David Sacks

and not have to have the state dictate the rate, they would compete for price and price would come down.

This idea that the state should be determining what companies should charge for anything is a problem, but fundamentally in the insurance markets, it's literally chased every insurer out of the state.

I just don't understand like how this,

Yeah.

Well, look, let's shift to one of the other big liability questions in the state.

It's the one I care.

I wouldn't say the most, but it's one that I've observed may end up being a big driver for what's ahead for us.

California's public employee retirement system, so CalPERS and CalSTRS, they provide the retirement benefits to roughly 3 million California public workers.

And there's roughly a trillion dollars of capital in those two investment funds that are meant to support those retirees.

They've been making about 7% a year.

compared to the S&P making 11% here.

And the current accounting estimates that they're gonna be short by some estimates, 250 to 300 billion, by other estimates, as high as a trillion dollars in the years ahead in paying out the benefits that they're legally obligated to pay to public employees as they retire.

And you can't just change those benefits.

There's a state Supreme Court case that's made that known that you can't go in and rescind benefits that you've promised someone.

So you are stuck with that liability.

And because they're public entities,

California state taxpayer is ultimately gonna be stuck with a trillion dollar liability if that's what it comes to.

How do we fix this frigging problem?

Well, I think that's like, how do you fund that glide path?

It may be the case that our budget has some margin for error, let's say, because of how much we're spending.