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.
