Thanks for taking the time... I always appreciate folks fact checking the blog, which obviously isn't possible in real-time when we're recording. We're obviously we're gonna make a ton of mistakes, so I will dive in to this one and address it the next time it comes up on the pod
A willingness to revisit and admit mistakes is a great way to build trust. I appreciate your earnest engagement -- it goes a long way in proving good faith and making me believe this was an honest mistake.
Wanted to verify if they address it in the newest episode, which just released 30 minutes ago. At least based on YouTube chapter summaries, they do not address this.
I guess it should have been clear from his reply that "address it the next time it comes up" means that it won't be coming up, especially after a Trump presidency win.
I do imagine that now that Trump won the election the other guys on the podcast are suddenly going to be really bullish about the economy so it may not come up in a meaningful way again. I’ll l keep tabs for the next couple episodes to see.
Unsubscribing from Allin and subscribing to your substack! Please keep these investigative pieces coming. Citizen journalism is THE last hope against gross enshittification of knowledge.
Thanks for putting a very pertinent counter point out there. When I listen to all-in I work super hard to remind myself it's four guys playing cards talking over a drink....but the four regularly makes it difficult to channel this mindset because they really want you to believe they know all there is about the issue, and if you don't eat it up, one is wrong. So thanks again for taking the time to counter point. And thanks Jason for watching for this kind of feedback.
“I don’t think BofA watched quickly enough and so what did Buffett do? He just basically started dumping. And he’s almost completely out of BofA if not completely out all together.”
Berkshire reduced their position by about 15% and are still BofA’s largest shareholder.
Appreciate the post. Here's my worry: percentages (to me) only make sense if everything you're adding up is positive. For example, if GDP = A + B - C = 4 + 5 - 7, then it seems like nonsense to say that A contributes 200% to GDP.
Similarly if we (not to mention Cha-math genius over here) are talking about the Q3 change in GDP, and any of the terms in our formula---in this case, the change in net exports---is negative, can we really say that govt. consumption is 30.1% of the change either?
If I made $10 pump-and-dumping shitty SPACs in October but gave $11 to the Trump campaign, does my income contribute -1k% to my net increase in wealth?
Yeah when I was composing the above thoughts I also wasn't exactly sure how best to handle the negative terms. I think that the easiest way to *visualize* these changes is via a stacked bar graph of all of the components of GDP growth, not just the single component (in the case of Chamath's misinterpreted graph, gov spending only).
I think you could partially solve this problem by looking at the absolute numbers rather than the component % contributions to the overall change, which is the last graph shown in the post (GDP / Gov Spending).
I agree that it doesn't really make sense to think of these components in terms of their percentage contributions to the total change when there are negative values. I made this spreadsheet to think through it (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ObwnzAbRHMxomkkemdPfbFqX6hF0vEKDsWNYhB16SRY/edit?usp=sharing). With that said, I hope my effort to put it in like terms to Chamath's original claim was at least somewhat useful in illuminating his mistake.
I used to love this podcast but have been having my doubts recently about the good faith of its participants. Especially with the heavy political incentives they have now.
I suppose, like most Economics in the media, we need to view the All-in pod as Economics Entertainment or (Econ-tainment) as opposed to Economics Education…
It’s definitely entertaining sometimes and great for new gilded age style thinking 🤨
Love this! Thank you for the analysis, it is interesting to see the amount of misinformation “new sources” are spreading whilst at the same time criticising “old media” for the same thing.
Impressive that Jason took the time to respond, especially in such an open way.
This is pure vibes and should be treated as such (=disposed of in an environmentally-responsible manner), but I get the sense from very limited observation of the pod participants that Jason is mostly operating in good faith, and it declines from there.
Thanks for the reply! Considering the fed is in QT, it does seem Chamath must have misread the 0.85% as 85%. It would be great if your post can get to their attention and they can address it and update their conclusions on the economy based on the numbers you present.
-David Sacks bankrolled a company called Done Global. The "CEO" Ruthia He is a Chinese national with absolutely no medical experience. Very quickly, this turned into prescriptions for dead people, medspas doling out Adderall, the Chinese sharing health data about Americans as the whole back office was in China. Plenty of these narcotics ended up on the street, which was always the goal.
The CEO and several others are awaiting trial. They caught David Sacks-backed Ruthia He trying to flee to China about a month ago, and now she's back in jail.
-David Sacks had a whole money laundering operation set up around Eaze. His guy Keith McCarty left Eaze to found a payments system company (to support Eaze) and they have Keith McCarty with crack cocaine, prostitutes, and firearms rooming with a guy named Hamid Arkhavan involved in the Wirecard fraud, running up transactions to facilitate money laundering through porn sites. Eaze was a big advertiser on these sites to clear money laundering transactions.
-Earlier this year, conservative influencer Dave Rubin was caught up in a money laundering racket after he and his people were receiving payments from Russian assets, and the Russian fled the US overnight. Dave Rubin is another David Sacks-backed founder. Rubin was co-founder of the company Locals, which is extremely crappy Web 1.0 software used to facilitate payments to influencers. David Sacks sold this Locals plus his other company Callin, to Rumble $RUM and took a Board seat at Rumble.
There. Right there you have 3 David Sacks-backed founders all directly tied to money laundering and/or drug trafficking. Ruthia He. Keith McCarty. Dave Rubin.
Those are just the main ones with some amount of legal/media coverage on them, but there are more.
You still think Sacks is "just" a VC? The VC stuff is a front.
This isn't tech. This is the Mafia. Sacks just throws the word "software" over it to obfuscate it, but too many people have figured this out now.
He got too cocky after he and Lonsdale "lost" a bunch of foreign money with Hyperloop.
His prancing around is like watching an animal in a cage. He's got to negotiate his way out of this regardless.
Thanks for taking the time... I always appreciate folks fact checking the blog, which obviously isn't possible in real-time when we're recording. We're obviously we're gonna make a ton of mistakes, so I will dive in to this one and address it the next time it comes up on the pod
A willingness to revisit and admit mistakes is a great way to build trust. I appreciate your earnest engagement -- it goes a long way in proving good faith and making me believe this was an honest mistake.
Wanted to verify if they address it in the newest episode, which just released 30 minutes ago. At least based on YouTube chapter summaries, they do not address this.
I guess it should have been clear from his reply that "address it the next time it comes up" means that it won't be coming up, especially after a Trump presidency win.
I do imagine that now that Trump won the election the other guys on the podcast are suddenly going to be really bullish about the economy so it may not come up in a meaningful way again. I’ll l keep tabs for the next couple episodes to see.
Good for you Jason. You guys are the best. But I appreciate the corrective essay and you all owning it.
Please for the love of your own sanity: don't tune in again.
A 2min google around Chamaths SPAC scumminess tells you all you need to know about these guys.
Unsubscribing from Allin and subscribing to your substack! Please keep these investigative pieces coming. Citizen journalism is THE last hope against gross enshittification of knowledge.
The pressure is on! Thanks for reading.
No pressure. Just keep creating. And your Minimum viable audience will br there to lap it up
Thanks for putting a very pertinent counter point out there. When I listen to all-in I work super hard to remind myself it's four guys playing cards talking over a drink....but the four regularly makes it difficult to channel this mindset because they really want you to believe they know all there is about the issue, and if you don't eat it up, one is wrong. So thanks again for taking the time to counter point. And thanks Jason for watching for this kind of feedback.
Also Chamath in this episode…
“I don’t think BofA watched quickly enough and so what did Buffett do? He just basically started dumping. And he’s almost completely out of BofA if not completely out all together.”
Berkshire reduced their position by about 15% and are still BofA’s largest shareholder.
Appreciate the post. Here's my worry: percentages (to me) only make sense if everything you're adding up is positive. For example, if GDP = A + B - C = 4 + 5 - 7, then it seems like nonsense to say that A contributes 200% to GDP.
Similarly if we (not to mention Cha-math genius over here) are talking about the Q3 change in GDP, and any of the terms in our formula---in this case, the change in net exports---is negative, can we really say that govt. consumption is 30.1% of the change either?
If I made $10 pump-and-dumping shitty SPACs in October but gave $11 to the Trump campaign, does my income contribute -1k% to my net increase in wealth?
Yeah when I was composing the above thoughts I also wasn't exactly sure how best to handle the negative terms. I think that the easiest way to *visualize* these changes is via a stacked bar graph of all of the components of GDP growth, not just the single component (in the case of Chamath's misinterpreted graph, gov spending only).
I think you could partially solve this problem by looking at the absolute numbers rather than the component % contributions to the overall change, which is the last graph shown in the post (GDP / Gov Spending).
I agree that it doesn't really make sense to think of these components in terms of their percentage contributions to the total change when there are negative values. I made this spreadsheet to think through it (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ObwnzAbRHMxomkkemdPfbFqX6hF0vEKDsWNYhB16SRY/edit?usp=sharing). With that said, I hope my effort to put it in like terms to Chamath's original claim was at least somewhat useful in illuminating his mistake.
Did you delete my comment that said the same two points and replace it with your comment?
Nope, I don’t delete comments. I never saw anything from you come through until this one.
Weird, I must have messed up. I was a little thrown because it was exactly these two points in the same order.
> easiest way to *visualize* these changes is via a stacked bar graph
Yeah this is standard when attributing, say, fund performance to the underlying factors: https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/factor-analysis?s=y&sl=0125oG50YqzunykNVTep7V#attribution
Great minds think alike!
That is a great point on the factor attribution, thanks for sharing.
Nice! Look, I think you nailed it. Just stopping by to say I think these guys are bullshitters and in this case _also_ Not Even Wrong.
I used to love this podcast but have been having my doubts recently about the good faith of its participants. Especially with the heavy political incentives they have now.
I suppose, like most Economics in the media, we need to view the All-in pod as Economics Entertainment or (Econ-tainment) as opposed to Economics Education…
It’s definitely entertaining sometimes and great for new gilded age style thinking 🤨
Thank you for the succinct, but necessary, takedown.
TAIP is bad. Great to see simple evidence of it.
Also, very excited to add Crichton’s “Gell-Mann amnesia effect” to my lexicon
Don’t forget about it!
Love this! Thank you for the analysis, it is interesting to see the amount of misinformation “new sources” are spreading whilst at the same time criticising “old media” for the same thing.
Impressive that Jason took the time to respond, especially in such an open way.
This is pure vibes and should be treated as such (=disposed of in an environmentally-responsible manner), but I get the sense from very limited observation of the pod participants that Jason is mostly operating in good faith, and it declines from there.
Vibe-a-lytics catches up with everyone eventually.
For my learning, does the 0.85 number in the table you provided include QE? Thank you!
Hey Sam,
Quantitative easing is when the Federal Reserve increases its balance sheet. The Fed has been shrinking it's balance sheet (quantitative tightening/QT) since early 2022 when inflation started it's big rise. See the great graph here: https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/feds-powell-says-balance-sheet-drawdown-continues-amid-rate-cuts-2024-09-18/
So in short, there was no QE this quarter to report. Not sure why Chamath mentioned it.
The BEA report notes that the increase in government spending was mostly driven by an increase in defense spending.
Thanks for the reply! Considering the fed is in QT, it does seem Chamath must have misread the 0.85% as 85%. It would be great if your post can get to their attention and they can address it and update their conclusions on the economy based on the numbers you present.
Wait, it gets worse: https://x.com/laurenbalik/status/1853850363004063977
-David Sacks bankrolled a company called Done Global. The "CEO" Ruthia He is a Chinese national with absolutely no medical experience. Very quickly, this turned into prescriptions for dead people, medspas doling out Adderall, the Chinese sharing health data about Americans as the whole back office was in China. Plenty of these narcotics ended up on the street, which was always the goal.
The CEO and several others are awaiting trial. They caught David Sacks-backed Ruthia He trying to flee to China about a month ago, and now she's back in jail.
-David Sacks had a whole money laundering operation set up around Eaze. His guy Keith McCarty left Eaze to found a payments system company (to support Eaze) and they have Keith McCarty with crack cocaine, prostitutes, and firearms rooming with a guy named Hamid Arkhavan involved in the Wirecard fraud, running up transactions to facilitate money laundering through porn sites. Eaze was a big advertiser on these sites to clear money laundering transactions.
-Earlier this year, conservative influencer Dave Rubin was caught up in a money laundering racket after he and his people were receiving payments from Russian assets, and the Russian fled the US overnight. Dave Rubin is another David Sacks-backed founder. Rubin was co-founder of the company Locals, which is extremely crappy Web 1.0 software used to facilitate payments to influencers. David Sacks sold this Locals plus his other company Callin, to Rumble $RUM and took a Board seat at Rumble.
There. Right there you have 3 David Sacks-backed founders all directly tied to money laundering and/or drug trafficking. Ruthia He. Keith McCarty. Dave Rubin.
Those are just the main ones with some amount of legal/media coverage on them, but there are more.
You still think Sacks is "just" a VC? The VC stuff is a front.
This isn't tech. This is the Mafia. Sacks just throws the word "software" over it to obfuscate it, but too many people have figured this out now.
He got too cocky after he and Lonsdale "lost" a bunch of foreign money with Hyperloop.
His prancing around is like watching an animal in a cage. He's got to negotiate his way out of this regardless.
SV snakeoil grifters; thanks for exposing them