Latest / Yaron Brook Show / Shutdown; ACA; Tariff – Dividend, SCOTUS; 50y Mortgages; Rent; Same Sex; BBC | Yaron Brook Show

Transcript

Shutdown; ACA; Tariff – Dividend, SCOTUS; 50y Mortgages; Rent; Same Sex; BBC | Yaron Brook Show · Yaron Brook Show

• 0:02
  Speaker 1: A lot of them funds of Last Little Cell, Chris
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: and any individual loss. This is the show. All right, everybody,
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: welcome to your one book show on this Monday, November tenth.
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: I hope everybody is doing well and ready for another.
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: You're on book show. I don't know, somebody said, Lincoln says,
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: two YBA shows in two days.
• 0:36
  Speaker 2: Christmas came early.
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: But this is the third show in three days. Lincoln,
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: you you missed a show, and that's just part of
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: the course. Other words, they're win they're traveling. So uh,
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: usually you get six shows and six days on a
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: regular normal basis. So yeah, all right, guys, today we're
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: going to.
• 1:00
  Speaker 2: Do a news roundup.
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: We're going to talk about stuff that's going on a
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: primarily in Washington, DC's.
• 1:07
  Speaker 2: It's pretty packed over the last few days.
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: Given that over the weekend I didn't do Newsy shows,
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: all kind of Newsy shows, but not you know, political
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: news shows, I figured we'd try.
• 1:18
  Speaker 2: To catch up on what is going on right now. Anyway,
• 1:23
  Speaker 2: it appears.
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: That some Democrats, some Democratic senators in a panicking and
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: therefore voted with Republicans to end the government shutdown.
• 1:37
  Speaker 2: Now, it's not why they're panicking.
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: Other Democrats are really pissed off at them, actually, because
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: their view is that the recent elections vindicated Democrats and
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: showed the Democrats were pretty strong and and they should
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: have stuck with the shutdown and not given into Republicans.
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: But it seems like some senators, particularly former governors, it
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: turns out some Democratic senators former governors, have shifted and
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: they have now voted to reopen the governments.
• 2:10
  Speaker 2: Eight of them shifted.
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: So the Senate yesterday or today or yesterday, I voted,
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: I guess this morning.
• 2:19
  Speaker 2: Sixty to forty.
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: You need sixty votes to approve the Continuing Resolution, which
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: is the funding of government for another three months until January.
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: We'll do this all again on January for three months
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: under certain conditions. Again, the forty Democrats are voted against
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: this are pretty pissed off at their colleagues. But I
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: think what happened was, at the end of the day,
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: the government shutdown doesn't really didn't really affect anybody. Nobody
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: really could until until until two things happened. One airlines
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: started canceling flights that started late last week on Friday,
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: and it looked like they were going to be significant
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: flight cancelations. They were through the weekend and there was
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: going to be more this week. And my guess is
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: that I don't know, these senators have somewhere to go,
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: or they heard from constituencies and said, what the hell,
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: you know, we've got business flights, We've got to do this.
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: This is mayham, this cast at the airports. This is ridiculous.
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: You know, refund the government. It's hurting our flights. So
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: it finally hurts somebody. It owned a constituency. You know,
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: people who fly, People who fly, uh, you know, are
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: easy to pick up the phone and call the senator, call,
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: call the congressman or whatever and complain.
• 3:40
  Speaker 2: Uh.
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: And and maybe even the congressmen and senators felt it
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: themselves because they were at airports.
• 3:46
  Speaker 2: Where the mayhem was going on.
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: Uh, and they decided to backtrack.
• 3:50
  Speaker 2: So that is part of it. The second part was.
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: That there was no obvious way to fund food stamps
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: under their under the gunment shutdown. So the again there
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: was a constituency poor people who were gonna lose out
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: because the government wouldn't be able to fund, wouldn't be
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: able to.
• 4:15
  Speaker 2: Pay for the food stamps.
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: So suddenly these constituency that started hooting, they started getting
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: phone calls, and they caved. They caved. Now, you know,
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: I don't really care that much because I like gumma shutsdowns,
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: but they don't really matter that much one way or
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: the other. I mean, if anything, gum shutdowns prove that
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: you can go, you can manage without the government doing
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: a lot of stuff and manage fine. And indeed, if
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: we only privatized, which which a lot of countries have. Canada,
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: for example, has already for only privatized the controllers, the
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: A controllers, the whole A control system, not only do
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: we have more modern equipment, we'd have safer lying, but
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: we also not have you know this, uh them holding
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: this above our heads as a kind of a weapon
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: against us. So yeah, we should privatize a traffic control.
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: The Canadians have done it, you one, we think the
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: United States could do it, and uh God, people don't
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: feel a gumma shutdown. And maybe that's what really what
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: really got them to stop it is that people realize
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: suddenly that maybe they don't need the government at the
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: size that it exists. So anyway, Democrats did get a
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: few concessions from Republicans.
• 5:50
  Speaker 2: The big one I think is that.
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: The Trumpet administration is going to reverse all the layoffs
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: that it did at the begin of If you remember,
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: at the beginning of the shutdown, basically Trump said, Okay,
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: I'm just gonna fire a bunch of people and then
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: hire them again and not hire them again. Well, as
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: part of this deal, Trump is going to hire all
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: these people back. H So you know that that is
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: that is out. Uh. You know, so the one benefit
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: of the shutdown was maybe shrinking payball. Now that's not
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: gonna happen.
• 6:26
  Speaker 2: They'll be high back and they'll be paid their full salaries.
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: I think the Democrats also got some concessions in terms
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: of a few programs, a guarantee to fund these programs,
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: uh for.
• 6:39
  Speaker 2: Kind of all through.
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: Next year, in spite of the fact that the continued
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: Resolution only covers them until until what January. So they
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: got the Republicans to agree that that the well kind
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: of the warfare payments will continue throughout next year. I mean,
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: here's the point. This is all theater. It was always
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: all theater. It continues to be all theater. Nothing nothing
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: you and I will benefit from, no plus sight to us,
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: No nothing good is coming of this. So yeah, I mean,
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: so who cares, right, I mean, I don't think Americans
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: really cared that much about the gunment shutdown.
• 7:22
  Speaker 2: It didn't affect many people and they just didn't care.
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: And so other again, I'm happy that the gunment shutdown
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: is over, really happy because I'm flying all this week domestically,
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: and uh, you know, us allies canceled more than two
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: thousand flights on just Sunday, and there was seven thousand
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: flight delays. And I fly out tomorrow morning at seven
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: fifteen am. And then I've got a flight on Thursday,
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: and I've got a flight on Saturday. And I don't
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: want to miss any one of those. I don't want
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: tom canceled, and I don't want to delayed. So please
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: open up the government in the next day or so
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: so I don't have to suffer from what is going
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: on what is going on there. So yeah, Jennifer says
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: she's flying too. Yes, she's coming to Denver to see
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: the debate and to participate in the LPR session. I
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: think I'm pretty sure I sent.
• 8:21
  Speaker 2: The names in. I need to.
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: I need to make sure that they have your names
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: so you can attend the LPR session, all right, So yes,
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: I will be doing a debate Wednesday night at the
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: University of Colorado, Colorado Springs. It will be socialism versus capitalism.
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: I expect to be turnout, hopefully you guys, some of
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: you guys show up to support the capitalist position.
• 8:50
  Speaker 2: There will be a lot of socialists there.
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: Uh. And then I'm doing a debate on when No,
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: that's Thursday. Thursday night is is Colorado Springs. Wednesday is
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: in San Francisco, and that is a debate on Christianity.
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: And you can find information about both those debates on
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: my website and you can sign up and join us
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: and be there. I I you know, if you're interested,
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: this might be a treat for you guys.
• 9:19
  Speaker 2: On Wednesday, I'm actually gonna.
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: Wear a tie. It's required. It's crazy, but it's required.
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: So I'm wearing a tie on Wednesday.
• 9:28
  Speaker 2: I'm dreading it.
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: I don't think I remember how to tie a tie,
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: how to do the not. I had that problem in
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: Cambridge earlier. I figured it out ultimately, but but you know,
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: it's it's not not easy, not simple anyway, Right, shutdown
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: is over.
• 9:43
  Speaker 2: You can go back to life if it affected you.
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: If you're flying this week, and if you will fly,
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: planning to fly and thanks for giving. Airlines will be
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: the usual awful selves, but there won't be the added
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: issue of of the shutdown.
• 10:03
  Speaker 2: Uh.
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: Part of the shutdown was that Democrats didn't want to
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: vote for ending the shutdown until they got a guarantee
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: from Republicans that the Footable Care Act, the Obamacare, in
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: other words, would the subsidies that provided by the Footable
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: Care Act will be continued. H. Republicans are eluctant to
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: do that.
• 10:27
  Speaker 2: Uh.
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: You know, they never they never did away with Obamacare.
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: They never actually proposed any alternative to Obamacare. They never
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: they never actually put something together. But the uh, but
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: they want to I don't know. I think they really
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: want to just pretend that they care about Obamacare and
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: and pretend that they want to, you know, cut the subsidies,
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: but the end they'll subsidize at all. Anyway, Democrats wanted
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: to vote now on that. Republicans said, agreed in this
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: opening up of the government now in this vote, they
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: agreed that there would be a separate vote on the
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: Obamacare subsidies.
• 11:08
  Speaker 2: That happens in January.
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: Right now. In the meantime, Trump stepped in on the
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: ACO and the Obamacare subsidies.
• 11:20
  Speaker 2: And this is what he wrote.
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: I'm recommending to the centers Republicans that the hundreds of
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: billions of dollars currently being sent to money sucking insurance
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: companies in order to save bad healthcare provided by Obamacare,
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: we sent directly to the people so that they can
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: purchase their own, much better healthcare and have money left over.
• 11:40
  Speaker 2: In other words, take from the big bad.
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: Or capitalized insurance companies, give it to the people, and
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: terminate the dollars spent the worst healthcare anyway in the world.
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: Obamacare unrelated. We must still terminate the filibuster. Oh, I
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: was going to talk about the filibuster today. I'll talk
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: about it tomorrow. Okay, So god, So, first of all,
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: notice how he talks about insurance companies, and tell me
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: how he is different than Elizabeth Wong money sucking insurance companies,
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: or how different he is than the guy who shot
• 12:19
  Speaker 1: the guy the people who supported the guy who shot
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: the head of you know, the CEO of United Healthcare.
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: Big bad insurance companies, big bad in all caps. That's Trump, right. So,
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: so this anti insurance company, is this bias, this this
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: really you know, it's just just horrific that he puts
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: in the other man. Yeah, it would be great. Now
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: do we really want to send it directly to the
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: people who are we sending it to?
• 12:49
  Speaker 2: Which people?
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: How are they going to get it? How are we
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: gonna make sure that they spend it on insurance that
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: we want to spend the money insurance? What exactly what
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: we're gonna do now? Because there's a there's a kernel
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: of a idea here. Some senators jumped in to their
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: credit and said, Okay, what we're going to propose is
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: a dramatic expansion and health saving accounts. And what we
• 13:11
  Speaker 1: could do is funnel all the ACA subsidy money into
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: those health saving accounts. Let's say, for poor people, we
• 13:19
  Speaker 1: can help them fund health saving accounts and then they
• 13:21
  Speaker 1: could use that money, I guess to pay the healthcare costs.
• 13:27
  Speaker 1: It still doesn't solve how they're going to buy insurance
• 13:29
  Speaker 1: and solve the whole insurance market. But this is a
• 13:34
  Speaker 1: debate worth having. Is this is really this is valuable stuff.
• 13:38
  Speaker 1: This is what we should be talking about, not about extending.
• 13:41
  Speaker 1: This is what we should have been talking about since
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: they tried to eliminate Obamacare.
• 13:46
  Speaker 2: And what was the twenty.
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: Seventeen and McCain voted against it and crushed it. But
• 13:52
  Speaker 1: what should have been proposed at the time was an alternative,
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: and health saving accounts are clearly a good alternative, maybe
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: including a subsidy solow income people to buy health insurance.
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: But then you have to completely revamp the whole health
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: insurance market. You have to actually offer something alternative. Now
• 14:13
  Speaker 1: we all know what that should be. I mean we
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: all know, like many of us in the free market
• 14:19
  Speaker 1: world know what that should be. We've been advocating for
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: it for twenty something years. There's an AFCAM, the Association
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: for Free Marketing Medicine, has been advocating for this for
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: a long time. But you know, basically this is simple stuff.
• 14:34
  Speaker 1: You know, we should get rid of employer based insurance.
• 14:43
  Speaker 1: We should dramatically. And by the way, if you do that,
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: then people buy insurance individually, so they own the insurance policy,
• 14:51
  Speaker 1: so it's their insurance policy as individual. We incentivize individuals,
• 14:59
  Speaker 1: basically h says, to use that HSA money to buy
• 15:02
  Speaker 1: catastrophic insurance for big expenses, hospital stays, cancer treatment, heart attacks,
• 15:10
  Speaker 1: the big stuff, the big stuff that you really need
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: big money for. Uh, you know and then make it
• 15:18
  Speaker 1: really easy to have an HSA. HSA are great. You
• 15:22
  Speaker 1: can put money in them before taxes, you can take
• 15:25
  Speaker 1: them out without paying taxes. Basically, it's tax free money
• 15:28
  Speaker 1: as long as you pay it on as though as
• 15:30
  Speaker 1: you pay for it for healthcare, and you know it
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: really is. It's a terrific way in a mixed economy
• 15:38
  Speaker 1: to fund healthcare for individuals. And it allows you directly if.
• 15:44
  Speaker 2: You want to help, if you want.
• 15:45
  Speaker 1: To subsidize people who are poor. And again, in capitalism,
• 15:51
  Speaker 1: we should never subsidize people who anybody. But given the
• 15:54
  Speaker 1: went out of capitalism, given the mixed economy, given that
• 15:56
  Speaker 1: you have to do this not to get anything past,
• 15:58
  Speaker 1: the government could directly, just like with many education SAMI accounts,
• 16:03
  Speaker 1: could directly put money into health saving accounts, let's say,
• 16:07
  Speaker 1: and this could replace not just coming insurance, this could
• 16:10
  Speaker 1: replace Medicare Medicaid. It could replace Medicaid immediately because poor
• 16:15
  Speaker 1: people instead of being forced into this horrific government insurance
• 16:18
  Speaker 1: policy called Medicaid, they would now have money put in
• 16:21
  Speaker 1: the HSA and then they would decide how to allocate
• 16:25
  Speaker 1: it to buy a catastrophic insurance policy. And then they
• 16:27
  Speaker 1: would pay directly to hospitals and to doctors, and you
• 16:33
  Speaker 1: would create an actual market. You know, you've got a
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: deregularly healthcare all kinds of ways. For example, allow eer
• 16:41
  Speaker 1: services and non hospitals. You know, in emergency room services
• 16:47
  Speaker 1: and non hospitals, there's a lot of stuff that happens
• 16:49
  Speaker 1: in the emergency room that.
• 16:50
  Speaker 2: Doesn't have to happen in a hospital. Allow.
• 16:55
  Speaker 1: You know, physician assistants do a lot of the work
• 16:57
  Speaker 1: that physicians do so that you can know the price. Uh.
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: You know, if people are only buying catastrophic insurance, then
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: a lot of the insurance bureaucracy goes away.
• 17:09
  Speaker 2: It just disappears.
• 17:11
  Speaker 1: And again people now have a relationship directly with a
• 17:14
  Speaker 1: doctor instead of having a relationship with a administrator who
• 17:19
  Speaker 1: who is pulled by in different directions by doctors and
• 17:23
  Speaker 1: insurance companies and everything else. Uh.
• 17:25
  Speaker 2: And you know, there's a bunch of stuff.
• 17:29
  Speaker 1: I'm sure we need an expert to figure out that
• 17:31
  Speaker 1: you'd have to do in order to do all this,
• 17:34
  Speaker 1: For example, you'd have to completely deregulate the insurance market.
• 17:37
  Speaker 1: And one way to do that is to provide the
• 17:42
  Speaker 1: ability to buy insurance policy in any state you want,
• 17:45
  Speaker 1: not limited to the state in which you reside.
• 17:47
  Speaker 2: That would allow for.
• 17:48
  Speaker 1: Competition between states to see who would deregulate the fastest.
• 17:55
  Speaker 1: It's all doable, and it's all super exciting. Let people
• 17:59
  Speaker 1: pay out upon market for most medical expenses that are
• 18:03
  Speaker 1: not catastrophic. Create a robust market that are forced doctors
• 18:08
  Speaker 1: and hospitals and everybody's to actually advertise real prices and
• 18:12
  Speaker 1: to compete on prices. Remove the middleman from as much
• 18:16
  Speaker 1: as possible, and a lot of people to get the
• 18:21
  Speaker 1: insurance that they really need. What you really need is
• 18:24
  Speaker 1: insurance for when things go horribly wrong. And then if
• 18:28
  Speaker 1: you need in our mixed economy welfare state, if you
• 18:31
  Speaker 1: need just to subsidize certain people, then you can do
• 18:35
  Speaker 1: that with with uh you know, uh a subsidy directly
• 18:40
  Speaker 1: into an h SA, directly into HSA. So uh yeah,
• 18:52
  Speaker 1: I mean a lot of this, a lot of this.
• 18:56
  Speaker 2: Uh you know.
• 18:57
  Speaker 1: You would add ideally, right, if we going in all this,
• 19:01
  Speaker 1: you would add tortal reform. I mean the amount of
• 19:03
  Speaker 1: money the doctors pay.
• 19:06
  Speaker 2: For what do you call it?
• 19:09
  Speaker 1: For insurance for liability insurance is ridiculous. So total reform
• 19:14
  Speaker 1: would be good. Total reform would be good economy wide,
• 19:16
  Speaker 1: not just in healthcare. It would be good. So there's
• 19:19
  Speaker 1: a bunch of stuff that needs to be done.
• 19:20
  Speaker 2: But notice this.
• 19:22
  Speaker 1: You got all these Republican senators jumping in on Trump's tweet.
• 19:26
  Speaker 1: Where have they been over the last nine ten years?
• 19:31
  Speaker 1: Where have they been during the first Trump administration? Where
• 19:35
  Speaker 1: have they been in the first year or nine months
• 19:38
  Speaker 1: of the Trump administration? Why isn't HSA and reforming our
• 19:42
  Speaker 1: healthcare system towards a more market over ends and system.
• 19:46
  Speaker 1: Why isn't that being a Republican priority? Instead we got tariffs?
• 19:51
  Speaker 1: And instead, you know we're getting we got the big
• 19:55
  Speaker 1: beautiful bill, like in the big beautiful bill. Why couldn't
• 19:59
  Speaker 1: they haven fluted in the Big beautiful bill significant HSSA reform.
• 20:05
  Speaker 1: I think it would have qualified as being part of
• 20:08
  Speaker 1: a tax and spend bill that only needed fifty one votes.
• 20:12
  Speaker 1: There's so many things they could have done with that bill. Instead,
• 20:15
  Speaker 1: all they did was spend more on existing stuff and
• 20:19
  Speaker 1: and cut taxes in arguably irresponsible ways, and increase taxes
• 20:27
  Speaker 1: by allowing for tariffs. Why is the focus on all
• 20:32
  Speaker 1: this other stuff, stuff that's not helpful, stuff that is
• 20:36
  Speaker 1: not in a I mean, people are concerned about an
• 20:39
  Speaker 1: affordability crisis in America, and part of the affordability is
• 20:42
  Speaker 1: health insurance. There's no question about that. Well why aren't
• 20:45
  Speaker 1: we addressing that? And the best way to address that,
• 20:47
  Speaker 1: we know there's.
• 20:51
  Speaker 2: Is, you know, it's a it's.
• 20:57
  Speaker 1: Too completely reform health insurance and do that by introducing
• 21:01
  Speaker 1: hsa IS. And just like we described, this is not
• 21:04
  Speaker 1: this is not rocket science at all. It's just an
• 21:09
  Speaker 1: issue of priorities, and it does not look like Republicans.
• 21:14
  Speaker 1: Republicans have this as a priority. Now, maybe now that
• 21:18
  Speaker 1: Trump has tweeted what he tweeted, maybe this will encourage
• 21:22
  Speaker 1: them to do it. But I am skeptical. I am skeptical.
• 21:25
  Speaker 1: It would be really really cool if that is what
• 21:28
  Speaker 1: we got. It would be really really cool if out
• 21:32
  Speaker 1: of this shutdown and out of this discussion of the ACA,
• 21:35
  Speaker 1: what we get is a Republican party committed to introducing
• 21:39
  Speaker 1: free market reforms and healthcare. But I think the possibility
• 21:44
  Speaker 1: of that, the probability of that is close to zero,
• 21:48
  Speaker 1: sadly close to zero. It would be cool, but it
• 21:55
  Speaker 1: ain't happening. I mean, again, free choice, this, you know,
• 22:02
  Speaker 1: move towards freedom. Remember legislation is worth voting for if
• 22:06
  Speaker 1: it moves us towards more freedom. Hsas move us towards
• 22:10
  Speaker 1: more freedom. It's not the ultimate is somewhere we are
• 22:14
  Speaker 1: at the end, but it moves there. And even if
• 22:16
  Speaker 1: it includes a subsidy for HSA's it's still moving us
• 22:19
  Speaker 1: towards more freedom. I've often argued that one of the
• 22:22
  Speaker 1: ways to get rid of Medicare and Medicaid is to
• 22:24
  Speaker 1: get people a vouchure instead of to give them state insurance.
• 22:28
  Speaker 1: Give them a vulture that allows them to buy insurance,
• 22:31
  Speaker 1: and you know, and that vouture would be an HSA
• 22:35
  Speaker 1: deposit into their account, both to old people over sixty
• 22:39
  Speaker 1: five and young people, not young people, but poor people
• 22:43
  Speaker 1: who get Medicare. Today ninety million Americans ninety zero ninety
• 22:48
  Speaker 1: million Americans get Medicaid. That's the poor people's one, and
• 22:53
  Speaker 1: then tens of millions get Medicare, so that most of
• 22:56
  Speaker 1: our insurance, most of our healthcare system is government run.
• 23:01
  Speaker 1: It just is.
• 23:03
  Speaker 2: All right.
• 23:04
  Speaker 1: I see Michael has come back from I mean yesterday
• 23:08
  Speaker 1: he did a bunch of questions and then today is
• 23:10
  Speaker 1: doing another bunch of questions.
• 23:11
  Speaker 2: So thank you, Michael.
• 23:12
  Speaker 1: You two could join in and join Michael and ask questions,
• 23:15
  Speaker 1: support the show, and get to shape the actual content
• 23:19
  Speaker 1: of the show by asking the questions.
• 23:23
  Speaker 2: All right, so.
• 23:27
  Speaker 1: Trump is panicking a little bit about tariffs. He's panicking
• 23:34
  Speaker 1: about tariffs because the reality is that when taffs came
• 23:38
  Speaker 1: up in front of the Supreme Court last week, you know,
• 23:42
  Speaker 1: the couple, there's a lawsuit to claim that his use
• 23:46
  Speaker 1: of this Emergency Act, Economic Emergency Act, his use of
• 23:51
  Speaker 1: that in order to raise taffs is unconstitutional. And it
• 23:55
  Speaker 1: really did seem like, it really did seem like the
• 24:00
  Speaker 1: Supream Court was, you know, citing with the plaintiffs.
• 24:05
  Speaker 2: It really does seem like.
• 24:06
  Speaker 1: The Supreme Court conservatives as conservatives, it is many of
• 24:12
  Speaker 1: this room Court justices are very uncomfortable allowing Trump to
• 24:16
  Speaker 1: use this statute to to continue kind of at his
• 24:22
  Speaker 1: own discretion. One hundred percent is another discretion to raised
• 24:26
  Speaker 1: hous to race taffs in the US. And you know,
• 24:33
  Speaker 1: there's a good chance that it gets overturned. It's a
• 24:35
  Speaker 1: good chance that the tariffs, his use of this, you know,
• 24:41
  Speaker 1: goes away. Now, just before you celebrate, it is worth
• 24:49
  Speaker 1: noting that that even if that happens, right, even if
• 24:57
  Speaker 1: that happens, trumpell, I probably then try to use other
• 25:02
  Speaker 1: statutes in order to impose the tariffs, which will just
• 25:06
  Speaker 1: create a mess and a disaster. But he's not gonna
• 25:10
  Speaker 1: give up on tariffs. I wish, I wish that would
• 25:13
  Speaker 1: be wow. But he's not gonna give up on it.
• 25:15
  Speaker 1: He's just gonna switch from using this particular bill to
• 25:18
  Speaker 1: something else. They'll have to sue again if they argue
• 25:22
  Speaker 1: it's unconstitutional, and we'll go through the whole process again.
• 25:25
  Speaker 2: He will keep shifting. He is not giving up on taps.
• 25:28
  Speaker 1: He loves tariffs. Trump was pretty upset after this in
• 25:33
  Speaker 1: court hearing because he got a sense that he might lose.
• 25:38
  Speaker 1: He did say later in the day he said, I
• 25:41
  Speaker 1: heard the court case went well today. He always lies
• 25:45
  Speaker 1: like that, but I will say this, it would be
• 25:47
  Speaker 1: devastating for our country if we lost that. It's one
• 25:50
  Speaker 1: of the most important cases in the history of our country,
• 25:55
  Speaker 1: he says. And as an example, President she he hit
• 25:58
  Speaker 1: us with ray oaths. Then I hit him with the tariff,
• 26:01
  Speaker 1: one hundred percent tariff on top of the other towers
• 26:04
  Speaker 1: their paint.
• 26:05
  Speaker 2: Then he called me in ten minutes and we made
• 26:07
  Speaker 2: a deal.
• 26:08
  Speaker 1: Now none of that is actually true because if you
• 26:11
  Speaker 1: remember the sequences, Trump hit she with tariffs and she responded,
• 26:17
  Speaker 1: I mean, then they negotiated and they lowered the tariffs,
• 26:20
  Speaker 1: but they were still very high tarifts that Fenton al
• 26:22
  Speaker 1: talis and national security tariffs and other tariffs and thirty
• 26:27
  Speaker 1: five percent. And then she did the the rareroad materials,
• 26:32
  Speaker 1: and then Trump introduced moretalves, and then they negotiated another
• 26:36
  Speaker 1: deal which is only for a year long and nobody
• 26:38
  Speaker 1: knows exactly what the details are. So the whole thing
• 26:41
  Speaker 1: is a charade, right that, And it's clear that the
• 26:46
  Speaker 1: whole thing was started by Trump, not started by the Chinese,
• 26:49
  Speaker 1: started by Trump. Trump continues, if I didn't have tabs,
• 26:53
  Speaker 1: the entire world would be in a depression. Depression. Now,
• 26:58
  Speaker 1: in the past, at least tas helped sink the world
• 27:03
  Speaker 1: economy into depression. But in this case, Trump believes, which
• 27:07
  Speaker 1: at least wants us to believe, that his TAFs are
• 27:10
  Speaker 1: saving us from a depression. Wow, that is that is amazing,
• 27:18
  Speaker 1: I mean, and unbelievably delusional. He says, I did this
• 27:22
  Speaker 1: for the world. He's a good altist. Don't worry.
• 27:26
  Speaker 2: This is for the world.
• 27:27
  Speaker 1: He's gonna make the world great again, not just America,
• 27:30
  Speaker 1: the world great again.
• 27:32
  Speaker 2: If I didn't put one hundred.
• 27:33
  Speaker 1: Percent tariff immediately on China because of magnets, a special
• 27:36
  Speaker 1: kind of rare earth. Magnets are not a rare earth. Anyway,
• 27:40
  Speaker 1: we'd be closed up. I mean, the guy's delusional. He
• 27:48
  Speaker 1: has no concept of what is going on here. He
• 27:54
  Speaker 1: has no concept of how damaging his tariffs really are.
• 27:57
  Speaker 1: He has no concept of how much pain he is
• 28:00
  Speaker 1: placing on the US economy for.
• 28:02
  Speaker 2: Absolutely zero reason.
• 28:04
  Speaker 1: He's completely delusional and bought into a look into list
• 28:08
  Speaker 1: economic theory. He's helder since the nineteen eighties. It's not new,
• 28:13
  Speaker 1: but it's just he's just, yeah, completely bunkers when he
• 28:19
  Speaker 1: comes to this I mean generally, but when he comes
• 28:21
  Speaker 1: to this in particular, I mean even as somebody like
• 28:26
  Speaker 1: Neil Gotch Gosstich, a Trump appointee, and somebody who's voted
• 28:30
  Speaker 1: for the Trump administration in several cases, express deep concern
• 28:34
  Speaker 1: about the administration's expansive interpretation of the law, warning that
• 28:37
  Speaker 1: ad risks the voting congressional power over taxation and trade. Now,
• 28:42
  Speaker 1: Ghostich is very concerned about separation of powers so I'm
• 28:46
  Speaker 1: very hopeful that he will vote.
• 28:48
  Speaker 2: Against Trump on this. He said during the hearing.
• 28:53
  Speaker 1: It's a one way ratchet towards the gradual but continual
• 28:57
  Speaker 1: accretion a power in the execut a branch, and away
• 29:01
  Speaker 1: from the people's elected representatives. He said, Good for him.
• 29:04
  Speaker 1: That's absolutely right. Again, they're not ruling on the economics
• 29:08
  Speaker 1: of tariffs. They're ruling on the constitutionality of tarots. Remember,
• 29:12
  Speaker 1: taros in the Constitution h power grantite to with all
• 29:18
  Speaker 1: taxation to Congress, and Trump is using some statute to
• 29:24
  Speaker 1: try to claim that he now has unilateral, indefinite power
• 29:31
  Speaker 1: over taros to change touster increased touts. There, John Roberts,
• 29:39
  Speaker 1: you know, push the government lawyers about wood tawos. Could
• 29:44
  Speaker 1: could the statue be allowed to house on any product
• 29:47
  Speaker 1: from any country in any amount for any length of time?
• 29:52
  Speaker 1: Amy could Cony Barrett also question the scope of the
• 29:56
  Speaker 1: president's authority?
• 29:57
  Speaker 2: I mean, is there a limit here? How many countries?
• 30:02
  Speaker 1: Remember this is supposed to be an emergency act, So
• 30:05
  Speaker 1: what about countries like Spain and France were nominally our allies.
• 30:09
  Speaker 1: How can they be targeted for tarifs under an emergency act?
• 30:16
  Speaker 1: So yeah, you know, this is again, this is the
• 30:22
  Speaker 1: International nineteen seventy seven International Emergency Powers Economic Powers Act
• 30:26
  Speaker 1: I E e p A. That is being that is
• 30:32
  Speaker 1: being challenged here in the Supreme Court. Trump southority to
• 30:38
  Speaker 1: impose willy nilly whatever tarif she wants.
• 30:46
  Speaker 2: So anyway, yeah, it's.
• 31:02
  Speaker 1: Here's another quote from from from Grossage.
• 31:08
  Speaker 2: I want I want to explain.
• 31:10
  Speaker 1: I want you to explain to me how you draw
• 31:12
  Speaker 1: the line, because you say we shouldn't be concerned because
• 31:15
  Speaker 1: this is foreign affairs and the president has inherent authority
• 31:18
  Speaker 1: and so delegation.
• 31:20
  Speaker 2: Off the books more or less.
• 31:22
  Speaker 1: And if that's true, what would prohibit Congress from just
• 31:25
  Speaker 1: abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce for them at
• 31:29
  Speaker 1: at the claar war or to the president. So you know,
• 31:34
  Speaker 1: if this is faan parcy and uh, the president has
• 31:37
  Speaker 1: no limitation on what he could do in terms of
• 31:40
  Speaker 1: fun party. Well does that mean how we shouldn't be
• 31:43
  Speaker 1: involved in the clearing war or anything else when he.
• 31:45
  Speaker 2: Comes to foreign affairs.
• 31:48
  Speaker 1: So there's clear skepticism here from the from the court. Uh.
• 31:52
  Speaker 2: And and and Trump is.
• 31:56
  Speaker 1: It is panicking. So he came up with the solution
• 31:59
  Speaker 1: right first, So this is what he wrote. I'm reading
• 32:04
  Speaker 1: you his tweet. People are against people that are against
• 32:09
  Speaker 1: tariffs are fools, So I'm a fool. According to the
• 32:13
  Speaker 1: President of the United States of America, I've been called
• 32:16
  Speaker 1: whose We are now the richest, most respected country in
• 32:20
  Speaker 1: the world, with almost no inflation and a record stock market.
• 32:25
  Speaker 1: So here's the thing. I think we were the richest
• 32:28
  Speaker 1: a year ago. Nothing's really changed in that regard. Indeed,
• 32:34
  Speaker 1: and respected. We were probably more respected a year ago
• 32:38
  Speaker 1: than now. With the s now Biden, we were probably
• 32:41
  Speaker 1: more respected than we are now with Trump. In terms
• 32:44
  Speaker 1: of international affairs, almost no inflation. Inflation is higher now
• 32:49
  Speaker 1: than it was in Biden's final year, so inflation under
• 32:52
  Speaker 1: Trump has been higher. Price inflation CPR has been higher
• 32:56
  Speaker 1: under Trump than it was under Biden, so almost no inflation.
• 32:59
  Speaker 1: He keeps saying this, and yet the number is an
• 33:01
  Speaker 1: exact opposite. He keeps saying cost of food and groceies
• 33:05
  Speaker 1: have gone down, but cost of food and groceries have
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: gone up, And he keeps he really believes in this
• 33:13
  Speaker 1: idea that if you lie over and over and over
• 33:15
  Speaker 1: and over and over and over over again, people start
• 33:18
  Speaker 1: believing in and sometimes they do, so maybe it'll work,
• 33:21
  Speaker 1: and he says, a record stock market price. That's true,
• 33:25
  Speaker 1: stock markets at record, heighs, but I did sear graph
• 33:27
  Speaker 1: today the chows that over the last since Trump was inaugurated,
• 33:32
  Speaker 1: foreign stock markets have done a lot better than the
• 33:33
  Speaker 1: American stock market, a lot better. So, yes, the US
• 33:38
  Speaker 1: stock market's up thirteen percent, but it was up twenty
• 33:40
  Speaker 1: five percent of Biden for two years in a row.
• 33:43
  Speaker 1: WHOA Biden must have been a terrific president if you
• 33:48
  Speaker 1: measure him by stock market performance.
• 33:51
  Speaker 2: So it's hard, hard to take this.
• 33:56
  Speaker 1: Guy, this president seriously, he continued, four one ks highest ever.
• 34:02
  Speaker 2: Yeah, we are.
• 34:04
  Speaker 1: Taking in trillions of dollars, are we? And we'll soon
• 34:08
  Speaker 1: begin paying down I almost debt thirty seven trillion. That
• 34:12
  Speaker 1: is just a unbelievable, bold face lie. Not only are
• 34:20
  Speaker 1: we not paying down I an almost dead, we're actually
• 34:23
  Speaker 1: increasing that debt by one to two trillion dollars of
• 34:25
  Speaker 1: a year under Trump continuously, but he says this stuff,
• 34:29
  Speaker 1: and it's shocking because it's just a bold face, unequivocal,
• 34:37
  Speaker 1: not open the invitation, lie. We're taking in trillions of dollars.
• 34:41
  Speaker 1: How do you get to trillions of dollars. We've taken
• 34:44
  Speaker 1: it one hundred and fifty billion in tariffs, you know,
• 34:48
  Speaker 1: maybe ninety billion more than we would have otherwise. That's
• 34:52
  Speaker 1: not a trillion. A trillion is like eleven and a
• 34:56
  Speaker 1: half times that. I don't know, what what do we
• 35:01
  Speaker 1: do with this? What do we do with this president
• 35:04
  Speaker 1: who just boldly lies NonStop.
• 35:09
  Speaker 2: Trillions?
• 35:10
  Speaker 1: All the money the company countries promised to invest in America,
• 35:14
  Speaker 1: that's not suitcases of cash brought into the US Treasury
• 35:18
  Speaker 1: to pay down the debt. That is, if they ever
• 35:21
  Speaker 1: do it, which is very dubious, it will mean investment
• 35:25
  Speaker 1: in businesses in the United States, I hope, not clear
• 35:28
  Speaker 1: will ever happen. Anyway, he continues his record investment in
• 35:31
  Speaker 1: the United States, Plants and factories going up all over
• 35:33
  Speaker 1: the place, actually plants and factories, the only if you
• 35:40
  Speaker 1: take out AI a much much lower pace than under Biden.
• 35:47
  Speaker 1: Biden was an awful, horrible, pathetic, ridiculously bad president, and
• 35:56
  Speaker 1: yet Trump is out doing him in badness. So then
• 36:02
  Speaker 1: he says, here's there's a cake. He says, a dividend
• 36:05
  Speaker 1: of at least two thousand dollars a person, not including
• 36:08
  Speaker 1: high income people, will be paid to everyone. This is
• 36:15
  Speaker 1: how he wants to bribe you to shut up. You know,
• 36:23
  Speaker 1: how where's this money going to come from. We're running
• 36:27
  Speaker 1: a thirty seven trillion dollar debt, we run one to
• 36:30
  Speaker 1: two trillion dollars deficit of a year. Where you're going
• 36:32
  Speaker 1: to get the money to pay two thousand dollars to
• 36:34
  Speaker 1: every person? Not clear who he's talking about. I mean,
• 36:39
  Speaker 1: this is just nuts. It's insane, It doesn't make any sense,
• 36:42
  Speaker 1: doesn't add up economically, completely ignorant.
• 36:47
  Speaker 2: Part of the course.
• 36:48
  Speaker 1: Now, remember the Trump during his first court term seventeen
• 36:52
  Speaker 1: to twenty one, also promised to pay off the debt
• 36:57
  Speaker 1: in those days. It was nineteen trillion when he started,
• 37:01
  Speaker 1: but during his presidency the debt went from nineteen trillion
• 37:03
  Speaker 1: to twenty seven trillion. So he spouts stuff, he says stuff,
• 37:12
  Speaker 1: he announces stuff, he boasts about stuff. It's relationship to
• 37:17
  Speaker 1: reality is tenuous at best. And look, if the Supreme
• 37:25
  Speaker 1: Court strikes down the tariffs, it's going to be a
• 37:29
  Speaker 1: mess for the treasury. They're going to have to return
• 37:32
  Speaker 1: ninety billion dollars to different businesses from which they took
• 37:35
  Speaker 1: the tariffs.
• 37:36
  Speaker 2: And I note the Trump believes that.
• 37:40
  Speaker 1: You know, somehow, somehow we have more tariff revenue, but
• 37:45
  Speaker 1: somehow we didn't pay for it, which is again contradictory
• 37:49
  Speaker 1: and doesn't make any sense.
• 37:50
  Speaker 2: More of his contradictions.
• 37:52
  Speaker 1: But yeah, nineteen billion will have to be paid back
• 37:54
  Speaker 1: from the Treasury to the companies. I'd rather the money
• 37:57
  Speaker 1: being company's hands anyway. And then what then, what do
• 38:05
  Speaker 1: we do? At least we don't have tariffs, the economy
• 38:09
  Speaker 1: will be better, Prices will actually have an opportunity to
• 38:13
  Speaker 1: come down. So actually, the stream Court might be doing
• 38:19
  Speaker 1: the Trump presidency a massive favor I mean Trump, because
• 38:27
  Speaker 1: by reducing prices, people will feel better and they will
• 38:29
  Speaker 1: be more likely to vote Republican in the midterms. So
• 38:32
  Speaker 1: they might be saving the Republican party by.
• 38:37
  Speaker 2: Doing this.
• 38:38
  Speaker 1: Right, here's the Wall Seat Journal about this. I'll just
• 38:42
  Speaker 1: read you a section. President Trump is a big tariff problem.
• 38:47
  Speaker 1: This is the Wall Seat Journal editorial board. His water
• 38:49
  Speaker 1: taxes I like that. I like that he's calling they're
• 38:51
  Speaker 1: calling them border taxes. His water taxes are raising prices
• 38:54
  Speaker 1: and tariff goods. They're unpopular with voters, and the Supreme
• 38:58
  Speaker 1: Court might rule his e urgency tariffs a legal His
• 39:02
  Speaker 1: latest response promise voters a two thousand dollars tariff rebate.
• 39:08
  Speaker 1: That was this hail Mary passed Sunday as he declared
• 39:12
  Speaker 1: on social media that people that are against tariffs are fools.
• 39:15
  Speaker 1: He went on to promise various benefits from tarots, including
• 39:17
  Speaker 1: taking in trillions of dollars that will soon pay down
• 39:20
  Speaker 1: the national debt, and the kicker a dividend of at
• 39:22
  Speaker 1: least two thousand dollars a person will be paid to everyone. Now,
• 39:28
  Speaker 1: you know, I like the way the Wall Set Journal
• 39:32
  Speaker 1: puts this. This is a teaching moment for a high
• 39:35
  Speaker 1: school logic class. Start with the contradiction that mister Trump
• 39:40
  Speaker 1: can both pay at tariff rebate and pay down.
• 39:44
  Speaker 2: The national debt.
• 39:46
  Speaker 1: How do you do that at the same time increase
• 39:48
  Speaker 1: spending and pay down to the national debt often the
• 39:50
  Speaker 1: same pool of money. The annual federal budget deficit is
• 39:54
  Speaker 1: roughly one point eight trillion dollars even with the increased
• 40:02
  Speaker 1: tariff revenue, so paying a rebate would add to the
• 40:05
  Speaker 1: national debt, not reduce it. Mister trump claims of a
• 40:09
  Speaker 1: revenue benefit from tariffs also bellies what is Solicitor General
• 40:13
  Speaker 1: John Sow told this court on Wednesday in arguing the
• 40:17
  Speaker 1: tariffs aren't really taxes and are mainly a tool of
• 40:20
  Speaker 1: foreign policy.
• 40:22
  Speaker 2: Mister s said, these tariffs, these policies.
• 40:25
  Speaker 1: It is clear that these policies are most effective if
• 40:28
  Speaker 1: nobody ever pays the tariff.
• 40:33
  Speaker 2: That's pretty wild.
• 40:35
  Speaker 1: If it never raises a dime of revenue, these are
• 40:38
  Speaker 1: the most effective use of these of this particular policy,
• 40:41
  Speaker 1: because if you never get any revenue, that means that
• 40:44
  Speaker 1: other countries.
• 40:45
  Speaker 2: Absorbing the tariffs.
• 40:47
  Speaker 1: The more revenue you raise, the more other countries are
• 40:50
  Speaker 1: passing it on to you. In other words, prices have
• 40:53
  Speaker 1: to go up in the United States. They're not cutting
• 40:56
  Speaker 1: their costs in the motherland of where the goods are
• 40:59
  Speaker 1: coming from. So he added this solution general that quote.
• 41:05
  Speaker 1: So they're clearly regulatory tariffs, not taxes. They are not
• 41:09
  Speaker 1: They're not an ex size of the power to tax.
• 41:13
  Speaker 1: But wait a minute, The Wallseat Journal says, if taras
• 41:16
  Speaker 1: are most effective if no one ever pays them, then
• 41:19
  Speaker 1: how are they going to raise the revenue? Mister Trump
• 41:22
  Speaker 1: needs to pay those rebates. The truth is tariffs are taxes.
• 41:28
  Speaker 1: But mister So didn't want to admit this, lest the
• 41:30
  Speaker 1: quote conclude that mister mister Trump is used soaping a
• 41:34
  Speaker 1: constitutional power of Congress, which of.
• 41:37
  Speaker 2: Course he is.
• 41:39
  Speaker 1: Mister Trump is essentially promised to pay Americans two thousand
• 41:43
  Speaker 1: dollars of the border taxes they're paying in higher prices.
• 41:47
  Speaker 1: But if tars are free economic lunch and their benefits
• 41:50
  Speaker 1: are bound, why off a rebate? Shouldn't voters be thrilled
• 41:55
  Speaker 1: about tariffs? Even without a rebate, Trump is trying to
• 42:01
  Speaker 1: exploit the fact that the tariff impact is dispersed across
• 42:05
  Speaker 1: the economy, so consumers have a hard time sorting out
• 42:07
  Speaker 1: how much those taxes contribute to which higher prices. They
• 42:11
  Speaker 1: do know, however, that they're paying more than they used to,
• 42:14
  Speaker 1: which is why the election exit post last week showed
• 42:17
  Speaker 1: people broadly disapprove of mister Trump's handling of inflation in
• 42:20
  Speaker 1: the economy. Anyway, it goes on, but you get the drift.
• 42:25
  Speaker 1: Good for the Wall Street Journal, that's right on point.
• 42:27
  Speaker 1: They've been really good on tariff's. I mean, so it's
• 42:30
  Speaker 1: a lot of people being good on tariffs. Really, it's
• 42:33
  Speaker 1: only Trump and a few people around him that actually
• 42:36
  Speaker 1: have this, you know, have this delusion about how tariffs
• 42:42
  Speaker 1: work best. And for example, said the two thousand dollars.
• 42:45
  Speaker 1: Dividend could come in lots of forms. It could just
• 42:50
  Speaker 1: be the tax decrease that we are seeing. So we
• 42:53
  Speaker 1: already got the two thousand dollars when they decrease taxes.
• 42:57
  Speaker 1: But they didn't really decrease taxes. They just can you
• 43:00
  Speaker 1: knew the taxes we had before. Anyway, it doesn't matter.
• 43:03
  Speaker 1: I listen to get technical, but Bessett said, you've already
• 43:05
  Speaker 1: got your two thousand dollars refunds, so don't worry about it.
• 43:10
  Speaker 2: You know you already have it. Be happy, celibate, celibate.
• 43:18
  Speaker 3: Ah, all right, let's see what's over the weekend.
• 43:31
  Speaker 1: Trump floated the idea of a fifty year mortgage. I mean, basically, supposedly,
• 43:40
  Speaker 1: the Trumpe demstation is working on the idea of a
• 43:43
  Speaker 1: fifty year mortgage. That is, I assume what they mean
• 43:47
  Speaker 1: by that is that they would force Fatty Fanny and Freddie,
• 43:51
  Speaker 1: who are still govermnent entities, they're still in government receivership,
• 43:55
  Speaker 1: to buy fifty year mortgages from banks who issued at
• 44:01
  Speaker 1: really good price. Thus to incentivize the bank and I
• 44:06
  Speaker 1: guess homeowners to get a fifty year mortgage. Now fifty
• 44:15
  Speaker 1: year mortgages subsidized by the government, because if there was
• 44:19
  Speaker 1: a market desire for fifty year mortgages, we would have.
• 44:22
  Speaker 2: Fifty year mortgages.
• 44:23
  Speaker 1: The reason there's no fifty year mortgages is because the
• 44:25
  Speaker 1: market doesn't really want them. Now. Arguably, the government is
• 44:29
  Speaker 1: already subsidizing thirty year mortgages or did and has since
• 44:32
  Speaker 1: a great depression through Fannie and Freddy, and now they
• 44:37
  Speaker 1: want to expand that to fifty year, with the idea
• 44:40
  Speaker 1: that that lowers the cost, That lowers the cost of
• 44:44
  Speaker 1: getting a mortgage, which addresses the concerns so many people
• 44:48
  Speaker 1: out they have on the unaffordability of buying a home.
• 44:54
  Speaker 2: But there's a bunch of problems with this.
• 44:58
  Speaker 1: One. Interestrates on a fifty year mortgage would be quite high,
• 45:04
  Speaker 1: probably higher than a thirty year mortgage, for the same
• 45:06
  Speaker 1: reason that interestrates on the thirty year mortgage are higher
• 45:09
  Speaker 1: than ones and five year mortgages or on floating rate mortgages,
• 45:12
  Speaker 1: because uncertainty about interestrates over fifty years is higher. Banks
• 45:17
  Speaker 1: want to protect themselves from the potential of inflation way
• 45:20
  Speaker 1: out in the future, so they want higher interest rates,
• 45:25
  Speaker 1: higher interest rates. Now, it's true, you're spending payments over
• 45:30
  Speaker 1: fifty years instead of thirty. So even with higher interest rates,
• 45:34
  Speaker 1: you'll probably get lower monthly payments. That is true assuming
• 45:39
  Speaker 1: home prices don't change. We'll get to that in a minute.
• 45:44
  Speaker 1: But you know, basically, what is this going to mean
• 45:51
  Speaker 1: for homeowners A It means they're never going to own
• 45:54
  Speaker 1: the home. Right how many people live in the same
• 45:58
  Speaker 1: house for fifty years, You never actually going to gain
• 46:01
  Speaker 1: home ownership. Ultimately, many people take out mortgages and they
• 46:07
  Speaker 1: make an assumption that one day they will pay it
• 46:09
  Speaker 1: all off and they will own the house one hundred percent.
• 46:11
  Speaker 1: They look forward to that. With a fifty year mortgage,
• 46:15
  Speaker 1: at least by paying the mortgage, you're never going to
• 46:16
  Speaker 1: get there. Also, it means that at least for the
• 46:20
  Speaker 1: first decade, you're paying almost all interest. That is, you're
• 46:25
  Speaker 1: gaining no equity in the home, which again will make
• 46:31
  Speaker 1: it very difficult for you to make any money by
• 46:33
  Speaker 1: selling in the home. You still have to make it
• 46:35
  Speaker 1: down payment with interestrates is high. With interestation where they are,
• 46:42
  Speaker 1: it just makes absolutely no sense they issue fifty year
• 46:44
  Speaker 1: mortgages on a home when you only plan to live
• 46:49
  Speaker 1: there a shorter period than that. An amount of interest
• 46:53
  Speaker 1: you will pay over that fifty years is just astounding.
• 46:57
  Speaker 1: Do the math of what how much interest versus so
• 47:03
  Speaker 1: much equity you will pay over that period of time,
• 47:05
  Speaker 1: particularly in the early years. Now, add to that that
• 47:10
  Speaker 1: giving people fifty year mortgages does not solve the supply problem,
• 47:15
  Speaker 1: which is the fundamental problem of affordability. Let's say people
• 47:19
  Speaker 1: get excited about the fifty year mortgage. Let's say everybody
• 47:22
  Speaker 1: wants to take out a fifty year mortgage because the
• 47:24
  Speaker 1: monthly payments are lower and make it possible for them
• 47:27
  Speaker 1: to pay them.
• 47:28
  Speaker 2: By the way, all.
• 47:30
  Speaker 1: It'll do is make you a renter. Right, your anty
• 47:33
  Speaker 1: payments will become closer to rent at a fifty year mortgage.
• 47:37
  Speaker 2: But okay, so it lowers your AUNTHTI payments.
• 47:39
  Speaker 1: Might as well just grant. But it lowers your anthy payments.
• 47:42
  Speaker 1: And so demand for housing increases, Supply hasn't increased. So
• 47:50
  Speaker 1: what happens to prices? This is your economic quiz of
• 47:53
  Speaker 1: the day. If demands increases for housing and supply doesn't change,
• 47:58
  Speaker 1: what happens thouse vices? They go up, They go up,
• 48:08
  Speaker 1: Surprises will go up, and therefore making home buying even
• 48:16
  Speaker 1: less affordable. And by the way, if the man you know, so,
• 48:21
  Speaker 1: it's just it's just this is.
• 48:25
  Speaker 2: I mean, this is one of the.
• 48:26
  Speaker 1: Most economically ignorant governments we've ever had. If this is serious,
• 48:32
  Speaker 1: the two thousand dollars rebate for tariffs, This tariffs just generally,
• 48:39
  Speaker 1: this this administration is is I fear, and this is
• 48:43
  Speaker 1: saying a lot, given the Biden administration, given I don't know,
• 48:46
  Speaker 1: a bunch of democratic administration, I really do think that
• 48:50
  Speaker 1: this is the most economically ignorant administration ever. This is
• 48:56
  Speaker 1: not sophisticated. This is not hard, This is not complicated,
• 49:00
  Speaker 1: This is not couched in neo Kaynesian equations. This is straightforward,
• 49:05
  Speaker 1: is applying demand first level, not even any really complicated effects.
• 49:11
  Speaker 1: If you've got to take out a fifty year mortgage,
• 49:12
  Speaker 1: might as well just rent. What differences make You're not
• 49:16
  Speaker 1: gonna build up any equity suddenly, not on in the
• 49:19
  Speaker 1: first decade, says the young person. Just rent.
• 49:24
  Speaker 2: So what reduces rents?
• 49:27
  Speaker 1: Wow, there's a whole series of stories of well, they're
• 49:31
  Speaker 1: all based.
• 49:31
  Speaker 2: On one article.
• 49:32
  Speaker 1: There's an article that came out today about what reduces rents?
• 49:37
  Speaker 1: And I know it's shocking, it's absolutely shocking.
• 49:41
  Speaker 2: What actually reduces.
• 49:42
  Speaker 1: Rents and we're talking here about rents at a lower income,
• 49:48
  Speaker 1: So what reduces rents is what called class C properties.
• 49:53
  Speaker 1: So where do class C properties? Rents go down? And
• 49:57
  Speaker 1: Class C is the beginning. It's it's where people really
• 50:00
  Speaker 1: feel the angst. It's increased supply, true, but supply of what?
• 50:07
  Speaker 1: Supply of what? Here's the beauty of it. Class C
• 50:14
  Speaker 1: rents go down when Class A supply goes up. Class
• 50:22
  Speaker 1: A is luxury. The more luxury condos you build, I
• 50:28
  Speaker 1: mean up to a point, the lower rents and Class
• 50:31
  Speaker 1: C go down.
• 50:35
  Speaker 2: Some examples of this right now.
• 50:39
  Speaker 1: Class C rents in Denver a down thirteen point nine percent,
• 50:43
  Speaker 1: in Naples, Florida thirteen point five percent, in Austin, Texas
• 50:48
  Speaker 1: thirteen point three percent, in Phoenix ten point five percent,
• 50:51
  Speaker 1: San Antonio seven point two percent, and Dallas Class E
• 50:55
  Speaker 1: rents a down six point five percent. What are all
• 50:57
  Speaker 1: these cities have in common? I noticed no cities day
• 51:02
  Speaker 1: in California or.
• 51:03
  Speaker 2: In New York. What do they have in common?
• 51:07
  Speaker 1: They just absorbed a massive wave of new apartments, but
• 51:12
  Speaker 1: not class C apartments. Not Class C apartments, Class A apartments,
• 51:23
  Speaker 1: luxury apartments. Now in cities that didn't see a big
• 51:28
  Speaker 1: wave of supply, CLASSY rents are going up. Twenty cities,
• 51:36
  Speaker 1: so Class C rents go up more than three percent.
• 51:39
  Speaker 1: Nineteen of those twenty cities had supplied below the national average. Now,
• 51:46
  Speaker 1: why is an increase of supply Class A apartments lowering
• 51:50
  Speaker 1: rents in Class C. Well, this is what's called in
• 51:54
  Speaker 1: real estate, the musical chairs effect. When a brand new
• 52:01
  Speaker 1: luxury apartment opens up. Where did the new renters of
• 52:05
  Speaker 1: that Class A apartment come from? Well, they leave a
• 52:12
  Speaker 1: slightly older apartment and go into the new luxury apartment.
• 52:17
  Speaker 1: That slightly old apartment now freeze up and the owner
• 52:24
  Speaker 1: has to attract new renters. Now he can't attract them
• 52:28
  Speaker 1: at the old rent because this new luxury apartment is competing,
• 52:33
  Speaker 1: so he has to lower the rent a little bit.
• 52:35
  Speaker 2: So he lowers the rent a little bit.
• 52:39
  Speaker 1: Now, who's going to come to fill in this new
• 52:43
  Speaker 1: still Class A but slightly older apartment. What people may
• 52:47
  Speaker 1: be live in Class B apartments, but now the rent
• 52:49
  Speaker 1: has gone down in this old Class A apartment and
• 52:52
  Speaker 1: they can move into it, which means that their apartment
• 52:56
  Speaker 1: in a Class B building now has to be repriced
• 52:58
  Speaker 1: downwards in order to tracked class BE older apartments into
• 53:02
  Speaker 1: this apartment. You can see how it trickles down. So
• 53:07
  Speaker 1: you constantly are moving older, smaller apartments, and it keeps
• 53:16
  Speaker 1: pulling people from older, smaller apartments into newer, larger apartments,
• 53:22
  Speaker 1: and people living class C apartments get the biggest benefit.
• 53:30
  Speaker 1: So the you know, for example in Austin when it
• 53:33
  Speaker 1: went down thirteen point.
• 53:34
  Speaker 2: Three percent, that's just Class C.
• 53:36
  Speaker 1: All the other classes went down, but the smaller amounts,
• 53:39
  Speaker 1: and it just grows as you get lower in the
• 53:41
  Speaker 1: income in.
• 53:42
  Speaker 2: The type of apartment.
• 53:44
  Speaker 1: And of course for class C apartments who are spending
• 53:48
  Speaker 1: a huge chunk of their payroll paycheck in rent already,
• 53:53
  Speaker 1: it's a massive benefit, massive benefit. So and to fill
• 53:58
  Speaker 1: those apartments, landlords have to cut prices a lot because
• 54:02
  Speaker 1: the people who at the margin can move up have
• 54:04
  Speaker 1: moved up. So this is not trickle down economics. This
• 54:11
  Speaker 1: is as I've described them many times, this is a
• 54:14
  Speaker 1: waterfall effect. This is a flooding economics. This is you know,
• 54:19
  Speaker 1: waterfall economics. So the point is that if you build
• 54:29
  Speaker 1: new apartments, even God forbid luxury ones, rents go down
• 54:36
  Speaker 1: throughout the entire spectrum, and indeed they go down more
• 54:43
  Speaker 1: in the cheaper, older apartments than they do in the
• 54:44
  Speaker 1: luxury apartments. So you know, if we want to solve
• 54:53
  Speaker 1: their flotability crisis in terms of rents in New York
• 54:56
  Speaker 1: and San Francisco, in the places where they're still going up,
• 54:59
  Speaker 1: it's easy build massive quantities of luxury apartments. And you know,
• 55:08
  Speaker 1: when you have lots of new apartments, you get falling
• 55:12
  Speaker 1: class C rents. When you have very few new apartments,
• 55:16
  Speaker 1: you get rising class rents. Same effect the other way around.
• 55:22
  Speaker 1: New supply at the top create relief at the bottom. Now,
• 55:29
  Speaker 1: it's also true, and again in spite of the fact
• 55:31
  Speaker 1: that people deny this, particularly voters are denying it, people
• 55:34
  Speaker 1: experiencing this deny thiss, some of you even deny it.
• 55:38
  Speaker 1: Wages pretty much across the income spectrum have been growing
• 55:42
  Speaker 1: faster than rents for three straight years.
• 55:45
  Speaker 2: The reality is.
• 55:46
  Speaker 1: More people can afford apartments now, moree you can afford
• 55:49
  Speaker 1: rent right now rents than ever before, or at least
• 55:54
  Speaker 1: in the last decade or so.
• 55:58
  Speaker 2: And this can become even bigger if we build more.
• 56:04
  Speaker 1: By the way, Denver, which saw the biggest decline in
• 56:07
  Speaker 1: class C rents thirteen point nine percent, has supply way
• 56:10
  Speaker 1: over US average. The only city that's saw declining C
• 56:17
  Speaker 1: class rents and does not have supply over US average
• 56:20
  Speaker 1: is Making Georgia. Don't know what's going on in Making Georgia.
• 56:23
  Speaker 1: Maybe demand a shwunk. But in every other city Denver, Naples, Austin,
• 56:29
  Speaker 1: Fort Meyers, Florida, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, Phoenix, as on
• 56:32
  Speaker 1: a Boulder, Colorado, Asheville, Southsota, Florida, rents Class C dropped substantially.
• 56:40
  Speaker 1: So that was a quick economic classon. The evidence for
• 56:45
  Speaker 1: this is an ambiguous. Again, if you care about housing costs,
• 56:50
  Speaker 1: if you care about affordability, more freedom is the solution.
• 56:54
  Speaker 1: Isn't that amazing? And imagine if somebody actually ran on that.
• 56:59
  Speaker 1: I'm running on a freedom agenda to lower your cost
• 57:01
  Speaker 1: of living because I know you care about the cost
• 57:04
  Speaker 1: of living. And by the way, people are very considered
• 57:08
  Speaker 1: about fertility, we're not having enough kids. Well, there's a
• 57:12
  Speaker 1: new study out about the relationship between housing costs and fertility, and.
• 57:20
  Speaker 2: So this is a conclusion they come to.
• 57:21
  Speaker 1: Now, you know, rising costs since nineteen ninety in housing
• 57:28
  Speaker 1: are responsible for eleven percent fewer children fifty one percent
• 57:34
  Speaker 1: of the total fertility rate decline between the two thousands
• 57:38
  Speaker 1: and the twenty teens, and seven percentage points fewer young
• 57:42
  Speaker 1: families in the twenty tens. So all that is explained
• 57:45
  Speaker 1: by rising housing prices. Large families are more cost sensitive,
• 57:53
  Speaker 1: and so rising housing costs disincentivizes fertility. Take it for
• 57:59
  Speaker 1: what it is. That is a study there was published recently.
• 58:04
  Speaker 1: You know, I got the quote out of marginal evolution.
• 58:07
  Speaker 1: People are very concerned about fertility. One way to at
• 58:11
  Speaker 1: least address it is more freedom. Because more freedom lowest costs.
• 58:17
  Speaker 1: Lower costs provide more incent more distances, less distance, less
• 58:24
  Speaker 1: distanc centives to their children. I think I got that
• 58:27
  Speaker 1: double negative right all right quickly. On same sex marriages,
• 58:33
  Speaker 1: good news coming out of the Supreme Court. The Supreme
• 58:36
  Speaker 1: Court declined today to reconsider same sex marriage decision.
• 58:40
  Speaker 2: They'd been a that was a twenty fifteen ruling.
• 58:43
  Speaker 1: They had a case in front of them that could
• 58:45
  Speaker 1: have given the opportunity to review this again, and they
• 58:50
  Speaker 1: reflushed to take it. And by doing so, the lower courts,
• 58:57
  Speaker 1: you know, their basically decision from twenty fifteen to allow
• 59:00
  Speaker 1: same six marriages holds and yeah, that is that is
• 59:09
  Speaker 1: good news. This is a case brought by Kim Davis.
• 59:11
  Speaker 2: I don't know if you remember Kim Davis.
• 59:13
  Speaker 1: She was a what is that a county whatever, and
• 59:16
  Speaker 1: she refused to do gay marriages and she was fired
• 59:19
  Speaker 1: as a consequence, and she's suing. So it's related to
• 59:22
  Speaker 1: all of that. The only justice that we know of
• 59:27
  Speaker 1: that is explicitly called for revisiting the marriage ruling is
• 59:32
  Speaker 1: Clarence Thomas. He obviously lost out on this particular decision
• 59:37
  Speaker 1: and the court just didn't take it up, and therefore
• 59:40
  Speaker 1: it is mute. Gay marriage is safe at least for now,
• 59:45
  Speaker 1: how hotel?
• 59:45
  Speaker 2: For how long? But at least for now it is safe?
• 59:49
  Speaker 1: All right. Let's see. Finally, the BBC people over the
• 59:58
  Speaker 1: last i'd say a year or so have suddenly discovered
• 1:00:01
  Speaker 1: something that I remember knowing in the nineteen eighties.
• 1:00:08
  Speaker 2: What's that forty years ago?
• 1:00:10
  Speaker 1: I remember distinctly thinking about this, and then in forty
• 1:00:14
  Speaker 1: years ago, they're suddenly discovering that the BBC has a
• 1:00:20
  Speaker 1: left wing bias. I mean, I'm shocked. Who would have expected? Well,
• 1:00:27
  Speaker 1: I remember, I remember this. I think the thing that
• 1:00:30
  Speaker 1: struck me. Actually it's fifty years ago. I think the
• 1:00:32
  Speaker 1: first time I realized this was in the nineteen seventies
• 1:00:36
  Speaker 1: during a particularly bad period of Palestinian terrorism, and you know,
• 1:00:42
  Speaker 1: children were killed and it was really bad, and the
• 1:00:45
  Speaker 1: BBC insisted on calling them guerrillas and refused to call
• 1:00:51
  Speaker 1: them terrorists. And this is true in their seventies and
• 1:00:54
  Speaker 1: then during the second in To Fight in the early nineties,
• 1:00:57
  Speaker 1: and I remember all you know, these guys have a
• 1:00:59
  Speaker 1: bias against and generally following the coverage of economic issues
• 1:01:06
  Speaker 1: of margat Thatcher, of a lot of other things, it
• 1:01:08
  Speaker 1: was clear that the BBC has a left wing bias.
• 1:01:13
  Speaker 2: Well.
• 1:01:15
  Speaker 1: A skydal has erupted after the BBC Directed General Tim
• 1:01:18
  Speaker 1: Davis and BBC News head Deba Turners announced their resignation
• 1:01:26
  Speaker 1: last week, following revelations that they had that the show
• 1:01:33
  Speaker 1: Panorama that BBC has had actually edited Trump's January sixth
• 1:01:38
  Speaker 1: speech to make it sound like he was even more
• 1:01:43
  Speaker 1: encouraging of violence than he actually was.
• 1:01:47
  Speaker 2: Now Trump threatened to.
• 1:01:49
  Speaker 1: Sue them for I think two million dollars or something
• 1:01:52
  Speaker 1: like that, or two billion dollars or whatever. But generally,
• 1:01:57
  Speaker 1: you know the consequence of the top people at BBC fired.
• 1:02:01
  Speaker 1: But the reality is that the report that came out
• 1:02:04
  Speaker 1: that identified this, and a report by the way, written
• 1:02:07
  Speaker 1: by BBC researchers, was not just about Trump. It argued
• 1:02:14
  Speaker 1: that the BBC's US election coverage overemphasized Kamala Harris and
• 1:02:20
  Speaker 1: over emphasized its campaign issues like abortion, and you know,
• 1:02:26
  Speaker 1: it had very little coverage of things like immigration on
• 1:02:28
  Speaker 1: the economy that they used, constantly used partisan language when
• 1:02:33
  Speaker 1: discussing the election, partisan in favor of the Democrats. It
• 1:02:37
  Speaker 1: constantly exaggerated outright invented cases of racial discrimination, for example,
• 1:02:44
  Speaker 1: and you know, they falsely claimed that there was an
• 1:02:47
  Speaker 1: ethnic penalty in car insurance where there's no evidence of that.
• 1:02:51
  Speaker 1: They made bogus claim about the antic minorities having more
• 1:02:54
  Speaker 1: insecure jobs, no evidence of that. They did not highlights
• 1:03:00
  Speaker 1: can even get stories about, for example, the cost of asylum,
• 1:03:03
  Speaker 1: both in the US and in the UK, immigration asylum,
• 1:03:07
  Speaker 1: the airing the history programs had acous, you know, todaysious
• 1:03:13
  Speaker 1: account of slavery, anti Western civilization bias. And they were
• 1:03:20
  Speaker 1: very one sided on transitions, even when in the UK
• 1:03:26
  Speaker 1: leading authorities came out against transitioning. They sided with the
• 1:03:31
  Speaker 1: left on this issue. They basically relate Haramas propaganda throughout
• 1:03:38
  Speaker 1: the war, sometimes presenting openly pro ramas figures as if
• 1:03:44
  Speaker 1: they were objectives. And then they dismissed complaints over and
• 1:03:48
  Speaker 1: over again in a arrogant and cavalier manner. Now that's
• 1:03:52
  Speaker 1: not me, that is what the report says. And the
• 1:03:58
  Speaker 1: reality is that, with exception of this resignation, the BBC
• 1:04:02
  Speaker 1: shows no signs of acknowledging the problem, let alone addressing it.
• 1:04:06
  Speaker 2: It's still trying to deflect.
• 1:04:10
  Speaker 1: And UH claimed that it represents the mainstream, that it's
• 1:04:13
  Speaker 1: not biased at all.
• 1:04:17
  Speaker 2: I mean, this is typical of kind of the left.
• 1:04:23
  Speaker 1: I once, I want to remember talking to an NPR
• 1:04:26
  Speaker 1: senior person at NPR at a conference New was then,
• 1:04:29
  Speaker 1: and I said something completely innocently straightforward. I thought he
• 1:04:32
  Speaker 1: was obvious that NPR is biased left left biased. And
• 1:04:36
  Speaker 1: he looked at me and said, noing not. And I
• 1:04:39
  Speaker 1: think he really believed that. I think the left thinks
• 1:04:44
  Speaker 1: that they are the middle. I think the left is
• 1:04:49
  Speaker 1: just as delusional, just as delusional as the left is
• 1:04:56
  Speaker 1: just as delusional as Trumpet in a sense that they
• 1:05:01
  Speaker 1: think they think this is this is the middle. Now,
• 1:05:06
  Speaker 1: he answers can't wait for a similar in tonal report
• 1:05:08
  Speaker 1: from Fox News. That's not the point. The point is
• 1:05:10
  Speaker 1: the BBC is a tax funded enterprise. This is a
• 1:05:14
  Speaker 1: government news show. This is why I'm really happy NPR.
• 1:05:19
  Speaker 1: You know, one of the best things Republicans have done
• 1:05:22
  Speaker 1: recently is get rid of funding for NPR and PBS,
• 1:05:26
  Speaker 1: because there should be no gunment funded media. And then
• 1:05:28
  Speaker 1: you want to be biased, to be biased, that's okay,
• 1:05:31
  Speaker 1: but you can't be gumm and funded and have such
• 1:05:34
  Speaker 1: an extraordinary bias. And look, this report came out, but
• 1:05:39
  Speaker 1: this is after fifty years that I know they're biased.
• 1:05:45
  Speaker 1: I know they're biased, and the reality is that it's
• 1:05:53
  Speaker 1: stunning that it's taken fifty years for this to be corrected.
• 1:05:57
  Speaker 1: I mean again, the solution is not a revamping of
• 1:06:00
  Speaker 1: the BBC. It's not fiving people, it's not changing editorial standards.
• 1:06:05
  Speaker 1: The solution is privatizing it, getting the other out of
• 1:06:09
  Speaker 1: funding it. And then again, you can be as biased
• 1:06:11
  Speaker 1: as you want to be. You can be Fox News,
• 1:06:13
  Speaker 1: you can be CNN, you can be whatever you want,
• 1:06:16
  Speaker 1: you can be MSNBC. You get to decide on the
• 1:06:19
  Speaker 1: level of bias. As long as people who will need
• 1:06:21
  Speaker 1: to fund you and watch you and support advertising. I mean.
• 1:06:30
  Speaker 1: One of the things that came out is BBC's senior
• 1:06:34
  Speaker 1: International editor says, yeah, he got it wrong in Gaza
• 1:06:38
  Speaker 1: hospital report. This is early on in the war, where
• 1:06:41
  Speaker 1: the BBC claimed that Israel had bombed the hospital. On
• 1:06:45
  Speaker 1: the other hand, he says he has no regrets on
• 1:06:46
  Speaker 1: his reporting for Gaza.
• 1:06:50
  Speaker 2: And then there was a.
• 1:06:50
  Speaker 1: Big story at the time that really shaped a lot
• 1:06:54
  Speaker 1: of the coverage about what was going on in Gaza
• 1:06:58
  Speaker 1: in it promoted the story away.
• 1:07:01
  Speaker 2: And yet no regrets, no regrets.
• 1:07:05
  Speaker 1: All right, guys, that is the news for this Monday,
• 1:07:08
  Speaker 1: November tenth. And there's a lot more news, but you know,
• 1:07:16
  Speaker 1: that's that's enough. And I will try to do a
• 1:07:21
  Speaker 1: show tomorrow. We'll see if I can pull it off,
• 1:07:23
  Speaker 1: but I will try to do a show tomorrow. I'll
• 1:07:25
  Speaker 1: try to do a show Friday. For certain. There will
• 1:07:28
  Speaker 1: be no shows on Wednesday and Thursday. All right, let's see,
• 1:07:32
  Speaker 1: we've got some stickers West that a fifty dollars sticker,
• 1:07:34
  Speaker 1: Thank you, Wes, Wes is pretty consistent with fifty dollars
• 1:07:39
  Speaker 1: sometimes one hundred dollars stickers, So thank you, thank you,
• 1:07:41
  Speaker 1: Wes who helps get us to our targets. And then
• 1:07:47
  Speaker 1: let's see, we didn't get many stickers today. We've got
• 1:07:48
  Speaker 1: a lot of questions. An honest user called Meisenbach Jonathan
• 1:07:52
  Speaker 1: honing those all stick of people, and then the rest
• 1:07:56
  Speaker 1: I think are all questions. So thank you, guys, eyes,
• 1:08:00
  Speaker 1: thanks for making it possible, and remind you that we've
• 1:08:04
  Speaker 1: got goals. We're in our second hour. We're ninety eight
• 1:08:09
  Speaker 1: dollars short.
• 1:08:09
  Speaker 2: No, that's not right. We're what am I getting wrong here?
• 1:08:16
  Speaker 1: We yeah, no, we're we are one hundred and two
• 1:08:21
  Speaker 1: dollars short of our goal. One hundred and two dollars
• 1:08:24
  Speaker 1: short of our goal, which is not a lot given
• 1:08:26
  Speaker 1: that it's only three h nine here in Puerto Rico.
• 1:08:30
  Speaker 1: We shifted, you, guys shifted clocks on us, so the
• 1:08:33
  Speaker 1: gap is now larger. So one hundred and two dollars
• 1:08:36
  Speaker 1: short of the second hour goal. I hope we can
• 1:08:39
  Speaker 1: make that. That it's important to make those. We've made
• 1:08:43
  Speaker 1: them over the last few days. So let's let's let's
• 1:08:45
  Speaker 1: try to make our goal today. I mean three, our
• 1:08:48
  Speaker 1: goal would be even better, but let's certainly make the
• 1:08:51
  Speaker 1: second hour goal.
• 1:08:51
  Speaker 2: So we're looking for one hundred and two.
• 1:08:53
  Speaker 1: Two fifty dollars questions we'll make it up, or five
• 1:08:58
  Speaker 1: twenty dollars questions will make it there. I as Sue and
• 1:09:00
  Speaker 1: we'll get two dollars from somebody. So please consider asking
• 1:09:03
  Speaker 1: a question about anything. And it's a great way for
• 1:09:06
  Speaker 1: you to shape the show. Get me answering what you
• 1:09:10
  Speaker 1: me talking about, what you want me to talk about,
• 1:09:12
  Speaker 1: and yeah, it'll be good.
• 1:09:16
  Speaker 2: So thank you all the super chatters.
• 1:09:18
  Speaker 1: Please become a super chatter and if not, go to
• 1:09:20
  Speaker 1: patreon dot com and become a monthly contributor. I've got
• 1:09:23
  Speaker 1: a goal for the end of the year. How many
• 1:09:25
  Speaker 1: how many Patreons? I think I need eleven or twelve
• 1:09:30
  Speaker 1: new subscribers to Patreon to get me to the goal,
• 1:09:34
  Speaker 1: So please consider becoming a subscribe on Patreon and getting
• 1:09:40
  Speaker 1: us there. All right, Clay just came in with one
• 1:09:42
  Speaker 1: hundred dollars, which basically gets us to a twelve goals.
• 1:09:44
  Speaker 1: So thank you, thank you, thank you. Clay really really
• 1:09:47
  Speaker 1: appreciate it. Thanks, he says, thanks for your content you're on.
• 1:09:51
  Speaker 1: Thank you Clay for the support. That is great. By
• 1:09:55
  Speaker 1: the way, I just want to remind you we will
• 1:09:59
  Speaker 1: have a new Year's Eve show as we always do.
• 1:10:02
  Speaker 1: It'll be a big fundraiser for the year. We'll start
• 1:10:06
  Speaker 1: it early on New Year's Eve and we'll go for
• 1:10:09
  Speaker 1: as long as it takes to raise the amount of
• 1:10:12
  Speaker 1: money that I set. I will set the goal based
• 1:10:15
  Speaker 1: on kind of my you know, what it looks like
• 1:10:18
  Speaker 1: on an annual basis, and where we are, so I
• 1:10:20
  Speaker 1: will let you know.
• 1:10:21
  Speaker 2: But it will be a lot of money.
• 1:10:23
  Speaker 1: I know somewhere between fifteen and twenty thousand dollars will
• 1:10:26
  Speaker 1: probably be the goal for one show. It's just a
• 1:10:29
  Speaker 1: lot of money, so please take that into account.
• 1:10:33
  Speaker 2: Hopefully many of you who don't.
• 1:10:35
  Speaker 1: Listen live on a regular basis will pop in at
• 1:10:38
  Speaker 1: least to support the show and to show your appreciation
• 1:10:42
  Speaker 1: value for value and to get us into the new
• 1:10:46
  Speaker 1: year twenty twenty six on a great footing.
• 1:10:49
  Speaker 2: So it will be there.
• 1:10:53
  Speaker 1: It will be there. It will be there, you know.
• 1:11:00
  Speaker 1: So we will be having the show as we do
• 1:11:03
  Speaker 1: every year. Some people have asked if it'll happen. It
• 1:11:05
  Speaker 1: will happen, and it'll be fun and I might have
• 1:11:08
  Speaker 1: some people like I might have gregs Lemar we drop
• 1:11:10
  Speaker 1: in or Alex Epstein or or Epstein Epstein and some
• 1:11:18
  Speaker 1: others just dropping in and saying hi and maybe spending
• 1:11:21
  Speaker 1: a few minutes with us while we do it. So
• 1:11:24
  Speaker 1: we'll make it not just me talking for four hours,
• 1:11:28
  Speaker 1: because these shows are probably gonna last four hours to
• 1:11:31
  Speaker 1: get to the kind of numbers. But we should definitely,
• 1:11:34
  Speaker 1: we should definitely, Yeah, we'll make it as long as
• 1:11:38
  Speaker 1: it needs to be. I booked dinner late so we
• 1:11:42
  Speaker 1: can go late. Right, it's new as if anyway, dinner
• 1:11:44
  Speaker 1: should be late. All right, Well, mind have some of
• 1:11:47
  Speaker 1: our sponsors for the show.
• 1:11:50
  Speaker 2: For the show today.
• 1:11:52
  Speaker 1: We do have a new sponsor today, you know, and
• 1:11:58
  Speaker 1: that is Mychael Williams.
• 1:12:01
  Speaker 2: Michael Williams is just become a sponsor.
• 1:12:07
  Speaker 1: Michael is a friend and I work with Michael and
• 1:12:11
  Speaker 1: something called Defenders of Capitalism Project. Michael is the owner
• 1:12:16
  Speaker 1: and the guy who runs the Defenders of Capitalism Project.
• 1:12:24
  Speaker 1: As part of that, I'm actually speaking at the leadship
• 1:12:26
  Speaker 1: program of the Rockies on Friday. I've been speaking for
• 1:12:29
  Speaker 1: Defenders of Capitalism Project for about twenty years. It is
• 1:12:34
  Speaker 1: basically a project dedicated to producing educational content on capitalism
• 1:12:44
  Speaker 1: and we have worked on it together. I've been speaking
• 1:12:47
  Speaker 1: in Denver in Connecticut in Wisconsin, basically helping people understand
• 1:12:53
  Speaker 1: and defend them all foundations of a free society. Michael
• 1:12:59
  Speaker 1: is also in a long time contributed to Iman Institute and.
• 1:13:04
  Speaker 2: A support of the show and.
• 1:13:06
  Speaker 1: A consistent voice of reason and freedom. So check him out.
• 1:13:09
  Speaker 1: Check out Defenders of Capitalism Defenders of Capitalism dot com
• 1:13:13
  Speaker 1: one World Defenders of Capitalism dot com. The Imine Institute
• 1:13:18
  Speaker 1: is a sponsor and they are in you know, encouraging
• 1:13:25
  Speaker 1: people to sign up for Iron Ran Confidence Europe, which
• 1:13:30
  Speaker 1: is going to be in the beautiful I mean just
• 1:13:33
  Speaker 1: gorgeous city, great food, great people, and a beautiful city
• 1:13:36
  Speaker 1: a Porto, Porto, Portugal.
• 1:13:40
  Speaker 2: We have.
• 1:13:41
  Speaker 1: The Institute has scholarships for students and young people. Generally,
• 1:13:46
  Speaker 1: anybody under thirty four years old counts as young. Thirty
• 1:13:49
  Speaker 1: four years old counts as young, so you can apply
• 1:13:51
  Speaker 1: for scholarship. As long as you're thirty four years old
• 1:13:54
  Speaker 1: or younger, you can apply for scholarship. But they're also
• 1:13:57
  Speaker 1: selling adult tickets, so if you'd like to come as
• 1:14:01
  Speaker 1: an adult, I think I think you know you'll have
• 1:14:04
  Speaker 1: a blast. I'll be there on Cargata will be there,
• 1:14:08
  Speaker 1: Nikos will be there. Ben Bear and I'm missing somebody
• 1:14:12
  Speaker 1: I can't remember whom, but I'm missing somebody who's also
• 1:14:15
  Speaker 1: going to be there. Oh teut's funny that it's funny,
• 1:14:17
  Speaker 1: will also be there the dates April April seventeenth to
• 1:14:23
  Speaker 1: the nineteenth in beautiful, amazing Porto.
• 1:14:28
  Speaker 2: It's not a bad.
• 1:14:29
  Speaker 1: Flight even from the East coast if you want to
• 1:14:31
  Speaker 1: come there are I don't know if they're direct flight's
• 1:14:35
  Speaker 1: a Porto which you can get a direct flight from
• 1:14:36
  Speaker 1: Lisbon and then hop up is listening to now a
• 1:14:38
  Speaker 1: flight from Lisbon. So you can also as always get
• 1:14:43
  Speaker 1: a yarn Brook Show discount discount and you get a
• 1:14:49
  Speaker 1: ten percent discount by using twenty six YBS ten as
• 1:14:52
  Speaker 1: the checkout code twenty six YBS ten. The Alex Epstein
• 1:14:59
  Speaker 1: alex Epstein is also a supporter a sponsor of the
• 1:15:04
  Speaker 1: Rue Book Show. Alex is the leading authority out there
• 1:15:08
  Speaker 1: in the world on issues of climate change, issues of
• 1:15:14
  Speaker 1: fossil fuels and energy and electricity more broadly, so really
• 1:15:18
  Speaker 1: really important right now, particularly with the massive expansion of
• 1:15:22
  Speaker 1: AI and the building of AI data centers, this is
• 1:15:26
  Speaker 1: going to become more and more of an issue, and
• 1:15:28
  Speaker 1: including the fact that electricity prices are going up in
• 1:15:31
  Speaker 1: Europe the ridiculously high, but the US they're going up
• 1:15:33
  Speaker 1: as well. He is the guy because he's also out
• 1:15:36
  Speaker 1: there in front of Congress and in front of the
• 1:15:40
  Speaker 1: Trump administration advocating for more liberty, more freedom, which is
• 1:15:44
  Speaker 1: the way to go if we want to reduce costs,
• 1:15:47
  Speaker 1: if we want to increase freedom. So follow Alex alex
• 1:15:50
  Speaker 1: Epstein dot substock dot com. And finally we've got a
• 1:15:54
  Speaker 1: hinder Shot Wealth Management hander Shot Wealth Help Hendershot with
• 1:15:59
  Speaker 1: two tea's wealth dot com slash ybs. They have a
• 1:16:03
  Speaker 1: really cool product that can reduce your capital gains liabilities
• 1:16:06
  Speaker 1: if you have appreciated stock or about to sell a company.
• 1:16:10
  Speaker 1: You can find an interview I did with Robert Hendershot
• 1:16:14
  Speaker 1: on my playlist under sponsors. And of course you can
• 1:16:18
  Speaker 1: go to handershot well dot com slash ybs and gain
• 1:16:21
  Speaker 1: information there and sign up for a one on one
• 1:16:24
  Speaker 1: discussion about your particularly financial situation and how they can
• 1:16:28
  Speaker 1: be of help. All right, let's jump in. I'll remind
• 1:16:32
  Speaker 1: you again to sign up for Patreon. I'm hoping to
• 1:16:35
  Speaker 1: get eleven or twelve new Patreon subscribers supporting the.
• 1:16:41
  Speaker 2: On Books show. Between now and the end of the year.
• 1:16:43
  Speaker 1: And I don't just mean people who are moving from
• 1:16:45
  Speaker 1: PayPal to Patreon, but new monthly supporters. Twelve new monthly
• 1:16:49
  Speaker 1: supporters between now and the end of the year. So
• 1:16:52
  Speaker 1: six in November, six in December, or any other combination
• 1:16:56
  Speaker 1: will work as well. Maybe we can get twelve in
• 1:16:58
  Speaker 1: November and then I'll worry about it in December. But
• 1:17:01
  Speaker 1: twelve new Patron subscribers would be amazing at any level.
• 1:17:05
  Speaker 1: At ten dollars, for example, you get a ad free
• 1:17:10
  Speaker 1: advertising free version of the podcast to your Apple podcast
• 1:17:16
  Speaker 1: or whatever podcast app you use. You'll get an artsist
• 1:17:19
  Speaker 1: feed to that podcast to be able to listen to
• 1:17:21
  Speaker 1: show at free. All right, let us start with fifty
• 1:17:26
  Speaker 1: dollars questions. Actually, Remo did sixty dollars. Remo says thoughts
• 1:17:31
  Speaker 1: on the proxy Voting Advisory Firm's Institutional Shareholders services and
• 1:17:36
  Speaker 1: Glass Lewis.
• 1:17:38
  Speaker 2: I don't know Glass Lewis very well.
• 1:17:40
  Speaker 1: It seems to me that they often fail to remind
• 1:17:42
  Speaker 1: sholders that their foundational purpose of a business is to
• 1:17:45
  Speaker 1: maximize shaholder value. Yes, I find them overly conventional, overly
• 1:17:50
  Speaker 1: swayed by the politics of the moment or the hot
• 1:17:56
  Speaker 1: thing diesg when those are relevant and not focused on
• 1:18:02
  Speaker 1: shaholder wealth maximization. So I don't think they do justice
• 1:18:06
  Speaker 1: to shareholders. Uh you know, I never followed the advice.
• 1:18:10
  Speaker 1: Uh when when we voted proxy statements? Uh when when
• 1:18:14
  Speaker 1: in my hedge fund, we made our own decisions, We
• 1:18:17
  Speaker 1: made our own evaluations, not you know, based on their recommendation.
• 1:18:22
  Speaker 1: But I know a lot of companies do because it's
• 1:18:25
  Speaker 1: a way to shrug responsibility. Right. Oh, the institutional shoholder
• 1:18:34
  Speaker 1: services said so, so a lot of people, a lot
• 1:18:40
  Speaker 1: of institutional investors do that, and that is unfortunate. Say, yes,
• 1:18:44
  Speaker 1: I don't have concrete examples, haven't followed it closely. But
• 1:18:47
  Speaker 1: they do not not only not remind but they don't
• 1:18:50
  Speaker 1: make recommendations that are that are based on maximizing shoholder wealth.
• 1:18:53
  Speaker 1: They often make recommendations based on what is politically correct
• 1:18:57
  Speaker 1: at the moment. It would be interesting to do some
• 1:19:01
  Speaker 1: studies and see whether they can recommendations, for example, have
• 1:19:04
  Speaker 1: changed with the shift in the administration, the shift to
• 1:19:07
  Speaker 1: focus of each administration.
• 1:19:09
  Speaker 2: That would be interesting.
• 1:19:11
  Speaker 1: Jack Clean tock Clean says, Hey, Ron, thank you for
• 1:19:14
  Speaker 1: the fifty dollars first, as long as my flight doesn't
• 1:19:18
  Speaker 1: get canceled, I'll be in Denver area from Thursday to Monday,
• 1:19:22
  Speaker 1: and I was planning to come to your talk in
• 1:19:24
  Speaker 1: Colorado Springs. Excellent, it's not a talk, it's a debate.
• 1:19:27
  Speaker 1: I'll send you a separate email, but if anyone else
• 1:19:30
  Speaker 1: wants to go, maybe you can, they can email you. Yes.
• 1:19:34
  Speaker 1: I think also there might be some people planning to
• 1:19:39
  Speaker 1: do a lunch with me and some of the members
• 1:19:43
  Speaker 1: of the local projectors community, and maybe some of the
• 1:19:45
  Speaker 1: people coming in for the debate on Friday.
• 1:19:49
  Speaker 2: Now I'm not sure this is going to happen.
• 1:19:51
  Speaker 1: I'm waiting to hear from them, but I am available
• 1:19:55
  Speaker 1: lunch on Friday to meet with people if they want.
• 1:19:59
  Speaker 1: I can't commit to dinner or anything after the debate.
• 1:20:03
  Speaker 1: That's going to be a very long day in flying
• 1:20:05
  Speaker 1: in from San Francisco early in the morning and then
• 1:20:07
  Speaker 1: have to drive down to Colorado Springs. Then I have
• 1:20:09
  Speaker 1: to drive back to Denver, and then morning of Friday,
• 1:20:13
  Speaker 1: I've got LPR, so it's going to be busy. But
• 1:20:16
  Speaker 1: after al PR, I'm getting pretty free, so potentially lunch
• 1:20:20
  Speaker 1: Friday is in the cards. Hopefully I'll wait to hear
• 1:20:24
  Speaker 1: from the people in Denver about their organization. But yes, yeah,
• 1:20:30
  Speaker 1: email me if you're coming. That'll be fun. Be fun
• 1:20:33
  Speaker 1: to see you, guys. Michael, that's ominous. Powers predict America
• 1:20:37
  Speaker 1: will become Nazi Germany or only if trends are not reversed.
• 1:20:41
  Speaker 1: I don't see them being reversed in the slightest although
• 1:20:44
  Speaker 1: no one saw me lay coming either.
• 1:20:46
  Speaker 2: You never know.
• 1:20:47
  Speaker 1: Well, first, you know you can't as long as people
• 1:20:52
  Speaker 1: at free will. Trends can be reversed. Trends can change.
• 1:20:56
  Speaker 1: And remember, Dominus Powers was written in nineteen eighties, and
• 1:20:58
  Speaker 1: I think at the time thought that it was going
• 1:21:01
  Speaker 1: to happen sooner rather than later. So so that that
• 1:21:12
  Speaker 1: is a that is a that is.
• 1:21:21
  Speaker 2: Sorry distracted for a second there.
• 1:21:23
  Speaker 1: So you have to remember that nothing is for certain
• 1:21:26
  Speaker 1: when it comes to human beings, because they can change
• 1:21:29
  Speaker 1: their minds and things can change, cultures can change. So
• 1:21:34
  Speaker 1: did he predict partic in the nineteen eighties he thought
• 1:21:37
  Speaker 1: it was going to happen soon. I don't think he
• 1:21:39
  Speaker 1: thought it was going to happen fifty years in the future.
• 1:21:43
  Speaker 1: It's already forty years in the future, right, and it
• 1:21:46
  Speaker 1: hasn't happened yet. So these processes usually take longer than
• 1:21:50
  Speaker 1: we expect them to. They usually are slower than what
• 1:21:53
  Speaker 1: we expect. But he did predict. He predicted that we
• 1:21:57
  Speaker 1: become you know, fascist, not Nazi Germany, but fascist. He
• 1:22:02
  Speaker 1: didn't think we would go communism, and that's consistent with
• 1:22:05
  Speaker 1: his dim hypothesis. He didn't think that the authoritarianism would
• 1:22:10
  Speaker 1: come from the left. He thought the authoritarianism would come
• 1:22:13
  Speaker 1: from the right, from a fascist right, a Nazi Germany right,
• 1:22:18
  Speaker 1: or a right kind of fascist right ultimately wrapped in
• 1:22:23
  Speaker 1: the flagon in across. So yeah, you never know, but
• 1:22:29
  Speaker 1: it does seem to be happening right right. I think
• 1:22:32
  Speaker 1: I think now it's not gonna happen anytime soon. They
• 1:22:34
  Speaker 1: might very well be a big backlash against the right
• 1:22:37
  Speaker 1: right now, and you might get Congress will turn to
• 1:22:40
  Speaker 1: the left next election, and they might be a democratic
• 1:22:42
  Speaker 1: president soon. That is, you cannot extrapolate long term trends
• 1:22:49
  Speaker 1: from short term phenomena. You have to look at the
• 1:22:52
  Speaker 1: long term trend and the long term trends. There was
• 1:22:56
  Speaker 1: more thoritarianism, and the long term trend on the right
• 1:22:59
  Speaker 1: is greater and great euth araterimanism, great and greater power centralized,
• 1:23:03
  Speaker 1: and greater and greater role for religion. Uh, and and
• 1:23:07
  Speaker 1: and and for nationalism on the right.
• 1:23:10
  Speaker 2: And I think that's where the right is heading.
• 1:23:12
  Speaker 1: And then the question is how long does it take
• 1:23:13
  Speaker 1: the American public to buy into it, and whether we
• 1:23:16
  Speaker 1: get a charismatic lead or not like Melay, but a
• 1:23:19
  Speaker 1: Malay of fascism who rallies everybody around the flag.
• 1:23:23
  Speaker 2: Maybe it don't, maybe it will never happen. There is
• 1:23:25
  Speaker 2: hope for that.
• 1:23:26
  Speaker 1: But uh, it's but we will see, we will see again.
• 1:23:32
  Speaker 1: No guarantees. Michael is Kant the reason tolls are popular.
• 1:23:42
  Speaker 1: Why is trolling cool? That's why Nick point Is is popular.
• 1:23:45
  Speaker 1: It's not his ideas, it's his ability to antagonize people
• 1:23:48
  Speaker 1: so effectively.
• 1:23:50
  Speaker 2: That's part of it.
• 1:23:50
  Speaker 1: I think at the end it is is it is ideas,
• 1:23:52
  Speaker 1: but he clearly gains an audience through the trolling.
• 1:23:58
  Speaker 3: Uh.
• 1:23:58
  Speaker 1: There are a number of people out there, a very
• 1:24:00
  Speaker 1: good trollers. I'm not a very good troll obviously, It's
• 1:24:03
  Speaker 1: one of the reasons my following is relatively small. But
• 1:24:08
  Speaker 1: it's contresponsible for trolling.
• 1:24:09
  Speaker 2: I don't know.
• 1:24:11
  Speaker 1: I mean, that's that's a reach You could argue that
• 1:24:13
  Speaker 1: because Kant ultimately is responsible for the emotionalism in the culture,
• 1:24:18
  Speaker 1: because he basically undermines reason, and there for people, you know,
• 1:24:23
  Speaker 1: given up on reason and they become emotionalists.
• 1:24:25
  Speaker 2: And emotionalists are susceptible to trolls and response to trolls
• 1:24:29
  Speaker 2: and more likely to do trolling. So you could make
• 1:24:31
  Speaker 2: that argument.
• 1:24:32
  Speaker 1: But it's a little I mean, it's not very effective
• 1:24:34
  Speaker 1: to think about trolling cont I mean, that's too big
• 1:24:38
  Speaker 1: of a gap, big big of an ideological leap, you know,
• 1:24:42
  Speaker 1: take smaller steps. Trolling is made possible to a large
• 1:24:46
  Speaker 1: extent by by by by the Internet, by social media.
• 1:24:50
  Speaker 1: It's made possible by a progressive education, by emotionalism, and you.
• 1:24:54
  Speaker 2: Can get to cont down the road.
• 1:24:57
  Speaker 1: I mean, he is ultimately you can draw all bad
• 1:25:00
  Speaker 1: ideas back to Cunt, but it's not always that useful.
• 1:25:06
  Speaker 2: To hold it that way. Thomas.
• 1:25:08
  Speaker 1: Good to see, Thomas. So I know you've discussed this,
• 1:25:12
  Speaker 1: but what is the meaning of price inflations versus monitoring inflation?
• 1:25:16
  Speaker 2: And price inflation.
• 1:25:17
  Speaker 1: Means prices are going up generally, prices are going up
• 1:25:20
  Speaker 1: now again, Even price inflation taris, for example, don't cause
• 1:25:24
  Speaker 1: price inflation, because price inflation is prices overall are going up. Now, arguably,
• 1:25:35
  Speaker 1: prices overall go up only when you have monetary inflation.
• 1:25:40
  Speaker 1: You can have a short period of time where a
• 1:25:44
  Speaker 1: supply shock, for whatever reason, supply just crushed. Let's say
• 1:25:51
  Speaker 1: there's a massive power audience the entire USA electricities cut.
• 1:25:57
  Speaker 1: But then you don'tso have a demand, Schuck. So you'd
• 1:25:59
  Speaker 1: have to think about scenarios where you have a supply
• 1:26:01
  Speaker 1: shock but not.
• 1:26:01
  Speaker 2: A demand Chuck.
• 1:26:05
  Speaker 1: Well, the government gives you all checks, so there's no demand, Chuck.
• 1:26:08
  Speaker 1: You still have money even if you're not working, but
• 1:26:11
  Speaker 1: supplies down COVID. But those a short term supply will
• 1:26:15
  Speaker 1: adjust as will demand. So price inflation is usually a
• 1:26:22
  Speaker 1: phenomena of monetary inflation, but it monitor inflation is hard
• 1:26:28
  Speaker 1: to measure. Monitoring inflation is more money. Now, what is money?
• 1:26:34
  Speaker 1: We've talked about this many times. How do we measure money?
• 1:26:37
  Speaker 1: What counts as money? Is it in one?
• 1:26:39
  Speaker 2: Is it in two?
• 1:26:39
  Speaker 1: Is an M three? Is it some other measure of money?
• 1:26:42
  Speaker 1: Do we count bitcoin? Do we count gold?
• 1:26:44
  Speaker 2: What is money? And how do we measure it?
• 1:26:50
  Speaker 1: Now? You know Friedman said inflation is always a monetary phenomena,
• 1:26:54
  Speaker 1: but doesn't have to be always a monitor phenomenon. So,
• 1:26:57
  Speaker 1: for example, inflation can go up in a sense of
• 1:27:00
  Speaker 1: prices can go up even in the absence of money
• 1:27:04
  Speaker 1: increasing if people expect money to increase in the future,
• 1:27:08
  Speaker 1: for example, because the government is running huge amounts of debt,
• 1:27:12
  Speaker 1: and you know, they think that the government will print
• 1:27:18
  Speaker 1: money in order to pay off that debt. So the
• 1:27:25
  Speaker 1: phenomena of prices going up is complex. Monetary inflation, by
• 1:27:29
  Speaker 1: the way, can also manifest itself without price inflation.
• 1:27:34
  Speaker 2: That is, you can have an increase.
• 1:27:35
  Speaker 1: In the amount of money in the amount of money,
• 1:27:40
  Speaker 1: but all that money flows in a particular direction into housing,
• 1:27:44
  Speaker 1: into the stock market, although I think I don't think
• 1:27:46
  Speaker 1: that's sustainable into certain areas, and that arguabily is what
• 1:27:50
  Speaker 1: creates bubbles in certain places or huge increases and prices
• 1:27:56
  Speaker 1: in relative prices. In prices some goods are not in others.
• 1:28:01
  Speaker 1: So monetary inflation has many evils, so it doesn't affect
• 1:28:07
  Speaker 1: prices all at the same time. In the same way,
• 1:28:10
  Speaker 1: price inflation mostly is just CPI or PPE or whatever
• 1:28:14
  Speaker 1: the people say. Well, whatever the way you're measuring it,
• 1:28:18
  Speaker 1: its overall price increases usually if that goes on for
• 1:28:22
  Speaker 1: a long time, that is caused by monitoringy inflation by
• 1:28:25
  Speaker 1: printing more money. But printing more money in a fiat
• 1:28:29
  Speaker 1: electronic money world is not easy to see, to observe,
• 1:28:33
  Speaker 1: or to measure, so what we use is the proxy.
• 1:28:38
  Speaker 1: Prices went up all right, Remo says, how is your
• 1:28:43
  Speaker 1: tour in Europe? It was good. It was good. We
• 1:28:45
  Speaker 1: did events. I mean all the events were good events.
• 1:28:47
  Speaker 1: I thought reasonable attendance in all of them. The one
• 1:28:50
  Speaker 1: in Oslo was the biggest. We probably had over two
• 1:28:53
  Speaker 1: hundred people. They're young, fifteen to twenty five, so in
• 1:28:57
  Speaker 1: that sense it was tastic audience. I'm looking forward to
• 1:29:01
  Speaker 1: finding ways to engage with that audience again in other circumstances.
• 1:29:07
  Speaker 1: So that is great. And they have two hundred kids
• 1:29:09
  Speaker 1: there and talk about morality of capitalism when they've never
• 1:29:11
  Speaker 1: heard anything like it is really good. So that was
• 1:29:15
  Speaker 1: I really enjoyed that. The other talks all had thirty
• 1:29:19
  Speaker 1: five to forty or so people, which is pretty good.
• 1:29:22
  Speaker 1: And then in Lisbon and Porto we had three events
• 1:29:30
  Speaker 1: that all kind of varied, but we had sixty in
• 1:29:33
  Speaker 1: one event, one hundred and fifty in the other and
• 1:29:35
  Speaker 1: a dinner which was very good with about forty people.
• 1:29:40
  Speaker 1: So all the events in Lisbon were really sorry. In
• 1:29:44
  Speaker 1: Portugal really good. So yeah, it was a terrific tour,
• 1:29:48
  Speaker 1: a lot of positive comments, a lot of opportunities for more,
• 1:29:52
  Speaker 1: for more engagement, for more interaction. So yeah, I'm looking
• 1:29:59
  Speaker 1: forward to twenty twenty six and what we can do
• 1:30:01
  Speaker 1: in twenty twenty six.
• 1:30:02
  Speaker 2: This is a good beginning.
• 1:30:06
  Speaker 1: And yeah, by the way, if you have if you
• 1:30:10
  Speaker 1: would like me to come to your country, to your school,
• 1:30:12
  Speaker 1: to your state, to your city, to whatever, and you
• 1:30:14
  Speaker 1: can arrange an audience.
• 1:30:17
  Speaker 2: Don't worry about a fee for now.
• 1:30:20
  Speaker 1: You know, if you can arrange an audience with expectation
• 1:30:23
  Speaker 1: of let's say fifty people, particularly if they're young students,
• 1:30:29
  Speaker 1: then I will come. So you know, it's up to
• 1:30:32
  Speaker 1: you to arrange it and to schedule it with me,
• 1:30:34
  Speaker 1: and we will make it happen.
• 1:30:36
  Speaker 2: We will make it happen.
• 1:30:41
  Speaker 1: Remo, this is he says, this is for your show yesterday,
• 1:30:45
  Speaker 1: and anti Semitism one of the most important topics of today.
• 1:30:48
  Speaker 1: Thank you, Yeah, definitely is Sadly who the health thought
• 1:30:52
  Speaker 1: that we need it? Vhab If, a pharmaceutical company discovered
• 1:30:57
  Speaker 1: a cure for diabetes, hit it, but hit it to
• 1:31:03
  Speaker 1: keep secret, to keep selling treatment drugs. Doesn't that show
• 1:31:07
  Speaker 1: the need for government run healthcare without profit motive? God?
• 1:31:13
  Speaker 1: I mean, I hate these kinds of questions because these
• 1:31:15
  Speaker 1: kind of hypotheticals. You can make corporations out to be
• 1:31:18
  Speaker 1: evil in these kind of questions in an endless amount.
• 1:31:22
  Speaker 1: I mean, what if the government keeps it. What if
• 1:31:24
  Speaker 1: the government discovers a cure for diabetes but it realizes
• 1:31:28
  Speaker 1: that it's gonna cost a lot of money and only
• 1:31:31
  Speaker 1: some It will be able to only give it to
• 1:31:33
  Speaker 1: some people, and it doesn't want the hassle of.
• 1:31:37
  Speaker 2: Having to deal with inequalities.
• 1:31:38
  Speaker 1: Some people get the drug and some people don't because
• 1:31:40
  Speaker 1: it doesn't have enough drug. It won't be able to
• 1:31:43
  Speaker 1: produce enough drugs to give it to everybody because the
• 1:31:45
  Speaker 1: price is so high, so they would hide it. Does
• 1:31:48
  Speaker 1: that mean does that mean that we shouldn't have government
• 1:31:51
  Speaker 1: run health care and instead we should have private health care?
• 1:31:55
  Speaker 1: I mean, no one concrete, fictional, made up example is
• 1:31:59
  Speaker 1: going to prove one way or the other anything. The
• 1:32:03
  Speaker 1: reality is that we should have private run healthcare for
• 1:32:07
  Speaker 1: for the simple reason that you have no rights to
• 1:32:12
  Speaker 1: take from some and give to others, to redistribute wealth,
• 1:32:15
  Speaker 1: to tell doctors what treatment they can and cannot give, patience,
• 1:32:18
  Speaker 1: and at what price. It should be dictated that the
• 1:32:21
  Speaker 1: reason to have private healthcare is not because of any
• 1:32:24
  Speaker 1: particular dug drug under any particular circumstances. It's because the
• 1:32:28
  Speaker 1: only moral way to do to engage with other people
• 1:32:33
  Speaker 1: is through voluntary interaction. And the only system that allows
• 1:32:37
  Speaker 1: voluntary interaction is a private system. And under that private system,
• 1:32:44
  Speaker 1: all kinds of things will happen that you specifically might
• 1:32:48
  Speaker 1: not like. Now, the probability that pharmacy company would do
• 1:32:53
  Speaker 1: such a thing is almost zero. Maybe there is zero
• 1:33:00
  Speaker 1: will for so many reasons. I mean, this is a
• 1:33:04
  Speaker 1: big discovery. It could charge a lot of money from
• 1:33:06
  Speaker 1: a lot of people. It could make a killing. If
• 1:33:08
  Speaker 1: it keeps its secret, its competitor will probably discover this.
• 1:33:13
  Speaker 1: I mean, most research that pharmaceutical companies are doing is
• 1:33:17
  Speaker 1: not hidden in secret. They publish papers, they're discussing it,
• 1:33:20
  Speaker 1: scientists are debating it, and then they try to get
• 1:33:23
  Speaker 1: me the first ones and then get a patent. But
• 1:33:28
  Speaker 1: you know other companies are going to discover this, So
• 1:33:32
  Speaker 1: why would you sit on it, and this alsos umes
• 1:33:35
  Speaker 1: the pharmaceutical companies don't really care about the health of
• 1:33:37
  Speaker 1: their patients. You know, the good will that they would
• 1:33:40
  Speaker 1: generate with such a drug. Maybe they'd lose some income
• 1:33:44
  Speaker 1: on the other drugs that they were selling before, but
• 1:33:46
  Speaker 1: now they're going to get this big one time boost
• 1:33:49
  Speaker 1: that cures diabetes, which then allows them to invest in
• 1:33:53
  Speaker 1: a lot of other type of diseases versus think of
• 1:33:57
  Speaker 1: the bad press that they will get if they were
• 1:33:58
  Speaker 1: hiding the drug.
• 1:34:01
  Speaker 2: It's just not a tenable position to have.
• 1:34:04
  Speaker 1: Would it not leak? With scientists who care about the
• 1:34:06
  Speaker 1: health of people? Not leak the information that this was available? Why?
• 1:34:12
  Speaker 1: Because they're so loyal to the pharmaseud of the company,
• 1:34:14
  Speaker 1: they would never leak anything.
• 1:34:19
  Speaker 2: So you know this, I've heard this before.
• 1:34:22
  Speaker 1: You know, auto companies invented cars that run on water,
• 1:34:28
  Speaker 1: but they hit it because all companies paid them to
• 1:34:33
  Speaker 1: hide it or something like that, Right, All companies discovered
• 1:34:36
  Speaker 1: motives that could run on water, but they hit it
• 1:34:38
  Speaker 1: so they can continue selling oil. Really, you think that
• 1:34:40
  Speaker 1: is doable, You think that is sustainable. So no, first
• 1:34:47
  Speaker 1: of all, it doesn't show anything, It doesn't show the
• 1:34:50
  Speaker 1: need for anything. You can't make up an example out
• 1:34:53
  Speaker 1: of thin air and science fiction and say, look, this
• 1:34:56
  Speaker 1: proves that individual rights don't matter. All the other benefits
• 1:35:02
  Speaker 1: we know of private healthcare don't matter because I've got
• 1:35:04
  Speaker 1: one example.
• 1:35:05
  Speaker 2: Plus the example is unrealistic.
• 1:35:09
  Speaker 1: Robert Saturday's episode, you were unusually fired up, encouraging of
• 1:35:14
  Speaker 1: all the rest of us to be too. Trolls Trump
• 1:35:17
  Speaker 1: and Donnie Carlson fuentas a perfect storm.
• 1:35:20
  Speaker 2: Your response was startling but motivating.
• 1:35:24
  Speaker 1: Wow. I don't remember it that way, but I'm glad
• 1:35:26
  Speaker 1: that's I heard a lot of people comment positively in
• 1:35:29
  Speaker 1: that show, and that's great.
• 1:35:31
  Speaker 2: I don't remember having more energy than I.
• 1:35:32
  Speaker 1: Usually do, but I guess it came across that way.
• 1:35:35
  Speaker 1: It's good thoughts in Gilbert and Sullivan. You know, nice
• 1:35:40
  Speaker 1: not I mean neither in terms of story.
• 1:35:43
  Speaker 2: Particularly in terms of music.
• 1:35:44
  Speaker 1: Not as great as the operetta composers of you know, Austria,
• 1:35:50
  Speaker 1: Hungary of the time or previous time. So good, but
• 1:35:57
  Speaker 1: not as great as the original operettas. I also find
• 1:36:01
  Speaker 1: it funny to hear opera operetta sung in English, but
• 1:36:06
  Speaker 1: the music is just it's again, it's cute, it's nice.
• 1:36:08
  Speaker 1: It's good. It's just not great when great is in
• 1:36:13
  Speaker 1: Operetta Calman or Lehr.
• 1:36:16
  Speaker 2: Or Strauss Roland.
• 1:36:20
  Speaker 1: A donation towards your tie, buy an next one.
• 1:36:23
  Speaker 2: I'm not buying one.
• 1:36:23
  Speaker 1: I've got old ties that have worn in the past,
• 1:36:26
  Speaker 1: so no reason to buy a tie. No ties, but
• 1:36:29
  Speaker 1: thank you for the donation. Yeah, James, what is the
• 1:36:33
  Speaker 1: Asian show you mentioned about Happiness and Love? You said
• 1:36:36
  Speaker 1: it was one of your favorite shows. I remember it
• 1:36:39
  Speaker 1: goes into the past and present. I mean Mister Sunshine,
• 1:36:45
  Speaker 1: the Korean show that addresses the conflict between love and patriotism.
• 1:36:54
  Speaker 1: But I don't remember happiness. What happiness has to do
• 1:36:57
  Speaker 1: with it? I don't remember. The only one I can
• 1:36:59
  Speaker 1: think of right now is mister Sunshine. Oops, Michael. Has
• 1:37:07
  Speaker 1: ocon served to grow the objectives movement? It is in
• 1:37:09
  Speaker 1: merely an expensive way to preach to the choir. Wow,
• 1:37:13
  Speaker 1: there's a false economy, if ever you heard one. I
• 1:37:17
  Speaker 1: think it's It serves both purposes. It serves to a
• 1:37:20
  Speaker 1: growth objectives movement, not so much directly in the sense
• 1:37:24
  Speaker 1: that new people come there and then they get convinced
• 1:37:26
  Speaker 1: by objectivism, because that's not the target audience. It serves
• 1:37:29
  Speaker 1: to grow the Objectives movement because it saves to motivate
• 1:37:32
  Speaker 1: people who are already part of the Objectives movement or
• 1:37:34
  Speaker 1: are thinking of entering the Objectives movement to become more engaged,
• 1:37:38
  Speaker 1: more involved, to support the institute, to go out there
• 1:37:40
  Speaker 1: and and and become active active in supporting the institute.
• 1:37:45
  Speaker 1: So it's you know, it's uh. It serves that purpose.
• 1:37:50
  Speaker 1: It serves to help educate and help serve to motivate
• 1:37:55
  Speaker 1: a community of people that are crucial to the spreading
• 1:38:01
  Speaker 1: of objectivism.
• 1:38:02
  Speaker 2: So it's bads.
• 1:38:02
  Speaker 1: Objectivism grows Objectives Movement indirectly by motivating people in the
• 1:38:07
  Speaker 1: movement and also encouraging people to join the movement. So
• 1:38:10
  Speaker 1: you might be somewhere alone, somewhere holding these ideas and
• 1:38:16
  Speaker 1: you come to okon it aspires you that there are
• 1:38:17
  Speaker 1: other people. You maybe gain friends, you discover what the
• 1:38:22
  Speaker 1: institute is doing you, and you you join a movement
• 1:38:28
  Speaker 1: a community rather than just being alone. And that serves
• 1:38:31
  Speaker 1: immense value. But the idea that we either preach the choir,
• 1:38:37
  Speaker 1: I don't say anything, we do it they're preaching, and
• 1:38:40
  Speaker 1: I don't consider you the choir.
• 1:38:42
  Speaker 2: I can see you all thinking individuals and what.
• 1:38:45
  Speaker 1: We do is speak about topics. Sometimes it's new materials.
• 1:38:49
  Speaker 1: Sometimes we encourage you to think differently about things. We're
• 1:38:52
  Speaker 1: never just telling you what you already know in simplistic ways.
• 1:38:56
  Speaker 1: And again, you are not a choir, you are thinking individuals.
• 1:39:01
  Speaker 1: So I think it's a very derogatory way of thinking
• 1:39:04
  Speaker 1: about okonn which I hope you will change your mind
• 1:39:07
  Speaker 1: about Michael. When are you having Jason Ryines on? I
• 1:39:15
  Speaker 1: will have him on. I don't know when the interviews
• 1:39:18
  Speaker 1: are being scheduled by Angela and when schedules.
• 1:39:25
  Speaker 2: Fit Michael.
• 1:39:28
  Speaker 1: Are these Democrat victories a good sign in American people
• 1:39:31
  Speaker 1: are rejecting trump Ism, although the Democrats one in largely
• 1:39:35
  Speaker 1: blue areas, will Middle America reject MAGA in the midterms.
• 1:39:38
  Speaker 1: I do think it is a good sign that people
• 1:39:41
  Speaker 1: are rejecting trump Ism. The polls show that people swung
• 1:39:47
  Speaker 1: away from Trump and that a big motivation was tariffs
• 1:39:52
  Speaker 1: and just Trump generally. And you know, Hispanics shifted away
• 1:39:57
  Speaker 1: from Trump, and that suggests that they, you know, they
• 1:40:00
  Speaker 1: hate what they're seeing from Ice. So yeah, I mean, overall,
• 1:40:04
  Speaker 1: I think it's a positive and an indication of what's
• 1:40:06
  Speaker 1: to come.
• 1:40:08
  Speaker 2: We'll see.
• 1:40:09
  Speaker 1: I mean, there's a whole year before that happens, so
• 1:40:11
  Speaker 1: who knows. Michael, did you see a Lunmusk quoting paragraphs
• 1:40:16
  Speaker 1: of Mitla Shrugged in response to criticism about his one
• 1:40:18
  Speaker 1: trillion dollar pay package.
• 1:40:20
  Speaker 2: I did not. I'll look that up.
• 1:40:22
  Speaker 1: That is exciting that he's quoting Atlas Shrugged. Not too surprising,
• 1:40:26
  Speaker 1: but exciting. And yeah, good for him. You got the
• 1:40:30
  Speaker 1: pay package he wanted. Now he he has to live
• 1:40:34
  Speaker 1: up to it because he won't get any of that
• 1:40:36
  Speaker 1: money if Tesla doesn't just become one of the greatest
• 1:40:40
  Speaker 1: companies in human history.
• 1:40:42
  Speaker 2: We'll see if it can pull that off.
• 1:40:44
  Speaker 1: Michael, national socialist to the right, international socialist to the left,
• 1:40:49
  Speaker 1: cognitively incapable, emotionless everywhere. Sadly, that is a pretty good
• 1:40:54
  Speaker 1: description of the world in which we live. Politically, Michael
• 1:40:57
  Speaker 1: has the demise of New York City always being exaggerated.
• 1:41:01
  Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I mean particularly.
• 1:41:03
  Speaker 1: I remember during COVID, people thought New York City was
• 1:41:05
  Speaker 1: over and it came back strong.
• 1:41:08
  Speaker 2: It came back strong after what's.
• 1:41:10
  Speaker 1: His name, the last leftist who ran New York. And
• 1:41:14
  Speaker 1: I think I don't think mcdonnie will destroy New York,
• 1:41:17
  Speaker 1: New York is too powerful for him to do that.
• 1:41:19
  Speaker 1: We'll see.
• 1:41:22
  Speaker 2: I'll talk more about Mumdani in a future show.
• 1:41:25
  Speaker 1: Democratic Socialism is finally feeling the winds in its sale
• 1:41:29
  Speaker 1: after decades of struggling in obscurity. I think for a while,
• 1:41:34
  Speaker 1: but Mumdanni is not popular internationally, and Democratic Socialism is
• 1:41:41
  Speaker 1: still not popular internet nationally. And when Mumdanni fails, that
• 1:41:46
  Speaker 1: win in their sales.
• 1:41:47
  Speaker 2: Will be blown out.
• 1:41:52
  Speaker 1: Mary Alene, did you see that Trump is proposing a
• 1:41:54
  Speaker 1: tariff dividend presumably need to be paid from all the
• 1:41:58
  Speaker 1: billions trillions we've made on taiffs. He is beyond delusion. Yeah,
• 1:42:02
  Speaker 1: we talked about that earlier. Thank you, Marilean. Michael, how
• 1:42:05
  Speaker 1: much dollars to sponsor David Hammon's show. It's time to
• 1:42:09
  Speaker 1: get it gets he gets properly exposed, It'll happen.
• 1:42:14
  Speaker 2: I don't need dollars for that. It'll happen, but it
• 1:42:16
  Speaker 2: will happen when I think the time is right.
• 1:42:18
  Speaker 1: There's certain reasons why I would rather bite my time
• 1:42:24
  Speaker 1: for now. Michael. I mean, it's not like if I
• 1:42:30
  Speaker 1: say stuff suddenly he will lose whatever following he is
• 1:42:33
  Speaker 1: he doesn't have a big following. Almost nobody knows who
• 1:42:35
  Speaker 1: Dev Hammond is. Almost nobody follows him. So and the
• 1:42:39
  Speaker 1: people who do follow him, I'm not going to convince
• 1:42:42
  Speaker 1: him not to follow him. There's no other than you know,
• 1:42:45
  Speaker 1: a sense of justice and my personal satisfaction. There's no great,
• 1:42:51
  Speaker 1: you know, change that's going to happen as a consequence
• 1:42:53
  Speaker 1: of this. Michael, If infinity isn't real, why is it
• 1:42:57
  Speaker 1: useful in mathematics? Is math just rationalistic platonic forms? No,
• 1:43:03
  Speaker 1: because it is usual Sometimes you can conceive of something
• 1:43:08
  Speaker 1: that is that is a potentiality, is not a reality,
• 1:43:12
  Speaker 1: but a potentiality, and in that sense it can be
• 1:43:14
  Speaker 1: useful in mathematics.
• 1:43:15
  Speaker 2: Think about calculus.
• 1:43:17
  Speaker 1: Where you know this is, or parallel lines that you
• 1:43:23
  Speaker 1: know never meet, or or whatever, and it's it's it's
• 1:43:26
  Speaker 1: convenient to think in terms of infinity when one understands
• 1:43:30
  Speaker 1: that infinity is a potentiality, not a reality. I think
• 1:43:34
  Speaker 1: that's right. But a good question to ask Hawvy when
• 1:43:36
  Speaker 1: he is on the show. You should make a list
• 1:43:39
  Speaker 1: of all the good questions to ask Cavy and people
• 1:43:41
  Speaker 1: like that when they when they visit the show, because.
• 1:43:43
  Speaker 2: Often you guys don't have enough questions.
• 1:43:48
  Speaker 1: Lincoln. Also, a stock market growing faster than economic growth
• 1:43:51
  Speaker 1: isn't necessarily a good thing and could be a sign
• 1:43:53
  Speaker 1: of a bubble. Stock markets to us GDP ratio is
• 1:43:56
  Speaker 1: quite elevated.
• 1:43:58
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, but it's not clear.
• 1:43:59
  Speaker 1: I mean, a lot of what's happening with the stock
• 1:44:01
  Speaker 1: market is driven by massive investment in AI. That is
• 1:44:04
  Speaker 1: probably a bubble, but a productive bubble, and sense and
• 1:44:07
  Speaker 1: went to the bubble bursts, You'll have a lot of infrastructure.
• 1:44:10
  Speaker 1: It's incredibly valuable and long term will be incredibly valuable.
• 1:44:14
  Speaker 1: But you know, the stock market is the most successful
• 1:44:18
  Speaker 1: companies and often the biggest companies in and they're big
• 1:44:21
  Speaker 1: because they're successful, and their performance is not always indicative
• 1:44:25
  Speaker 1: of the performance small and medium sized businesses in the economy.
• 1:44:28
  Speaker 1: There could be a divergence there, which is not healthy,
• 1:44:31
  Speaker 1: but it could happen. Eco to reality news from the UK,
• 1:44:35
  Speaker 1: the High Court has backed people's rights to criticize Islam.
• 1:44:38
  Speaker 2: Oh my god, what a shock.
• 1:44:41
  Speaker 1: Basically Islamic blasphemy law out in the UK. Good. I mean,
• 1:44:45
  Speaker 1: that is a real relief that the courte ruled that
• 1:44:47
  Speaker 1: way and not the opposite. There's still a way to go,
• 1:44:50
  Speaker 1: you know, to establish full freedom of speech in the UK.
• 1:44:53
  Speaker 1: But this is a definitely, definitely, definitely a step in
• 1:44:56
  Speaker 1: the right direction.
• 1:44:58
  Speaker 2: And did you.
• 1:44:59
  Speaker 1: Happen to see that the Objective's podcast out to the
• 1:45:01
  Speaker 1: leka of the Lennard and Kira phone call. Yes, well
• 1:45:04
  Speaker 1: I didn't see that. Somebody told me who the leka was.
• 1:45:08
  Speaker 1: But again I'm not paying too much attention to all
• 1:45:10
  Speaker 1: of that. But yeah, somebody told me who the leka was.
• 1:45:13
  Speaker 1: I assumed the person who told me it was right. But
• 1:45:16
  Speaker 1: as you know, I don't really want to talk about it, Lincoln,
• 1:45:20
  Speaker 1: other than it's horrible to leak a private phone call.
• 1:45:23
  Speaker 1: It's just horrible.
• 1:45:23
  Speaker 2: It's illegal.
• 1:45:24
  Speaker 1: It's literally illegal in California to recorde a private phone call,
• 1:45:28
  Speaker 1: and to leak it is just just horrible behavior, you know,
• 1:45:33
  Speaker 1: And it's just I just don't think it's acceptable.
• 1:45:39
  Speaker 2: I don't care.
• 1:45:39
  Speaker 1: Almost what the circumstance is, though. I'd love someday to
• 1:45:43
  Speaker 1: have you run speak at the University of Arizona and
• 1:45:45
  Speaker 1: Tucson in twenty twenty six. Well, either someday or twenty
• 1:45:48
  Speaker 1: twenty six. Hopefully I can work something out with the
• 1:45:51
  Speaker 1: political Philosophy department to set up a date. Yeah, talk
• 1:45:53
  Speaker 1: to them. I'm happy to come and speak. I doubt
• 1:45:57
  Speaker 1: the philosophy department will do it, but maybe you can
• 1:46:01
  Speaker 1: find a student club on campus that will invite me.
• 1:46:03
  Speaker 2: But if they say yes, we will find a date.
• 1:46:13
  Speaker 1: Yeah, and Neil says, Ahmadel Shawa meeting Trump at the
• 1:46:16
  Speaker 1: White House is sad, pathetic, It's ridiculous. Ahmad Shaa is
• 1:46:21
  Speaker 1: the current president of Syria. He's an authoritarian thug. He
• 1:46:27
  Speaker 1: is where you can join the club of authoritarian thugs
• 1:46:29
  Speaker 1: meeting with Trump. But what's unique about him is he
• 1:46:32
  Speaker 1: was a member of Al Qaida, was one of the
• 1:46:35
  Speaker 1: founders of ISIS, was a real barbarian, has the I
• 1:46:39
  Speaker 1: think the blood of American soldiers on his hands, and
• 1:46:43
  Speaker 1: now is the president of Syria and embraced by the
• 1:46:47
  Speaker 1: US and has told everybody that he has moderated, that
• 1:46:51
  Speaker 1: he's a new man, that he's moderate, not to worry
• 1:46:54
  Speaker 1: about him.
• 1:46:54
  Speaker 2: He's a good one of.
• 1:46:55
  Speaker 1: The good guys. Yeah right, all right, guys.
• 1:46:59
  Speaker 2: That that is the show.
• 1:47:01
  Speaker 1: Thank you to all the super chatters, Thank you for
• 1:47:04
  Speaker 1: all the questions. Thank you to all the sticker people
• 1:47:06
  Speaker 1: who did stickers. I think I thank you personally, all
• 1:47:09
  Speaker 1: of you, and thanks thanks for being here. Thank you
• 1:47:15
  Speaker 1: Clay who came in with one hundred dollars out of
• 1:47:18
  Speaker 1: no way. Thank you, of course, Wes for the fifty dollars.
• 1:47:21
  Speaker 1: I will see you up probably tomorrow, probably tomorrow if
• 1:47:27
  Speaker 1: I can, if I'm not completely falling apart from exhaustion,
• 1:47:32
  Speaker 1: I will try to do a show tomorrow. All right, guys,
• 1:47:36
  Speaker 1: see tomorrow. Bye, everybody,