether he liked, but I have people who are

00:54:19
like this is why I'm so curious. I'm like, what?

00:54:21
The controversy again, but keep going to controversy.

00:54:23
I think the controversy is frame.

00:54:25
It's more like, it's more of a, the System is more immediate

00:54:30
criticism, right? Because the New York Times

00:54:31
article the tone of this, this article about jernard is like

00:54:35
very different than the tone of the one about the Republican

00:54:38
donor, and it, basically, the David jealous of the New York

00:54:41
Times, who is like, what he his column was like columnist.

00:54:45
So he has a voice. He's a professional way of

00:54:48
writing, very positive things about billionaires.

00:54:51
I think there's one. I think there's one question in

00:54:54
the in the New York Times article and it was nice not

00:54:58
enough. Not.

00:54:59
Hired by the deer and times at this point.

00:55:02
I know, I think that he is in describing the tax liabilities,

00:55:07
he sort of described. I think the argument is that

00:55:10
that I saw from some tax experts on Twitter.

00:55:14
Is that for all intensive purposes, the tax liability

00:55:17
issue around what, you know, the Patagonia situation and the one

00:55:21
with the conservative company is basically the same and yet.

00:55:25
Gals described it as you know, shoe nard basically.

00:55:29
We paying all of his taxes and not trying to avoid any taxes

00:55:32
whereas the other one was described.

00:55:34
As, you know, a series of unusual Financial transactions

00:55:38
to avoid taxes and dark money. I think there's a question there

00:55:42
but see the dark money part of it.

00:55:44
That criticism doesn't make any sense because they refer to the

00:55:47
Republican as dark money and jernard as, you know, whatever

00:55:51
philanthropist. And there's a very different,

00:55:54
the big difference there because the times basically uncovered

00:55:57
that whole His transaction was a dark.

00:56:01
They were right? It's like you.

00:56:03
If you give it away, if you give away your money, right?

00:56:09
And you say it just gave it two years Max.

00:56:11
It would be a totally different narrative.

00:56:13
That's it. If you say I'm giving away my

00:56:16
money thing, everybody likes. No, it's not that.

00:56:20
It's like, if you say, I'm giving away my money and here's

00:56:23
what I'm giving it away for and I'm going to do a press release

00:56:27
in an interview about it and everyone can know.

00:56:29
No, then is it really dark money?

00:56:31
Whereas in the in the other situation where you have this

00:56:34
Republican donor you know it had been secretly transferred to a

00:56:39
501 c 3 and then secretly sold to another company.

00:56:43
And then the proceeds were secretly transferred back to

00:56:46
this charity, and it was like, it was all done in secret.

00:56:50
And the only reason anyone knows about it is that there was some

00:56:53
Insider who leaked the tax records.

00:56:56
So to me that's the difference. Is it 501?

00:57:00
C 3 or 501 C 4 5 and C 4? Which is the shrine art.

00:57:03
I don't, I'm assuming. Yeah, it was the same thing with

00:57:05
the resort both. They're not like nonprofits

00:57:08
because they know it's little bits are able to give unlimited

00:57:12
political donations to packs. Right.

00:57:14
Which could be, you know, if you wanted to could be secret,

00:57:18
right? But the difference is Patagonia,

00:57:20
doesn't want it to be secret. So I think that's the I think

00:57:23
that's a huge difference. It's like if your paperwork

00:57:25
basically allows you to be dark money, but you don't, Want to be

00:57:29
dark money, so you announce it and do a big article about York

00:57:32
Times that you're not funny anymore.

00:57:34
That's my, that's my opinion. And I, this is thinking, we told

00:57:39
you, I actually did reporting on this for this podcast.

00:57:46
I emailed Patagonia. And I asked like, do you know,

00:57:49
are you going to basically be transparent and like, tell us if

00:57:52
there are any other donors, you know, or if you give to Super

00:57:56
Pacs and they basically were like, yeah, we're you know Tell

00:57:59
you what we do, but they have no reason to not be right because

00:58:03
their whole brand and their whole, you know, thing is like

00:58:06
they want people to buy their stuff because they're doing this

00:58:09
work. This particular work, whether

00:58:11
you think it's good or bad whereas on the Republican side

00:58:14
it's like there's a lot of obfuscation, a lot of because

00:58:17
they don't really want their motives to be known, right?

00:58:20
They want there's like all this astroturfing that goes on and so

00:58:23
I think that's the I mean you might agree with what they're

00:58:25
doing ideologically and that's fine, but like the it is all

00:58:29
Done in secret and that is the dark part, right?

00:58:31
I guess. Like my argument here, also, I

00:58:34
mean, there's the other part of this, which is like are, you

00:58:37
know, 501, C 4 S or trusts and other kind of nonprofits the

00:58:42
best stewards of this capital in order to fight global climate

00:58:46
change rather than just going to the tent.

00:58:48
I'd rather than just having government, they will have

00:58:49
companies aren't going to pay their fucking taxes and what the

00:58:51
government distributed I guess, it is what we've got, right.

00:58:55
But it seems, I mean it gets completed, just passed a huge

00:58:58
climb. Built to be clear.

00:59:00
I mean, are we? We're so used to nihilism about

00:59:03
the federal rather than like it's not right?

00:59:05
Yeah, we did. But we did do it, you know, like

00:59:10
but like there's no question that the actual ability to fight

00:59:12
climate change which is a global apocalyptic issue, you know,

00:59:15
requires deals made between like, you know, India and China

00:59:19
and like huge emitters of carbon into the atmosphere that know,

00:59:24
you know, nonprofit or trust is actually going to be able to

00:59:26
stop. So if your, if your true goal Is

00:59:29
to stop this Global issue. I don't really think this is a

00:59:33
matter of like billionaires, putting a little bit of, you

00:59:35
know, or all of their money towards these private

00:59:37
institutions that are going to be, you know, they're not going

00:59:39
to go, she ate with the Indian government so like have them

00:59:42
invest more in renewable but it's multi-pronged and like I

00:59:46
mean multi you Tom I agree. Completely Patagonia is not

00:59:50
going to solve climate change and they're probably not even

00:59:53
going to make a dent in climate change.

00:59:55
I think. Yeah, I think what it's really

00:59:56
about is it's like come He's never have Happy Endings and I

01:00:01
don't think shoe nard wanted to become Ben and Jerry's and have

01:00:04
his company sold to Unilever. You know, which is what happened

01:00:07
like against their will. And then, all of the things they

01:00:11
stand for basically go out the window because, like,

01:00:13
eventually, that's what would have happened.

01:00:15
Like Patagonia would have been if you didn't do this, they

01:00:17
would eventually just been bought by some private Equity

01:00:19
Firm and they'd be sold in Target and like, you know, none

01:00:22
of this stuff. He's what Sam look.

01:00:23
Sam lesson Had A provocative argument that I think is correct

01:00:27
that basically if they wanted Maximize the help for the

01:00:30
environment. They would have sold the company

01:00:32
taken the cash, and then do whatever they want and that

01:00:35
paying out whatever like a hundred million dollars.

01:00:37
A year is not the best way to help the environment.

01:00:40
And like I said, what did he then?

01:00:42
Just get a one-time payment. I'm not sure.

01:00:44
Yeah. Yeah, but with the company, I

01:00:45
think of it, like, a VC, you know, it's just like, oh, better

01:00:48
exit. If you sell rather than if you

01:00:49
go to like this, the company really going to be really well

01:00:52
running this structure. I think a key piece of this,

01:00:54
he's still running it, he still has voting control right?

01:00:56
If the company's well-run or not, well, Ren who knows but

01:00:59
Like that's like, saying the Harvard endowment should just be

01:01:02
like a one-time thing and like shouldn't invest blowing, just

01:01:06
get a giant pot of money and then just spend that money for

01:01:09
the next hundred years. You know, it's cool, doesn't

01:01:12
make any sense, but I think part of the issue is that Patagonia

01:01:14
wants to run the business in a way that it's like a great deal.

01:01:16
You know, employees get paid above market and treated better

01:01:19
than they would expected another company.

01:01:21
So, there's sort of two causes of Patagonia one that they think

01:01:25
the company running as it is is a good thing in that like They

01:01:29
have a community of people get treated well, and they believe

01:01:31
in their products. And to this the environmental

01:01:34
payoff which used to be with the family got paid.

01:01:37
I mean, I think it's a pretty good.

01:01:38
I think this makes sense. I mean, it's nice to have a

01:01:40
company where people get bit, but I really like patagonia's

01:01:43
goal, was to have happy employees.

01:01:46
Yeah. They're one of the first

01:01:47
companies to do that to write. Their goal was not to be Walmart

01:01:51
right there and it was that bad. Like it's his company, it's his

01:01:55
he wants to, he's like, this is my company, this is my goal.

01:01:58
If we're So cynical, the reporters can't be like this is

01:02:01
what being good in business. Looks like I just feel like we

01:02:04
have both sides. Ours.

01:02:07
We're just like part of Journalism is trying to clarify

01:02:10
and if we're like so confused if we're like, oh, I don't know.

01:02:13
We need to just like question everything, you can't be like,

01:02:16
oh, not taking the money for yourself, giving it to a cause

01:02:19
that most people think is good setting up a company.

01:02:22
That's good for your employees being trapped, like, read

01:02:24
saying, being transparent about what you're doing and proud of

01:02:27
it and saying I don't want to be rich and It's sort of tacky to

01:02:29
be so rich, like those are good things.

01:02:31
We should praise those and if we can't do, that journalism is

01:02:35
failing and we're just like, we believe in losers.

01:02:38
Totally. Like I totally agree.

01:02:40
It means that we've been watched especially as business

01:02:42
journalists into believing that maximizing profits is an

01:02:44
ultimate good, and that there can be no other good, right.

01:02:48
If you think of it as like private Equity or just like,

01:02:50
well, he left money on the table.

01:02:51
That's effectively what that's saying, right?

01:02:53
Exactly. And that's and I think that

01:02:55
like, that, even that way of thinking it's funny, there's a

01:02:57
book on Milton That came out. I think last year that before

01:03:01
the year before that really attacked this idea of like of

01:03:04
profits and virtue being the same thing.

01:03:07
And I think there's another book that's coming out soon, that

01:03:09
sort of from a different angle from like a more data-driven

01:03:12
angle attacks the same thing. So I think I'm hoping that

01:03:15
there's a cultural shift away from this idea that has had a

01:03:19
Stranglehold on culture and on business reporting as I'm as

01:03:24
guilty as anyone that maximizing profits.

01:03:29
Smizing profits for shareholders is the ultimate good and your

01:03:31
alternate Duty as a CEO. And if you're not doing that,

01:03:34
you're doing something wrong. And I hope to God, that I did

01:03:36
dies a fucking down. The company still needs to be

01:03:39
well run and profitable to pay off.

01:03:42
Absolutely. You can be well, Ben and

01:03:44
Jerry's, a great example. It was a well-run company that

01:03:47
made money interested in profit. Well, Max you can go round in

01:03:52
circles about this. There is a great presentation at

01:03:54
Kota re down of you washed it by NYU professor.

01:03:59
Whose name I'm blanking on they just like the ESG shareholder

01:04:03
capitalism movement. I think is somewhat manipulative

01:04:06
and gives you as a lot of control to justify its G.

01:04:09
Yes. G you know environmental social

01:04:11
like like these sort of stocks that are picked based on how

01:04:14
like good for the environment they are but like somehow

01:04:17
Tesla's never on the list and like, like, gas oil, and gas

01:04:21
companies are I mean, there's a lot of like, I don't know.

01:04:23
Anyway, I still think I believe in profits, but I think this is

01:04:26
aligned with like a profit. Well, in Orion, I don't I never

01:04:29
said in anything. I just said that profits are

01:04:31
bad, okay? I mean, I'm saying that we

01:04:34
believe is business reporters, that maximizing profits above

01:04:38
everything else, so paying your employees as little as possible,

01:04:41
not giving them Health Care, not giving them content schedule, so

01:04:44
they can rely on right there. We really the profitability it's

01:04:47
because it makes the subjective. He has been squeezed out of

01:04:50
their company and the to go from, you know, making like two

01:04:54
dollars per share in earnings, versus a dollar eighty because

01:04:58
you wanted your Employees, have health care.

01:05:00
What the fuck I mean? Like I don't think most business

01:05:03
reporters have this ideology, we went through this.

01:05:04
What we have all these labor business reporters?

01:05:06
We had all these. No no I think we do have the

01:05:11
ideology, we don't intend to. That's not how we think about

01:05:13
it. It's like when you're writing

01:05:14
your average earnings report as a crime reporter, right?

01:05:17
You're like Starbucks, you know, did x y and so it be earnings.

01:05:21
And so you started getting this getting into this mindset that

01:05:24
like, because they beat earnings by a penny, a share of the

01:05:26
company's doing well and you're never incentivized to look.

01:05:28
Under the hood and be like, what the fuck is Starbucks doing to

01:05:30
its employees? Like, what is it nests?

01:05:33
Would it be net? Would it be okay for them to not

01:05:35
beat by a penny, a share? If they allowed people to have a

01:05:38
regular schedule and and are they a good CEO, right?

01:05:41
I mean, that's like the, the mark of whether or not they're a

01:05:42
successful CEO is whether or not they are maximizing shareholder

01:05:45
value and, you know, dividends and other aspects of their

01:05:49
profit going to pay. You know, like that.

01:05:51
That's the effectiveness of their of their job performance

01:05:53
II. Think you're right.

01:05:54
Katie, I think I would add though.

01:05:56
There's another type of reporter who is also A problem, which is

01:06:00
the one who is, sort of anti-capitalist right now, or,

01:06:04
you know, doesn't believe in the in like, you know, profit as the

01:06:07
ultimate motive and wants to see companies do altruistic things

01:06:11
and then gets like sucked into these, like, total greenwashing

01:06:15
like marketing. Ploys, by these big companies

01:06:18
that, you know, and then write about like as if they are

01:06:21
altruistic. It's like almost like an

01:06:23
aspirational thing. And the sad thing is and this

01:06:27
Eric you kind of made this point.

01:06:28
It's like, Like somehow we have a hard time telling the

01:06:30
difference between the green washing and then like genuine

01:06:33
efforts like Patagonia here, like with somebody who I think

01:06:37
is the real deal. You know, doing trying to do the

01:06:39
right thing. It's just, you know, it's just

01:06:41
it is kind of sad, right? The way I see it too.

01:06:44
Is like, I think what you have to accept what chouinard is that

01:06:48
he's a capitalist and he is going about this in the best

01:06:51
possible way that capitalism will allow for, which is putting

01:06:54
this company in the, you know, in the responsibility of or like

01:06:58
with Stewart's, have someone whose sole goal is to further

01:07:02
that initiative? Now if you don't believe that

01:07:03
capitalism, what's the best version after that?

01:07:06
Like, well, if you don't believe that capitalism is the right

01:07:09
model. Okay.

01:07:10
Well, that fighting global warming.

01:07:11
I know I'm sick of this like I'm sick but so that's an argument.

01:07:15
You can have though but I think I think the mistake people make

01:07:17
is thinking that there's some better way within the system,

01:07:20
right. He could have done it which I

01:07:21
just don't agree with it was this magical new system.

01:07:24
Like it's like the only thing I could have done is run for

01:07:27
office. Become a senator And passed

01:07:29
legislation. Other than that, he's using the

01:07:31
tools he's given, like, I think he should be given more than

01:07:35
just one Senator, right? He'd have to clone himself

01:07:38
become 20th senators from Key swing state.

01:07:41
And by the way, if their profit was being used towards that

01:07:44
technology, I think you have something here.

01:07:46
I think you'd be a real surprise if Patagonia was secretly

01:07:48
working with, you know, crisper and and we bring on cloning a

01:07:53
different Church. Yeah, but no.

01:07:55
I think, yeah, I guess it's just more like accepting that the

01:07:58
Them has this is the best possible outcome, it could have.

01:08:01
And if you believe in it, then it deserves it serves accolades

01:08:04
is sort of where I stand with it.

01:08:06
All also, we should acknowledge, I won't do anything and global

01:08:08
warming is inevitable, but that's a side point.

01:08:10
I just think it would be so incredible to Patagonia just

01:08:12
keeps on going forever. Like as this great, you know,

01:08:15
employee-friendly company or people go surfing at lunch and

01:08:18
Ventura and you know, they sell cool clothes that, you know, her

01:08:23
high-end or whatever. And, you know, they try to do

01:08:25
their best, they're not going to obviously save the world but

01:08:28
they'll try to Do their best like that would be incredible.

01:08:30
Like, that's a result. I never would it would, it would

01:08:32
have expected. Yeah, in small businesses are,

01:08:34
you know, like not it's not that small.

01:08:36
What? It's like a three billion dollar

01:08:37
company. But yeah, we want more companies

01:08:39
of that size to succeed. I think that's, that's the

01:08:43
dream. So, yeah, we have a moment of

01:08:46
optimism here, too. I think is still scrambling to

01:08:49
find some way to be cynical about it, but I'm not worried as

01:08:52
I've said, if I'm gonna, if I'm gonna believe in the system,

01:08:55
then this is the best possible outcome.

01:08:58
Yeah. Nothing podcast to take down the

01:09:00
system. Well, look, we got exactly what

01:09:02
we wanted out of read, which was with some interesting thinking.

01:09:04
We got some, some good thoughts. We got some optimism.

01:09:07
Here's everything. You wouldn't get out of me but

01:09:09
you got all the credit. Anyway, thanks, thanks so much

01:09:14
for joining. Congrats on the launch of some

01:09:16
of wins. It launched, we know is there a

01:09:17
day? It's going to be next.

01:09:19
We haven't announced an exact date but you know, you know,

01:09:22
will say in the fall. Not exactly sure what I'm

01:09:24
allowed to say right now. But this is so much fun.

01:09:27
I you know it's great. Rate was like you know even

01:09:30
better than a phone call catcher's mask and your kids are

01:09:34
not like breaking down the door trying to get in.

01:09:36
So I'm glad we gave you was actually kind of scary.

01:09:38
Yeah. What's going on out there?

01:09:40
I love to imagine that our phone call catch up, Sir.

01:09:42
Just like let's argue about the substantive issues for like an

01:09:45
hour and 20 minutes. All right, thanks, thank you.

01:09:52
Bye. Goodbye.

01:10:06
Goodbye. Goodbye, goodbye, goodbye.

01:10:09
Goodbye.