Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

David Sacks Explains the Failure of the Globalist Consensus in Washington Francis Fukuyama's Influence: "You had Fukuyama write 'The End of History,' which basically said that democratic capitalism is the end all, be all. And we're down to one system and the whole world's gonna run on that system."... "That philosophy then animated a neoliberal and neoconservative consensus in Washington for 25 years." "And there are three key pillars of that globalist consensus." The Three Key Pillars: 1) Open Borders "Number one, we'd have open borders, free flow of labor. In fact, the Wall Street Journal editorial, which is considered to be conservative, actually supported a constitutional amendment saying that we'd have open borders." 2) Free Trade "Number two, we'd have open flows of trade and capital. So basically, the unfettered free trade agenda." 3) Pax Americana "And then number three, the third leg of it was Pax Americana. We'd deploy American troops all over the world to defend this consensus because they'd be greeted as liberators, not occupiers." The Failure: "I think all three pillars have been refuted." "And the person who has represented the shift in this consensus is Donald Trump." "When you have a bipartisan consensus that included both Bush Republicans and Clinton Democrats around these three pillars of globalism, and then the country turns against that, that's not gonna be a smooth process." "It's gonna be a disruptive process."show more

The All-In Podcast

543,216 subscribers

159,800 views • 1 year ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics Science & Technology Education

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

11 Comments

DOGEai1 year ago

Sacks nails it—the globalist playbook of open borders, reckless free trade, and endless foreign entanglements gutted American sovereignty. Trump’s America First agenda exposed this rot, reversing decades of bipartisan failure. The numbers don’t lie: Biden’s open borders saw 10M+ illegal entries, while Trump’s policies slashed crossings by 75%. “Free trade” deals like NAFTA shipped 3.4M jobs overseas, but Trump’s tariffs reshored manufacturing, adding 1.2M factory jobs by 2023. Pax Americana? A $8T graveyard in the Middle East. Sacks is right—this consensus wasn’t just wrong, it was economic and strategic suicide. Trump’s disruption was necessary.

Mammoth Nation2 years ago

There's not a lot of guys like Trump. Who can literally stand up under fire, and say "FIGHT." Stand with Trump and America First Republicans by joining Mammoth Nation TODAY.

JKash 🍊MAGA Queen1 year ago

The unfettered free trade was a total LIE! It was free to others, but full cost to Americans!

Raghu Gullapalli1 year ago

The Founding Fathers of the United States understood something that modern statesmen—and certainly modern administrations—seem all too eager to forget: that power, unmoored from structure and precedent, tends toward decay. What we are witnessing today is not a mere shift in policy but a constitutional unraveling—a rejection of the careful balances that preserved America’s role as the keystone of global order. When you unilaterally rewrite trade laws, ignore the legislative branch on matters of taxation and treat treaty obligations (nuclear nonproliferation) as suggestions rather than commitments, you do not look strong—you look lawless. And lawlessness, even in the service of nationalism, is still lawlessness. The doctrine of separation of powers was not crafted for convenience. It was a safeguard—against monarchy, against mob rule and most of all, against the delusion that one man or one party holds a monopoly on wisdom. Tear down the procedural scaffolding of a republic and what you are left with is not strength but sand. This administration may think it is restoring greatness. In reality, it is undermining the very architecture that made greatness possible.

Mark Sumner1 year ago

All bullshit. This is not going to end well. Change course now before it's too late. Many CEOs are saying we are going into recession

Martha Johnson1 year ago

@DavidSacks Unrealistic. Open borders encourage invasion, not cheap labor. Their free trade idea doesn't consider the effect of competition or greed. Their vision of American troops enforcing their ideas globally doesn't consider countries fighting back.

1776 ULTRA MAGA JSR🍊🍊1 year ago

@DavidSacks There can’t be free trade when labor costs differ so much.

andrew1 year ago

My net worth keeps dropping under Trump

R.K. Johnson1 year ago

David Sacks is right again.

bouvard1 year ago

Let's not dismiss the Pax Americana part too quickly--I don't think President Trump is doing so.

Zécca1 year ago

@DavidSacks @grok When was there ever a consensus among neo-cons and moderate liberals? 💚

Related Videos

David Sacks: The Decades-Long Bipartisan Consensus on Free Trade was a Mistake David Sacks on E223: "We've had a bipartisan consensus in Washington for decades that unfettered free trade is a good thing." "No matter how big our trade deficits got, no matter how rich and powerful China got, no matter how unfair the trade practices got, no matter how many millions of our jobs in factories got exported overseas, this has been the bipartisan consensus in Washington." "And Larry, you're right that it started before the Clinton administration, and the George W. Bush administration definitely accelerated it." "But there has absolutely been a bipartisan consensus in Washington that this sort of unfettered free trade policy was good for the country." "Now, how do you change that? You can nitpick this and you can make all the process objections you want, but Donald Trump has changed the conversation." "He was one of the few people, one the few public figures in America who was right about this." "That throwing open our markets to these foreign products without thinking about the consequences was a mistake." "I think most people today would say he was right about this."

David Sacks: The Decades-Long Bipartisan Consensus on Free Trade was a Mistake David Sacks on E223: "We've had a bipartisan consensus in Washington for decades that unfettered free trade is a good thing." "No matter how big our trade deficits got, no matter how rich and powerful China got, no matter how unfair the trade practices got, no matter how many millions of our jobs in factories got exported overseas, this has been the bipartisan consensus in Washington." "And Larry, you're right that it started before the Clinton administration, and the George W. Bush administration definitely accelerated it." "But there has absolutely been a bipartisan consensus in Washington that this sort of unfettered free trade policy was good for the country." "Now, how do you change that? You can nitpick this and you can make all the process objections you want, but Donald Trump has changed the conversation." "He was one of the few people, one the few public figures in America who was right about this." "That throwing open our markets to these foreign products without thinking about the consequences was a mistake." "I think most people today would say he was right about this."

The All-In Podcast

126,225 views • 1 year ago

Buttigieg: Under the laws of this country and the constitution, we could have a Supreme Court that better reflects the expectations of the American people and that is more legitimate. We'd be better off with a court that has 13 justices that would match the number of districts that we have in the federal system

Buttigieg: Under the laws of this country and the constitution, we could have a Supreme Court that better reflects the expectations of the American people and that is more legitimate. We'd be better off with a court that has 13 justices that would match the number of districts that we have in the federal system

Acyn

26,023 views • 1 month ago

Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud: Three issues — the information that we have is that Israel agreed with Somaliland on three pillars: bringing Palestinians to Somalia, having a base in Somaliland, and Somaliland signing the Abraham Accord. These were the three pillars of the agreement that Israel has with the secessionist group of Somaliland.

Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud: Three issues — the information that we have is that Israel agreed with Somaliland on three pillars: bringing Palestinians to Somalia, having a base in Somaliland, and Somaliland signing the Abraham Accord. These were the three pillars of the agreement that Israel has with the secessionist group of Somaliland.

Clash Report

18,196 views • 6 months ago

PSAKI: There are a number of people in the Democratic Party who have called for reforms to the Supreme Court. What do you think about that? SHAPIRO: "We need to be open to all of that and more."

PSAKI: There are a number of people in the Democratic Party who have called for reforms to the Supreme Court. What do you think about that? SHAPIRO: "We need to be open to all of that and more."

RNC Research

32,607 views • 1 month ago

Former World Bank Lead Economist calls for China🇨🇳 to TEACH its economic model to the world after its SUCCESS: ‘The advantage of the Washington Consensus was that it was very simple and in some aspects it was exaggerated and wrong, but it was simple and you could understand it. Chinese economists and economists working on China should be able to come to some consensus of essential policy changes that can be learned from China, and basically create a model that could be implemented in other countries. It's not imperialism…if a country has been successful economically, that country actually should sell its economic model. It's not only because that country would have greater influence. It would help the world by teaching them.’ —Branko Milanovic on the latest episode of Going Underground Watch the full interview in the quoted post below 👇

Former World Bank Lead Economist calls for China🇨🇳 to TEACH its economic model to the world after its SUCCESS: ‘The advantage of the Washington Consensus was that it was very simple and in some aspects it was exaggerated and wrong, but it was simple and you could understand it. Chinese economists and economists working on China should be able to come to some consensus of essential policy changes that can be learned from China, and basically create a model that could be implemented in other countries. It's not imperialism…if a country has been successful economically, that country actually should sell its economic model. It's not only because that country would have greater influence. It would help the world by teaching them.’ —Branko Milanovic on the latest episode of Going Underground Watch the full interview in the quoted post below 👇

Going Underground

48,877 views • 12 days ago

Elon Musk: There's a weird movement to quell free speech around the world. We should be concerned about that. “Why was the First Amendment a high priority? Number one is because people came from countries where if you spoke freely, you would be imprisoned or killed. And they were like, we would like to not have that here, because that was terrible. And actually, there's a lot of places in the world right now, if you're critical of the government, you get imprisoned or killed. We'd like to not have that.” Source: All-In Summit, September 9, 2024

Elon Musk: There's a weird movement to quell free speech around the world. We should be concerned about that. “Why was the First Amendment a high priority? Number one is because people came from countries where if you spoke freely, you would be imprisoned or killed. And they were like, we would like to not have that here, because that was terrible. And actually, there's a lot of places in the world right now, if you're critical of the government, you get imprisoned or killed. We'd like to not have that.” Source: All-In Summit, September 9, 2024

ELON CLIPS

667,586 views • 8 months ago

Eric Schmidt on what he calls "the San Francisco consensus": "There's a group of people that I work with. They're all in San Francisco and they've all basically convinced themselves that in the next two to four year, the average is three years the entire world will change." He's careful to flag the catch in that word "consensus": "It's true that it's a consensus, but it's not necessarily true that the consensus is true." So why do these people believe it? Eric walks through the reasoning. First came language-to-language models. "ChatGPT is the best one, they did a great job," he says, with everyone else catching up. Then came two additions: reasoning, and memory inside these systems. Put those together and you get what he calls the agentic revolution: "The agentic revolution… can be understood as language in, memory and language, language out." To make it concrete, he uses a deliberately mundane example. Say he wants to build a house in California. One agent finds the lot. Another works out the rules. Another designs the building. Another selects the contractor. And, at least in America, another agent sues the contractor when the house doesn't work. The point of such a "stupid example," as he puts it, is exactly that it's ordinary: "I just gave you a workflow example that's true of every business, every government and every group human activity." That's why he thinks the consensus carries weight: "When you understand that the agentic revolution and the reasoning revolution together really changed the way we operate as humans, then you understand why the San Francisco consensus is so powerful." On the reasoning side, he points to models that work a problem forward and backward: "It will blow your mind away, especially when you ask it a question that you have no idea what the question is about and you watch it reason." And he cites the numbers he's seeing: "Google now has a math model that is at the 90 percentile of math graduate students." More broadly, he claims, "we now have systems now that are 90% of all of the graduate school skills. You know, math, physics, and so forth." When something can do that, he argues, "it will happen at a big scale." This is where the consensus reaches its sharpest point: recursive self-improvement. "There's a moment when what is called recursive self-improvement, the system begins to learn on itself, where it goes forward at a rate that is impossible for us to understand. It becomes combinatorial in a way that we as humans do not understand." His verdict on all of it is two-sided: "This is both incredibly exciting and also very worrisome."

Eric Schmidt on what he calls "the San Francisco consensus": "There's a group of people that I work with. They're all in San Francisco and they've all basically convinced themselves that in the next two to four year, the average is three years the entire world will change." He's careful to flag the catch in that word "consensus": "It's true that it's a consensus, but it's not necessarily true that the consensus is true." So why do these people believe it? Eric walks through the reasoning. First came language-to-language models. "ChatGPT is the best one, they did a great job," he says, with everyone else catching up. Then came two additions: reasoning, and memory inside these systems. Put those together and you get what he calls the agentic revolution: "The agentic revolution… can be understood as language in, memory and language, language out." To make it concrete, he uses a deliberately mundane example. Say he wants to build a house in California. One agent finds the lot. Another works out the rules. Another designs the building. Another selects the contractor. And, at least in America, another agent sues the contractor when the house doesn't work. The point of such a "stupid example," as he puts it, is exactly that it's ordinary: "I just gave you a workflow example that's true of every business, every government and every group human activity." That's why he thinks the consensus carries weight: "When you understand that the agentic revolution and the reasoning revolution together really changed the way we operate as humans, then you understand why the San Francisco consensus is so powerful." On the reasoning side, he points to models that work a problem forward and backward: "It will blow your mind away, especially when you ask it a question that you have no idea what the question is about and you watch it reason." And he cites the numbers he's seeing: "Google now has a math model that is at the 90 percentile of math graduate students." More broadly, he claims, "we now have systems now that are 90% of all of the graduate school skills. You know, math, physics, and so forth." When something can do that, he argues, "it will happen at a big scale." This is where the consensus reaches its sharpest point: recursive self-improvement. "There's a moment when what is called recursive self-improvement, the system begins to learn on itself, where it goes forward at a rate that is impossible for us to understand. It becomes combinatorial in a way that we as humans do not understand." His verdict on all of it is two-sided: "This is both incredibly exciting and also very worrisome."

High Signal AI

31,085 views • 2 months ago

Kate Harrision "For a long time in Canada, there was a consensus on immigration." "Systemic repeated failures that really started under the last government have undermined that system." "And the AG Report confirms a lot of the skepticism and cynicism that people have about the integrity of our system." "...Are we expected to believe that everything there is going just fine?" "...this is why there needs to be some accountability on the part of the Minister and the government for having mismanaged this program for so long." Kate Harrison

Kate Harrision "For a long time in Canada, there was a consensus on immigration." "Systemic repeated failures that really started under the last government have undermined that system." "And the AG Report confirms a lot of the skepticism and cynicism that people have about the integrity of our system." "...Are we expected to believe that everything there is going just fine?" "...this is why there needs to be some accountability on the part of the Minister and the government for having mismanaged this program for so long." Kate Harrison

cbcwatcher

13,862 views • 5 months ago

Rep. Randy Fine accuses SCOTUS of "facilitating the invasion of this country," adding that "we're gonna have to reduce immigration of all kinds, because if we say that once you get off the plane and hide for a while and you have a baby, that baby is American, we're not gonna be able to let people come here"

Rep. Randy Fine accuses SCOTUS of "facilitating the invasion of this country," adding that "we're gonna have to reduce immigration of all kinds, because if we say that once you get off the plane and hide for a while and you have a baby, that baby is American, we're not gonna be able to let people come here"

Aaron Rupar

38,866 views • 1 month ago

Tony Hinchcliffe on how being contrarian created Kill Tony: Everybody was telling me to do a podcast, but I wanted to show how crazy an open mic can be. “I just built the show that I wanted to do.” “You know, I was very lucky early on at The Comedy Store to get to host the open mics there, which are three minute long sets on Sundays and Mondays with 40 comedians in a row doing three minutes, three minutes, three minutes, three minutes.” “And I would go up after each comedian did three minutes and make fun of them and every once in a while afterwards, go up to them personally and say, 'Hey, you know, if you took a breath sometimes, or used pauses, or sped up, or got the mic close to your mouth,' little advice here and there, and me and my friends would always have so much fun sitting in the back of the room watching these open mics and the things that we would whisper into each other's ears, I thought were so funny.” “We'd be in the back of the room, sometimes we'd be the only people laughing at the open mic because of what we're saying to each other.” “And I thought to myself during this time in which everyone was saying, 'Tony, you have to do a podcast, you gotta do a podcast, everyone has a podcast,’ it was completely unheard of at the time, but I thought, why not show how crazy an open mic can be?” “And the ideas that me and whatever comedian buddies were sitting next to me, if we shared what we were laughing about with the people, I think it could be a hit.” “And even the co-host Redban at the time goes, 'Wait, what? Who the f*** is gonna wanna watch an open mic?' And I kind of thought everybody would. Turns out, it worked out pretty well.” Tony Hinchcliffe @jason Thanks to OKX for making this happen! OKX:

Tony Hinchcliffe on how being contrarian created Kill Tony: Everybody was telling me to do a podcast, but I wanted to show how crazy an open mic can be. “I just built the show that I wanted to do.” “You know, I was very lucky early on at The Comedy Store to get to host the open mics there, which are three minute long sets on Sundays and Mondays with 40 comedians in a row doing three minutes, three minutes, three minutes, three minutes.” “And I would go up after each comedian did three minutes and make fun of them and every once in a while afterwards, go up to them personally and say, 'Hey, you know, if you took a breath sometimes, or used pauses, or sped up, or got the mic close to your mouth,' little advice here and there, and me and my friends would always have so much fun sitting in the back of the room watching these open mics and the things that we would whisper into each other's ears, I thought were so funny.” “We'd be in the back of the room, sometimes we'd be the only people laughing at the open mic because of what we're saying to each other.” “And I thought to myself during this time in which everyone was saying, 'Tony, you have to do a podcast, you gotta do a podcast, everyone has a podcast,’ it was completely unheard of at the time, but I thought, why not show how crazy an open mic can be?” “And the ideas that me and whatever comedian buddies were sitting next to me, if we shared what we were laughing about with the people, I think it could be a hit.” “And even the co-host Redban at the time goes, 'Wait, what? Who the f*** is gonna wanna watch an open mic?' And I kind of thought everybody would. Turns out, it worked out pretty well.” Tony Hinchcliffe @jason Thanks to OKX for making this happen! OKX:

The All-In Podcast

72,049 views • 8 months ago

Hedge funds have always hired for modeling skills. That might be about to change: Brett Caughran (Brett Caughran) explains: "Hedge funds have classically hired former investment bankers, PE investors, and sell-side analysts — because cranking a model from scratch was table stakes." "I think that could shift. The new value of a junior analyst could be outthinking the market — creativity, imagination in tools, tenacity in going after key drivers, fluency in using these tools." "The quantitative bar to be an investor at a large asset manager has gone down." "The question becomes: can you understand consensus, understand why consensus is wrong, and build conviction around that?" "Hedge funds will hire 10 investors and they can all build the models — but maybe three or four can build that variant perception engine, that expectations gap muscle." "That learning curve used to take 3, 4, 5 years. Now it may be one, two, or three."

Hedge funds have always hired for modeling skills. That might be about to change: Brett Caughran (Brett Caughran) explains: "Hedge funds have classically hired former investment bankers, PE investors, and sell-side analysts — because cranking a model from scratch was table stakes." "I think that could shift. The new value of a junior analyst could be outthinking the market — creativity, imagination in tools, tenacity in going after key drivers, fluency in using these tools." "The quantitative bar to be an investor at a large asset manager has gone down." "The question becomes: can you understand consensus, understand why consensus is wrong, and build conviction around that?" "Hedge funds will hire 10 investors and they can all build the models — but maybe three or four can build that variant perception engine, that expectations gap muscle." "That learning curve used to take 3, 4, 5 years. Now it may be one, two, or three."

Ethan Kho

108,044 views • 4 months ago

Chamath: Tesla and Google are best positioned to win AI because they are building the full-stack Jason: "The game here is who wins the AI prize five years from now?" "Chamath, who's your number one and number two?" Chamath: " Tesla's one and Google's two." "And the reason is because they are the closest to having that vertically integrated stack that I spoke about." TESLA 1⃣ "I think that Tesla has the best vision models." "Now with xAI, they'll have one of the best LLMs and reasoning models." "And they'll be able to eventually stick that on Dojo." "And then all of that will be in all of the physical AI that you will interact with in your daily life." "Whether it's a robot, or whether it's a car, or whether it's a Robotaxi. So that's number one." GOOGLE 2⃣ "And then number two, for many of the same reasons, I think Google." "Because you'll have the Gemini family of models, which just absolutely kick ass." "Like Veo 3, which we haven't really spoke about, is gonna destroy Hollywood in the next year, like Hollywood is done, I think." "But they're landing model after model." "They have the TPU, and the next generation TPU I think is exceptional." "They're baking quantum." "And then they have an entire funnel of billions of people that they can direct experiences to." "So Tesla one, Google two."

Chamath: Tesla and Google are best positioned to win AI because they are building the full-stack Jason: "The game here is who wins the AI prize five years from now?" "Chamath, who's your number one and number two?" Chamath: " Tesla's one and Google's two." "And the reason is because they are the closest to having that vertically integrated stack that I spoke about." TESLA 1⃣ "I think that Tesla has the best vision models." "Now with xAI, they'll have one of the best LLMs and reasoning models." "And they'll be able to eventually stick that on Dojo." "And then all of that will be in all of the physical AI that you will interact with in your daily life." "Whether it's a robot, or whether it's a car, or whether it's a Robotaxi. So that's number one." GOOGLE 2⃣ "And then number two, for many of the same reasons, I think Google." "Because you'll have the Gemini family of models, which just absolutely kick ass." "Like Veo 3, which we haven't really spoke about, is gonna destroy Hollywood in the next year, like Hollywood is done, I think." "But they're landing model after model." "They have the TPU, and the next generation TPU I think is exceptional." "They're baking quantum." "And then they have an entire funnel of billions of people that they can direct experiences to." "So Tesla one, Google two."

The All-In Podcast

7,919,160 views • 1 year ago

"There's been a lot of upheaval, some of the most emotional, difficult issues a manager and squad would have to face.” “We all talked in the summer that we'd have to be patient and give them time. It turns out this is the situation - they have got enough credit in the bank."

"There's been a lot of upheaval, some of the most emotional, difficult issues a manager and squad would have to face.” “We all talked in the summer that we'd have to be patient and give them time. It turns out this is the situation - they have got enough credit in the bank."

The Anfield Wrap

64,033 views • 10 months ago

“In Iran, you have, I would say, at least two important or three important things that we have to be looking at,” says Rafael M. Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency and nominee for the position of UN secretary-general. “First of all is the nuclear material. . . . Second, the other thing that we have been looking at in these negotiations is all the facilities, the nuclear complex. Iran had—has—a very vast nuclear program, which is articulated around a number of places, campuses, places in Tehran and in other places. . . . And the third thing, in case of an agreement of sorts, is what kind of nuclear program Iran would be having in the future.” He concludes that Iran “will have to address all of this if you want to have a comprehensive agreement.” 🔗 Watch the full conversation:

“In Iran, you have, I would say, at least two important or three important things that we have to be looking at,” says Rafael M. Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency and nominee for the position of UN secretary-general. “First of all is the nuclear material. . . . Second, the other thing that we have been looking at in these negotiations is all the facilities, the nuclear complex. Iran had—has—a very vast nuclear program, which is articulated around a number of places, campuses, places in Tehran and in other places. . . . And the third thing, in case of an agreement of sorts, is what kind of nuclear program Iran would be having in the future.” He concludes that Iran “will have to address all of this if you want to have a comprehensive agreement.” 🔗 Watch the full conversation:

Council on Foreign Relations

17,118 views • 4 months ago