E92: Adam Neumann's second act, a16z's $350M bet, housing policy, Inflation Reduction Act & more
2022-08-20 spoken.md · speaker-labeled ▶ watch ← E91 all episodes E93 →
Every number here is replayed from score_events — the same ledger the pool ranks on. Decay is what the 85 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
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 (7 ideas)
ordered by how hard each idea moved · quotes are verbatim from the transcript, timestamps deep-link into the episode
California's Byzantine permitting, tenant-rights regime, transfer taxes and single-family zoning have destroyed the market for housing construction, so nobody wants to be a landlord or a developer there. Lightly-regulated red cities and states (Miami, Houston, Austin) and non-sentimental New York build freely, so construction activity, capital and residents keep migrating to them and the states that compete on regulation win household and business formation.
By subsidising supply and green-lighting permitting instead of pricing emissions, the Inflation Reduction Act removes the political need for a US carbon tax, which now never happens. Carbon allowance markets, carbon trading and direct air capture therefore do not become the businesses the market assumed — the cost curve, not the price of a permit, is what clears emissions.
And in that lens, I think like a whole bunch of business models got turned upside down. So I think carbon markets and carbon trading are not going to be the thing that we thought it was going to be. I think stuff like direct air capture, again, are going to be toy projects off to the side.
The IRA's prescription-drug price cap and Medicare negotiation authority — the second-largest line in the bill — permanently lowers the price the largest buyer in the market pays, cutting pharma revenue, the R&D it funds, and the returns available to biotech investors. Sacks calls it price fixing with a downstream hit to new-drug funding; Friedberg thinks the drug-count effect is small but concedes biotech IRRs fall from ~48% to ~28%.
And so I'm hopeful that this will actually provide a more effective market force in allowing the biggest customer in the market to negotiate prices and that the VCs, instead of making 48% IRR, they'll ultimately make 28% IRR on the investments that they're making in biotech startups.
You can make the argument that technology is as important as those three categories. And so, you know, if I think it's pretty obvious that Andreessen is trying to build a publicly ownable security that represents all things in technology. So again, I don't think that they're necessarily out to generate massive returns for LPs.
Well, I mean, I think Chamath's right that their stated goal is to build like a larger institutional VC type investor. I mean, doesn't Andreessen have a portrait of JP Morgan hanging on his wall or something? I mean, they want to turn VC from being like a little craft business to something larger and more institutional.
The IRA's production credits (e.g. $1.25/gal for clean fuel at 50% emissions reduction, plus a penny per extra percent) turn businesses that were contribution-margin-questionable into profitable ones overnight, so venture and growth capital pours into climate tech, new energy materials and clean manufacturing. The open question is whether any of it survives the subsidy being removed.
And so I personally think we are going to see a significant influx of venture capital and support for a lot of these climate tech and new energy material and manufacturing projects that otherwise may have been held back because the subsidy will kickstart.
And what's amazing is that if we actually pass this framework, which is still yet to be written around how to make permitting more seamless and efficient for these hydrocarbon projects, it will really unleash a massive torrent of both revenues back to the United States.
Episode digest
written during extraction and stored in data/extractions/ep092.json — the auditable source of truth, including everything market-adjacent that did not earn a capture
Friedberg guest-moderated (Jason was the 'guestie'), which is why he outtalks everyone — labels are CLEAN, verified on content. The Inflation Reduction Act was the meat: Chamath's headline call is that the bill KILLED the carbon tax and with it carbon markets, carbon trading and direct air capture ('toy projects off to the side') — an effective reversal of the bullish carbon-pricing thesis he and Sacks coined back in E042, and coined here as a new idea since that window died 2022-07-30. Jason and Friedberg both piled on that the carbon tax is unimplementable. Chamath simultaneously turned bullish on the IRA's hydrocarbon-permitting reform ('a massive torrent of revenues back to the United States') and on monetising petrochemicals now because global capacity is maxed until 2028-2030, reinforcing the energy trade; Friedberg called an incoming flood of venture money into climate tech now that production credits flip startups profitable, with Chamath and Jason both pushing back that subsidy-dependent businesses are DOA. On the a16z/Flow $350M deal, Chamath re-affirmed the mega-GP thesis he'd walked back in E080 — a16z is building 'a publicly ownable security that represents all things in technology' and returns to LPs are beside the point. New bearish reads: Medicare drug-price negotiation compressing pharma pricing power and biotech IRRs (Sacks and Friedberg agree on the direction, disagree on the size), and Sacks' math that the IRA is deficit-INCREASING once the ACA subsidy extension is not sunset. Chamath brushed off the whole China-Russia-Saudi axis / petroyuan de-dollarization framing as 'really dramatic'.