iShares U.S. Aerospace & Defense ETF

Sacks support ×1 ▲ on 🏛️ Gulf capital realigns to a US bloc, displacing China's Belt and Road E237 · 2025-08-01 ▶ 16:39

One of them was to promote AI exports because we want the American Tech Stack to become the global standard.

Chamath support ×1 ▲ on 🏛️ Gulf capital realigns to a US bloc, displacing China's Belt and Road E229 · 2025-05-24 ▶ 1:08:57

Cooperating like this, I think, just makes a ton of sense.

Jason support ×2 ▲ on 🏛️ Gulf capital realigns to a US bloc, displacing China's Belt and Road E229 · 2025-05-24 ▶ 1:07:25

If you look at that region, like you said, it could tip one way or the other. They could be involved with the West. We could be building businesses together. And if we build businesses together, that's better than them building businesses with China.

Sacks support ×2 ▲ on 🏛️ Gulf capital realigns to a US bloc, displacing China's Belt and Road E229 · 2025-05-24 ▶ 1:07:45

And we can have these countries be aligned with us and in our orbit, or we could push them into the arms of the Chinese. The choice is, do we want these countries to be the piggy bank for American AI or for Chinese AI?

One of them obviously is driving these places away from China and the more business ties you have with places like Saudi Arabia or Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, the further away they're going to get from China.

Chamath support ×3 ▲ on 🏛️ Gulf capital realigns to a US bloc, displacing China's Belt and Road E228 · 2025-05-17 ▶ 14:44

In one week, the sitting president of the United States announced $2 trillion of investment from those countries into the United States. What does that effectively do? I think what that effectively does is say that the Middle East is turning a page, that they are beyond these regional conflicts, that they want to thrive as a society, and that they are 100% aligned with the United States.

Friedberg support ×1 ▲ on 🏛️ Arctic shipping-lane control is the real Greenland play E210 · 2025-01-11 ▶ 1:39:14

It's not the literal statement that matters as much as kind of the vector and the magnitude of the vector. He's clearly trying to begin negotiating for some change. I don't know what the ultimate kind of strategic endpoint is meant to be here, but clearly there's something I think Chamath might have a good read on this and seems to make a lot of sense.

It's very strategic. If you look at the Panama Canal, I believe either end is operated and controlled by China. We are at war with China, whether we like to admit it or not, in my opinion. This is very strategic.

Chamath support ×2 ▲ on 🏛️ Arctic shipping-lane control is the real Greenland play E210 · 2025-01-11 ▶ 1:35:19

Because of climate change and other things, the Arctic ice shelf is melting. And the more and more it melts, it opens up a shipping lane in the northern passage for a lot of critical goods. And so if you had some sort of strategic agreement with Canada and Greenland, you effectively have this monopoly control over something that could become as important as the Panama Canal. And so I think if you look across the world, the control of maritime shipping lanes becomes this really critical strategic military and economic asset.

Sacks support ×3 ▼ on 🏛️ Ukraine's position is unsustainable - the front collapses next year E205 · 2024-11-23 ▶ 48:16

It's not a stalemate. Remember, I said on this podcast six months or a year ago that it was no longer a stalemate. It was a war of attrition in which the Ukrainians were now losing. And every single month now the Russians are taking more and more territory.

Friedberg oppose ×2 ▲ on 🏛️ US-Russia proxy war escalates horizontally E205 · 2024-11-23 ▶ 54:35

Does Putin not see that in a couple of weeks, a couple of months, there will be new leadership in the White House and there's going to be a path to a resolution here?

Chamath support ×2 ▲ on 🏛️ US-Russia proxy war escalates horizontally E205 · 2024-11-23 ▶ 53:07

but we're talking about tens and hundreds of billions of dollars that we're giving on top of the risk of nuclear escalation. I just think it's absolutely crazy.

Sacks support ×3 ▲ on 🏛️ US-Russia proxy war escalates horizontally E205 · 2024-11-23 ▶ 48:16

The bottom line is this war is escalating, it's escalating nowhere good and at some point soon, we're going to have to get off of this escalatory ladder or we're going to end up in a really disastrous place.

Sacks support ×2 ▲ on 🏛️ US-Russia proxy war escalates horizontally E197 · 2024-09-27 ▶ 1:33:37

Chamath, you're right. I mean, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, all of America was huddled around their TV sets worried about what would happen. There is no similar concern in this day and age about the escalatory wars that are happening.

Chamath support ×3 ▲ on 🏛️ US-Russia proxy war escalates horizontally E197 · 2024-09-27 ▶ 1:32:35

But we are fighting a potential nuclear threat on three fronts. How have we allowed this to happen? Russia, Iran, China.

Sacks support ×3 ▼ on 🏛️ Ukraine's position is unsustainable - the front collapses next year E197 · 2024-09-27 ▶ 1:26:15

And it's very clear, I think that Ukraine, within, it could be in the next month, it could be the next two months, it could be the next six months, I think they're eventually going to collapse.

Sacks support ×3 ▼ on 🏛️ Ukraine's position is unsustainable - the front collapses next year E192 · 2024-08-16 ▶ 1:34:11

What we're on track for is, at some point, probably next year, Ukraine is going to collapse.

Chamath support ×2 ▲ on 🏛️ US-Russia proxy war escalates horizontally E186 · 2024-07-04 ▶ 22:14

Biden actually approved private contractors now going into Ukraine and starting to fight. Americans will be on the battlefield as of I think this was just a few days ago.

Sacks support ×3 ▲ on 🏛️ US-Russia proxy war escalates horizontally E186 · 2024-07-04 ▶ 21:02

The Russians in response to that said we are no longer in a state of peace with the United States. They did not say we're in a state of war, but they said we're no longer in a state of peace. And the Russians have indicated that they may escalate horizontally by giving advanced weapons to our enemies. For example, they've talked about giving cruise missiles to the hoodies.

Sacks support ×2 ▲ on 🏛️ Nobody's incentives point at de-escalation — the war economy ratchets up E164 · 2024-02-02 ▶ 1:16:49

And when it does happen, you get this lunatic fringe who unfortunately are some of the leaders of the Republican Party calling for a larger war against Iran.

Jason oppose ×2 ▲ on 🏛️ Nobody's incentives point at de-escalation — the war economy ratchets up E163 · 2024-01-26 ▶ 1:03:37

The majority of people don't want to be involved in foreign wars. That's across both parties.

Jason oppose ×2 ▲ on 🏛️ Nobody's incentives point at de-escalation — the war economy ratchets up E161 · 2024-01-13 ▶ 12:48

I can't imagine anybody would want to do more military action at this point in time when the American public is exhausted from it.

Sacks support ×3 ▲ on 🏛️ Nobody's incentives point at de-escalation — the war economy ratchets up E161 · 2024-01-13 ▶ 11:43

The problem is that with every war, the mainstream media starts propagandizing for the wars, and they'll basically demonize whoever it is that we're going to go to war with and explaining why they're a huge threat. They'll engage in threat inflation, and so the American people end up supporting it.

Sacks support ×2 ▲ on 🏛️ Nobody's incentives point at de-escalation — the war economy ratchets up E152 · 2023-11-03 ▶ 15:06

Will policymakers in Washington change their tune or change their perspective on this? Probably not, the uniparty of both Republicans and Democrats are still seems to be a majority who want to fund another 61 billion for Ukraine.

Friedberg support ×2 ▲ on 🏛️ Nobody's incentives point at de-escalation — the war economy ratchets up E152 · 2023-11-03 ▶ 16:39

I've shared my point of view for a couple of years now. I think the US is in a, call it subconscious conflict escalatory state that would continue to drive us into these sorts of conflict