American capitalism is kind of like apple pie. We know it’s supposed to be a quintessential component of our culture, but we’re not really sure how to make it from scratch without leaving a bad taste in someone’s mouth.
American capitalism is kind of like apple pie. We know it’s supposed to be a quintessential component of our culture, but we’re not really sure how to make it from scratch without leaving a bad taste in someone’s mouth.
This week on Morning Brew’s Business Casual podcast, the provocative and recently very viral venture capitalist Chamath Palihapitiya argues that today’s recipe for capitalism isn’t working.
Palihapitiya’s case against this “perversion” of capitalism looks a little like this:
You might not agree with Palihapitiya. But this episode is full of thought starters guaranteed to provoke even the least civically inclined of your group chat. And just wait for Part II coming out next…
Go listen to Part I now.
+ And if you want to check out the viral interview we reference in the episode, find that here.
Kinsey Grant, Morning Brew business editor and podcast host [00:00:06] Hey, everybody, and welcome to Business Casual, the Morning Brew podcast, answering your biggest questions in business. I'm your host and Brew business editor, Kinsey Grant. And now, let's get into it.
Kinsey [00:00:17] Quarantine has given me a lot of time to do things I don't usually get to do—bake an ungodly amount of banana bread, try and fail to complete a 1,000-piece puzzle, and lately, ponder the values and utilities of the economic pillars on which our version of American capitalism were built. I know I'm not alone in the bread baking or the existential thought experiments. As we navigate through a shared experience of both pandemic and recession, it's becoming more and more clear that capitalism, as it exists today, might not be everyone's cup of tea.
Kinsey [00:00:47] Now, I don't want to make any judgment calls, and I definitely [laughs] don't want to suggest that I, your humble podcast host, can solve an economic crisis by saying, bro, just switch up the system. But what I do want to do is bring in someone who has more than enough subject matter expertise when it comes to the powers and the pitfalls of modern-day capitalism. Today, the two of us are going to try to figure out what problems our beloved economic system faces, who stands to win and lose the most, and what can be done to ensure everyone—the rich, the poor, the in-between—comes out of this crisis. So, welcome to Business Casual, Chamath Palihapitiya. Thank you for coming on the show. I'm excited to speak with you.
Chamath Palihapitiya, founder and CEO of Social Capital [00:01:25] Hi Kinsey, thanks for having me.
Kinsey [00:01:26] So you have been very busy lately, mostly going viral on Twitter [laughs] for a CNBC interview, which I'm sure we will get to. But you have a lot more on your resumé than just that one interview on "Halftime Report." You are a venture capitalist, founder and CEO of Social Capital. You were an early senior exec at Facebook, partial owner of the Golden State Warriors, chairman of Virgin Galactic. Definitely not wasting any time here during quarantine either. But most importantly, I think you are someone who is known for being outspoken. Like I mentioned, you recently went viral [laughs], but I don't think it was for the first time, so we will let you make a chance to go viral again here on this podcast, if you're so willing.
Kinsey [00:02:06] But I'm really excited to talk. You know, you have been someone who's been super-transparent about the realities of being a business person today. And I appreciate you taking the time and also just in general, being so honest about your experience, as I think it's refreshing right now.
Chamath [00:02:21] Yeah, I think that over the last couple of decades, probably it's having an air of invincibility has been unnecessarily rewarded in the short term. But I think if you're gonna be really good at something, you have to kind of be authentic enough to be yourself, and be honest. And the older I get, the less I know, I feel like, and every time I see it, it's amazing because you have other people that come out and kind of tell you the same thing. So, yeah, when I was younger, I had much more bravado. And as I've gotten older, I've kind of become much more aware, I guess is probably the best word and, you know, more focused on being a good worker.
Kinsey [00:03:06] Yeah. Chamath, you're not that old. [laughs] What are you gonna be like when you're 80?
Chamath [00:03:10] This is the thing. I think you're saying something really important, which is that 100 years ago, you and I were gonna die in our 50s and 60s, and now we're going to die in our 90s and hopefully 100s. And so a lot of the things that people used to leave as nice-to-haves have become must-haves. And I think at the top, top, top of the pecking order is your own mental health. You know, you didn't have to care about it that much, quite honestly, and so you can be dysfunctional for a really long time. And a pandemic is really important in that it really clarifies how functional you have to be for the people around you.
Chamath [00:03:41] And then when you look at the people that are really, really good at anything over long periods of time, they almost become very boring, but it's because they're functional. So if you want to live to 100, you have to figure out how to kind of get inside your own mind and fix yourself.
Kinsey [00:03:57] Do you feel like you've become more boring in your more recent years?
Chamath [00:04:01] I think I've become much more focused.
Kinsey [00:04:04] OK.
Chamath [00:04:04] Whereas before I think I was kind of just, you know, a typical kind of douchey guy, you know, a little flamboyant, very loud. And now I think I say things that matter to me in a much more pointed way. And then I'm trying to be less moved by the ego than following up on it. So I feel like I can say something that I feel from my heart and then just step back and live in it.
Kinsey [00:04:27] Right.
Chamath [00:04:27] And that's been a huge change.
Kinsey [00:04:29] Yeah, I appreciate that, because we so often see people who've enjoyed success fall into these tropes of what it means to be a successful person, especially in Silicon Valley. But, you know, you have been, like we were saying before, you've been honest and you step back and watched Twitter [laughs] pull everything apart, which has definitely been interesting. And I hope that we can get some of that today. I want to talk to you about, like I mentioned at the top of this episode, a pretty important and very much all-encompassing question of how we're supposed to fix capitalism. How are we supposed to figure out what's not working, what can be working, what needs to be totally thrown out? And if what exists today is something that we can rehabilitate in a way that works for everybody.
Kinsey [00:05:14] Because right now, I would argue and, like I said, I don't want to make any rash judgment calls, but I would argue it's not working for everybody. There are people, especially today, who have definitely come to understand the shortcomings of the system that we have in place more today than they would have six months ago. So we've got a lot on our plates. We're gonna talk about a lot. I'm excited to do it. But let's kind of start here by setting a framework. What does capitalism in America look like today and how does that compare to the more traditional definition that we got in our Econ 101 classes?
Chamath [00:05:44] OK. Well, in order to do that, I actually want to answer that by going back in time. So imagine you're a chef and you're asked to make the most fabulous cake possible, and you're given a bunch of different ingredients, but you can only pick two. And so on one side is how markets work. And, you know, you can have capitalism now. Capitalism can degrade over time. But, you know, that's an incredible ingredient. You could also have communism. You could have fascism. You could have socialism. And as you pick one of those things, it comes with a way in which you govern yourself.
Chamath [00:06:24] So some forms are democracy. There are dictatorships, there's autocracies. All of this stuff. By some crazy set of facts, we were the startup in the 1700s that put the best two ingredients together. We somehow stumbled into some combination of democracy and capitalism, and it created this incredible multihundred-year boom in GDP and quality of life and innovation and all of these things. And you know, this is why you and I will probably live to 100 years old, but like with any great recipe, you have to keep tweaking it. And you have to understand how tastes change, because if you don't, it doesn't taste as good if you keep making the same thing over and over. Or if you let the quality of the ingredients degrade, the product that you make tastes different. And sometimes, to many people, doesn't taste as good or not good at all.
Chamath [00:07:20] So it's in that long arc that we basically put this amazing capitalism and democracy combination together. We made this incredible thing that is called the United States of America, and it kind of moved along, largely functioning in a very useful way. And, you know, there were ups, there were downs, there were wars, there were times of peace.
Chamath [00:07:43] But it was all marked by a couple of things that were always really important. And the first was that there was all kinds of innovation happening. So there was tons of productivity. Like, you know, you'd go into the Great Depression and coming out of it, you'd have these incredible inventions. You'd go into World War II and coming out of it, you'd have, you know, nuclear bombs but at the same time, you'd have all these other incredible inventions. You had the Industrial Revolution, you had all this stuff. So you had productivity and then you had wealth transfer, this wealth effect where lots of people got to participate in that upside.
Chamath [00:08:16] And the entire economy used to move in unison, meaning from the richest person in the world to the poorest person in the United States have largely moved together. And then starting in the '70s, and really in the '80s, we started to tweak the ingredients. On the capitalist side, what we started to do was start to change the rules by taking away. And this is all arcane economics, but the gold standard, blah, blah, blah. And to kind of put it in layman's terms: Before, if you wanted to print money as a government, you actually needed to have a physical equivalent amount of gold sitting somewhere, in a safe somewhere, and somewhere along the long line, we just said no.
Chamath [00:09:02] You know, it started in the '30s, but it was really dismantled in the '70s. We said, no, we're just going to print as much money as we want, whenever we want, and we're not going to tie it to anything. At the same time, there was this political philosophy, largely pushed by Republicans, called trickle-down economics, where the idea was if you get it into the owner class, it would eventually work its way through the system and it would get to the worker class.
Chamath [00:09:26] And again, everything would move in unison. And even in the '80s, for the most part, it kind of hung together. But then it started to decay, and these ingredients stopped working. Then you compounded it in the '90s and the 2000s because democracy also started to change.
Chamath [00:09:43] You know, now this thing doesn't taste like what it used to tastes like anymore. And this is why people have this bitter taste in their mouth, because there are no checks and balances in the same way that there used to be. And I think that's what we're realizing. We're realizing that there aren't productivity gains. The wealth doesn't trickle down. That the owner class is probably disproportionately better positioned than the worker class. And then the worst part about all of that is there is no useful way to fix it because fixing it through governance, through democracy, is tied to money. And the problem is the folks without the money now don't have any say.
Kinsey [00:10:20] OK. You bring up a couple things I want to touch on here, and I feel like maybe the best way to go through this is a rapid-ish fire. So, first question. We talk about getting off of the gold standard—that we no longer have physical assets backing the dollars and the money that our government is printing. Are you saying that we should go back to that, that we should go back to some sort of physically backed currency system?
Chamath [00:10:43] No, because I think it's an impossible task, to be quite honest, because —
Kinsey [00:10:46] Right, right.
Chamath [00:10:47] If we were to do it, other governments would need to do it as well. So the practical answer is no, it's not realistic.
Kinsey [00:10:52] OK. Now, the idea of trickle-down economics, Reaganomics—in general, if that had never happened, this idea that if you empower the wealthy, that the less wealthy will also become eventually empowered—if that had never happened, would we be in a less perverted state of capitalism today, to use your word?
Chamath [00:11:09] It's really unclear, but probably.
Kinsey [00:11:13] OK. And then finally, if this recipe for democracy and capitalism together tastes so different than it did in the 1700s when we first happened upon these ingredients, is it still fair to call it what it was back then?
Chamath [00:11:27] Yeah. Because what you call it is kind of what it is. Meaning, you know, we are the standard bearer for these two concepts. We are the standard bearer for what the composition of these two ingredients are and what the byproduct tastes like.
Kinsey [00:11:40] All right. Well, we're going to take a short break to hear from our partner. And then when we come back, I want to find out what else you take most issue with in today's recipe for capitalism. — And now back to the conversation with Chamath Palihapitiya.
Kinsey [00:11:54] Now, beyond just this idea of a very, I don't know, bifurcated wealth transfer that's going on right now, that we see the wealthy becoming a whole lot wealthier and the share of all income that goes to the lower and middle classes decreasing. Beyond just that, what else do you take the most issue with when it comes to the version of capitalism and democracy that we are experiencing today?
Chamath [00:12:18] Well, right. So the wealth effect, I think, is an important one. But the first thing I said is even more important, which is this idea of productivity. And the reason that that's more important is that—look, the pandemic actually highlights the lack of preparedness that we have as a society. That's a function of innovation and productivity. There are choices that we could have made well before this thing happened on all kinds of things that factored the economy and our decision-making towards those of being a resilient one.
Chamath [00:12:50] Instead, we chose to be an efficient economy and we chose to be an economic system focused on the most short-term profits versus the most long-term profits. And that's symbolic of not investing in R&D and future science and the infrastructure that make the U.S. the winning country, so to speak. That's much more concerning, because if you fix that, you can actually fix all these other things, because even if the economic participation is skewed, what it still allows people to do is to transcend those barriers so that you can move between the owner class and the worker class. And the most ingenious amongst us can actually get economic wherewithal and agency.
Chamath [00:13:39] But in the absence of productivity gains, then you're basically taking a snapshot in time of the owner class and the worker class, and you're saying the wealth distribution will be as it is for the foreseeable future. And we are going to allow the winners to massively compound their gains and we're going to allow everyone else to sort of, as a byproduct, get caught in the undertow.
Kinsey [00:13:58] OK. Do you think that there is a system out there that does all of this, that promotes productivity, grants agency to the most entrepreneurial people who need it, and puts efficiency and resilience on the same level playing field? Does this perfect storm exist anywhere?
Chamath [00:14:15] It exists, but it exists in companies. And in companies, I think that there are examples for how countries should work. And the best way to describe this actually is if you take a step back, we can see, actually, that that is true because I suspect that if you went and you pulled employees of various companies and asked them the following question, "Do you care more about your employee badge or your passport?" I think that there would be a subsegment of workers that cared more that they worked for Apple than which country that they were a citizen of. Because Apple effectively allows you to transcend borders, live wherever you want.
Chamath [00:14:54] Apple guarantees your healthcare. Apple will make sure you're OK. Same thing for a bunch of other tech companies. Same thing for a bunch of other companies in general. Can we do it? I actually think at a governance level, it's actually—yeah, you can do it. It just takes resolve.
Chamath [00:15:08] I mean, it was in the worst moment of economic turmoil in the United States that Americans developed the resolve for the New Deal. And so I think Americans are immensely capable of identifying when the ingredients have stopped tasting like they should and disrupting themselves. And this is probably one of those moments because it's not going to come around very often.
Kinsey [00:15:33] The concept of your employee badge mattering more than your passport is really interesting to me, but it makes me wonder how healthy it is for someone's existence to be so dependent upon where they work. Should it not be the country they live in that they rely on for those kind of safety net things, like healthcare—couldn't that argument be made that working at Apple is something that not everybody has the opportunity to do?
Chamath [00:15:59] Well, in fact—but this is what I think makes your point, which is that companies have stepped in to fill a gap in a void. And so I think they should be applauded for that. And —
Kinsey [00:16:09] OK.
Chamath [00:16:10] And I think what we should do is copy the best of what they're doing, but then bring it into the public sector and say these things are good ideas that should apply to all people. Because to your point, we're all equal. And this is another reason why this pandemic is so valuable. It's an amazingly powerful thing to sit at home, sheltering in place, and see the diversity of people that have been affected by this disease.
Chamath [00:16:34] But in all of us being powerless in this pandemic, what it also means is we're all equal and we're all relevant. And so to your point, this is a moment where we can just decide. It's just the decision of will. Why do we not choose that some of these ways in which we take care of people at the best companies shouldn't apply to people in the best country in the world? And I would argue that we should. And it's not a politically offensive idea actually, either whether you're Republican or Democrat. It's just a matter of what game they think they're playing. And, you know, that they choose to fight an enemy. And right now, this is the one moment where they don't have to fight each other because they can fight this faceless, nameless thing—together.
Kinsey [00:17:16] But how come this faceless, nameless thing has become so politicized?
Chamath [00:17:20] Because it is faceless and nameless. You know, in many ways—this is gonna sound crazy, but—it would be better if some Martians showed up with the same thing. You know, like meaning, if you could embody this thing as something that wasn't human, that didn't look human, but still basically conveyed the same health impacts as coronavirus, we would all mobilize in a way we were all aligned. Now, that's it's a silly example, but it points out something important psychologically that the American political system needs to embrace, which is that if it's an ideological enemy, there's no amount of cooperation in the world that will overcome it so that they cooperate. If it's an enemy that they can name, but they can't embody, they'll still fight.
Kinsey [00:18:07] I just feel like maybe there is this absence of leadership with that mind frame in D.C. right now. And part of the let's blame this on someone that, to me, this sounds like the whole idea of a quote unquote, China virus—that we are looking for someone to blame for what's happening right now. But this is an act of nature. You know, this is a virus. It's not like we can say this one specific country did this to us.
Chamath [00:18:33] Those are tactics of—those are just political gambits. These are tactics that are tried in this iterative A/B testing approach that smart politicians do. And I would put Donald Trump in the category of one of the smartest politicians I've ever seen. I know that to some people he seems, you know, ludicrous and outlandish and crazy. But in some other very nuanced way, this guy is incredibly savvy and aware of how to consolidate one part of the political spectrum and then pull in so many people —
Kinsey [00:19:11] Honestly, Chamath, if you called him a genius, you would not be the first on this podcast to do so. I want to talk about the political ideologies, how they differ, what the impacts are on business. But first, we're going to take a short break to hear from our sponsor. — And now back to the conversation with Chamath Palihapitiya. So, this interview I alluded to in the [laughs] beginning of our conversation here. It was an interesting one. And I believe within a couple of days it had something like 4 million views at the time of recording this. It's 10+ million views on CNBC's Twitter video here. So you basically said that airlines should fail, billionaires should get washed out, that these are the consequences of living in this system that we live in today—that you have access to success, but you also have to pay the piper when it comes to failing. That if you mismanage a company, you deserve to fail. Talk to me more about what exactly you mean by this.
Chamath [00:20:08] Well, I think maybe if we start bottoms up, my comments can be sort of clarified and best understood.
Kinsey [00:20:16] OK.
Chamath [00:20:16] If you're a construction worker and you have a family, you get paid by the hour, you work a really tough job. You're in physical harm's way a lot, and you take out a loan and you get a car. It's a pretty reasonable thing to do, pay your rent on time, pay your credit cards mostly on time. And then, let's just say that you get a second credit card, and then let's just say, you know, you want to upgrade your car in three or four years. It's pretty unnecessary, but you do it anyways. And then you decide to spend more on a certain vacation. So you get a third credit card and then you upgrade your car for the third time, let's just say, in 10 years or something.
Chamath [00:21:02] Now, all of a sudden, you are having a lot of difficulty making ends meet. What happens to you in a moment where you have no way to earn money? Well, in a moment like this, you're really out of luck. You're not really going to get a lifeline of any meaningful kind. Now, I'm not saying that that person deserves a bailout. If anything, I'm saying that person was a part of a system where there was an enormous economic set of actors who are very motivated to give him the next credit card, to give him the next car, to get him to upgrade, to do all of these things. And he was responsible as well. So let's not judge him for a second, though. So that's one person at that end of the spectrum. Then you have a person kind of in the middle.
Chamath [00:21:46] And the difference between the construction worker and this woman is she's a doctor and she has a couple hundred thousand savings and she has a 401(k), and, you know, she just lives within her means and everything's OK. Doesn't necessarily participate as an owner class, but isn't necessarily in deep in the working class. She's kind of right in the middle. And to be honest, in a moment like this, other than staying home, let's just say that she says, well, you know what, I can hold out for a year here and I'll be OK. And eventually I'll go back to seeing my patients. And life will go on. OK. No, nothing to say. No value judgment about her. Then let's say you go to someone right at the top of the owner class and, you know, that person can go to a bank.
Chamath [00:22:28] They can post some collateral. You know, I give, you know, J.P. Morgan $100 million of collateral. They give me $4 or $500 million of credit. I take that money. I invest it in all kinds of hedge funds or esoteric securities. Maybe I buy a company. Inside of that company, I take advantage of its cash flows and this thing hits. I'm the first in line to get bailed out. And I think that we have a question, which is, is it right? I think the answer right now is we need to start at the top and work our way [indistinct], going back to this idea of trickle-down economics, because we fix the biggest companies first. What we're doing is we're doing that without actually looking at the actions that cause that company to be in dire straits in the first place or that individual.
Chamath [00:23:13] And I think right now, what we've seen is disproportionately people that play by the rules and/or people that don't have a voice, will get punished, and they will feel much more pain than folks that, you know, acted fast and loose and participated in this upper echelon of the owner class economy. And so my comments were just about highlighting that and asking the question, "Is it right?" And I didn't particularly have a point of view on airlines, but it embodies all kinds of companies that now basically get backstopped. So if you're running a good company, you know, if you're that person in the middle, and you work at it or you bank at a regional bank, the odds that you've got PPP are very low.
Chamath [00:23:55] If you're a big company and you're able to work through JPMorgan, your odds are much better. And so the folks at the front of the line disproportionately are the folks that were the most aggressive in taking advantage of the economic rules that existed, and doing it in a way where they optimized for short-term incentives. And this is where we have to make a decision as a society, whether we want that to happen going forward or not. If I can give you an example, between 2009 and 2020, the S&P 500—so that's the 500 best companies in the world.
Chamath [00:24:29] There are no better companies. Base returns 90 cents of every dollar of profit they've made via buybacks and dividends. You know, the managerial classes inside those companies benefit because they get rewarded largely in stock and then they get to sell that stock in the open market back to the company. So who gets screwed? Well, the future shareholders get screwed because these companies are not investing in R&D. They're not becoming resilient.
Chamath [00:24:54] They're not defending themselves from competitors. They're just kind of wasting away. The employees get screwed because eventually CEOs get overzealous and really focus on short-term earnings. So they fire people, they outsource jobs. And none of that makes sense. And it's hard to call it out except in a moment like this, because they're the ones at the front of the line saying, "Oh, woe is me, I need help." That was the basis of my commentary. It seems to me, as a capitalist, so unfair.
Kinsey [00:25:21] So there are two threads to pull on here. To me, there's number one, the companies that engaged in mismanagement that were overzealous in their buybacks that are the first in line with their hands out asking for money. Should they be able to get it is one question. The second question to me, though, which maybe is more important and we should talk about first, is should buybacks exist in general? Are you arguing that they should not be a financial tool that companies should be able to use?
Chamath [00:25:46] If it was up to me, I would ban any form of buyback that happens in the open market. And I would have a strict rule that says you can only buy the stock if certain conditions are met. And those conditions, in my opinion, should be that you're investing a certain amount in R&D. You're compensating your employees in a certain way where there's a fixed gap, maximum gap between the CEO pay and the employee pay, and that the share value is below some intrinsic value that you can very easily measure by an independent third party.
Chamath [00:26:20] Then you should be allowed to buy back some stock because that is a smart capital allocation exercise. But in every other case, it's short-term profiteering and it doesn't make companies more resilient and it doesn't drive productivity. It just exacerbates the wealth effect. So I just think it's an activity whose day is done and it has caused actually an enormous amount of damage. Only a third of S&P companies actually have R&D budgets. So think about that. The 500 best companies in the world, the folks that you would think are leading the world forward, and two out of three of them do not spend a single dollar of their budgets on the future. That's insane.
Kinsey [00:27:01] Yeah, it is insane.
Chamath [00:27:02] It's insane. It doesn't make any sense. So this is what I mean by that's a perversion of capitalism. Capitalism never said only focus on today. Actually, capitalism says the other thing, which is it's all about the discounted present value of future earnings, not today's earnings.
Kinsey [00:27:17] There are companies that maybe should be more permitted to engage in buybacks than others. There's the example of, like, an IBM that has quarters upon quarters of losses. And then there's the Apple that is investing in R&D, that is known for buybacks, but also for investing in those important things that, like you said, two-thirds of companies may not be. So, I think that that kind of answers that one to me.
Chamath [00:27:40] I just think that if capitalism is supposed to work, like I said, the most important feature is innovation and productivity growth. The most important, because it allows companies to hire more people and then it allows those people to have more power in demanding better compensation. And so it's a really important tension. Companies, very much are like sports teams, which is that you pay more for stars, and stars do deliver. In an efficient market where we focus on productivity, we reward those athletes with the most compensation, and the rising tide, then as a result, lifts all boats.
Chamath [00:28:25] And so I think that that's a really important thing. And what that does, then, as a byproduct, is it can close the wealth effect, because as you pay more and more people inside of a business—the employee class and the owner class, the managerial class—the gap between the two shrinks, and that's when you have a robust middle class and the concept of upward mobility. Just to tell you my story, Kinsey, I was born in Sri Lanka. We emigrated to Canada when I was six. I lived until I was 19, 20 years old in Canada, and then I moved to the United States. So I've been a citizen of three countries. In Canada, I grew up on welfare. You know, mom and dad [indistinct] a lot of financial difficulty.
Chamath [00:29:13] In the United States, I came to a position where through a lot of hard work, but through a lot of luck, I had a tremendous amount of upward mobility, but that was possible because I was in this small, small strain of the economy where all of these dynamics are true—where it's all about productivity gains, where the worker class has enormous power, and as that worker class ascends, they get more pricing power, they get more of the gains, and then they can do kind of whatever they want. But you can't have an economy where it's true for a few hundred thousand workers, but the next 150 million live by a totally different set of rules.
Kinsey [00:29:52] And Chamath, you are the walking example here.
Kinsey [00:29:59] So I think that's a great thought to leave our listeners with. And a great spot to wrap up part one of our interview. So thank you so much for listening to part one of this conversation with Chamath Palihapitiya. Part two is coming out next from Business Casual. So make sure you're subscribed to the show on your platform of choice so you don't miss it, because part two is going to be a doozy. Chamath is basically dismantling the concept of too big to fail, and you might not agree with everything he has to say. I'll see you next time.