Transcript of Vivek speaking with Elon & David Sacks

This transcription was generated by AWS Transcribe + GPT-4 and might be inaccurate. Full copyright belongs to David Sacks, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy.

---

Elon: All right. David, do you want to take it?

David: Yes, thank you. Hello everyone. Thanks for joining us today. We're here with Vivek Ramaswamy, an American business leader and New York Times best-selling author. He's the founder of Strive, an Ohio-based asset management firm that competes with Black Rock, State Street, and Vanguard. Before that, he founded and led a successful biotech company called Roy Sciences, where he oversaw the development of new drugs that went on to become FDA approved. Bloomberg has called him a leading anti-ESG crusader, and the New Yorker dubbed him the CEO of Anti-Woke Inc. He's a graduate of Harvard and Yale Law School. He is the son of two immigrants, married to a throat surgeon, and the father of two sons aged three and one. So with that, Vivek, thanks for joining us today.

Vivek: It's good to be on, guys. I'm looking forward to more of a conversation than just a prescripted speech here. But David, can you hear me pretty well?

David: Yes, we can hear you.

Vivek: Great. It's good to finally meet you, man.

Elon: I look forward to meeting you too. That was a great introduction by David, and I have to say I agree with everything that was articulated. Congratulations on everything you've achieved so far. I think people would like to know more about you.

Vivek: Sounds good. We'll kick this off. Most people have barely heard of me. This presidential race is just getting warmed up. My parents came to this country 40 years ago with almost no money, and I've gone on to found multi-billion dollar companies. Not Elon Musk level yet, but nonetheless, companies that have impacted people's lives in a positive way. I did it while getting married, following my faith in God, and bringing two sons into this world who we are raising today. I am genuinely worried that the American dream will not exist for my two sons and their generation unless we do something about it. I think for a long time we've been running from something, and the reason I entered this race is that I didn't see anybody who was running towards something. That's what we need to do.

Elon: I think you've got a really valid point there. There's sometimes quite a pessimism about the future. People often wonder, what should we do? What is the good future? For those that are religious, I certainly respect that. But even if you're not necessarily religious, it's like, what's the point of existence? What should we be doing and how would we know if it was better?

Vivek: Yes, I believe these are the questions we should be asking. We live in a moment, Elon, where I'm speaking to you as a member of my generation. I'm 37 and the first millennial ever to run for US president as a Republican. I think our generation is starved for purpose, meaning, and identity. We're longing to be part of something bigger than ourselves, but we haven't yet identified what that is. Some of this might be beyond my pay grade. Perhaps it's for pastors to revive faith in something truly higher. But I'm doing my small part. There's a role for the revival of national identity too. What does it mean to be an American? That's something people my age or younger often struggle to answer. If we fill that vacuum of national identity with a clear answer, that's what it means to be a citizen of this nation. If it's a different nation, that nation should have a clear answer to their question too. I'm worried about this country filling part of that void. That's what I believe and what motivates me. I think that's part of the answer to the question.

Elon: Yes, I think we should aspire to be the good guys.

Vivek: What do you mean by that?

Elon: I grew up watching a lot of American movies and TV shows, reading comics, and so on. I liked that there was a morality to America that I think is quite good. This notion that there is good, it's not all relative. We should strive to be a good civilization, a good people, where we treat each other well, work hard, build great new things. We should try to understand more about the nature of the universe and our place in it. That's why I'm a big fan of expanding the scope and scale of humanity, of expanding consciousness. Civilization is a good thing, not a bad thing, and it's something we should further. Ultimately, we should be a multi-planet species, a space civilization, and make the things we've seen in science fiction a reality.

Vivek: Elon, I love that because I think you and I are on a similar mission, but going in complementary yet different directions. I believe there is such a thing as truth, there is such a thing as good.

Elon: Yes, I think if you acknowledge error, it's important. We might say, 'we think this is true, but we might be wrong.' Generally speaking, I think it is, but we can aspire to get closer to the truth.

Vivek: What are the conditions that allow one to aspire to truth? I believe this platform we're using for our conversation is part of it. I think you purchased it with at least part of the aspiration of believing that the free exchange of ideas is part of the path that leads to truth. Each of us is different and interested in different spheres, right? It seems your passion is expanding to the frontiers of the universe, exploring beyond this earth, being pioneers, even on other planets.

Elon: To be clear, I'm all for preserving our planet. It's not about escaping to another planet, but ensuring things are cool on earth. However, it would be nice if something like Star Trek was real one day.

Vivek: That would be phenomenal. My passion is a bit different. I believe part of the truth we can rediscover, part of what is good, is the revival of things like individual self-worth, a sense of grounding in family and nation. All of this is important even before we get to Mars or another frontier. There's exploration within, right? We're like blind bats flying around in a cave trying to figure out where we are. That cave could be the universe or just a cave on this earth. We send out sonar signals and they bounce back, telling us where we are. Those signals could be family, my grounding, the fact that I'm a citizen of this nation, my faith, or the company I work for. All of these tell me where I am. I think there's a lot of that to do at home. Our pursuits are in some ways complementary, Elon. But we live in a moment where a lot of those other pillars, right here at home on earth, even in the United States of America, even in Central Iowa where I am today, have disappeared. We send out these sonar signals and nothing comes back. We're lost. My mission is to rebuild some of those basics.

Elon: Okay. Well, I believe we should definitely not lose pride in America. We should be proud to be American, and I certainly am. Sometimes, it feels like there's a strange anti-American, self-destructive element, especially in elite circles within the US, which seems kind of crazy to me. At some colleges and high schools, they're teaching that it's bad to be an American. I find this insane. It's simply not true.

David: In San Francisco, they removed Abraham Lincoln's name from one of the high schools. This is really crazy. There are other examples where George Washington's statue is getting torn down.

Vivek: Right. I think this is just a symptom of self-hatred, even at the individual level. We want to punish ourselves for success. It's the same mentality for why a student who graduates at the top of his class in most public schools in this country has to hide his achievement because achievement isn't considered cool. Well, America is about achievement in many ways, so if achievement isn't cool, then America isn't cool. I think it's a symptom of the loss of self-worth. It's not an easy thing to ask how we revive that. We can observe the problem, which is somewhat easy to do. What we do to build up that self-confidence that we've lost, whether it's the self-confidence to start a small business or to set out to Mars, or at least the self-confidence to say, "I'm a citizen of the nation founded on the most admirable ideals in human history, and I'm going to be proud of that," is not going to be easy. But I think that is the challenge for whoever leads this country. I aim to be that person next. I think in the next 20 years, if we don't get this right, we won't have the same kind of country. We won't be talking about American exceptionalism anymore. I think that will be a loss not just for the United States of America, but for the world, because part of America's role in the world is to provide an example of what is possible when you have a country founded on those ideals. Once you start apologizing for those ideals, I think that's going to be a permanent loss for history. So, I have thoughts on this, maybe you have thoughts on this too, but identifying the problem, I think we're all seeing it with clear eyes. What we do about it is going to be a tougher question, and I have my views on it, but maybe you do too.

Elon: We need to stop this nonsense immediately and criticize the educational system for teaching kids such nonsense. What the hell is going on? The donors to these universities, high schools, and so on should be rescinding their donations and questioning what these institutions are doing.

Vivek: To start, a big part of this is the federal government. The federal government is a significant problem. You talk about local schools, but what are they doing? That comes from the US Department of Education. It's somewhat invisible to many people. It's not just the school boards that parents are now actively engaging with. The US government says you don't get money from the federal government, which covers about 10% of public school budgets in this country, unless you adopt these toxic, self-hating racial and gender ideologies. But it's more broadly a national self-loathing ideology. I think this is solvable.

Elon: We're paying people to hate America.

Vivek: Yes, we are. And I think that's solvable.

Elon: It's like we're just punching ourselves in the face. I suggest we stop doing that.

Vivek: This gets back to religion, Elon. It's like a self-flogging, right? It's like wearing a hair shirt. There's a sort of religious practice people engage in. This exists in certain Christian traditions, Hindu traditions, and basically every major tradition in the world. There's some sect that engages in a form of self-flogging. I think we have a group of people in our country right now who are hungry to be part of something bigger than themselves. They have a hole the size of God in their heart, and traditional religion or God doesn't fill it. They engage in a different kind of self-flogging. I believe that's much of what the climate cult internationally is all about - a substitute for religion and self-flogging. But I think the same goes for American self-hatred. It's complicated.

Elon: I completely disagree with the climate stuff.

Vivek: You can go into that. Do you want to elaborate a bit?

Elon: As an individual, I think I might have done more to help with climate issues than any other individual, by a pretty big margin. Sometimes people bizarrely think I'm right-wing or something. I've been pouring blood, sweat, and tears into saving the environment. What are you talking about? It's so insane. I perceive myself to be a moderate and I aspire to be moderate, reasonable, and caring about our fellow humans and civilization. I think part of it also is that the United States has been on top for such a long time that there's a certain complacency that results when you've been winning for so long. It's like a pro sports team that has been winning for so long, they get a little complacent. We should be wary of that. We should not be complacent. And you start thinking there aren't any external enemies. Just like with ancient Rome, if Rome didn't have an external enemy, they would have a civil war. If you perceive yourself to be invulnerable, then internal conflict is a natural consequence of that because there are no external enemies. But there are external competitors. Obviously, a huge transition happening in the world today is the rise of China. The Chinese economy is probably going to be 2 to 3 times the size of the US economy. This is a big change. For as long as anyone's been alive, the United States has had the biggest economy in the world.

Elon: But if, in the case of China, you simply assume a GDP per capita efficiency relative to the US of 70%, that would be roughly equivalent to a billion people in the US or three times our current population. So the problem is, China is going to put us in a rather odd situation that no one can even remember, where there is an economy twice our size.

Vivek: I think that's correct on the trajectories. There are a couple of important points in there, Elon, that are actually encouraging for the United States. Oddly enough, what was your point about our success leading to our entitlement? It's inevitable. This is just history, right? Success breeds entitlement, which then breeds laziness. And then, of course, a victimhood culture follows because victimhood vindicates laziness. You saw this in Rome too. I appreciate the ancient Roman Empire analogy. My second book was all about exploring whether or not we are at the equivalent of the end of the Roman Empire. I think we should be talking about it. I took a dark turn during that book, midway through 'Nation of Victims'. Halfway through the book, I concluded that we should be so lucky as to be Rome, because Rome lasted a couple of thousand years. In the second half, we might be more like Carthage, which only lasted a few hundred.

Elon: It lasted quite a long time but definitely got short-circuited there.

Vivek: It did. But my more careful study of it was that we talked about the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. It turns out there were many rises and many falls. There was no one rise and one fall. I kind of see the rise of this American experiment the same way. I think there will be many rises and there will be many falls. But I don't think we're done with this. I think we can still be in our ascent. And so, just the arithmetic of it, Elon, you're right. If you extrapolate the existing GDP growth rate curves and linearly play them out on a compounding rate, it's exactly what you said in relation to China and the US. That is a big part of the reason why, as US president, one of the core things I've prioritized is making GDP growth a metric that we actually care about in this country. In some ways, I'd rather measure economic prosperity than some other metric that we've chosen, like carbon emissions or whatever the metric of the day may be. Let's actually choose the one that better tracks the prosperity and might of our country over the next 50 years. I think it's actually going to be more achievable than we've made it out to be.

Elon: Well, we want to ensure that the United States remains a meritocracy. Success should be a function of someone's skill and hard work, not a result of being part of an entrenched, wealthy class. This is crucial because otherwise, it leads to the ossification of society. We want to remain focused on merit and attract people from around the world who share this focus. We should make it easier for them to join our country.

Vivek: I agree with that. I fully agree. This is something the Republican Party needs to define. There is an anti-legal immigration current that I will be addressing on the debate stage in a month. If anyone has any qualms with this, I think I'm going to have a real problem with that because merit-based immigration is one of the solutions to economic growth in this country. But merit is the key.

Elon: Exactly. I want to put it in a way that everyone can understand. Imagine America as a pro sports team. We want to win the championship and keep winning. There are some A-players on another team who want to join ours. We can either make them fight us, or we can have them join our team and crush the competition. If A-players want to join our team, they should. That's the way to continue success.

Elon: Exactly. We should welcome them and not have all these ridiculous obstacles.

Vivek: Part of the reason for the backlash is that currently, someone who doesn't even sign up for the team can just show up on the field. This creates a backlash from the existing team members. Instead, we should be saying we want the best ones who come and follow the process for actually training and joining the team. That's what merit-based legal immigration should be about. I think this is achievable. We're not at the end of the Roman Empire; we're just a young nation going through our own version of adolescence, figuring out who we're going to be when we grow up. We're going through this identity crisis, but we'll come out stronger on the other side. I like to think we're not in decline but in our ascent, maybe not even at base camp yet on our way to the mountain.

Elon: I agree. That's the right attitude to have. I hate that they're teaching kids otherwise. Funders should revoke funding from schools that teach this nonsense. Donors need to pay attention to where their money is going. It's doing some very foolish things and funding should be revoked if they keep teaching kids that America is somehow evil.

Vivek: It's not just donors to schools, Elon. Many people don't know this, but their own retirement accounts are causing corporate America to adopt the same philosophy. Voting for equity audits at a corporate board is a manifestation of that same philosophy. What we don't know is our own money, be it taxpayer money or 401k money, is being used to do it. Some of this can be easily solved.

Elon: Yes, I mean there's a fundamental governance issue that you've highlighted here. I think it's roughly half the stock market that is made up of passive or index funds. These are typically found at places like Fidelity, Black Rock, and other common retirement locations. However, those votes are then outsourced to usually one of two organizations, Institutional Shareholder Services, which I sometimes refer to as ISIS, and Glass Lewis. These are the two main ones, although there are a few others. Essentially, when half the stock market is outsourcing their voting decisions to what amounts to a handful of activists or people who certainly have an agenda at these places, you've essentially got a handful of people voting half of the public stock.

Vivek: It's about the right use case. I always wondered what the difference was between the two, and now I know.

Elon: Yes, sometimes they behave like corporate entities.

Vivek: Elon, you are aware of my last company before I ran for president. This is my whole premise. I started a biotech company that has a bunch of FDA-approved medicines, but this is a different venture. Last year in August, our mutual friend Peter was one of the backers of the company that helped get it off the ground. It was an index fund provider that created index funds with the premise that you actually vote according to whatever maximizes value by providing excellent products and services. It's not about divesting from certain companies or investing in others, many people play that game. Instead, it's about the same passive exposure. There's also a separate arm of it that does proxy voting on behalf of people who don't want to be stuck with the duopoly. I believe in a free market solution. I want to see the government stay out of this as much as possible. People gravitated to it and it got off the ground pretty quickly. But it's going to require addressing these complicated challenges which are different than the classical threats to liberty or culture that we saw half a century ago.

Elon: Yeah. I fundamentally believe that the public is being misled. They don't realize they're being misled because they've entrusted their savings to these 401k plans and index funds. This accounts for half the market. They're under the assumption that the way those shares will be voted is in the shareholder's interest, which will maximize their ultimate return and ensure the best retirement savings. But that's not what's happening. In fact, the votes are often contrary to the shareholders' interests.

Vivek: They're directly contrary. I'll give you two funny examples.

Elon: But the public doesn't know this.

Vivek: It's totally invisible. I've tried my best to shed light on this through my books, but these are technical subjects. They're designed to be technical for a reason. It's to make it difficult for people to see how their own investment accounts are being used against their best interests. This is arguably the largest antitrust violation in human history, with the same three firms being the largest shareholders of major competitors and of each other, using their votes in a coordinated manner.

Elon: I think firms like Black Rock, Fidelity, and Tiro need to prioritize maximizing shareholder value, not promoting some random agenda that these outsourced shareholder services companies are pushing. They're breaking the deal with their customers. The deal is to maximize shareholder value, not to make a bunch of social changes.

Vivek: They argue that this is about long-term value rather than short-term value. But we have to cut through the nonsense. For example, there was a proposal for a racial equity audit at Apple. Apple's board sensibly said no, but then Black Rock and State Street voted for it. So many financial institutions voted for it that it got over 50% shareholder support. But then Apple, to avoid embarrassment, claimed it was about long-term value maximization.

Elon: I'm very pro-environment, but we don't want some sort of rebranded communism to be inflicted upon corporate America without the knowledge of the actual shareholders. The public is being lied to. Black Rock, Fidelity, Tiro, they're not making the optimal decisions for shareholder value.

Vivek: This is part of what differentiates the US and Europe. The US model of corporate governance was value maximization, while Europe's was the multi-stakeholder model. I think our side won. Why would we adopt the strategy of the losing team?

Elon: I think these big firms are setting themselves up for the biggest class action lawsuit in history. They're breaking the deal with their customers and not maximizing shareholder value.

Vivek: The real problem is that the people giving them the money aren't even giving them their own money. They're pension funds or intermediaries like investment advisors. Blackrock and Vanguard claim they disclose all of this to clients and they're still sending the money. But those clients are themselves money managers for other people. That's what happens when you have an industry that's so intermediated. But the deeper point is that we're being lied to.

Elon: The average investor is being misled.

Vivek: Investors are being misled, Elon. Let's be real. The average citizen is being misled by the government in the same way that the average investor is being misled by the leaders of the Woke Industrial complex, asset management firms, or whatever you want to call it. Have you ever watched the movie A Few Good Men? It comes down to the question of whether we, like the Jack Nicholson character, can handle the truth. I believe that as Americans, we can handle the truth of where the virus came from, whether masks work, whether vaccines have side effects, whether the Hunter Biden laptop story was real, or whether you're using my money correctly. We can handle the truth, and that's the moment we live in. This was the essence of the American Revolution. The old world vision was that we, the people, could not handle the truth. We could not be trusted. It had to be a small group of people in palace halls that made the decisions for society at large. But in 1776, we rejected that. Sometimes we might get it wrong, sometimes we might get it right. But for better or worse, we the people decide how we govern ourselves. That was what the American Revolution was about. Unlike you, Elon, I'm not a moderate. I don't like those labels. I believe the American ideals are rather extreme. Free speech, self-governance, the fact that we the people can handle the truth. That's extreme for most of human history. But that extreme set of ideals is what unites us. That is what makes us American, that is what makes us great. That is what makes America itself. I think we're more likely to achieve national unity in this country not by compromising at the 50-yard line, but by being uncompromising about the ideals that unite us. Yes, those are extreme ideals, but that's America. That's us. I think the moment we live in is about deciding whether we want incremental reform, which many politicians are offering, or the ideals of the American Revolution. I stand on the side of the American Revolution, and I think that's our last best chance of uniting and rediscovering who we are. We should be proud of it. I agree. It's important not to fall into the trap of thinking that all these solutions are going to come from the government. The things you're working on, Elon, are more impactful.

Elon: Generally speaking, I think we want the government's percentage of the economy to be smaller rather than larger. The government is really a corporation in the limit. It's got a monopoly on violence. So, we have to decide how much we want a giant monopoly on violence to do. Not that much, generally. We've shown over and over again that the power of free enterprise and competition makes companies honest and makes them work harder to serve their customers. That's what makes people happy and makes for a better world. You wouldn't want to have just one car company or one airline. You want them to compete. That's what makes things better. Whenever something moves to the government, it's like saying we've got rid of competition and the feedback loop for improvement is very small. The same person in government or in private industry is far more productive in private industry. We just want to make sure our personnel allocation is towards that which is most productive and yields the best standard of living for the people.

Vivek: By the way, I'm totally open to taking questions. I'm not a very good co-host, but this is actually the first time I've hosted. So, I'm not sure how to handle it, but if you guys want to take questions, go ahead.

David: I've been trying to stay out of it.

Vivek: We had a good one on All In. I liked that. We left off on Ukraine last time we spoke. But I'm happy to go wherever you guys want.

David: Everyone should check out the last podcast we did, the All In podcast. We did two hours about a week and a half ago. Everyone should check that out. But speaking of truths the public can't handle, I saw on Twitter, reported by Michael Tracy and retweeted by Glenn Greenwald, that the senate just voted down having an accountant for Ukraine. They call him Inspector General. That's basically a fancy term for an accountant.

Vivek: We can handle the truth. We can handle the truth that our money was siphoned to pay a bunch of corrupt people in Ukraine, including the government. A lot of people, including Elon, are unaware of how our money is being used. Here's another one: people in the US don't know this, but our taxpayer money is literally paying the salaries of the people who work for the Ukrainian government. And if we're going to do it, let's at least see it. Let's at least be able to account for it and see the dollars.

Elon: Yes, I believe in supporting Ukraine, but we want to know that the money is actually going to help. We just want to make sure we're not enriching a handful of oligarchs, but actually helping the people of Ukraine. We just need to ensure we're helping the people of Ukraine as much as possible. I wouldn't even set an impossible standard for no corruption because we have some corruption even in the US. So it can't be no corruption. But let's just say, what percentage is going to a warlord versus the people? The people should get most of it.

Vivek: Well, speaking of warlords, I would love to hear your perspective, Elon. I respect your opinion, but I haven't heard it on this issue. Why do you think it's important for us to be there when you talk about warlords? I think the way this is going to end, possibly in the next 12 months, is not going to be good for Ukraine. All the money we've poured in, much of it in the form of military equipment, is likely to end up in the hands of some post-Zelensky warlord. We're repeating what we did when we armed the mujahideen after the USSR invaded Afghanistan. We've seen this movie time and again. I'm a bit worried that, among other reasons, this is why I personally do not support the US aiding Ukraine. As a practical matter, I think we're on track to have about 200 billion dollars of military equipment end up in someone's hands, and we have no idea who that really is. We're only going to find out after the fact, like we have so many times in the last 50 years of failed interventionist strategy. But I'm open-minded and curious about your perspective on this.

David: Can I just remind everyone that Elon posted a poll on Ukraine about nine months ago? It was a peace proposal which suggested that Ukraine remain neutral, not joining NATO or any other military alliance. The territories of Crimea and Donbass would hold free and fair elections arbitrated by international bodies. Assuming Crimea went with Russia, their water rights would be secure. This proposal was massively criticized on Twitter, including by Zelensky himself, who said it was pro-Russian. Anyone proposing peace over the last year has been labeled an appeaser or a Putin puppet. We just wanted to find a reasonable compromise to the situation. About 60% of people voted against the peace proposal. But now, the situation is not improving; it's getting much worse.

Elon: It's going to get worse from here, not better. I proposed that solution for the benefit of Ukraine and Russia. I want to be clear, I'm on Ukraine's side here. I've demonstrated that with the massive support that SpaceX has provided, which the Ukrainian government has acknowledged many times. It was instrumental in the war.

Vivek: This is an interesting discussion. The three of us have complementary perspectives. I'm on America's side because I'm running to be the US president. But I'm not sure that the Ukraine versus Russia issue is as clear-cut as we make it out to be. There's a lot of history in the Donbas region and with NATO's promise not to expand. This was James Baker, the US Secretary of State's commitment to Gorbachev in 1991 that we would not expand "one inch" beyond Germany. Yet, here we are, admitting more nations to NATO after the fall of the USSR than we ever did during its existence. We're even entertaining the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO, which was the one hard commitment that Putin seemed to require before deciding to invade Ukraine. So, Elon, why are you on the side of Ukraine?

Elon: Yes. First of all, let me clarify that when I delve into a subject, I often become somewhat obsessive about it, going into insane levels of detail to understand exactly what is happening at a precise level and minimize any misunderstanding. I've actually read almost the entire history of the region. Starting from Oleg, who seized Kiev in 1882 and essentially formed the beginning of Kiev and Ross, the history is extensive. Catherine the Great, for instance, tried to force all of Ukraine to speak Russian in 1893. There's so much back and forth, the list of grievances is so long that it would take hours to even summarize. People in Ukraine and Russia can find a million reasons to hate the other side if you just look at the history.That's why the Christian principle of turning the other cheek is a wise one. If you don't ultimately forgive your enemy, you're stuck in a cycle of retribution forever. Even though your enemy may have done really bad things, if you keep seeking revenge, it becomes a never-ending cycle. An eye for an eye eventually leaves everyone blind. That's why there has to be forgiveness.We also need to be realistic and not view Ukraine and Russia as purely good or evil. There are no angels in war, on either side. Terrible things have been done by both sides. Of course, I still support Ukraine, but we have to be realistic about what's going forward. As we speak, the young generation of Ukraine is dying in trenches.

Elon: There must be a very good reason for this. It's crucial to understand why these boys are dying. For what?

Vivek: That's a good question, one we haven't answered ourselves, Elon. Your point about forgiveness is beautifully put, especially in relation to the endless list of grievances. It's very complicated and depends on where you start and end the plot, which influences your perception of the US. What really bothers me is that in April of the first year of the war, 2022, Zelensky was ready for peace negotiations. However, Boris Johnson, who was dealing with his own party gate scandal, seemed to want to divert attention from that. He showed up in the US and convinced Zelensky to continue fighting by promising to arm him. I believe that was a real mistake. I don't think Putin's main goal is to conquer Ukraine. He's not even targeting Kiev. He's more focused on Kharkiv and the Donbas region. My concern is that we've made the situation worse instead of letting the two nations work it out amongst themselves.

Elon: Yes, as you move further westward, local support for Russia drops significantly. Ukrainian speakers are generally very anti-Russian. However, I believe that most Russian speakers are pro-Russian, which is hard to believe when you read American media. It's also not true that all Russians are evil. This is a false narrative. We should also mourn the Russian boys dying in this conflict, not just the Ukrainian ones. Do they want to be there either? Why are these young men dying because of disagreements among old men? This is trench warfare where only a few miles are exchanged. At what cost? How many lives per mile, ultimately?

Vivek: Yes, I believe that the reality is Russia has more of a national interest at stake here than the US does. China is also supporting Russia, and there's no scenario where this ends well. I'm not looking at this from a neutral perspective; I'm looking at this from a US viewpoint because that's my role. It's crucial to reach a peaceful resolution quickly, including a firm commitment that NATO will not admit Ukraine. This is the one bipartisan consensus, despite the deep national division between Republicans and Democrats in the United States. Most of the GOP, except for a few including myself and perhaps Tucker, have a differing view from the primary bipartisan consensus in the US, which is to invest more money into a war where we don't have a clear national interest. Studying history, as you have done, shows that this story doesn't end well, even if you study the recent history of the United States.

Elon: Yes, I agree. In the Ukraine situation, there needs to be a realistic peace negotiation as soon as possible. We should be advocating for a sensible solution from the West and stop sending young men to die in the trenches.

Vivek: Absolutely, and we shouldn't destroy the Nord Stream pipeline. It might even be beneficial to get Nord Stream one and two operational again. Restoring economic relations between Western Europe and Russia could be a positive move, rather than pushing Russia into a corner.

David: One of the things we've learned, as you mentioned, is the Istanbul Agreement, which Boris Johnson essentially rejected when he traveled to Kiev. The substance of that agreement was very similar to the peace proposal that Elon suggested in his Twitter poll. It was based on neutrality for Ukraine and self-determination for the people in the Eastern regions of Ukraine. That deal was on the table, but the West rejected it due to the military-industrial complex's obsession with NATO expansion. This has been our central policy since the 90s when we broke our pledge to Gorbachev not to expand NATO. The West is determined to expand NATO, and that's why we've rejected every proposal, both before and after the start of the war. This war is directly related to NATO expansion, which has been a central issue in every diplomatic conversation we've had with the Russians. They do not want what they see as a hostile military alliance on their most vulnerable border. This is a red line for them, and our own diplomats, including the current head of the CIA, Bill Burns, have acknowledged it. Our desire to expand NATO to Russia's borders could eventually lead to hostilities with Russia.

David: That is what has brought us to this day. We are on the brink of escalating this into something that could turn into World War Three. So Vivek, I applaud you for explicitly stating that we need to stop this crusade of NATO expansion and recognize that the path to peace here is for Ukraine to be neutral. There are precious few presidential candidates saying it. You're saying it, Robert F. Kennedy Junior is saying it. I think you guys might be the only two that have said that. That's the whole game. I really applaud you for that, and we have to stop the gaslighting on this subject. This was known and was said by experts for decades, and now we're pretending like NATO has nothing to do with this conflict. It really does. And you just saw that at Vilnius again. We need to get the truth out there that this is a major component of the root of this conflict in this war. Therefore, it's going to be an essential component to the solution, and we're never going to have peace without it.

Vivek: There's an interesting deeper line to connect because I think this relates to a separate issue that all three of us care about, which is free speech in this country. It's not just the threats to free speech from the government. I love the Twitter files, and I have said that when I'm in the White House, or if I fortunately get there in a year and a half or so, we'll do the state action files. This is the other side of this, which is any time a government official has pressured any company, not just Twitter, any company in the last five years, we will publish it for the public to see. But it's not just governmental censorship, it's also this cultural censorship on Ukraine. When I say the things that Sacks just said, which is literally talking about NATO expansionism and what our objectives here are to expand NATO in violation of prior commitments that we made, I get a certain feeling. It feels a lot like when those of us who said that the virus likely originated in a lab in Wuhan in mid-2020. There's something about it that's sort of beyond the pale to accept. One of the things we've learned in the last few years is that any time you feel a cultural closing of ranks around you saying something that's grounded in reason and fact, like what Sacks just mentioned, or a lab origin of a virus in a place where they do research on exactly that very place where a global pandemic originates, it just sort of feels right. But then you feel the cultural forces around you telling you to shut up, sit down, and go back to doing as you're told. I think those are some of the most important questions for us to actually delve into and get to the bottom of. In some ways, there are many issues around the world that the US has views on, but that's part of what's drawn me to this issue even more, the cultural closing of ranks on this question.

Elon: Yes, I think people somewhat overestimate how much territory Russia can take if they don't have the support of the local population. In the case of Don and Crimea, there was significant support from the locals, and they were able to make significant progress. This is obviously not true of Western Ukraine. If you look at the Winter War, where Stalin, who was a hard-driving personality to say the least, tried to invade Finland and failed. When you have severe resistance from the local population and everyone's against you, the entire population becomes the army. So, you might think you have a 300,000 person army, but they have a 2 million person army because the entire population is opposed to it. You will not make progress in that situation. This notion that Russia can just steamroll these countries is false.

Vivek: Right. Or that they would even want to. Take Poland, for example, who unlike the rest of NATO actually pays for their own defense. There's no reason why Russia would go after Poland if we've reached a peace treaty that's backed by the interests of the US. I do think that Zelensky is betraying Ukraine's long-term interests based on short-term gains.

Elon: I agree. It's gone to his head. If you keep telling someone they're awesome 17 times a day, it gets to their head. We need to stop that and say, look, your people are dying. It's not a long-term smart move. Those people, those kids, are never coming back. Dying for a mile of territory is insane.

Vivek: Here's something interesting. I haven't shared this story widely before, but there's a promising alliance hiding in plain sight between those on the so-called far right and those on the so-called far left on this issue. Many people on the anti-Iraq far left, like Bernie Sanders, I believe, agree with folks like myself who otherwise disagree on a lot else. Just a few weeks ago, I was coming out of an event and realized I couldn't find a single Republican or even many moderate Democrats who agreed with me on this topic. So, I gave Bernie a call, thinking we could talk it out. But I think he thought it was a prank call and didn't want to discuss it. I hope I get to talk to him another time because it's an interesting way that we can redraw the boundaries. One positive outcome of the debate on Ukraine is that we do not live in a single-axis political partisan divide in the United States. It is artificial and much of what we're trying to retrofit into that, like the struggle between the managerial class and the citizen, or questions of foreign policy about which priorities the US should and should not risk our military equipment or our young men and women to defend, do not track traditional Republican and Democrat boundaries.

Vivek: I believe that taking a step back should actually give us hope as a country, if we have the courage to do so. It's not about black versus white or red versus blue. If we're able to have a reasoned debate in the open about what I believe are the most difficult questions of our time, then I am personally hopeful. One of the positive side effects to come out of our yet-to-be-had open debate as a country on what we should do in Ukraine is that it challenges the outdated model of right versus left, Republican versus Democrat. I think in large measure, this model doesn't exist anymore. It's antiquated and hopefully, this is one of those issues that helps us realize that. So, Zack, we've already gone through the hour. Do you want to take up questions or do you want to continue another time? I'm open to another half hour.

David: I'm good to go until the bottom of the hour. Great. Well, I know Richard has a book on Woke coming out. It's called "The Origins of Woke". Richard, do you have a question on that?

Richard: Hey David, hey Vivek. I appreciate both of you for giving me blurbs on the book. Vivek, I've been so impressed with you. We've been talking since before you ran for office. When you said you were going to run, I was skeptical as someone who knows a bit about political science and history. Not that I didn't think you had a great personality and potentially a great message, but it's always a long shot. You weren't starting out with something easy. You were going straight for the big job and you've impressed me. Your positive culture war message and the idea that there's not just a culture war but a kind of excellence we could be moving towards, has really resonated with people. I just want to say, you've really impressed me and I'm glad to see what's been happening.And thank you for mentioning how poor Europe is relative to the US. I think that's a point that doesn't get made often enough. You just give people the numbers on Twitter and they don't like it very much. But I like the fact that you're putting it out there that this experiment has been tried - big government, 50% of GDP government spending, large tax rates, labor regulations. They've tried it and it hasn't worked. So for all our problems, I'll take the US any day.

David: I appreciate the Ukraine discussion. I wanted to ask about the civil rights law and the importance of getting back to merit. We've discussed the executive order 11246, affirmative action, and government contracting. Have you fleshed out these ideas to any great extent? Once you're in office, it's not too early to start discussing these things. What do you see as the main initiatives to take on civil rights? What offices are you considering? Have you started thinking about personnel? I'm curious to know how your thoughts have developed over time.

Vivek: Yes, your book has been instrumental in shaping my thinking, as have the articles you wrote leading up to it. I believe you've expanded the Overton window on this, opening up discussion on previously untouchable issues, like the unintended effects of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Let me tell you the simplest thing I plan to do on day one. You referred to executive order 11246, which most people, outside of civil rights law scholars or their students like us, won't know. It's an executive order that Lyndon Johnson signed, which didn't go through Congress. It states that if you do business with the US government, which includes about 20% of the US workforce, you have to adopt quota systems for race, gender, and other metrics. Every president since Lyndon Johnson could have crossed it out. Nixon, a Republican president, made it worse, going in the other direction as part of his battle against unions. This is a bipartisan problem. I've said that I would cross it out on day one. I believe in a colorblind meritocracy in the US. I believe in the dream that no matter who you are, where your parents came from, or what your skin color is, you should be judged not on the color of your skin but on the content of your character and contributions, and rewarded accordingly. Much of what I see is a violation of civil rights law. Just like the Harvard case that came out, we'll use the law to restore a colorblind meritocracy in the country.

Vivek: Do you understand what I'm saying? I just wanted to follow the... What do you think?

David: Are you referring to the Civil Rights Act? I consider it a sacrosanct right, or to put it another way, a civil rights law. However, I understand that there will be difficulties. How confident are you that you can take this message and sell it? I don't think it's going to be easy, even though I believe it's worth doing and achievable.

Vivek: Well, I'm going to sell it and whether I succeed or not depends on the responses of the people of this country. But my whole premise is that I'd rather speak the truth and lose the election than win by playing political games. So far, it's been working. It's got me from zero to third in the polls, or wherever we are now.

David: You're close on the heels of the front-runner. I've seen it in the polls.

Vivek: Yes, it's exciting, but we'll see. I'm not attached to a particular result. I'm attached to the truth. In fact, I questioned Trump's people on this. I asked them why they didn't just take a pen and cross it out. They said it was a political hill they didn't want to die on. My view is, if you're grounded in principle, moral foundations, and first principles, not vengeance or grievance or animosity towards anyone, you shouldn't have to worry about the political fallout. People tend to follow leaders, not those who are afraid of the people they're leading. I believe we're going to be successful. A lot of the jurisprudence of so-called hostile work environment lawsuits, where non-discrimination on the basis of race or gender became interpreted to mean you can't create a hostile work environment, which means you can't say things people disagree with or else you're violating civil rights laws. I don't think that's how it was supposed to work. As a Hindu, I say this tongue in cheek, but there are no sacred cows for me when it comes to US laws. I think we have to get to the heart of the matter. I believe there were many unintended consequences, even if the people who voted for the Civil Rights Act knew how it would be applied today.

Vivek: I think they'd be shuddering, and I think we have to at least take that history into account. Exactly.

Elon: Yes, we were actually violating the spirit of those who put the laws in place.

David: It's a great story. In the book, I go over this a little bit about the original intent of the Civil Rights Act. They put a provision right in there because they were worried about the impact. They were concerned about what would happen if someone does better than someone else on a test, if one race does better than the other. Would that be illegal? This came up because in Illinois, they had a version of the Civil Rights Act and they went after it more rigorously. They actually put a provision into the Civil Rights Act specifically so this wouldn't happen. The New York Times editorialized against this impact. Everyone thought that this was a ridiculous concept. Some of the senators who voted on the bill said things like, you could still have a workforce that is all white if whites have more education than blacks. You could set the standard higher if you want, it doesn't matter, as long as you're hiring by merit. The historical record is absolutely clear. You look at those court cases that have ruled on this, they basically ignore that historical record. They've torn it up. We've got a good Supreme Court now that's willing to move us in a better direction on these matters. So yes, you're absolutely right. The history here is crystal clear.

Vivek: Putting legal specifics to one side, I try not to get too angry about this stuff because I want to just stay focused on what we're running into. It's interesting, even the word 'America', not a lot of people know this, but I was on a quest to see if it has anything to do with 'merit'. It sounds like it: merit, America. It turns out 'merit' comes from a Latin root and 'America' comes from Amerigo Vespucci, who was named after his grandfather, whose name was Amalrik. 'Amalrik' is an old Gothic word. 'Rick' means master and 'Amal' means work. So, it's like the master of work, which is almost America's heritage.

Elon: Actually, I wasn't aware of that. I actually own Etymology.com. And I wasn't aware of that etymology.

Vivek: You own Etymology.com? Wow. Would you be willing to sell it, Elon?

Elon: If somebody wants to really delve into etymology, yes.

Vivek: That's good. But anyway, it's a good reminder of who we are as Americans. We get ahead through hard work. We believe in a colorblind meritocracy. It's who we are.

David: All right. Let me try. So, I've just been calling on people who I recognize, who have interesting accounts. So, why don't we go to Amit next, and then we'll hear from Mario and Ian. Thanks guys, thanks David, for doing this again. Awesome stuff. Vivek, how have you been? Good to talk to you.Amit: Good, man. Just one thing you mentioned, hoping that Democrats are antiwar, that ship has sailed. Don't forget that the Congressional Progressive Caucus withdrew their letter asking for diplomacy. That's how co-opted Sanders and his ilk are. But the one thing I wanted to ask you about was FTX, the largest Ponzi scheme in US history. You probably aren't surprised that its ESG score was higher than ExxonMobil, but Sam Bankman-Fried donated over $100 million to Democratic causes. And yesterday, the Department of Justice announced that it was withdrawing all campaign finance related charges against him. What will you do as president to address the weaponization of the Department of Justice to stop things like this, and the fiasco that is Hunter Biden, from happening ever again?

Vivek: Well, I do think, what good is an insurance policy if it doesn't pay out? The problem with Sam Bankman-Fried's situation is that he didn't buy the Cadillac plan. He committed some ungodly sum of money he was going to give, and he only gave a fraction of it. I think they're going to ultimately make sure that he gets punished for not buying the full Cadillac policy. If he had bought the full Cadillac policy, he'd already be off the hook. But for the partial policy, it paid out to let go of the campaign finance charges. Obviously, I'm being cynical and only half joking here. But I actually want to take this chance to go into a proposal I've made that a lot of people view as extreme, but the more you learn about it, the less extreme it actually is. It's very practical. I think we need to shut down the FBI. Stay with me for a sec. You're a reader, right? So, I'm going to recommend a book to you. My wife's a faster reader than me. She's ahead of me on it. It's called "G Man." It's a Pulitzer Prize-winning book about the history of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, and the way in which the institution was built. It's fascinating. But it has some issues. It's still the J. Edgar Hoover building of the FBI. It's still an institution that celebrates his legacy. But as a practical matter, at the local level, you have local police and local prosecutors. You don't have this separate giant bureaucratic morass sitting in between.

Vivek: It turns out that at the federal level, we have institutions like the US Marshals, which, as far as I can tell, have not been corrupted. They bust up child sex trafficking rings and don't allow them to continue. We also have the DEA handling drug cases and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network within the Treasury. If you consider the FBI, there are 35,000 people working there. 20,000 of them are in back office functions but have really taken on a policy-making role. They're not just enforcing the law, they're deciding what the policy should be. My suggestion is to let them find honest work in the private sector or wherever they'd like to be, but not at the taxpayers' expense. The 15,000 people who are actually on the front lines, we'll move them to the US Marshals, the DEA, and so on. This way, we drain the lifeblood out of a bureaucracy that has been weaponized in many cases, not just today. This dates back to threatening Martin Luther King with suicide and blackmailing him. It's an institution that was built on a redundant bureaucracy, which is a formula for corruption. So, it's less extreme than it sounds.

Elon: Just for the record, I've met a lot of people at the CIA and FBI, and they've all been really high integrity people. I'm not saying that there aren't some bad apples in any organization, but I've not really met a bad person.

Vivek: When I say shut it down, I don't mean that everyone's a bad person or even that any of them are. It's something about the nature of a redundant bureaucracy. I think what happened is specialization. People tend to be more effective when they're specialized and less so when they become generalists, at least in government. If we move those 15,000 to their specialized functions, I think that becomes a more practical way of enforcing the laws rather than the armchair manner they do today.

Elon: So, you're saying that all the bases are covered by other organizations and we should distribute the personnel to those organizations rather than have the redundancy that exists today. But are you confident that if we did so, there would not be gaps in important crimes that need to be dealt with?

Vivek: Not only would there be no gaps, but we would actually be more effective.

Elon: Is that what you're saying?

Vivek: That's exactly right.

Elon: Vivek, I want to go back. David, if you don't mind, I'll ask my question. It's good to see you again, Vivek. I appreciate the invite. You mentioned something about the Ukraine war, that the US made the situation worse. We've had discussions in previous spaces about the establishment of the military industrial complex. I'm relatively naive, less so after what I saw happen in Ukraine. But if you do become president, is there anything you can do? It seems systemic to me. And how big of a risk is it when it comes to the tensions with China, which you've expressed concern about?

Vivek: Yes. I believe that it's time for the managerial class at the Pentagon to go. This is an antiquated group. Like the analogy we just had about the FBI, most people I've met who have served or currently serve in the US military are in it for the right reasons. But there's the managerial class at the Pentagon where they haven't offered a clear statement of mission and purpose. When you have a vacuum of mission and purpose, I think the purpose of the US military should be to deter wars and win wars, in that order, with deterring wars being most important. And most importantly, we should prioritize protecting the lives of Americans on American soil. With that clear mission statement, we could measure what we have done in Iraq or now in Ukraine, which I think is destined to be another Iraq or Vietnam if we keep going in the current direction. We need a restoration of purpose. It's not that these are bad people as individuals, but when an institution exists without a purpose, it finds new things to do that outlive its purpose. This creates a form of corruption that maybe no one individual is responsible for, but is a feature of the institution itself. A tiny fraction of the people who serve in the US military actually work in the Pentagon. But I plan to clean house there and bring in new talent, really flushing out the Neocon dogma that pervades much of the Pentagon today. I want to bring in some Cold War realists, like George Kennan and James Baker, who don't really exist in today's foreign policy or military establishment. Those would be the kinds of talents we're working on identifying to staff the top layers of every part of the federal government.

Vivek: But that would give you a flavor of the kinds of people I would put as a new sort of leadership at the Pentagon and the job of the commander in chief. That'd be my job if I'm elected, to offer a clear statement of mission and purpose of what the US military is supposed to be concerned about. For me, it's protecting American lives, primarily on American soil, deterring wars, and when necessary, winning wars. That's it. Whether you care about what we're doing in Ukraine or the rise of wokeness in the military, these are symptoms of a deeper loss of purpose in my view.

David: Yeah, I agree. I think one of Trump's biggest mistakes was hiring all these neocons. I don't really get it because his instincts were to keep us out of wars. In fact, he did keep us out of new wars. I think he had more realist and noninterventionist instincts, but yet he appointed all these people like Bolton and Pompeo who want to get us involved in new conflicts. Maybe the foreign policy establishment is just so rife with groupthink, sort of neocon groupthink, that he didn't have enough talent to choose from.

Vivek: I think that's part of the problem, David. Looking at this now, I mean, we're already beginning. One of Trump's mistakes was that transition planning began way too late. So we're already seeing a guy in charge who's already putting together our plans for what the staffing would look like. And this is one area where the benches lie. I mean, Baker and Kennan, these guys are right.

David: Exactly. Those are the right types of people. George Kennan was a genius. He was the architect of our Cold War containment policy. He also was against us getting involved in the Vietnam War. He said so in advance, he testified before Congress. In the late nineties, one of the last interviews he did, he talked about what a huge mistake we were making with NATO expansion. It was going to undo his life's work. We had won the Cold War. We had a peaceful situation with the Russians, but bringing NATO up to his border was going to result in new antagonism and it was going to unwind everything. He used the word 'tragic mistake'. He kind of foresaw everything for decades. James Baker similarly was very competent. It does seem like we have a dearth of those highly competent diplomatic figures who know how to negotiate peaceful arrangements. It just seems like the people we have now just rattle the saber and are crusaders looking for new wars to get us into.

Vivek: Maybe we need some venture capitalists in there, who actually understand how to do deals.

Elon: I think the public doesn't fully appreciate that the US State Department is quite belligerent.

David: They just promoted Victoria Newland to number two.

Vivek: She is literally responsible for much of what's going on in Ukraine today. She's the head of the snake on this. Absolutely. She's a total warmonger.

Elon: It's insane. The State Department is supposed to be the place of the diplomats, not the warmongers. We're in this ironic situation where the warriors want peace, the Pentagon wants peace, and the diplomats want war, which also happened in Doctor Strangelove. We just need to tell our State Department to stop this. They're not informing the public, they're taking actions on behalf of the American public but I don't think the public is aware of this.

Vivek: We're going to make them aware. This is the answer. It's the only solution.

Elon: We're interfering in all these other countries, putting a lot of US resources against it and I think also creating a lot of resentment against America. We're like a somewhat of an ogre economically and so it's easy for us to accidentally step on or bump into small countries and not really realize it. We're doing bad things, people are dying, and we're generating bad blood and this is all happening without the knowledge of the public.

Vivek: Just waddling in sloppily, making a mess in a clumsy way. Now, I think not even succeeding. It's one thing if you're good at it but even still I'd be against it. At least there would be an argument.

Elon: How has regime change gone? Let's see. Cuba, Fidel Castro outlived all American presidents right? Tried to assassinate him.

Vivek: Which by the way, let's say the quiet part out loud. I do think that that is the latent impetus in Russia here. I mean when you get to the heart of the intuition, what are we actually solving for? It's like we don't say regime

Vivek: That's right. And either way, I mean, I trust Putin. No, I do not trust Putin, but I trust him to follow his self-interest, and he can trust us to follow ours. That's why I also want us to abandon this notion that we're selectively protecting democracy around the world. If I'm in the position to lead, I'll say my job is to advance America's interests. I'll say it internally and externally. You can trust me because that's how I'll make my decisions. I expect that you will advance Russia's interests or Poland's interests, and then we can all strike a deal. A good deal ensures each party gains something they didn't have before. We can be more honest about it rather than cloaking it in a moral veneer, which is often so hypocritical that we get called out on it because it's obviously false.

David: What about an executive order that prohibits the U.S. from being involved in regime change operations? The conflict in Ukraine essentially started in 2014 with a coup against the democratically elected leader of the country, backed by the United States. The extent of our backing is disputed, but I don't think there's any question that the U.S. did back it. Our involvement, at a minimum, taints it. If it was a legitimate expression of the will of the Ukrainian people, we should have let it happen without our involvement.

Vivek: There's no question about it. Listen to the leaked tapes of Nuland, the very person we were just talking about in our role in choosing Ukraine's next leader. She didn't know those were being taped, but now we understand that we were driving that. That said, I can be optimistic about this if we learn from it and behave differently going forward. However, I don't think suppressing the information and deceiving the public to prevent them from learning this lesson is the right approach for us.

Elon: Exactly. On the Ukraine front, our primary concern should be the boundaries and the number of casualties. We need to think hard about this and not sacrifice the flower of Ukrainian youth in trenches to achieve nothing, which is currently what we're pushing them to do. That's insane and needs to stop.

Vivek: I'm enjoying this. Zack, do you want to take one or two more questions? I could take a couple more. I'm having a great time, but unfortunately, I have to leave soon.

David: AX, you have a question. You mentioned...

Vivek: That if I became president, I would release something similar to Twitter or Facebook files for all companies that the government has interacted with and tried to pressure. How would that look? A lot of what I think is happening today is the government deputizing private companies to do through the back door what it couldn't directly do through the front door. Elon releasing the Twitter files confirmed what I surmised a couple of years ago and everyone dismissed as a conspiracy theory. This was happening at an unimaginable scale with social media companies responding to government threats and inducements to censor speech that the government could not censor directly.Take the example of Alex Berenson. Why was his Twitter account shut down? He criticized government policies on COVID-19, and then the government said he needed to be shut down. There was an implicit threat of regulation over Twitter if they didn't comply. The managerial class at Twitter did indeed follow through on the threat and then received a pat on the back from the government.But it's not just limited to social media. I think this is pervasive across the US economy. Take John Kerry in his role as the climate czar. They couldn't pass the Green New Deal through Congress, so he has boasted about meeting with the CEOs of major banks and getting them to sign a climate pledge to join a North American net zero alliance. Banks are not charitable institutions. This is a two-way relationship. What are they getting in return for signing that pledge? It's a backdoor way of getting done what the politically accountable class, the people we elect in Congress, would never have been able to do through the front door. Even Joe Manchin would not have stood by and let them do it.

Vivek: What I've said is that if you're a federal employee, I'm a state action doctrine guy. If it's state action in disguise, then I believe the constitution still applies. This means that the government can't use a puppet in the private sector to do its dirty work. It's bound by the same constraints as the federal government. We should be aware of this. I would argue that any documented evidence of a government employee pressuring a private actor to achieve a goal that the government couldn't have achieved itself should be subject to criminal penalties. We should apply a Sunshine law to it, let the public see it, roll that log over and see what crawls out. That's it for that particular provision. I have a lot of different views on rescinding unconstitutional federal regulations and reorganizing the federal government. But on this one, it's that simple. I believe the first step to restoring truth back to that principle is transparency. We can handle the truth. Just tell us what the truth is, we can deal with it, process it, handle it. But let's at least see how deep that rot runs. The fact that I'm sitting here as a private citizen, observing small examples of it bubbling up to the surface, it's like the broken windows theory. If you see a broken window, it means that there's something else wrong in the neighborhood. That's what I think is going on. Hopefully, that addresses your question. It's doable, it's easy. It's what you would expect and hope for from a chief executive who's in charge of the executive branch of the government. It's an easy thing to deliver on, to help rebuild public trust, which I think we've been badly lacking. Whether it's UFOs, the Jeffrey Epstein client lists, the effectiveness of vaccines, or what we just talked about, my view is we can handle the truth. Trust the public with it. Ironically, that's going to rebuild trust in institutions that the public has otherwise long correctly lost.

David: Thank you, Vivek. Given the problems with the last election cycle, we had election infrastructure problems...

Vivek: Yes, there were obviously problems with election infrastructure during the last election cycle. But I think you can hear me, right David?

David: Yeah, so hey Elon, it's David Vivek. Great conversation. Thanks for having me up. I think the audience is really enjoying this whole back and forth. It's a breath of fresh air to have such an open conversation on X spaces. So, my question for you ties back to one of our conversations that we had on Mario Space, right? You mentioned that if you were elected, you'd want American businesses to be banned from doing business in China. You didn't really elaborate on that. So, my question is, how would that work for companies like Apple or even Tesla which operate over there? In my opinion, it makes sense for large American companies to tap into the world's largest market. But crucially, can you clarify your policy on American businesses in China? How would you deal with that?

Vivek: Sure. I want to be clear, I actually think that the best state of the world would be everybody playing by the same set of rules in an economy. Just like I think Western Europe and Russia are going to be better off by opening economic relations through the North Street two pipeline. That's what I want to see here as well. But we've got to make sure that everybody is actually playing by the same set of rules. To me, it's very important that there are no more forced IP transfers, no more forced data transfers, no more forced services of non-economic nature turning companies into lobbying pawns. For example, having a condition to get a domestic license to do business if you're BlackRock selling mutual funds in China, to make sure that you don't apply the same standards to Chinese companies as you apply to American ones. That's what I stand for, a level playing field. That's what we need. And I think that doesn't exist. Most people acknowledge that it's not going to happen automatically. That's going to require a policy that I think is also really important, which is reentering the Pacific trade relationships around the rest of the rim of the Pacific, the CPTPP. I think we should reenter it. This is a little bit different than the course of action taken by Trump in exiting the TPP.

David: That makes sense for the people over here. Right. Because I think Trump canceled it because it wasn't fair to Americans. It was beneficial to corporations but not to the local farmers here, your mom and pop stores who have been obliterated by the TPP. So maybe a fair version of...

Vivek: Exactly. And I think that I'm a silver lining guy. I think that we can use the leverage of the fact that we did exit it to be able to say, "Alright, here's what we need done differently in a number of the countries from Japan on down to be able to say here's how we reenter that on fairer terms." And so that's what I'd like to see. And I think that's one of the things early on actually even in relation forgetting about where we get to on China, the first thing that's easiest to do is actually to reenter the rest of that Pacific trade relationship including the other members of the CPTPP. That puts us in a strong position from a trade perspective to then take a look at where we stand vis a vis China. I could go on for hours on this one, but I want to take one last question from the...

David: I'd love to grill you on China. You know because you mentioned once that you were in China and that's a concern of mine because I criticize them quite a bit and I'm always worried about traveling through Hong Kong. Have they given you a reason why they banned it? But just in the interest of time, I just want to make sure we can get to the last question here. I know I'm waiting for that last question. I'll be back. You can hear me now, right?

Vivek: Yes. How are you doing, man? Election infrastructure was obviously a big issue in the last election cycle, but I think even more so is election funding for candidates, right? The left was out-raising the right pretty significantly in a lot of races. What do you plan to do in the upcoming election, both in the primary and the general if you are nominated? How can you out-raise people like Soros who, in the last election cycle, donated 170 million? He was the top individual donor, and that's not even including the 104 million in other donations and the 60 million from Open Society Foundations that totaled about a billion dollars during that time. Do you think the richest man in the world should get involved to maybe take over Soros in that position? I don't know if Elon has any thoughts about that, but what are your thoughts on that? How are you going to beat the left at their own game? I'm not going to speak on behalf of Elon. Elon, do you want to go first?

Elon: Well, sure. I think this is an important discussion. Vivek, I think you're resonating with a lot of people with your position because what I've heard you say makes a lot of sense. I apologize, I actually lost track.

Vivek: He was just asking about the influence of money in politics.

Elon: There are a bunch of things that sound like they're pro-democracy but they're actually basically ballot harvesting. George Soros is really an incredibly talented arbitrager. He's applied that talent monetarily and politically. He figured out that through charitable organizations, you can promote causes with pre-tax money. And that doesn't count in any of the political stuff. It's actually extremely effective. You don't actually attack the candidate, you just attack the positions that they hold. And then you hire a big team to go and harvest ballots from nursing homes and all that sort of stuff. These are real things that have happened. I don't think we should counter corruption with corruption, but I think we do need to have a get-out-the-vote campaign. Clearly, Republicans need to work harder at winning over voters, especially in key senate races, house races, and the presidency.

Vivek: I appreciate you saying that, Elon. For me, the real distinction isn't even between Republicans and Democrats. If we're pro-American, we stand for the same principles this nation was founded on. We're on the same team. This country has blessed me with much, and I've lived the full American dream. Before I wanted to ask anybody else to invest money in this campaign, I wanted to invest my own first. So, I've put in over $15 million of my own money already. I didn't want to ask a bunch of other people for permission to run, which comes with expectations. Even in the Democrat Party, many people used to say keep mega money out of politics. You don't hear that anymore. That comes with certain ties and expectations that I think corrupt the way our democratic process works. That being said, a guy like me has to be able to compete. It's an old saying in tennis, you either win or you leave blood on the court, and I don't want to leave blood on the court. I want to win. Other candidates have mega super PACs that have ads on television. We're third in the Republican primary. We haven't bought TV ads, but whoever wins this election, it's going to be about $2 billion that gets spent. That was my question. How are you going to do it? I hope we do it, but here's how I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to become somebody's puppet. I'd rather lose this election than bow down to the special interests that have broken the system. That being said, here's how we're doing it so far. We got 70,000 small-dollar donors in the first few months of this campaign.

Vivek: I'm an outsider. I've never had a donor or a donor list in my life. The threshold for reaching the first Republican debate by August was 40,000, and by early July, we were at 70,000. Interestingly, 40% of them are first-time donors to the Republican party. Normally, that number is only 2%. So, for the business-minded folks on this call, I'll give you a metric to predict an election. The best metric to predict an election result, as Trump proved in 2015, is not the current polls. People look at the polls and I'm grateful that in the recent versions of them, I'm doing well. But that's not what matters.Look at how much money is being spent per unit in the polls. For every percentage point in the polls, look at how many ad dollars are being spent. For most candidates in the 2015 election, like Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, and Chris Christie, it was millions of dollars per percentage point. For Donald Trump, it was thousands, three orders of magnitude lower. In this race, we're seeing the same thing. Other candidates in the Republican field are spending millions of dollars in ad buys per percentage point in the polls. In my case, it's literally in the thousands. The message is what's lifting us up. We hope that if we build it, they will come.

Vivek: But I need people's support. The maximum anyone can give to the campaign directly is $2,600. If someone wants to go to 2024.com right now and donate, we would appreciate it. But the game is complicated. There are all kinds of other organizations that spend money supporting candidates. My model is to deliver a clear, honest, and transparent message that trusts the public can handle the truth. We want to restore the principles that made this country great in 1776 without apologizing for it. We'll do it earnestly and sincerely, and bet that the system works as it's supposed to. I'm able to put in what I have, which gives us a good start. But it's going to take everyone, whether it's a dollar or massive amounts of money, to get us across the finish line.I'm hoping for a chance to introduce myself to the country on the debate stage in a few weeks. I think that's going to be critical in this race. I'm going to continue to use forums like this one. This is great. There's no separate media intermediating our messages. There's nothing pre-filtered. A guy like me couldn't compete with Elon if it weren't for modern media like this. So here's to hoping that changes the game.

Elon: Yes, I mean, it says something about your ability to think quickly and handle rapid-fire conversations on difficult subjects. This isn't something everyone can do. You speak with conviction, not just repeating the same old political rhetoric that everyone has heard a million times and finds unconvincing. I think after this conversation, I, and likely many others, have a high opinion of you.

Vivek: I appreciate that. In closing, I hope this is good for our country. You, I, or anyone else on this call won't agree on 100% of things, and that's okay. You and I don't agree on everything, neither do Sack and I, or you and Sack. This applies to every other combination of people on this call. Even if you don't agree with me all the time, you know I'm telling you what I believe 100% of the time. That's the best you can ask of an elected leader, and I'll give you that. Hopefully, this will attract enough support to allow me to serve as the next president of this country and lead a national revival, leaving office in January 2033. My kids will be in high school by then. Maybe we'll be going to Mars. In the meantime, we'll see if we can revive this country, and I'm optimistic that we can.

Elon: It's rare to meet politicians who aren't NPCs. Please take that as a high compliment.

Vivek: I appreciate it, thank you.

David: All right, thank you both for being so generous with your time. We went for two hours here, even though it was only scheduled to be an hour. Time just flew by. So, thank you Elon, thank you Vivek, and thanks to everyone for joining. I appreciate it.

Vivek: Thanks. Goodbye, everyone. Thank you.