Hope you guys enjoy this one!! Marc is brilliant and a tremendous pleasure to talk to. As always, the most helpful thing you can do is just to share the podcast - send it to friends, group chats, Twitter, Reddit, forums, and wherever else men and women of fine taste congregate. To help pay the bills for my podcast, I'm turning on paid subscriptions on Substack No major content will be paywalled - please don't donate if you think twice before buying a cup of coffee But if you have the means & have enjoyed my podcast, I would appreciate your support 🙏 www.dwarkeshpatel.com/subscribe
How does this channel not have more subscribers - I have been binge watching podcasts and it's been an absolute delight to listen to. Some serious thinkers and some great questions.
This is my favourite interview yet, I learned quite a lot and saw so many ideas come together, I'm sort of embarrassed that I wasn't already familiar with everything discussed.
I'm a big fan of Marc Andreessen. Somehow he seemingly is always in fairly great spirits. Enhances my understanding of the world in a straightforward way and makes me optimistic
Just listened to two of your interviews last couple of days. You’re a phenomenal interviewer and listening in to these conversations is such a privilege - thank you! Have already recommended to friends!
Great interview, watched it twice. Criminally undersubscribed channel but I have no doubt that you’ll blow up soon - these interviews are as good as anything out there
I apologize for my confusion regarding the response to the initial question about why not starting another startup. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but can we summarize his lengthy answer as suggesting that investing is a simpler and more profitable venture compared to starting a new business?
Excellent interview. Marc is brilliant and his hypothesis of bourgeois vs managerial capitalism holds water. A good illustration of managerial company is Google, which created transformer tech for their AI, that OpenAI chatGPT used so well. OpenAI is this bourgeois company that another managerial company Microsoft had to semi-acquire to use tech in their platforms.
This guy was great. Level headed, realistic, scheduled. Loved hearing about ceo to managers to decisions. I am the firecracker. I don’t know what social media was in 2001, but alas.
I'm so glad that you are funded by Grants from the Marginal revolution and thus you don' have the incentive to have crazy hot takes or super controversial opinions just for views or subscriptions. You've earned a subscriber!
The talk about art investing got me thinking. I do think people's instinctive aversion of art investing is in part related to if the art will be actively appreciated vs locked away for some future buyer who locks it away.
A big difference between the two industries, computer science and biotechnology, is that of regulation, which underlies the ethical implications of the latter. Essentially it's perceived that biotech has a lot higher potential to be hazardous so there's a lot more friction bringing a product to market. Launching a web browser or a phone app has essentially zero of that friction by comparison. Some of those products end up being just as consequential and maybe even as potentially hazardous, but it's not apparent to people ahead of time. For example, it's a lot easier to see how dangerous introducing a new organism into an ecosystem is vs. a product that allows people to connect socially from various geographic locations simultaneously. Point being that the payoff rate in comp sci being so high vs. biotech has a lot to do with this reality.
I like his point at 43:00 or so. It makes me excited for the next century - the glut of capital can flow to the emerging economies which have a surplus of people & new ideas. We can't all be investors - some people have to build the companies, and more importantly - we have to buy the stuff that we make. This is also why demographics are super important. If we all aspire to be childless minimalist investors - that won't end well lol
Marc's view on education is similar to Jordan Peterson's. I know JP is working toward creating an alternative. It would be great to get Marc and JP together to discuss the topic.
Isn't Burnham's problem fully captured in the "diseconomies" part of the diseconomies/economies of scale idea that microeconomics uses to explain why there's not just one big firm for each industry? In other words, without favorable regulation (ie government enabled monopoly), the growth of these firms would eventually be throttled by the normal competitive process, even without Innovation or "disruption". I'm skeptical this is a real thing (cf. Musk's extolling the virtues of "vertical integration" is already accounted for in Coase's idea of high transactions costs.).
@@DwarkeshPatel . I love your style. you don't love to listen to the sound of your own voice like a lot of people do. You ask very concise yet open-ended questions - then get the hell out of the way quickly, I find nothing more agonizing then questions which Ramble On and On!!! Less is more. But then again Marc has an amazing and very unique vantage point within the industry and even the world having literally practically single-handedly Blazed the trail Maybe you can capitalize on this and make a theme out of it like the founders series with other Trailblazers like Larry Ellison from Oracle who is getting pretty old or Scott mcnealy or his two partners from Sun Microsystems or even Steve Ballmer or John Chambers the long time CEO of Cisco who is also a huge VC or even the founders of Cisco Systems Leonard Bosack and Sandra Lerner, a married couple (later divorced) who had met while students at Stanford University? Try and keep the Trailblazer momentum rolling all you have to do now is send them the link to your pod with Mark everyone wants to document the Legacy in a flattering manner. PS by the way you need to get a second light source to get rid of that guy standing behind you lol Maybe make a theme out of it parlay your success at Landing mark
The overstaffing problem with VCs could be looked at from the opposite direction, as in they're only finding about 20% of the opportunities that are out there. I would argue that there is no shortage of new innovative companies to invest it. The problem is finding the people that are trying to do it and accurately assessing their potential. We certainly don't have a shortage of need for money to be invested in such things. Maybe I'm just overoptimistic about the number of people attempting to do great things, but with a pool of 8 billion people to draw from, ~650 million of whom have an IQ above 120, it's hard to believe that there's only a few thousand of those that are actually going to have that ambition and pay off if they get funding.
On the revolution in education that will certainly happen: one possibility that was not mentioned is that another country (non-US) will advance rapidly into the future, and be so successful that the US will be behind, then have to follow to catch up. It seems remote at the moment and I'm sure many of the products of that better system will emigrate to the US to get better pay or access to entrepreneurial capital but I sense a lazy unjustified complacency in America.
I think a potential way for the education system to go will be decentralized learning coupled with providers that would proctor some sort of standardized testing on the subject matter. The research that's done at Universities is a whole different ball of wax, but then again that doesn't really have a lot to do with teaching and learning, at least from the point of view of the undergraduate degrees, so why would we need to continue doing it in institutions of higher learning?
I agree that the opposite is happening with the science. Computer science is now turning all of science and technology into information technology, and the information technology that facilitates that is getting better by leaps and bounds. I mean, look at Chat GPT and all of the other AI projects happening right now. This exponentially increases the ability and therefor the rate at which we can conduct research in these other areas. Human genome project being at the top of the list of examples.
There are also some of the world's problems not suited for venture capital to solve. For example, companies work great as dictatorships because they are allowed to fail. Countries don't work well as dictatorships, because when they fail, millions of people can die.. Like gov doesn't pay enough to attract top talent - but conservatives would consider it massive corruption to pay the president $100 Billion - even though they could pass policies far more valuable to people than "the metaverse" or whatever. Anyways, interesting stuff! Thanks for the interview!
Appreciat the call for bourgeois capitalism. However most us companies are sme and not managerial but run by owners. And they do innovate, even more much and with a way higher capital efficiently than vc founded companies. These are the real bourgeois and many of the startups would develop into such sme without the vc and equity pressure. VC generates monopolistic managerial companies who try to avoid others to innovate successfully in order to generate the additional 10% ROI for the investors. So maybe the vc funding is the root cause of the problem? And there are better alternatives which are sme.
57:34m OH STOP - I can't believe you didn't ask him to assess in particular Sundar and how that Google team is structured. You could spend an hour just on a few founders-in-the wings.
22:30m At the end of a long discourse on the limits of excessive time to market - he puts a practical limit to start turning rocks at 7-8 years. (I consider that realistic if it's not basic research of course - and he says 20-year development may produce papers or something open source, but not an enterprise.) So then he is willing to consider a 10x money model and gives Tesla and SpaceX as models. OpenAI, presumably as well. Mark is a classic LIBRA acquisitive analytical (forebrain x POTENTIAL = venture.) He says that represents only 1% of the economy, or perhaps of all enterprises, and calls it "founders" - check. And compares this to former "Bourgeois" - not necessarily capitalist but free market. Listen again. Still another hour left! 52:00m KEY TO THE CEO TREASURE vs Venture Capitalist DAY 54:00m -ish Management Talent at scale - oh the clarity! My eyes!!
The NRC just licensed NuScale's SMR on January 20. Innovation in nuclear fission energy is once more permitted after a mere half century of bureaucratic suppression. The first reactor should be completed in Idaho by 2029. Commonwealth Fusion Systems is building a demonstration fusion reactor in Massachusetts, to be completed in 2025. Other fusion companies, like Helion, are building reactors in the US. Commonwealth and Helion are spending billions of dollars. As far as I know the only environmental risk for these reactors is from tritium leakage. That could be a deal killer if not corrected. In other words, Andreessen points to a real problem in the regulatory sphere, but he exaggerates it. If fusion energy is developed to something like its potential, no serious nation will be able to afford to forego building fusion reactors. That would be like refusing to build railroads in 1850.
38:45m Mark, do note that Jesus was upset with the money changers being in the Temple, servicing the donors, basically. Yes, maybe he thought their fees were too high as well. Maybe they were acting like the Pawn Stars on Twentieth Ave.? But basically - GET OUT! Another unpopular act by the Son of God. Maybe a bit too sensitive? But he did not ever say a bad word about merchants, etc.
Hey it’s mr “I want to invest in a company with a mission statement of creating more affordable housing since it is a real issue in society” while at the same time, “honey we need to submit a form to fight the city since they are trying to build more affordable housing near us”. This guy is incredible
Is he really pro nft's and stuff, I was really into marc's stuff, his pod with rogan but his egregious investments in pump n dumb just had me lose the faith. brilliant guy thou.
Without VCs the free market decides which company wins rather than some rich dude with a fat wad of cash. This is BETTER for innovation, consumers and competition. It would increase innovation not decrease it. Incumbents will always fail eventually due to bloat, bureaucracy and lack of innovation. Once Fb was funded no other similar social network could ever really succeed. How is that good for innovation?! It just accelerates the move to the managerial sector then locks it in.
Interesting that he's given up on cleantech when it's just getting started imo. Also Tesla is 'cleantech' is it not? Would be interesting if you could probe him more on that. Sure it's hard to compete with fossil fuels with the externalities they are allowed to pollute. But betting on solving climate change seems better than betting on the alternative. Like if we don't solve climate change, having an oil company stock that is up won't mean much! (During the apocalypse or whatever.)
Cleantech is not getting started. All those money that are pouring in are going to be wasted too. There is no underlying physics or science to justify investing in it.
So making your wealth off of buying and selling a baseball card in the same day is bad, but making your wealth off of buying and selling a a baseball card on different days is good?
We don't need VCs, they do more harm than good forcing perfectly good companies to become extremely inefficient and bloated and ultimately fail, where they could have been a perfectly good medium sized efficient company without crazy VC money. The huge successes would have succeeded either way, just without enriching VCs and burning billions of dollars on diversity hires and ping pong tables. Great companies will bootstrap, this allows them to be efficient from day 1, get into good habits and compete better and harder faster. Discuss.
without critical feedback, you will not find ways to improve yourself, other than appreciating all the yes-yes-yes. i'll give a crack : don't make an interview 80 minutes, when it has only 20 minutes of good questions and 20 minutes of mediocre questions. keep it at 40 minutes. keep it shorter. marc will talk on and on, and you're just being polite while he bores people with filler. go back and look at the questions you asked, and ask yourself which ones were totally unnecessary. you spent a lot of the interview like lex fridman, building rapor and trying to make friends. this is what you do when you already have 1 million subs and a 'long form' podcast that is successful. almost NONE are . they are 'feelgood' interview styles. for example. asking someone about 20 years in the future if he doesn't do well for his fund? really? why? what is mark going to say that no one else wouldn't say?
Amazing video, A friend of mine referred me to a financial adviser sometime ago and we got talking about investment and money. I started investing with $120k and in the first 2 months , my portfolio was reading $274,800. Crazy right!, I decided to reinvest my profit and gets more interesting. For over a year we have been working together making consistent profit just bought my second home 2 weeks ago and care for my family.
Hi. I’ve been forced to find additional sources of income as I got retrenched. I barely have time to continue trading and watch my investments since I had my second daughter. Do you think I should take a break for a while from the market and focus on other things or return whenever I have free time or is it a continuous process? Thanks.
@@mariahhayes5089 Quitting may not be the best approach if you ask me. This is where an AI comes into the picture. I barely have time to trade myself as my job swallows up most of my time. 'MARGARET ANN WARNKEN", a licensed fiduciary whom has made me over 5 figures in profit in less than seven months, handles my investments. I could leave you a lead if you need help.
To imply VCs are the sole reason innovation exists is beyond self-serving and r'tarded 🤡 Much as I do like Marc. Get out of the bubble mate, startups and innovation existed before VCs and will exist after they're gone.
Art NFTs are like pokemon cards it is a shell game that when the music stops hopefully you will be able to find a seat Otherwise you are stuck with NFT worth nothing! Had to stop listening here! I have tons of people in NFTs and noe of them compare to mona lissa it is much more pokemon card for the moment lol!
You did a great job of trying to navigate around his constant deflecting and politicking around NFTs. He tries to appear to care about art broadly when it's quite clear he only cares about speculation. You didn't ask him the value of art, but the value of speculating on it, and he never answered you which is a bit of a shame.
Hope you guys enjoy this one!! Marc is brilliant and a tremendous pleasure to talk to.
As always, the most helpful thing you can do is just to share the podcast - send it to friends, group chats, Twitter, Reddit, forums, and wherever else men and women of fine taste congregate.
To help pay the bills for my podcast, I'm turning on paid subscriptions on Substack
No major content will be paywalled - please don't donate if you think twice before buying a cup of coffee
But if you have the means & have enjoyed my podcast, I would appreciate your support 🙏
www.dwarkeshpatel.com/subscribe
i heard it from Peter Thiel..Starting a company is like chewing glass and staring into the abyss
Are you serious? Most of us were involved in both.
Thanks!
How does this channel not have more subscribers - I have been binge watching podcasts and it's been an absolute delight to listen to. Some serious thinkers and some great questions.
This is my favourite interview yet, I learned quite a lot and saw so many ideas come together, I'm sort of embarrassed that I wasn't already familiar with everything discussed.
Glad you enjoyed Jayan!
I'm a big fan of Marc Andreessen. Somehow he seemingly is always in fairly great spirits. Enhances my understanding of the world in a straightforward way and makes me optimistic
Just listened to two of your interviews last couple of days. You’re a phenomenal interviewer and listening in to these conversations is such a privilege - thank you! Have already recommended to friends!
This was a great conversation, insane for an account with 4k followers. Obviously, that number will rise soon. Nice job, Dwarkesh.
Thanks man!
Thanks! Khub Saras interview hatu!
Great Conversation, Always love your question
Insightful 💡
Great interview, watched it twice. Criminally undersubscribed channel but I have no doubt that you’ll blow up soon - these interviews are as good as anything out there
Means a lot ❤ Thank you so much!
Ditto
Great interview, thx. Love a16z.
I apologize for my confusion regarding the response to the initial question about why not starting another startup. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but can we summarize his lengthy answer as suggesting that investing is a simpler and more profitable venture compared to starting a new business?
I'd argue it's not the only answer, most of his answers are vague, needlessly verbose and lack substance.
@@louisstrauss285man kind of true.
Awesome episode, love hearing from Marc!
Awesome, insightful conversation!!
Spectacular discussion
Thanks :)
Excellent interview. Marc is brilliant and his hypothesis of bourgeois vs managerial capitalism holds water. A good illustration of managerial company is Google, which created transformer tech for their AI, that OpenAI chatGPT used so well. OpenAI is this bourgeois company that another managerial company Microsoft had to semi-acquire to use tech in their platforms.
This was a great episode...Marc seems very energetic here
Yes he is always energetic lol
DRAT - have to watch again. This was sooo much.
A good episode. I enjoyed talk about research and education a lot. Thank you!
Thank you!!
This guy was great. Level headed, realistic, scheduled. Loved hearing about ceo to managers to decisions. I am the firecracker. I don’t know what social media was in 2001, but alas.
These talks are fantastic, your channel is a hidden gem!
Glad you think so!
Great questions
Awesome interview!
great interview!
I'm so glad that you are funded by Grants from the Marginal revolution and thus you don' have the incentive to have crazy hot takes or super controversial opinions just for views or subscriptions. You've earned a subscriber!
excellent chat. well done, brotha
Thanks man!
Incredible insight into the startup world
:)
16:08 let the battle for fast-talking champion begin
Brilliant! Keep going!
Thank you! Will do!
Looking forward for this
Great ending!
His words about being a founder meaning everything is your problem hits home hard
Great questions from the moderator :)
Thanks man!
Thanks for podcast from Ukraine )
The talk about art investing got me thinking.
I do think people's instinctive aversion of art investing is in part related to if the art will be actively appreciated vs locked away for some future buyer who locks it away.
26:38 VC is basically put money where the knowledge has been compounding (from R&D funded by the gov first)
You are doing tremendous job! You will surely go to 1 mil sub if you keep doing what you are doing.
Thank you 🙏
Ditto
This one is a banger
A big difference between the two industries, computer science and biotechnology, is that of regulation, which underlies the ethical implications of the latter. Essentially it's perceived that biotech has a lot higher potential to be hazardous so there's a lot more friction bringing a product to market. Launching a web browser or a phone app has essentially zero of that friction by comparison. Some of those products end up being just as consequential and maybe even as potentially hazardous, but it's not apparent to people ahead of time. For example, it's a lot easier to see how dangerous introducing a new organism into an ecosystem is vs. a product that allows people to connect socially from various geographic locations simultaneously. Point being that the payoff rate in comp sci being so high vs. biotech has a lot to do with this reality.
I like his point at 43:00 or so. It makes me excited for the next century - the glut of capital can flow to the emerging economies which have a surplus of people & new ideas. We can't all be investors - some people have to build the companies, and more importantly - we have to buy the stuff that we make. This is also why demographics are super important. If we all aspire to be childless minimalist investors - that won't end well lol
"the emerging economies which have a surplus of people & new ideas."
The region with the largest demographic growth has the fewest new ideas.
Fire interview!
Good content 💯
20:40 why contact with customers and the real world is crucial and needs to happen regularly
A great episode. When will the episode featuring Ilya Sutskever be released?
Next week!
@@DwarkeshPatel Is there something wrong with Ilya Sutskever episode?
Only 20 mins in so far but I’m enjoying Marc’s energy and explanation of startups in the framework of bourgeois capitalism.
Marc's view on education is similar to Jordan Peterson's. I know JP is working toward creating an alternative. It would be great to get Marc and JP together to discuss the topic.
41:35 I'm actually not sure which one is the right choice tbh.
Isn't Burnham's problem fully captured in the "diseconomies" part of the diseconomies/economies of scale idea that microeconomics uses to explain why there's not just one big firm for each industry? In other words, without favorable regulation (ie government enabled monopoly), the growth of these firms would eventually be throttled by the normal competitive process, even without Innovation or "disruption". I'm skeptical this is a real thing (cf. Musk's extolling the virtues of "vertical integration" is already accounted for in Coase's idea of high transactions costs.).
Great job great talk!!!!!!
How did you land Marc with such a new channel?
I asked nicely :)
@@DwarkeshPatel
.
I love your style. you don't love to listen to the sound of your own voice like a lot of people do.
You ask very concise yet open-ended questions - then get the hell out of the way quickly, I find nothing more agonizing then questions which Ramble On and On!!!
Less is more.
But then again Marc has an amazing and very unique vantage point within the industry and even the world having literally practically single-handedly Blazed the trail
Maybe you can capitalize on this and make a theme out of it like the founders series with other Trailblazers like Larry Ellison from Oracle who is getting pretty old or Scott mcnealy or his two partners from Sun Microsystems or even Steve Ballmer or John Chambers the long time CEO of Cisco who is also a huge VC or even the founders of Cisco Systems
Leonard Bosack and Sandra Lerner, a married couple (later divorced) who had met while students at Stanford University?
Try and keep the Trailblazer momentum rolling all you have to do now is send them the link to your pod with Mark everyone wants to document the Legacy in a flattering manner.
PS by the way you need to get a second light source to get rid of that guy standing behind you lol
Maybe make a theme out of it parlay your success at Landing mark
The overstaffing problem with VCs could be looked at from the opposite direction, as in they're only finding about 20% of the opportunities that are out there. I would argue that there is no shortage of new innovative companies to invest it. The problem is finding the people that are trying to do it and accurately assessing their potential. We certainly don't have a shortage of need for money to be invested in such things. Maybe I'm just overoptimistic about the number of people attempting to do great things, but with a pool of 8 billion people to draw from, ~650 million of whom have an IQ above 120, it's hard to believe that there's only a few thousand of those that are actually going to have that ambition and pay off if they get funding.
This guy has a POINT. He’s aHEAD of his time.
41:05 things are valuable because people are willing to pay for it.
I suggest to play this at 75% speed.
lol
On the revolution in education that will certainly happen:
one possibility that was not mentioned is that another country (non-US)
will advance rapidly into the future, and be so successful
that the US will be behind, then have to follow to catch up.
It seems remote at the moment
and I'm sure many of the products of that better system
will emigrate to the US to get better pay or access to entrepreneurial capital
but I sense a lazy unjustified complacency in America.
I think a potential way for the education system to go will be decentralized learning coupled with providers that would proctor some sort of standardized testing on the subject matter. The research that's done at Universities is a whole different ball of wax, but then again that doesn't really have a lot to do with teaching and learning, at least from the point of view of the undergraduate degrees, so why would we need to continue doing it in institutions of higher learning?
I agree that the opposite is happening with the science. Computer science is now turning all of science and technology into information technology, and the information technology that facilitates that is getting better by leaps and bounds. I mean, look at Chat GPT and all of the other AI projects happening right now. This exponentially increases the ability and therefor the rate at which we can conduct research in these other areas. Human genome project being at the top of the list of examples.
There are also some of the world's problems not suited for venture capital to solve. For example, companies work great as dictatorships because they are allowed to fail. Countries don't work well as dictatorships, because when they fail, millions of people can die.. Like gov doesn't pay enough to attract top talent - but conservatives would consider it massive corruption to pay the president $100 Billion - even though they could pass policies far more valuable to people than "the metaverse" or whatever. Anyways, interesting stuff! Thanks for the interview!
"conservatives would consider it massive corruption to pay the president $100 Billion" I don't think there is any constituency for that idea.
Appreciat the call for bourgeois capitalism. However most us companies are sme and not managerial but run by owners. And they do innovate, even more much and with a way higher capital efficiently than vc founded companies. These are the real bourgeois and many of the startups would develop into such sme without the vc and equity pressure. VC generates monopolistic managerial companies who try to avoid others to innovate successfully in order to generate the additional 10% ROI for the investors. So maybe the vc funding is the root cause of the problem? And there are better alternatives which are sme.
Reminds me of Homo capensis race. they have such heads
Marc has a cruel and ruthless ideology.
there are only 2 people in the world I don't listen in 2x (cause it's not necessary) one is Warren Buffet, the other is Mark Andreessen.
haha
W
W
20:00 the irony of this man saying these words while promoting web3 and without realising it is is surreal.
57:34m OH STOP - I can't believe you didn't ask him to assess in particular Sundar and how that Google team is structured. You could spend an hour just on a few founders-in-the wings.
The crypto industry’s reputation has been tarnished almost beyond repair. It’ll take a lot of work to undo that.
22:30m At the end of a long discourse on the limits of excessive time to market - he puts a practical limit to start turning rocks at 7-8 years. (I consider that realistic if it's not basic research of course - and he says 20-year development may produce papers or something open source, but not an enterprise.) So then he is willing to consider a 10x money model and gives Tesla and SpaceX as models. OpenAI, presumably as well.
Mark is a classic LIBRA acquisitive analytical (forebrain x POTENTIAL = venture.) He says that represents only 1% of the economy, or perhaps of all enterprises, and calls it "founders" - check. And compares this to former "Bourgeois" - not necessarily capitalist but free market. Listen again.
Still another hour left!
52:00m KEY TO THE CEO TREASURE vs Venture Capitalist DAY
54:00m -ish Management Talent at scale - oh the clarity! My eyes!!
Tech startups are not impossible to bootstrap. The economy could survive a lack of VCs through crowdfunding.
VCs are smarter than mobs.
nice
Dwarkesh was 10 in 2011... how is that possible?
I watch every video at 2x speed by default, but for this I had to change the speed to 1.5x
lol
The ultimate form of cope, is when a world star investor, try to justify and sweet talk why the NFT mania is good.
Well an oversupply of capital exists. I wouldn't say 'we' have it though. haha.
Your top comment here (more than 100 likes) is a scam thread. Please remove it. Thank you.
You look very much like Aryan Tari, the Norwegian -Iranian chess grandmaster
Got his looks apparently but not his chess skills
The NRC just licensed NuScale's SMR on January 20. Innovation in nuclear fission energy is once more permitted after a mere half century of bureaucratic suppression. The first reactor should be completed in Idaho by 2029.
Commonwealth Fusion Systems is building a demonstration fusion reactor in Massachusetts, to be completed in 2025. Other fusion companies, like Helion, are building reactors in the US. Commonwealth and Helion are spending billions of dollars. As far as I know the only environmental risk for these reactors is from tritium leakage. That could be a deal killer if not corrected.
In other words, Andreessen points to a real problem in the regulatory sphere, but he exaggerates it. If fusion energy is developed to something like its potential, no serious nation will be able to afford to forego building fusion reactors. That would be like refusing to build railroads in 1850.
38:45m Mark, do note that Jesus was upset with the money changers being in the Temple, servicing the donors, basically. Yes, maybe he thought their fees were too high as well. Maybe they were acting like the Pawn Stars on Twentieth Ave.? But basically - GET OUT! Another unpopular act by the Son of God. Maybe a bit too sensitive? But he did not ever say a bad word about merchants, etc.
Software businesses don't need VCs.
Hey it’s mr “I want to invest in a company with a mission statement of creating more affordable housing since it is a real issue in society” while at the same time, “honey we need to submit a form to fight the city since they are trying to build more affordable housing near us”. This guy is incredible
If you don't learn from the past, you may wind up repeating your mistakes.
Is he really pro nft's and stuff, I was really into marc's stuff, his pod with rogan but his egregious investments in pump n dumb just had me lose the faith. brilliant guy thou.
We get into it in this convo!
@@DwarkeshPatel Oh, I'm gonna watch it couple of hours. Thanks for the interview btw. Cheers.
Without VCs the free market decides which company wins rather than some rich dude with a fat wad of cash. This is BETTER for innovation, consumers and competition. It would increase innovation not decrease it. Incumbents will always fail eventually due to bloat, bureaucracy and lack of innovation.
Once Fb was funded no other similar social network could ever really succeed. How is that good for innovation?! It just accelerates the move to the managerial sector then locks it in.
Interesting that he's given up on cleantech when it's just getting started imo. Also Tesla is 'cleantech' is it not? Would be interesting if you could probe him more on that. Sure it's hard to compete with fossil fuels with the externalities they are allowed to pollute. But betting on solving climate change seems better than betting on the alternative. Like if we don't solve climate change, having an oil company stock that is up won't mean much! (During the apocalypse or whatever.)
If he wanted to make a big bet - maybe he should try to onshore a leading Chinese PV manufacturer or something!
Cleantech is not getting started. All those money that are pouring in are going to be wasted too. There is no underlying physics or science to justify investing in it.
@@leonmilner9994 "try to onshore a leading Chinese PV manufacturer" What nonsense.
So making your wealth off of buying and selling a baseball card in the same day is bad, but making your wealth off of buying and selling a a baseball card on different days is good?
Yes.
We don't need VCs, they do more harm than good forcing perfectly good companies to become extremely inefficient and bloated and ultimately fail, where they could have been a perfectly good medium sized efficient company without crazy VC money.
The huge successes would have succeeded either way, just without enriching VCs and burning billions of dollars on diversity hires and ping pong tables.
Great companies will bootstrap, this allows them to be efficient from day 1, get into good habits and compete better and harder faster.
Discuss.
Where should normies go for advanced training? He makes uni sound like a complete waste of time.
If they want more Elons they better start looking for the outliers amongst the normies
There’s so much unfunded art. I don’t believe these guys actually have any interest in funding it.
without critical feedback, you will not find ways to improve yourself, other than appreciating all the yes-yes-yes.
i'll give a crack :
don't make an interview 80 minutes, when it has only 20 minutes of good questions and 20 minutes of mediocre questions. keep it at 40 minutes.
keep it shorter. marc will talk on and on, and you're just being polite while he bores people with filler.
go back and look at the questions you asked, and ask yourself which ones were totally unnecessary.
you spent a lot of the interview like lex fridman, building rapor and trying to make friends. this is what you do when you already have 1 million subs and a 'long form' podcast that is successful. almost NONE are . they are 'feelgood' interview styles.
for example. asking someone about 20 years in the future if he doesn't do well for his fund? really? why? what is mark going to say that no one else wouldn't say?
Amazing video, A friend of mine referred me to a financial adviser sometime ago and we got talking about investment and money. I started investing with $120k and in the first 2 months , my portfolio was reading $274,800. Crazy right!, I decided to reinvest my profit and gets more interesting. For over a year we have been working together making consistent profit just bought my second home 2 weeks ago and care for my family.
Hi. I’ve been forced to find additional sources of income as I got retrenched. I barely have time to continue trading and watch my investments since I had my second daughter. Do you think I should take a break for a while from the market and focus on other things or return whenever I have free time or is it a continuous process? Thanks.
@@mariahhayes5089 Quitting may not be the best approach if you ask me. This is where an AI comes into the picture. I barely have time to trade myself as my job swallows up most of my time. 'MARGARET ANN WARNKEN", a licensed fiduciary whom has made me over 5 figures in profit in less than seven months, handles my investments. I could leave you a lead if you need help.
@@mayacho4910 Oh please I’d love that. Thanks!
@@mariahhayes5089'MARGARET ANN WARNKEN"
@@mariahhayes5089Lookup with her name on the webpage.
Lewis Helen Hernandez Susan Rodriguez Margaret
To imply VCs are the sole reason innovation exists is beyond self-serving and r'tarded 🤡
Much as I do like Marc.
Get out of the bubble mate, startups and innovation existed before VCs and will exist after they're gone.
Egg man
DP, move back from the camera a little? And that shadow behind you is a distraction FYI.
I wish Marc could start to stop pounding the table.
Humpty dumpty lookin ahh
Art NFTs are like pokemon cards it is a shell game that when the music stops hopefully you will be able to find a seat Otherwise you are stuck with NFT worth nothing! Had to stop listening here! I have tons of people in NFTs and noe of them compare to mona lissa it is much more pokemon card for the moment lol!
so disappointed in this interviewer. what a waste of a great guest!
Does this guy have an EGG Head or what???
You did a great job of trying to navigate around his constant deflecting and politicking around NFTs. He tries to appear to care about art broadly when it's quite clear he only cares about speculation. You didn't ask him the value of art, but the value of speculating on it, and he never answered you which is a bit of a shame.
Thanks!