E134: Ukraine counteroffensive, China tensions, COVID Patient Zero, RFK Jr reaction & more
2023-06-24 spoken.md · speaker-labeled ▶ watch ← E133 all episodes E135 →
Every number here is replayed from score_events — the same ledger the pool ranks on. Decay is what the 120 ideas nobody mentioned gave up this week; it applies only when an episode is processed.
Tier crossings
conviction thresholds crossed by this episode — 65 / 45 / 15 · ideas born here show where they landed. why 65 isn't always green
Kill dates that landed since E133
1 hit · 0 partial · 1 miss — windows that closed after 2023-06-16 and up to 2023-06-24, auto-scored against price data and never hand-set. verdict · R · α
| idea | verdict | R | α | closed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🌍 Europe eats the bill - energy crunch reopens the EU sovereign debt crisis | MISS | -19.3% | -32.1 | 2023-06-24 |
| 🏛️ Ukraine endgame is an organized negotiated detente, not a Ukrainian win | HIT | +12.9% | +0.0 | 2023-06-24 |
Who moved the board
each voice's force on conviction this episode — supports and opposes, weighted exactly as the replay applied them · share = % of this episode's movement
What got argued (13 ideas)
ordered by how hard each idea moved · quotes are verbatim from the transcript, timestamps deep-link into the episode
As US and allied fab capacity comes online — the Arizona fabs in 2025-26, plus Europe and Mexico — Taiwan's strategic indispensability decays and with it the implicit US security guarantee, exactly as Ukraine teaches Taiwan the cost of being an American proxy. Chamath's mechanism: the multi-trillion-dollar de-levering program means the criticality of TSMC goes away, which is why Buffett dumped TSM — no land war means that asset's equity value is in danger. Brad's channel check is Taiwanese families planning their exit around the fifth Arizona fab and expecting a Hong-Kong-style take-under rather than an invasion; Sacks adds that Taiwan's own election next year may hand power to the pro-China party.
On Taiwan, there's an election next year. And it looks like right now that the pro-China party might actually take power. Right now, the party that's in power is more of a pro-Western party. And the reason, I think, is that the Taiwanese are looking at what's going on in Ukraine and they're looking at the corpses of the Ukrainian youth pile up. And they're thinking maybe it's not such a great idea to be an American proxy state.
And I think underneath that, if I had to guess what he's trying to say about Taiwan indirectly, through his sale of TSMC is the odds are that we are not going to get into a land war over there, which means that that asset and its equity value is in danger and I don't want to own it. And I think that that's a very clinical summation of his rational action.
Well, it's not about being independent. It's how much longer will Taiwan have what they believe to be de facto protection from the United States. And I was told by one very influential Taiwanese family that they believe when the fifth chip fab comes online in Arizona, which I think is scheduled for 25 or 26, they intended to have most of their family members out of Taiwan at that period in time. Now, I think most Taiwanese don't envision this being, you know, a violent invasion of Taiwan. It's more of a take under in the same way that Hong Kong was.
The DOE Loan Programs Office balance sheet (~$400B) plus the IRA credits successfully underwrite an onshored US battery and EV supply chain, and Ford/SK's $9.2B three-plant loan is the template every other OEM follows. Chamath, Brad and Jason treat it as the correct use of the government's balance sheet — energy independence as a national-security imperative that the invisible hand will not deliver, with a peace-dividend kicker. Sacks takes the other side: the money goes to the politically connected rather than the best products, so without a once-in-a-generation Elon in the portfolio it produces a lot of Solyndras.
It's us using our balance sheet to make sure that we get to energy independence. So this is actually a perfect role for government. It's shaping incentives so that capitalism can do its job. What this does for Ford is Ford has a partnership with SK. And so SK has a lot of capability in Korea, but they can bring that know-how now domestically onshore to the United States. You'll be hiring thousands of people, you'll be building battery factories. Ford needs batteries. Their forecast is they'll be selling two and a half million electric vehicles by 2026, 2027 So whatever Ford does, you can expect GM will also do.
So Elon was basically a fluke. I mean, you get like a once in a generation entrepreneur who happened to be working on this EV problem, and he got that loan. If you're to take Elon out of that government portfolio, it all looks like Solyndra. So the question is, like, what is this portfolio going to look like? Is there really going to be another Elon in there? Because if not, there's going to be a lot of Solyndras.
Listen, while generally against industrial policy, I come down on Chamath's side. I think this is a once in a generation opportunity to reduce our national security risk profile and to achieve what is really a national security imperative, which is energy independence. It's not going to happen just according to the invisible hand of the market.
Chamath's crack in his own Tesla bull case: a large and growing cohort of buyers is actively turned off by Elon and explicitly wants a non-Tesla EV, and absent a real monopoly no brand ever captures more than 30-40% of a market (his Coke/Pepsi frame). So the EV market fragments — Ford, GM and Rivian take the long tail, and he was surprised by Rivian's build quality when he drove one. Bearish Tesla's share, not its execution.
Look, we're friends with Elon, but we should acknowledge, there's a large number of people that are frankly a little bit turned off by him. And they've been very clear that they want an alternative to Tesla because they don't want to buy Tesla because they don't necessarily prefer him as a brand ambassador for their car. And the reality of life is that even if you're like maximally incredible, unless you find some clever way of creating a monopoly in which case you can be a douche or evil, you're only ever going to capture 30 plus 40 percent maybe of a market. Coke, Pepsi is a good example.
But we ran something through and we allowed it to be labeled a word that misappropriates what it is. It's not a vaccine. And the problem with that is that it now makes people mistrust the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. That's crazy. You shouldn't mistrust the MMR vaccine or DTaP. But because those things are lumped in with the same thing as a Covid vaccine that is at best 30 or 40 percent efficacious, we have these problems.
Why can't we have an authentic postmortem about the efficacy of the Covid vaccine without being shamed?
So first of all, one of our friends who's an energy investor, we should beep his name before he was telling me that the energy subsidies that were in the, you know, misnamed Inflation Reduction Act, it is like the biggest bonanza of all time. He said that the energy sector is going crazy now trying to figure out how to exploit these incentives. And his view is that although I think it was supposed to cost about $350 billion, he thought that it would ultimately cost the government somewhere around a trillion.
Where it stands right now is that around 18 or 19 days into it, it has produced minimal gains. In fact, it's been somewhat of a disaster. It's hard to get conclusive estimates of personnel and material losses, but I think as many as a quarter of the tanks and armored vehicles have already been destroyed, and the casualties may be as high as around 10,000 out of an army that was trained up for this purpose of around 50,000.
Because on the one hand, if you take the Russia incident and the Ukraine War, what you saw was that there were ample numbers of off ramps that we chose, frankly, to not take so that we could engage our enemy in some long drawn out war on the hopes that it just depletes their resources. That's kind of rolling the dice, I think, in a very dangerous way.
So why hasn't Altimeter purchased any of this? Because the prices aren't low enough to induce me to get off the sidelines to purchase the shares.
And then the thing that has happened over the past year is that sales have been hit. Every software company that I know is re-forecasting down, it's so much harder to grow. Customers are consolidating vendors, sharpening their pencils. Seed expansion has been replaced with seed contraction.
Just real quickly, I would say there's a real appetite in the business community to be engaged. This idea that we're going to decouple the world and never have to deal with these folks is just a farce. ByteDance bought a billion dollars worth of NVIDIA chips announced this week.
And I've yet to meet a single parent who said to me, I care so much about this Ukraine situation, I would be willing to put my children in harm's way to fight for the defense of Europe. Okay, so those data points tell me at a very minimum, we need more of this discussion, more of this debate, not less.
So we are out of 155-millimeter artillery shells. We cannot produce enough. This is the crazy thing. We spent $800 billion a year plus on the Pentagon and our national defense. We're out of ammo. I mean, we must be getting so royally ripped off by the military industrial complex.
we have created a very dangerous revolving door between our most critical institutions and the largest industrial companies in the United States. And that revolving door creates all kinds of conflicts of interest. And those things get sorted out via revenue and dollars and profits.
There are 1,400 unicorns at the end of 2022, and 100% of them will likely do a down run. And if you said, what is the average that they're going to be down, it's over 50%.
And let's just say we can all agree out of all the companies, right? There's only one contender to Zuck getting fit, right? Getting that company fit, getting himself fit is Elon. 75, 80% of the people gone in product velocity is on fire at Twitter.
The revolution going on in this country, which is fantastic from my perspective, is that there is no longer a monopolistic control over the discussion. And that's why this podcast and this friendship and the conversation we all had here is resonating with people because they also want to hear all the different sides, because most people are capable, are way smarter than the elites on the coast think.
Episode digest
written during extraction and stored in data/extractions/ep134.json — the auditable source of truth, including everything market-adjacent that did not earn a capture
Brad Gerstner fills the fourth chair (Friedberg is genuinely absent) and does most of the market work: 1,400 unicorns all doing down rounds averaging >50%, 30-40% of them zombies that simply disappear, and Altimeter still on the sidelines because secondaries haven't cleared low enough — a hard reinforce of startup-mass-extinction plus a pushback on downturn-vintage. Sacks reinforces his own seat-contraction call verbatim and pounds the table that the Ukrainian counteroffensive is a disaster, a deal was available and rejected, and the US is literally out of artillery shells. Chamath books a reversal on his own ukraine-negotiated-detente idea on the exact day its window closes — the off-ramps existed and 'we chose, frankly, to not take' them in favour of a long drawn-out war. Three new ideas: federal loan-office money onshoring the EV battery supply chain (Chamath/Brad/Jason for, Sacks calling it a Solyndra factory), Taiwan's US protection expiring as the Arizona fabs come online with TSM carrying the risk (Buffett's exit is the receipt), and Chamath cracking his own Tesla bull case — brand backlash caps Tesla's EV share near 30-40%. COVID counted only where a market channel was stated: Chamath, Sacks and Brad all reinforce covid-vaccine-trust-collapse via the MMR-spillover mechanism, while the Patient Zero / Fauci / RFK material is politics and was left out. Diarization: labels are content-correct, but 'Brad Gershel' is a hallucinated name for Brad Gerstner (canonicalized) and SPEAKER_5 is a played clip of a Netflix executive from the Coatue summit — nothing attributed to her.