Latest / Yaron Brook Show / Trade & Tariffs: Everything You Need To Know; Song Reviews | Yaron Brook Show

Transcript

Trade & Tariffs: Everything You Need To Know; Song Reviews | Yaron Brook Show · Yaron Brook Show

• 0:02
  Speaker 1: A lot of the fundamental mystics of the lago last
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: self interest and an individual wats this is the show?
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: All right, everybody, welcome to a one book show on
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: this Sunday, February twenty second. I hope you're having a
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: fantastic weekend, and thank you for spending part of it
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: with me. Thanks for joining us. All right. I was
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: going to do a members oni show today, and I
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: decided in the end that all this talk about trade
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: and the tariffs and the tariff decision, I should probably
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: do a show just summarizing the whole issue of trade.
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: I looked, I was going to create a playlist of
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: all my stuff with trade, and I noticed that the
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: last show I kind of the shows that I dedicated
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: completely to the issue of trade AID are pretty old.
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: That is, most of them are back during the first
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: Trump administration, and I hadn't really I've updated it in segments,
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: so there are a lot of showed videos of me
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: in trade, but there's no one that kind of takes
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: the whole issue and covers the whole thing trade and
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: tariffs and everything's evolved, and all the arguments for and
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: against and so on. So and it seems like now's
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: the time, given what's going on, and given the level
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: of interest. Now, I'm really really hoping. I think this
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: is a false hope. I think this will not happen,
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: but I'm really really hoping that some of you listening
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: live live are confused about trade or think I'm wrong
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: about trade, or think Trump's right, or don't think Trump's right,
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: but think think you have to do something. There might
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: be something good about tariffs, There might be certain good things.
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: I'm really hoping there are some of you out there
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: and if you're willing to ask super Chat questions, because
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: I'm really i really want to make the show kind
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: of a comprehensive, comprehensive discussion of all the issues that
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: people raise regarding trade, and that would include all of
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: the objections you guys might have. If there's nobody out
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: there that believes that, maybe there's somebody out there that
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: might want to play act believing it and ask ask
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: the questions that you think people are asking out there,
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: or people are challenged with people are confused about with
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: regard to trade, So put those of the super Chat
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: and ask them. But it would be really good to
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: kind of get a a one video, this one comprehensive
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: analysis of everything to do with trade. So yes, ask
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: Devil's Advocate questions, and you know, maybe there's somebody out there,
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: Maybe there are people out there who are listening to
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: the show who think to have it's a good thing,
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: or that trade death sits are bad, or that we
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: need to bring manufacturing back or whatever whatever happens to
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: be beinging back. Now, I've made a list of all
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: this stuff I'm going to cover, but I want to
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: embellish that with all the stuff you want me to cover.
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: So please consider doing that. Asking questions and if they're
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: our questions you have directly, maybe questions you're not sure
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: how to answer, maybe questions that you hear a lot
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: out there, maybe just issues around trade that you know
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: keep coming up and that need to be addressed. So
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: today is Oh, so I was going to do that,
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: and then I de said, I don't want to do
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: that as a Mimberzona show because then it's behind kind
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: of a firewall. I want to make it as bad
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: as possible. So I'll do the mimber Zona show another time,
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: and in Today's will be a big, comprehensive one. As
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: we discussed on Friday, the sweet Cord has ruled the
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: tafts under the I E e P A illegal, that is,
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: they violate the separation of powers. That basically Trump has
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: no authority to impost traffs taiffs under that legislation. As
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: a consequence, Trump on Friday, I post ten percent a
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: broad tasts on everything basically imported into the country, a
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: ten percent under six one twenty two of a different Act,
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: which allows him to do that for up to one
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: hundred and fifty days. And they have to be broad.
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: They can't be based on any different for different countries,
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: and they and even there it's not clear that what
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: he's doing is legal because there has to be a
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: balance of payment or some kind of emergency, and it's
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: not clear that what we have today qualifies under the
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: Act as an emergency. The deficit doesn't qualify as an emergency.
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: So anyway, that that happened on Friday, then on Saturday
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: he said, screw this. I'm not raising about ten percent.
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: I'm raising it fifteen percent. So we now have fifteen percent.
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: Basically we have chaos. Nobody knows exactly how that plays
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: out and how that inter interacts with the tasi's already
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: placed based on national security and what are the refunds
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: going to do. The whole thing is a mess right now.
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: But we today, I'm not going to talk about that. Today.
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: We are going to talk about you know, talk about
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: trade more broadly, international trade more badly, tabs more broadly,
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: not about the specific of this particular case. But as
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: I said, please ask questions, and you know, if you
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: both stuff in the chat, I just am not going
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: to be able to answer it prostially because I can't
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: keep truck of it. The super chat it puts me,
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: it puts in a separate section. It saves all the
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: questions I have them all together. I'm not going to
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: be able to remember all the chat questions you ask,
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: So please do that. I know some of you are
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: disappointed because I don't have a members only show today
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: reading an iman essay. I was going to do that.
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: I apologize for not doing that. I will do that
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: in a soon I'm traveling in the next couple of weeks.
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: But after that we will do a Mamsonaly show where
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: we read an essay and we will continue to do
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: that as well, so it will happen. All right, Let's see,
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: so let's let's basically start. We'll start with it with
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: basically the idea, the idea of trade. The idea of trade,
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: which is the idea in its simplest form, a border
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: of you know, the idea that I purchased from you
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: stuff that you make with stuff that I make. You know.
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: This is the form in which trade existed before there
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: was money. And it's because without money, trade like this
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: is very limited. But it could still exist within the
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: context of simple societies where the number of goods were
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: minimal and where indeed there wasn't a lot of trade.
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: In the further back you go, in terms of man
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: primitive man, the less trade exists because the reality is
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: that most people provide for their own subsistence. If you
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: think about hunting gatherers, some people do the hunting, and
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: some people build the weapons, and some people do the
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: kind of foraging. But there's no formal release system of trade.
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: There's everybody brings it in a sense to the tribe,
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: and it gets distributed within the tribe based on some right,
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: some principles that the tribe is set on how the
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: goodies are distributed once they are produced. But in order
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: to get to a society in which there's actually trade
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: going on. What you need is what you need is
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: some level of division of lay. But now even in
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: the most primitive tribes you have some division of labor. Again,
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: the people who forage and not typically the people who hunt,
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: the people who build the weapons, and unnecessarily the people
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: who use the weapons. But you need some sense of
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: I guess, individual property versus the collective versus everything belongs
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: to the tribe, and the tribe distribut eat everything. And
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: I don't know when that exactly happened, where there was
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: a sense of I'll trade you the weapon for the
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: meat you bring from the hunt. I'll trade you the
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: nuts and berries that are forage for the meat you
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: bring for the hunt, or for a naive, for whatever.
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: I don't know when that happens in human history, but
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: think about it in a very simplest sense that division
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: of labor, and as a consequence, specialization is a massive
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: benefit to everybody involved. The ability to specialize as a
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: hunter will make you a better hunter. You'll get good
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: at it, you'll practice it. You probably chose to be
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: a hunter because you have whether it's the physical capabilities
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: or the strategic thinking that makes it possible. But then
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: you get better at it. Over time, you learn how
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: animals behave you learn how to trap them, you learn
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: how to hunt them, you learn how to use the weapons.
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: And if you're building weapons, you become you become a
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: specialist at that, and you can you can produce them
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: at uh. You know much. You can keep improving the weapon,
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: you can keep making it better, you can improve your
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: production capacity. Uh. And of course foragers, again it's a
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: specialized You know the locations of the best berries, the
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: best nuts. So all of that is is very primitive
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: specialization in the division of labor, even in a pre
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: trade society in which everything is put together. But as
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: soon as you get any kind of sense of private mine,
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: mine my stuff. In order to get your stuff, there
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: are only two ways I can do it. I can
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: steal it, I can take it by force, or I
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: can trade. And I'm sure there was a lot of
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: effort to take it by force. And violence and war
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: have been apart lot of human society from the beginning
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: of time, and indeed they dominate human history. If you
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: read history. The thing that really one of the things
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: that stuns me as I read history in terms of
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: detailed history, particular eras in particular places, is how violent
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: they were, how much, how many wars they were, how
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: much people took from one another, how much they stole,
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: how much they conquered, how much they pillaged and slaughtered
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: and raped and tortured. I mean, that was just standard
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: practice in all of human history.
• 11:35
  Speaker 2: They're very very very very very few periods of extended
• 11:42
  Speaker 2: peace where there's just a long period of time or
• 11:45
  Speaker 2: there's very little violence.
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: And you know, this is why when you get an
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: extended period of peace, it's so unusual and it's memorable.
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: So the peace from the Nepot War into World War One,
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: even though there were some minor wars in between, relatively
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: speaking to anything that came before that in all of
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: human history. Wow, that's that's pretty peaceful. Or even the
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: peace in much of the Empire, not at the borderline lands,
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: but much of the empire during the Roman Empire. The
• 12:19
  Speaker 1: great advantage of the Empire is that much of the
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: center of the empire was very peaceful, while the border
• 12:26
  Speaker 1: lands were very violent. Or since World War two to today, yeah,
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: you've got wars here and there, but overall, in the
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: scale of what history has shown us, incredibly peaceful, incredibly peaceful,
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: so once humanity kind of settles down into farming and agriculture,
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: where people start cultivating their plots of land, and there
• 12:58
  Speaker 1: is a sense of ownership, whether it's protected by law
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: formerly or not, there is a sense of ownership. Although
• 13:04
  Speaker 1: if you look at the laws of Hamawabi, the first
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: legal code we have is already a legal code that
• 13:09
  Speaker 1: recognizes private property, it recognizes debts, it recognizes the fact
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: that there is there's finance, there's there loans being made,
• 13:17
  Speaker 1: there's money or loans of grain. So once you start
• 13:24
  Speaker 1: settling down, once there's any similar sur vivate property, then
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: trade becomes essential. And so trade is a feature of
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: human life from the very beginning, and even at the
• 13:39
  Speaker 1: tribal level, when maybe within the tribe everything is communal.
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: I doubt that's really true, but maybe it's some At
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: some point that was true in tribes. Tribes traded among
• 13:50
  Speaker 1: each other. And if you go back even to the earliest,
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: earliest known human settlements a human I don't know activity
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: in East Africa, you see already tribes trading with one another,
• 14:09
  Speaker 1: trading beads, trading skins. You know, some tribes specialized or
• 14:17
  Speaker 1: tribes near the shore could create beads trade. Inland had
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: more hunting opportunities, and they would trade beads for hunting
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: or jewelry hunting, and that's how bads often became a
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: form of money. So trade of goods for goods is
• 14:34
  Speaker 1: really at the beginning of mankind. We can't survive as
• 14:37
  Speaker 1: a species without it because to be totally self sufficient
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: it is almost impossible for human beings. I mean, we
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: are not well designed for our environment. We are not
• 14:52
  Speaker 1: a species. They can survive at the perceptual level. They
• 14:56
  Speaker 1: can survive without trade in that sense with other the
• 15:00
  Speaker 1: people to trade with. It's very difficult. Now you can
• 15:04
  Speaker 1: do it, you know you can. You can watch movies
• 15:06
  Speaker 1: about Robinson Caruso type phenomena. You can read the story
• 15:10
  Speaker 1: of Robertson Cruso and in a system of a desert island, yeah,
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: you can survive barely and it's no fun. And as
• 15:21
  Speaker 1: soon as one additional person comes in the Robinson Crusoe story,
• 15:25
  Speaker 1: as soon as Friday shows up, existence improves significantly, partially
• 15:31
  Speaker 1: because now you have two people. Two people can specialize
• 15:35
  Speaker 1: and they can trade. So I think it's really really
• 15:39
  Speaker 1: important to note trade is at the core, at the
• 15:42
  Speaker 1: heart at the base of all human activity in all
• 15:47
  Speaker 1: of human history. It's it's the way in which we
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: can start specializing. It is at the core of division
• 15:54
  Speaker 1: of labor. We can each specialize in the thing that
• 15:57
  Speaker 1: we want. We can labor device itself into its area
• 16:02
  Speaker 1: of quote what's called comparative advantage. That is, I could
• 16:06
  Speaker 1: be better than you, guys, in everything that you do.
• 16:09
  Speaker 1: I could be the best at everything. And it's still
• 16:13
  Speaker 1: if you if you're on the math, and I'm not
• 16:14
  Speaker 1: going to do it today. If you're on the math,
• 16:16
  Speaker 1: it's still better for me to specialize and let you
• 16:19
  Speaker 1: specialize in the things that you're the best at. So
• 16:22
  Speaker 1: I should specialize. From a purely economic perspective, I should
• 16:24
  Speaker 1: specialize in the thing that I have the biggest advantage
• 16:27
  Speaker 1: over you in terms of productive skill, even if I've
• 16:32
  Speaker 1: even have superior production in everything I should I should
• 16:37
  Speaker 1: specialize in that which I have the biggest gap, what
• 16:39
  Speaker 1: we have the biggest gap. So comparative advantage is a
• 16:45
  Speaker 1: huge ultimate value creator. And of course trade is win win.
• 16:52
  Speaker 1: I give up the beads and accept the skins because
• 16:55
  Speaker 1: I value the skins more than the beads. You give
• 16:59
  Speaker 1: up the skins and take the beads because you value
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: the beads more than you value the skins. In other words,
• 17:06
  Speaker 1: both party are better off at the end of a trade.
• 17:10
  Speaker 1: That is the essence of trade. It is a uh.
• 17:15
  Speaker 1: It is a positive sum. It is a positive sum,
• 17:22
  Speaker 1: not a zero sum, certainly not a negative sum, a
• 17:25
  Speaker 1: positive sum. If you think about war, war typically is
• 17:31
  Speaker 1: negative s. If you add up, you know it's it's
• 17:34
  Speaker 1: it's all negative. It's it's it's lose win or win,
• 17:39
  Speaker 1: lose or lose lose. Usually, trade is one of the
• 17:46
  Speaker 1: human activities that is win when. It's why we enter
• 17:51
  Speaker 1: into it. It's why we engage in trade because we
• 17:55
  Speaker 1: are better off afterwards. Otherwise, why give up something if
• 18:01
  Speaker 1: we're not better off now. We can make a mistake.
• 18:06
  Speaker 1: You can enter trade and buy a lemon. You can
• 18:09
  Speaker 1: be defrauded, but then it's not a trade. It's an
• 18:12
  Speaker 1: act of violence. But mostly and the reason you enter
• 18:18
  Speaker 1: the trade is in order to achieve a win win outcome,
• 18:24
  Speaker 1: and bug parties. Bug parties enter it. You buy an
• 18:27
  Speaker 1: iPhone for one thousand dollars, you're better off because you've
• 18:29
  Speaker 1: got the iPhone one thousand dollars. The iPhone is of
• 18:33
  Speaker 1: greater value to you than a thousand dollars. Apple made
• 18:35
  Speaker 1: a profit pretty easy, straightforward. So trade is a win
• 18:41
  Speaker 1: win value creation, and it's a win win value creation
• 18:45
  Speaker 1: at every level in which you engage in the trade.
• 18:50
  Speaker 1: That is true. Whether you do it in border that
• 18:53
  Speaker 1: is true. When you do it with money, it's true.
• 18:58
  Speaker 1: If you do it with gold, it's true. If you
• 19:00
  Speaker 1: do it with paper money, it's true. If you do
• 19:03
  Speaker 1: it with people on the other side of the globe,
• 19:08
  Speaker 1: it's true. If you do it locally, it's true. If
• 19:11
  Speaker 1: you do it exchange. If you trade for services, it's true.
• 19:15
  Speaker 1: If you trade for goods, it's true if you I
• 19:19
  Speaker 1: don't know what are the other options. Every active trade,
• 19:26
  Speaker 1: every act of trade, is a act that you enter
• 19:29
  Speaker 1: in in order to better your life. You're giving up
• 19:32
  Speaker 1: something of lesser value and you're getting in exchange, I think,
• 19:35
  Speaker 1: a greater value. That's the essence. Note also, and this
• 19:41
  Speaker 1: is important for the whole idea of international trade, it's
• 19:46
  Speaker 1: individuals who trade countries for the most part. Governments, for
• 19:53
  Speaker 1: the most part, don't trade. Now, it's true, governments do
• 19:57
  Speaker 1: buy services, governments do buy some goods, but the vast
• 20:01
  Speaker 1: of you know, for example, military hardware and equipment. But
• 20:06
  Speaker 1: the vast majority of transactions that occur in the world
• 20:10
  Speaker 1: in economy happen between individuals or between the representatives of individuals.
• 20:25
  Speaker 1: The representative on the individuals could be businesses, corporations, which
• 20:29
  Speaker 1: is just extensions of individuals. Individuals own businesses, individuals own corporations.
• 20:36
  Speaker 1: I want to make this clear when we say this
• 20:39
  Speaker 1: is really an important point. When we say we're running,
• 20:42
  Speaker 1: you know, we buy a lot of stuff. We input
• 20:44
  Speaker 1: a lot of stuff from China. Yes, because the people
• 20:49
  Speaker 1: who are selling us stuff are located in China. But
• 20:54
  Speaker 1: it is not the Chinese government selling us stuff. Now,
• 20:57
  Speaker 1: it's true some of those businesses might be owned by
• 21:00
  Speaker 1: the Chinese government. Some of those businesses might be parstionately
• 21:03
  Speaker 1: humbo or controlled, the regulated, subsidized, or something. But literally,
• 21:08
  Speaker 1: we are buying from somebody making the stuff in China,
• 21:14
  Speaker 1: and there's a lot of intermediaries along the way. There's
• 21:17
  Speaker 1: the company in China, there's the import, there's the exporter,
• 21:20
  Speaker 1: there's the import, there's the company in the United States.
• 21:22
  Speaker 1: There's the retailer that we buy from. There's a lot
• 21:25
  Speaker 1: of intermediary But at the end of the day, the
• 21:29
  Speaker 1: trade with China is each one of us buying stuff
• 21:33
  Speaker 1: from people over there. The US government does not buy stuff,
• 21:40
  Speaker 1: with some maybe minor exceptions, from the Chinese government, and
• 21:44
  Speaker 1: the Chinese government is not buying stuff from the US government.
• 21:51
  Speaker 1: So trade is fundamentally between individuals, between individuals. There's no
• 22:03
  Speaker 1: such thing as really as trade between countries. Now, international
• 22:11
  Speaker 1: trade has again a very very very very long history,
• 22:17
  Speaker 1: much longer than I even thought. The more history I read,
• 22:21
  Speaker 1: the more I discover. Then even if you go back
• 22:24
  Speaker 1: to I don't know, one thousand BC, or you know
• 22:32
  Speaker 1: even more than one thousand BC, if you go back
• 22:36
  Speaker 1: as far as ten thousand years ago, when human beings
• 22:40
  Speaker 1: settled down into communities of farmers, they were trading, trading
• 22:46
  Speaker 1: across vast geographic distances. There was significant trading between Egypt
• 22:53
  Speaker 1: and Mesopotamia, the two big civilizations, ancient civilizations. There was
• 22:59
  Speaker 1: trading are going on between Egypt, Mesopotamia and the the
• 23:03
  Speaker 1: nomads of the what do you call it, the the
• 23:06
  Speaker 1: Asian Plains, the euro Asian Plains. This is the area
• 23:13
  Speaker 1: that goes from kind of Ukraine and Europe all the
• 23:16
  Speaker 1: way to Mongolia in Asia, which is basically this flat
• 23:20
  Speaker 1: territory that just expands and where all the nomadic tribes
• 23:25
  Speaker 1: that we know originate from and and have had a
• 23:28
  Speaker 1: huge impact on the history of the world. There was trade,
• 23:31
  Speaker 1: you know, among them. There was trade between people in
• 23:40
  Speaker 1: Scandinavia and you know pre classic Greek cities going back
• 23:48
  Speaker 1: a thousand BC. Uh you know, the there was trade
• 23:53
  Speaker 1: back then. There was clearly trade between Egypt and Greece
• 23:55
  Speaker 1: and other parts of the connected in the Mediterranean by ship.
• 24:02
  Speaker 1: There's always been trade across you don't call it country lines,
• 24:09
  Speaker 1: state lines, geography always and the reason is that there's
• 24:18
  Speaker 1: massive benefits to it. Again, the people, for example, is
• 24:21
  Speaker 1: my understanding, as the people in North Europe specialized in
• 24:27
  Speaker 1: uh a production of certain products I think weapons in particularness.
• 24:32
  Speaker 1: So it's and they were really really good at it.
• 24:36
  Speaker 1: And they had access to natural resources that didn't exist
• 24:38
  Speaker 1: in Southern Europe. And the Southern Europeans had stuff that
• 24:41
  Speaker 1: nothern Europeans wanted and they traded for it. Again, individuals traded,
• 24:47
  Speaker 1: and there were lots of intermediates, and there was trade
• 24:51
  Speaker 1: with Persia and with the Persians traded with other peoples
• 24:55
  Speaker 1: of Central Asia, and those people traded with China, and
• 24:59
  Speaker 1: all of those people also traded with India, and that's
• 25:02
  Speaker 1: the Silk Road, which has a history going back thousands
• 25:06
  Speaker 1: of years. So trade is something. International trade in a
• 25:12
  Speaker 1: sense of over vast geographic areas has always existed because
• 25:20
  Speaker 1: because of different geographic endowments, because in different geographies, you know,
• 25:25
  Speaker 1: different it's easier to grow different products, it's easier to
• 25:29
  Speaker 1: produce different things, it's easier to mine different things. And
• 25:36
  Speaker 1: then of course different areas, individuals, individual geniuses innovated and
• 25:44
  Speaker 1: developed certain created certain innovations that didn't exist in other places,
• 25:49
  Speaker 1: and then they traded those innovations with the others. And
• 25:51
  Speaker 1: of course there's arts, and there's jewelry and beads and
• 25:55
  Speaker 1: and and all this other stuff. And is that to
• 26:01
  Speaker 1: trade within a community of let's say, one hundred people
• 26:04
  Speaker 1: in your tribe, there's only so much division of labor
• 26:08
  Speaker 1: and so much specialization and so much value creation that
• 26:12
  Speaker 1: can be created in the context of a small tribe
• 26:15
  Speaker 1: of one hundred people. But if you take that and
• 26:18
  Speaker 1: now you extrapolated over one thousand people, ten thousand people,
• 26:24
  Speaker 1: one hundred thousand people, hundreds of thousands of people who
• 26:29
  Speaker 1: live in a dispersed land. Now you can create so
• 26:36
  Speaker 1: many different things. Now, specialization multiplies. With more people, you
• 26:42
  Speaker 1: get more specialization, more division of labor, more value creation,
• 26:46
  Speaker 1: more opportunities for trade. So the beauty of globalization at
• 26:53
  Speaker 1: whatever scale you have from ten thousand BC to today
• 26:59
  Speaker 1: is that you get to expand specialization and division of labor,
• 27:04
  Speaker 1: and therefore you get to expand value creation. And again,
• 27:08
  Speaker 1: specialization means increased value creation because you get to be
• 27:12
  Speaker 1: an expert at something and you can be more productive
• 27:15
  Speaker 1: at it. It gets to expand it beyond the small
• 27:18
  Speaker 1: group of people that you know, expanded to hundreds of thousands,
• 27:26
  Speaker 1: millions and today eight billion people, and that means there's
• 27:29
  Speaker 1: more value in the world. There's more trade opportunities in
• 27:32
  Speaker 1: the world. There's there's more win win and therefore more
• 27:36
  Speaker 1: wins in the world, there's more wealth in the world. Everybody,
• 27:40
  Speaker 1: everybody participates is better off as a consequence, So there
• 27:50
  Speaker 1: is no downside to trade because it's win win. We'll
• 28:00
  Speaker 1: get to national security issues in a little bit, you know,
• 28:05
  Speaker 1: which might be one constraint of trade. So now let's
• 28:10
  Speaker 1: look at what happens once you get nations, Once you
• 28:14
  Speaker 1: get nations, you know, with the Westphalian nation states that
• 28:21
  Speaker 1: is created in the West, and today the world is
• 28:25
  Speaker 1: dominated by the nation state all over everywhere. What you
• 28:29
  Speaker 1: get is national economies, governments the control particular geographic areas
• 28:38
  Speaker 1: because we don't have economic freedom really anywhere in the world.
• 28:42
  Speaker 1: You eat government intervention in economies. Once then let me
• 28:54
  Speaker 1: just see. If you want to ask questions for some
• 28:59
  Speaker 1: reason you cannot do it on the super chat, you
• 29:03
  Speaker 1: can ask the question on PayPal. I'll open the PayPal
• 29:08
  Speaker 1: page and have it open and available. As I mentioned earlier,
• 29:13
  Speaker 1: I'm you get to get questions from people who disagree
• 29:17
  Speaker 1: about my free trade stance and who have questions about it,
• 29:22
  Speaker 1: and so let me know if you have asked a
• 29:27
  Speaker 1: question right now. William Claims says he asked a question
• 29:32
  Speaker 1: on paper. I don't see. I don't see a contribution
• 29:36
  Speaker 1: or a question on PayPal from Williams. So I'm not
• 29:40
  Speaker 1: sure what is not working for you, William, but I
• 29:41
  Speaker 1: don't see it. Maybe miss lev can help you set
• 29:45
  Speaker 1: that up. But if you again, if you can't ask here,
• 29:48
  Speaker 1: then ask ask ELSEWI All right, so now we have
• 29:52
  Speaker 1: nation states, and you know, originally pre nineteenth century Adam Smith.
• 30:00
  Speaker 1: Really the dominant idea around the nation state was, you know,
• 30:10
  Speaker 1: we don't we don't want to. We don't want to
• 30:14
  Speaker 1: we want to be able within the nation state to
• 30:17
  Speaker 1: create everything that we need. We we don't want to
• 30:23
  Speaker 1: have free and open trade with other countries. And think
• 30:28
  Speaker 1: about it. In in those days, the primary money was gold,
• 30:36
  Speaker 1: and the sense was we don't want to send out
• 30:38
  Speaker 1: gold overseas and what do we get in return? We
• 30:42
  Speaker 1: get stuff, but we've lost gold. But of course this
• 30:47
  Speaker 1: again miss completely misrepresents what's going on, because if you've
• 30:52
  Speaker 1: given up the gold to get the stuff, it's because
• 30:54
  Speaker 1: the stuff is worth more to you at that point
• 30:56
  Speaker 1: in time, or worth more to the individuals doing the
• 30:59
  Speaker 1: trading then the stuff that you're getting. So you're getting
• 31:02
  Speaker 1: stuff that is more valuable than the gold you're giving up,
• 31:09
  Speaker 1: and that's why the trade is happening. But there was
• 31:13
  Speaker 1: this idea that democratist held that it's the accumulation of
• 31:18
  Speaker 1: gold that makes you rich, that makes you wealthy, not
• 31:22
  Speaker 1: the accumulation of stuff. But of course a wealth is
• 31:27
  Speaker 1: actually not measured in gold or money. A wealth is
• 31:32
  Speaker 1: actually measured in the stuff that we have. It's what
• 31:35
  Speaker 1: we can use that money for It's in the productive
• 31:38
  Speaker 1: assets that we purchase, it's in the homes that we build,
• 31:41
  Speaker 1: it's in the stuff we put inside the homes. That
• 31:44
  Speaker 1: is our wealth. So you know, value is not money,
• 32:00
  Speaker 1: and the usability of something for human life. You know,
• 32:06
  Speaker 1: what's the point of the money if you don't use
• 32:08
  Speaker 1: it to live? So, but there was this notion, you know,
• 32:13
  Speaker 1: and it's why you know, for example, people thought, i mean,
• 32:18
  Speaker 1: here's an extreme example of this. People thought that by
• 32:23
  Speaker 1: bringing in gold from from South America, the Spanish Empire
• 32:29
  Speaker 1: would become so rich and so powerful that it would
• 32:34
  Speaker 1: dominate the world. Now, it's true that bringing gold from
• 32:38
  Speaker 1: South America made the Kings of Spain very wealthy because
• 32:42
  Speaker 1: they took a certain percentage of all the gold that
• 32:44
  Speaker 1: came in and they used it for their own consumption.
• 32:48
  Speaker 1: But the reality is that all that extra gold coming
• 32:52
  Speaker 1: into Europe didn't they actually make you a bricher? What
• 32:57
  Speaker 1: did it do? What do we know happens when you
• 33:00
  Speaker 1: flooded a market with new money. It caused all prices
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: device It didn't increase the number of goods. It increased
• 33:10
  Speaker 1: the equality of the goods. It increased It didn't increase
• 33:13
  Speaker 1: the value of anything. The value stuff is the it's
• 33:17
  Speaker 1: usefulness to human life. Gold doesn't increase the value of
• 33:21
  Speaker 1: its usefulness. So what happened when you got a ton
• 33:25
  Speaker 1: of gold coming in from from uh uh Spain is
• 33:29
  Speaker 1: ultimately in the in the medium to long term, prices
• 33:33
  Speaker 1: in Europe went up to reflect the new supply. Money
• 33:36
  Speaker 1: and wealth in Europe didn't change much, and Spain never
• 33:40
  Speaker 1: became rich. Indeed, you know, it's it's one of the
• 33:47
  Speaker 1: one of the consequences of all that gold coming in
• 33:49
  Speaker 1: through Spain is that Spain never developed industry, never really
• 33:53
  Speaker 1: developed the ability to create values, to create I use
• 34:01
  Speaker 1: that actually produce wealth over the long run. So Milkanalism
• 34:11
  Speaker 1: was the dominant of you of the time. It was
• 34:13
  Speaker 1: this idea of that accumulating gold is what makes you rich.
• 34:17
  Speaker 1: But Adam Smith in seventeen seventy six, and indeed economists
• 34:21
  Speaker 1: even one hundred years before Adam Smith already understood that
• 34:25
  Speaker 1: this was a complete error that didn't make any sense.
• 34:28
  Speaker 1: The trade was win when and one should engage with
• 34:31
  Speaker 1: as much trade as possible. And Adam Smith and the
• 34:34
  Speaker 1: Wealth of Nation basically lays out the economic case for
• 34:37
  Speaker 1: why countries should have open borders when it comes to
• 34:44
  Speaker 1: the transport of goods. They should welcome imports and be
• 34:52
  Speaker 1: willing to trade with anybody anywhere in the world. And then, indeed,
• 34:58
  Speaker 1: over time what happened us is that people in particular
• 35:02
  Speaker 1: countries tend to specialize in those areas where they have
• 35:06
  Speaker 1: a competitive advantage, and other countries specialize in people in
• 35:13
  Speaker 1: other countries individuals, and other countries specialize in the things
• 35:16
  Speaker 1: that they have competitive advantage. And then you trade, and
• 35:18
  Speaker 1: that again expands dramatically the division of labor and the
• 35:24
  Speaker 1: benefits of the division of labor and the value creation
• 35:27
  Speaker 1: that's been created. So basically, Atastress shows that the free
• 35:37
  Speaker 1: flow of goods, the free flow of goods with no
• 35:41
  Speaker 1: barriers to trade, is economically the optimal strategy. It is
• 35:50
  Speaker 1: good for everybody, and that yes, particularly industries might lose out.
• 35:57
  Speaker 1: So for example, when atosource was writing, it's probably true
• 36:02
  Speaker 1: that the textile industry in the UK would have probably
• 36:06
  Speaker 1: lost out. It's probably true that it would have been
• 36:09
  Speaker 1: cheaper the import textiles from India, which is part of
• 36:13
  Speaker 1: the British Empire. Then it was to produce textiles in Britain.
• 36:21
  Speaker 1: Now you know, it's hard exactly say, because textiles were
• 36:27
  Speaker 1: the first thing that was kind of the industrial evolution
• 36:29
  Speaker 1: helped to mechanize. But that could have happened in India.
• 36:32
  Speaker 1: That is, the English expertise could have been exported to India.
• 36:35
  Speaker 1: So yes, one industry would not have maybe have existed
• 36:39
  Speaker 1: in England if there were completely open borders in hotels.
• 36:46
  Speaker 1: But what would have happened. The capital that was being
• 36:51
  Speaker 1: deployed in the textile industry in England would have then
• 36:55
  Speaker 1: been reallocated to other industries where England had a compatitive advantage.
• 37:01
  Speaker 1: So there would have been more value created because England
• 37:06
  Speaker 1: would have specialized in the thing that England did best
• 37:10
  Speaker 1: and then traded for the textiles with countries that did
• 37:15
  Speaker 1: best for textiles. So Atisas shows this in great detail.
• 37:22
  Speaker 1: It takes about you know, it was probably seventeen seventy six.
• 37:27
  Speaker 1: It takes basically seventy years until eighteen forty six until
• 37:32
  Speaker 1: the UK. Over that period of seventy years, the UK
• 37:37
  Speaker 1: slowly eliminates tariffs, slowly systematically eliminates all trade restrictions, and
• 37:44
  Speaker 1: then with the corner of the passage of the repeal
• 37:47
  Speaker 1: of the Corn Laws, the last remaining trade barriers fall
• 37:52
  Speaker 1: and England from basically eighteen forty six until ninth until
• 37:56
  Speaker 1: the breakout of World War One nineteen fourteen becomes a
• 38:00
  Speaker 1: complete free trade island. It is there no trade barriers
• 38:06
  Speaker 1: in England between eighteen forty six and nineteen fourteen. And
• 38:11
  Speaker 1: during this period you get some of the most some
• 38:15
  Speaker 1: of the fastest economic growth in history. You get a
• 38:20
  Speaker 1: massive expansion, you get industrialization, you get the real surge
• 38:25
  Speaker 1: of the Industrial Revolution and the great wealth creation of
• 38:28
  Speaker 1: the Industrial Revolution, and technology advances because you get a
• 38:37
  Speaker 1: reallocation of resources. One of the things that happens. One
• 38:41
  Speaker 1: of the things that happens during this period is pre
• 38:44
  Speaker 1: eighteen forty six, the poor in England are suffering because
• 38:51
  Speaker 1: food is expensive. Why because the corn laws are making
• 38:56
  Speaker 1: importing grain this tower some importation of grain. So importing
• 39:03
  Speaker 1: grain is really expensive, so they are restricted to buying
• 39:07
  Speaker 1: the mestic grain, which is expensive. England is not is
• 39:14
  Speaker 1: not the cheapest produce of grain in the world. America
• 39:17
  Speaker 1: is very cheap produced of grain. Canada, there were parts
• 39:21
  Speaker 1: of Europe they're producing grain very cheaply and the poor
• 39:25
  Speaker 1: breads could not benefit from that. And for example, the
• 39:29
  Speaker 1: famine in Ireland in the early part of the nineteenth
• 39:32
  Speaker 1: century was partially caused by the inability to import cheap
• 39:37
  Speaker 1: grain into the UK once the corn laws abolished, and
• 39:44
  Speaker 1: it opens up the British economy. It's true that many
• 39:47
  Speaker 1: of the farming estates in England started losing money or
• 39:51
  Speaker 1: their profits were reduced dramatically and they had to find
• 39:57
  Speaker 1: different uses for the land. But people who consume the
• 40:03
  Speaker 1: food i e. Put people in a class people everybody
• 40:07
  Speaker 1: really consumes food. This is a massive bonanza for them
• 40:11
  Speaker 1: because they suddenly got massive quantities of cheap food, which
• 40:15
  Speaker 1: made it possible for them to live better lives, to
• 40:20
  Speaker 1: be more productive, to participate to a great extent in
• 40:25
  Speaker 1: the British economy, to create more value. All right, So, uh, milktialism,
• 40:39
  Speaker 1: this idea of placing barriers is a theory in economics
• 40:45
  Speaker 1: that has been basically shown to be false from Adam
• 40:52
  Speaker 1: Smith till today. As I've said many times on my show,
• 40:56
  Speaker 1: there is no serious economist over the last two hundred
• 41:00
  Speaker 1: years since Adam Smith who has believed in mecanalism who
• 41:05
  Speaker 1: thinks the tariffs or any other kind of trade barriers
• 41:09
  Speaker 1: are good for the economy a good economic policy, and
• 41:16
  Speaker 1: that's just on the basis of economics. The other issue,
• 41:19
  Speaker 1: of course, is on the basis of individual rights. What
• 41:24
  Speaker 1: business is the government from whom I buy my stuff from?
• 41:30
  Speaker 1: Why is the government trying to tell me what I
• 41:32
  Speaker 1: can and cannot buy and where and where I cannot
• 41:36
  Speaker 1: buy it from? So individual rights freedom basically dictates the
• 41:50
  Speaker 1: idea the government has no business trying to manipulate who
• 41:57
  Speaker 1: I buy stuff from. All right now, in the United States,
• 42:06
  Speaker 1: the history is a little different than the UK and
• 42:09
  Speaker 1: the United States. When it was founded in the Constitutional Convention,
• 42:14
  Speaker 1: there was a lot of discussion about how to raise
• 42:16
  Speaker 1: revenue to run the federal government. States had their own
• 42:20
  Speaker 1: sources of revenue, but how to run this federal government
• 42:23
  Speaker 1: and no. One of the biggest principles of the Constitution
• 42:28
  Speaker 1: is that even though we have multiple states under federation,
• 42:35
  Speaker 1: there shall be no tariffs between those states. The founders
• 42:43
  Speaker 1: understood the tariffs were destructive, tariffs did not promote economic success,
• 42:50
  Speaker 1: and were antagonistic to the rights of individuals, and therefore
• 42:55
  Speaker 1: they were clear that states could not placed tariffs on
• 43:01
  Speaker 1: other states, that this was economically disastrous and a violation
• 43:05
  Speaker 1: of the rights of Americans. But then they had the
• 43:10
  Speaker 1: problem about how to raise revenue for the federal government,
• 43:17
  Speaker 1: and they considered lots of different ways to do it,
• 43:21
  Speaker 1: but all the different ways created problems. There was no
• 43:28
  Speaker 1: simple way in order to raise revenue a sales tax
• 43:33
  Speaker 1: throughout the economy. It would be very difficult to implement.
• 43:38
  Speaker 1: Before a regular system of accounting existed, Before there were
• 43:43
  Speaker 1: enough government agents to go and make sure that everybody
• 43:47
  Speaker 1: was charging the sales tax, and they could collect the
• 43:49
  Speaker 1: sales tax, the ability to monitor what was going on
• 43:53
  Speaker 1: it didn't really exist. You would have to have a
• 43:56
  Speaker 1: government agent at every store, you know, to collect the
• 44:00
  Speaker 1: sales tax, and there was no way to supervise the
• 44:04
  Speaker 1: stores themselves. The stores didn't report how much income they
• 44:08
  Speaker 1: produced to the government. It was very difficult, and they
• 44:15
  Speaker 1: believed wrong to tax income and again very difficult to implement. Now,
• 44:26
  Speaker 1: tariffs were relatively easy to collect because all goods imported
• 44:34
  Speaker 1: into the country came through the ports. There were only
• 44:39
  Speaker 1: so many ports in the US. All you had to
• 44:43
  Speaker 1: do was put a government office at every port, called
• 44:46
  Speaker 1: it the Custom's office. At every port of entry a
• 44:50
  Speaker 1: custom office, and then those custom officers could collect a duty,
• 44:55
  Speaker 1: a tax on every item that was shipped into the country.
• 44:59
  Speaker 1: It was easy to collect, and the government needs were
• 45:04
  Speaker 1: very very small. Government did not Government did not spend,
• 45:12
  Speaker 1: you know, more than three and a half percent of GDPs,
• 45:14
  Speaker 1: often much less than that during the nineteen during the
• 45:19
  Speaker 1: nineteenth century, except during the Civil War, three and a
• 45:23
  Speaker 1: half percent. It did not need a lot of money,
• 45:27
  Speaker 1: so it could tax things like alcohol. It cottacks a
• 45:31
  Speaker 1: few products, which it did. Again you know exactly who
• 45:35
  Speaker 1: the producers are, you know exactly where the point of
• 45:38
  Speaker 1: taxation is. And then it cou attacks tariffs, which were
• 45:44
  Speaker 1: very easy, very easy to do, and indeed eighty to
• 45:50
  Speaker 1: ninety of all revenue for the federal government in the
• 45:55
  Speaker 1: nineteenth century came from us. Now we'll get to why
• 46:06
  Speaker 1: we can't do that today. We'll get to that in
• 46:08
  Speaker 1: a minute. But what else did tariffs do? Well? Were they,
• 46:14
  Speaker 1: if you will, unintended consequences or the completely predictable consequences.
• 46:17
  Speaker 1: They actually talked about it, so they knew this. These
• 46:20
  Speaker 1: were the consequences of tariffs in the United States during
• 46:23
  Speaker 1: the nineteenth century. Well, tariffs were the first opportunity really
• 46:29
  Speaker 1: in America for coneyism. Really from the first bill the past,
• 46:39
  Speaker 1: the first bill that included tariffs that passed. Businesses started
• 46:46
  Speaker 1: lobbying for exemptions. Businesses started lobbying for exclusions just like today.
• 46:56
  Speaker 1: And this is the first area in which the country
• 46:59
  Speaker 1: started dividing into pressure groups, into different pressure groups with
• 47:04
  Speaker 1: different interests agricultural interests, Southern interest Northern interests, manufacturing interests.
• 47:10
  Speaker 1: Each one had a different interest depending on whether they
• 47:13
  Speaker 1: were an importer and exporter, whether they want a protection
• 47:16
  Speaker 1: for competition or didn't want protection of competition. And you know,
• 47:23
  Speaker 1: tariffs actually became during the nineteenth century the second most
• 47:27
  Speaker 1: contentious issue in politics, more contentious even than under Donald
• 47:34
  Speaker 1: Trump today. The number one most contentious issue in the
• 47:39
  Speaker 1: nineteenth century was slavery pleased until the Civil War, the
• 47:43
  Speaker 1: second most contentious issue in American politics were tariffs. So
• 47:50
  Speaker 1: tas immediately created a situation in America of cronyism. And
• 47:57
  Speaker 1: by the early nineteenth century to the early twentieth century, sorry,
• 48:02
  Speaker 1: by the early twentieth century, and really by the late
• 48:05
  Speaker 1: nineteen stenty two things were happening. One one, the the
• 48:23
  Speaker 1: gunment was going, particularly in the twentieth century, and it
• 48:27
  Speaker 1: needed more revenue. But two, the cronyism was getting out
• 48:33
  Speaker 1: of hand. People were really, really, really unhappy with the cronyism.
• 48:40
  Speaker 1: So attempts were made to introduce an income text. And
• 48:44
  Speaker 1: the idea was to introduce the income text to replace
• 48:50
  Speaker 1: tariff's because taros was so destructive because of the cronyism,
• 48:55
  Speaker 1: and because everybody understood from Adah Smith that they actually
• 48:58
  Speaker 1: made America poor up and they did. By every every
• 49:02
  Speaker 1: economic study of the late nineteenth century shows that the
• 49:05
  Speaker 1: high tariff rates during the McKinley era, if you will,
• 49:09
  Speaker 1: actually reduced economic growth in the United States, actually hooked
• 49:13
  Speaker 1: the economy, and the economy grew as fast as it
• 49:16
  Speaker 1: did during that era in spite of tariffs, not because
• 49:20
  Speaker 1: of tariffs. So there was an attempt to introduce income
• 49:24
  Speaker 1: taxes in or to replace tariffs, and that failed in
• 49:32
  Speaker 1: the late nineteenth century because the income tax were deemed
• 49:36
  Speaker 1: by the Supreme Court unconstitutional. And then in the early
• 49:41
  Speaker 1: part of the twentieth century there was a constitutional amendment
• 49:45
  Speaker 1: to introduce the income tax. And indeed, once the income
• 49:48
  Speaker 1: tax was brought into play, tariffs were for the most
• 49:51
  Speaker 1: part eliminated. They were only really introduced again. They were
• 49:58
  Speaker 1: introduced first in then eighteen twenties by cool Adge. It's
• 50:02
  Speaker 1: one of the reasons I don't think Cooliage is that
• 50:03
  Speaker 1: great of a president. And then introduced again by Hoover
• 50:08
  Speaker 1: or introduced at very high rates by Hoover with smooth Holly.
• 50:25
  Speaker 1: All right, so again, let me remind everybody. You want
• 50:32
  Speaker 1: to ask questions, you want to make comments, you wanna
• 50:36
  Speaker 1: you wanna disagree with me, happy to do it, put
• 50:39
  Speaker 1: it in the super chat. You don't have money, go
• 50:42
  Speaker 1: somewhere else, uh here if you want your comments to
• 50:46
  Speaker 1: be addressed by me, at least the super chat is
• 50:51
  Speaker 1: where you can do it. If you don't have two
• 50:53
  Speaker 1: bucks to spend on a super chat, then you might
• 50:55
  Speaker 1: want to think about what's going on in life. Maybe
• 51:03
  Speaker 1: maybe skip the uh maybe maybe uh you know, maybe
• 51:08
  Speaker 1: if you're if you're this dedicated, this dedicated to uh
• 51:13
  Speaker 1: to uh asking questions, uh, but you can't afford it,
• 51:21
  Speaker 1: maybe maybe you know, maybe you should think about spending
• 51:25
  Speaker 1: less time on the chat and more time working. All right, Uh,
• 51:32
  Speaker 1: let's see. So tas. Uh, there's no point in the
• 51:39
  Speaker 1: history where tas have actually produced a benefit for the
• 51:44
  Speaker 1: United States. They produced income for the government, but a
• 51:50
  Speaker 1: net from the economy of the US. Uh, they were
• 51:55
  Speaker 1: a net drag on the economy. All right, let's see, God,
• 52:02
  Speaker 1: it's already almost an hour. What I want to say,
• 52:09
  Speaker 1: all right, let's talk a little bit about what happens
• 52:14
  Speaker 1: if if other countries have tariffs. I get this all
• 52:18
  Speaker 1: the time. So people say other countries have tariffs, therefore
• 52:23
  Speaker 1: we should have towffs. Now, this doesn't make any sense.
• 52:29
  Speaker 1: Other countries, you know, other countries have socialized healthcare. Does
• 52:33
  Speaker 1: that mean the United States would have socialized healthcare? Other
• 52:37
  Speaker 1: countries have huge or bust welfare states. Does that mean
• 52:42
  Speaker 1: the United States should have a huge or bust welfare state.
• 52:46
  Speaker 1: Other countries have dictators in some cases, does that mean
• 52:50
  Speaker 1: the United States should have? So the idea that other
• 52:52
  Speaker 1: countries have it, therefore we should is is like, makes
• 52:56
  Speaker 1: no sense. We should do what makes sense. Maybe other
• 53:06
  Speaker 1: countries are stupid for having tariffs. Indeed, Adam Smith will
• 53:10
  Speaker 1: tell you they are the economically ignorant. I would tell
• 53:14
  Speaker 1: you that most economists will tell you that tariffs harm
• 53:19
  Speaker 1: the economy the places the tariffs. So it doesn't matter
• 53:25
  Speaker 1: how many countries in the world have tariffs, it's doing
• 53:28
  Speaker 1: them their own country harm. Now it's doing some harm
• 53:32
  Speaker 1: to other countries as well. For example, if you're a
• 53:36
  Speaker 1: US exporter, if you sell stuff and other countries have tariffs,
• 53:41
  Speaker 1: your goods in that country are more expensive, so you're
• 53:44
  Speaker 1: going to export less to that country. That's true, you're
• 53:48
  Speaker 1: exporting less, but the bulk of the harm is the
• 53:52
  Speaker 1: fact that the people in that country have to pay
• 53:55
  Speaker 1: much higher prices for your stuff, where if they want tariffs,
• 53:59
  Speaker 1: they could as much as they needed at the price
• 54:01
  Speaker 1: they needed it at. So tariffs a lose lose. Nobody
• 54:08
  Speaker 1: wins other than special interest groups special incast groups in
• 54:15
  Speaker 1: the country placing the tariffs. For example, who wins from
• 54:19
  Speaker 1: the US steel tariffs? Maybe some US steel companies win,
• 54:26
  Speaker 1: but most people in the United States lose because we
• 54:30
  Speaker 1: pay higher prices for steel. Ninety percent of Americans lose.
• 54:38
  Speaker 1: And some of the steel manufacturers outside of the United
• 54:42
  Speaker 1: States lose as well because they can export less to
• 54:45
  Speaker 1: the United States. So you lose. There's lose, lose, lose, lose.
• 54:58
  Speaker 1: That is what Steele does. God, I see the chat
• 55:22
  Speaker 1: is getting rowdy. Rowdy CPQ who claimed he has no
• 55:27
  Speaker 1: money but does have a job, has no money to
• 55:30
  Speaker 1: ask a super chat but has a job is pissing
• 55:34
  Speaker 1: people off. Good fight back, that's good. Put him in
• 55:45
  Speaker 1: his place. He's talking nonsense in the chat as usual.
• 55:49
  Speaker 1: He doesn't know what he's talking about. Why did these
• 55:51
  Speaker 1: leftists show up on my chat? I get why the
• 55:54
  Speaker 1: Trump fans show up in my chat? Why does the
• 55:55
  Speaker 1: leftist show up in the chat? So tariffs will lose, lose, lose.
• 56:07
  Speaker 1: Everybody loses except for the pressure group that wins. Uh
• 56:13
  Speaker 1: so uh. Other countries have tariffs, it's a lose lose.
• 56:21
  Speaker 1: There's absolutely no reason why we should increase tariffs to
• 56:26
  Speaker 1: make sure that we add on to the losses that
• 56:31
  Speaker 1: we should participate in the losing. Now you might say, oh,
• 56:37
  Speaker 1: we can use the threat of tariffing another country, in
• 56:42
  Speaker 1: other words, raising taxes on own people, because we are
• 56:46
  Speaker 1: the biggest, bigger losers in when we raise taffs in
• 56:50
  Speaker 1: the United States, we Americans lose the most because we
• 56:54
  Speaker 1: Americans pay higher prices for the things we tariff. But
• 56:57
  Speaker 1: we can use that to put pressure on other countries
• 56:59
  Speaker 1: to lower their tariffs if they happen to export that
• 57:03
  Speaker 1: particular good to the United States that's being tariffed. But
• 57:07
  Speaker 1: that actually never happens. Tarifs have never been used for
• 57:13
  Speaker 1: that purpose, and tais have never been successful they used
• 57:19
  Speaker 1: for that purpose, and Donald Trump suddenly has no intention
• 57:22
  Speaker 1: of using it for that purpose. All the trade deals
• 57:26
  Speaker 1: that Donald Trump, for example, are signed involves continuing tariffs.
• 57:36
  Speaker 1: You know, Americans are paying much higher prices on goods
• 57:41
  Speaker 1: by about ten percent on tariff goods because of the tariffs,
• 57:47
  Speaker 1: and other countries have not significantly lower tariffs on American goods.
• 57:54
  Speaker 1: It doesn't work that way. Typically, what happens is when
• 57:57
  Speaker 1: you raise tariffs on other countries, they raise tariffs on you.
• 58:01
  Speaker 1: And that's exactly what's happening right now. Tariffs for American
• 58:04
  Speaker 1: goods overseas higher than they were before Trump started this
• 58:10
  Speaker 1: trade war. He creates an artificial level that's high when
• 58:17
  Speaker 1: he first announces the TAOS, and then he gets countries
• 58:19
  Speaker 1: to lower it, but they don't lower it to below
• 58:22
  Speaker 1: what it was before he started the stupid tariff war.
• 58:27
  Speaker 1: There is zero benefit to raising tariffs. Taarofs cannot be
• 58:37
  Speaker 1: used and are not used and haven't been used ever
• 58:39
  Speaker 1: as far as I know in history, to get other
• 58:42
  Speaker 1: countries to lower tariff to zero. There's no example of that.
• 58:49
  Speaker 1: I mean The way we've lowered taris to zero is
• 58:51
  Speaker 1: by negotiating, which is not ideal because my view, the
• 58:55
  Speaker 1: ideal is just a unilaterally lower tarists to zero. But
• 58:58
  Speaker 1: for example, we got together with Mexico and Canada and
• 59:01
  Speaker 1: we basically lower tarist to zero for ninety five percent
• 59:04
  Speaker 1: of all the trade between those three countries, and then
• 59:08
  Speaker 1: Trump came about, came around and undid most of that.
• 59:14
  Speaker 1: We were in negotiations with lowing tais to close to
• 59:17
  Speaker 1: zero with lots of other countries. Now again, I don't
• 59:20
  Speaker 1: believe you need those negotiations because the ideal trade policy
• 59:24
  Speaker 1: is unilateral zero tariffs. But taos are not negotiating tools.
• 59:36
  Speaker 1: The taxes. I'll shoot myself in the foot in order
• 59:44
  Speaker 1: to get you to stop shooting yourself in the foot.
• 59:47
  Speaker 1: Usually what happens is I shoot myself in the foot, You,
• 59:49
  Speaker 1: in retaliation, shoot yourself in the knee. I shoot myself
• 59:52
  Speaker 1: in the knee in retaliation for that, and on it
• 59:55
  Speaker 1: goes until we both done real harm to each other's economy,
• 1:00:00
  Speaker 1: to our own economies, and to each other's economies. So
• 1:00:04
  Speaker 1: the fact that other countries tariff gives you zero reason
• 1:00:10
  Speaker 1: to tariff yourself Tariffs are taxes on your own people,
• 1:00:15
  Speaker 1: taxes when they buy something from overseas. I buy something
• 1:00:20
  Speaker 1: from Mexico, I pay a tariff that is unique to
• 1:00:23
  Speaker 1: the stuff I buy from Mexico. The tariff might be
• 1:00:26
  Speaker 1: different when I buy stuff from Europe. So it makes
• 1:00:48
  Speaker 1: no sense. It just makes no sense to respond to
• 1:00:51
  Speaker 1: other people's tariffs with tariffs. Now, you might say, wait
• 1:00:54
  Speaker 1: a minute, about our industri is a disadvantage in the
• 1:00:57
  Speaker 1: United States, for example, because other countries subsidize their industries
• 1:01:04
  Speaker 1: and we don't believe in subsidizing. Although in the United
• 1:01:06
  Speaker 1: States we subsidize a lot of our industries. Just look
• 1:01:09
  Speaker 1: at farming, for example, huge subsidies for farming, but generally
• 1:01:22
  Speaker 1: we don't subsidize, they subsidize. We need tariffs in order
• 1:01:26
  Speaker 1: to level the playing field. We need to tax our
• 1:01:28
  Speaker 1: own people. We need to force our own people to
• 1:01:31
  Speaker 1: pay higher prices for the imported goods so that our
• 1:01:34
  Speaker 1: domestic industry has a chance, because the reason those imported
• 1:01:38
  Speaker 1: goods are cheap is because the country is subsidizing it.
• 1:01:44
  Speaker 1: But again, why not just take the cheaper goods If
• 1:01:53
  Speaker 1: another country is wants to subsidize their own industries, why
• 1:02:01
  Speaker 1: why shouldn't we just take advantage of that. Now, again,
• 1:02:06
  Speaker 1: it is true, some people will lose their jobs, some
• 1:02:11
  Speaker 1: companies will go out of business, but everybody else benefits
• 1:02:15
  Speaker 1: because everybody else is buying cheap of goods. And every
• 1:02:21
  Speaker 1: time the government steps in trying to protect one group
• 1:02:24
  Speaker 1: and not protect another group and so on, it only
• 1:02:27
  Speaker 1: distorts the economy. So the fact that in China there's
• 1:02:31
  Speaker 1: subsidizing goods is destructive to the Chinese economy. We know that.
• 1:02:36
  Speaker 1: That's why we don't subsidize in America. Do less subsidies.
• 1:02:39
  Speaker 1: In America, we're subsidizing more and more with every year.
• 1:02:44
  Speaker 1: Why would we again respond to a bad policy from
• 1:02:48
  Speaker 1: another country with a bad policy of our own. All
• 1:02:52
  Speaker 1: of that is lose lose, lose, lose. So if somebody
• 1:02:55
  Speaker 1: else is producing stuff cheaply because it's subsidized, well who
• 1:03:00
  Speaker 1: are the Chinese? The Chinese government is really subsidizing American consumers.
• 1:03:05
  Speaker 1: American consumers benefit, which means they have they save money,
• 1:03:10
  Speaker 1: which means they have more money to invest in other things,
• 1:03:13
  Speaker 1: which means the United States can focus on its compatatitive advantage.
• 1:03:18
  Speaker 1: Individuals here can invest in where they have competitive advantage
• 1:03:22
  Speaker 1: and create wealth and buy cheap stuff from China because
• 1:03:25
  Speaker 1: the Chinese government stupidly is subsidizing us. Why would we
• 1:03:30
  Speaker 1: turn down a gift so you don't do bad things
• 1:03:42
  Speaker 1: to your own economy in response to other countries governments
• 1:03:48
  Speaker 1: doing bad things to their own economy. It just it
• 1:03:55
  Speaker 1: doesn't make any economic sense, and it doesn't make any
• 1:03:59
  Speaker 1: sense because you're violating your own citizens individual rights. I
• 1:04:04
  Speaker 1: want to benefit from the fact that China is subsidizing
• 1:04:07
  Speaker 1: this company by buying cheap stuff from them. Why is
• 1:04:10
  Speaker 1: it anybody Why is it the government's business, Why is
• 1:04:14
  Speaker 1: it my neighbor's business. Why is it anybody's business? A
• 1:04:23
  Speaker 1: one thousand. Japan and South Korea did not have twenty
• 1:04:27
  Speaker 1: five percent tariffs before Donald Trump took office in uh,
• 1:04:32
  Speaker 1: you know last year. Check your premise. Check the numbers.
• 1:04:36
  Speaker 1: What was the average tariff in Japan and South Korea
• 1:04:39
  Speaker 1: on American goods in twenty twenty four? That's chat GPT,
• 1:04:47
  Speaker 1: all right, we can do that. What was average tariff
• 1:04:53
  Speaker 1: in Japan on US goods in twenty all right? It
• 1:05:06
  Speaker 1: was two point four percent for non agricultural goods and
• 1:05:13
  Speaker 1: it was eleven point nine percent for agricultural goods. So
• 1:05:18
  Speaker 1: what has happened since Trump's tariffs is that the tariff
• 1:05:23
  Speaker 1: has gone up to fifteen percent. It was significantly two
• 1:05:27
  Speaker 1: point four percent on average, it says. Yeah, let's see.
• 1:05:31
  Speaker 1: According to the World Trade Organization da DA DA, Japan's
• 1:05:34
  Speaker 1: simple average most favored nation applied tariff right across all
• 1:05:38
  Speaker 1: products was about three point seven percent. So now it's fifteen.
• 1:05:45
  Speaker 1: So Trump's tariffs have caused Japan to increase tariffs in
• 1:05:50
  Speaker 1: America from three point seven percent to fifteen percent. Sorry,
• 1:05:58
  Speaker 1: but that's how tariffs work. It's not a surprise. Tariffs
• 1:06:03
  Speaker 1: don't lower tariffs. EU tariffs was something like three percent
• 1:06:12
  Speaker 1: on American goods and now they're higher because Trump raised
• 1:06:16
  Speaker 1: tariffs on your EU goods coming in. This is the
• 1:06:19
  Speaker 1: thing about that you have to realize Trump is a liar.
• 1:06:24
  Speaker 1: I know this is a shock to many of you,
• 1:06:27
  Speaker 1: but and this is not TDS. That's just a fact.
• 1:06:29
  Speaker 1: Trump is a liar. He lies all the time, and
• 1:06:32
  Speaker 1: he's lied to you about tariffs. His tariffs have not
• 1:06:36
  Speaker 1: lowered tariffs on US goods. They've increased tariffs in US goods.
• 1:06:42
  Speaker 1: This is why the trade deficit last year was the
• 1:06:46
  Speaker 1: same in twenty twenty five as it was in twenty
• 1:06:49
  Speaker 1: twenty four. It didn't change because don't reduce the trade deficit.
• 1:07:03
  Speaker 1: They just distore prices and they create miss allocations of capital,
• 1:07:08
  Speaker 1: and they make the economy less productive, less efficient. Overall,
• 1:07:13
  Speaker 1: it's reality. And by the way, anytime you think about
• 1:07:19
  Speaker 1: these things, anytime Trump says anything, just go to chat
• 1:07:23
  Speaker 1: GPT and check and chat GIPT could be lying, but
• 1:07:26
  Speaker 1: you can check it a quick claude and you can.
• 1:07:28
  Speaker 1: You can cross the references and you can find the data.
• 1:07:33
  Speaker 1: Aim one thousands said, thanks for the info. When you're right,
• 1:07:36
  Speaker 1: you're right. The thing is Aim one thousand is, I'm
• 1:07:39
  Speaker 1: almost always right. Almost. I mean, I'm wrong sometimes I
• 1:07:43
  Speaker 1: admit it, but on the big stuff, I'm right. And
• 1:07:46
  Speaker 1: it's it's about time you guys realize that. It's like,
• 1:07:52
  Speaker 1: how many times can I be right before you grant
• 1:07:55
  Speaker 1: me the benefit of the doubt. I don't know, all right?
• 1:08:00
  Speaker 1: Two more issues I want well, three moisues I want
• 1:08:02
  Speaker 1: to cover quickly. God, we're running out of taking huge
• 1:08:07
  Speaker 1: amount of I guess nobody's asking questions on PayPal, so
• 1:08:10
  Speaker 1: I can close the PayPal here, So William is not
• 1:08:13
  Speaker 1: asking a question on papal. So let me add, you
• 1:08:19
  Speaker 1: know three more issues that we need to cover. One.
• 1:08:22
  Speaker 1: People argue still that tariffs are going to replace the
• 1:08:26
  Speaker 1: income text. So if we raise tariffs, we can get
• 1:08:28
  Speaker 1: rid of the income text. And isn't that better. Here's
• 1:08:33
  Speaker 1: the thing about that today the government spends about twenty
• 1:08:38
  Speaker 1: two percent of GDP it used to be three point five.
• 1:08:45
  Speaker 1: To raise tariffs to the level where they can cover
• 1:08:48
  Speaker 1: twenty two percent of GDP or not twenty two percent
• 1:08:51
  Speaker 1: of GDP just a portion of income text's as hume.
• 1:08:54
  Speaker 1: It's not replacing all of the taxes, only the income text.
• 1:08:57
  Speaker 1: I can't remember what percentage of that is income text,
• 1:08:59
  Speaker 1: but it's hi. You'd have to raise tasts to well
• 1:09:03
  Speaker 1: over one hundred percent. I think it's one hundred and
• 1:09:06
  Speaker 1: thirty percent. So for tarists to play the replace the
• 1:09:10
  Speaker 1: income text, you'd have to raise tabs to a buy
• 1:09:13
  Speaker 1: one hundred and thirty percent. Now, if you raise taris
• 1:09:24
  Speaker 1: one hundred and thirty percent, people won't buy the goods
• 1:09:29
  Speaker 1: because there'll be more than double the price. And if
• 1:09:34
  Speaker 1: people don't buy the goods, then there's no revenue for
• 1:09:36
  Speaker 1: the government. So it is literally mathematically impossible, and I'm
• 1:09:45
  Speaker 1: not exaggerating. This is the reality to replace the income
• 1:09:49
  Speaker 1: taxt with tariffs. The higher the tariffs go, the less
• 1:09:54
  Speaker 1: we import. The less we import, the less revenue there is.
• 1:10:00
  Speaker 1: And before you have to raise the tariffs even further
• 1:10:02
  Speaker 1: to catch up with income tax, but then the less
• 1:10:07
  Speaker 1: importation there is. So it is mathematically impossible to replace
• 1:10:13
  Speaker 1: income taxes with tariffs. It's the reality. Sorry, Now, you
• 1:10:19
  Speaker 1: could replace the income tax with a sales tax because
• 1:10:24
  Speaker 1: there's so many goods that's sell in the United States.
• 1:10:29
  Speaker 1: I mean, trade is small. I have some stats. So
• 1:10:34
  Speaker 1: our economy is thirty trillion, thirty point six trillion in
• 1:10:39
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty five. That's the size of the economy GDP
• 1:10:43
  Speaker 1: gross domestic product thirty point six trillion. Trade of goods
• 1:10:50
  Speaker 1: and services is about four point three trillion, So it's
• 1:10:55
  Speaker 1: what twelve percent eleven percent of GDP. It's not big
• 1:11:00
  Speaker 1: enough to tax to generate down of income to replace
• 1:11:05
  Speaker 1: the income text. But if you if you taxed all
• 1:11:11
  Speaker 1: sales in America, or if you had a vat of
• 1:11:15
  Speaker 1: value added tax, you could replace the income text. But
• 1:11:20
  Speaker 1: then you wouldn't be discriminating imported goods from domestically produced goods,
• 1:11:27
  Speaker 1: but nobody is proposing Then nobody is proposing a sales tax.
• 1:11:32
  Speaker 1: I wish they were. It makes a lot more sense
• 1:11:34
  Speaker 1: than what we have. What happened here? Whoops? What did
• 1:11:40
  Speaker 1: I do? What did I do there? Well? All right,
• 1:11:45
  Speaker 1: not sure what happened there? Uh okay, So that's what
• 1:11:51
  Speaker 1: about un showing manufacturing? Now one of the ideas you
• 1:11:57
  Speaker 1: raised tariffs. It becomes very expensive to both stuff, so
• 1:12:00
  Speaker 1: people stop importing, but they still want the stuff that
• 1:12:04
  Speaker 1: they that they were importing. So now people will invest
• 1:12:09
  Speaker 1: in domestic manufacturing to produce the same stuff, and they
• 1:12:14
  Speaker 1: can produce it at a cheaper cost than the farce
• 1:12:18
  Speaker 1: stuff plus the tariff. That's the idea of onshoing. Now, First,
• 1:12:24
  Speaker 1: tasks have to be pretty high for that to happen,
• 1:12:28
  Speaker 1: because it's expensive to produce stuff domestically because of our
• 1:12:32
  Speaker 1: labor costs, because of our regulations, because of how expensive
• 1:12:38
  Speaker 1: it is to do anything in the United States. So
• 1:12:41
  Speaker 1: tavs have to be high for that to justify. Second,
• 1:12:46
  Speaker 1: there has to be a certain predictability and stability and
• 1:12:50
  Speaker 1: confidence that the traffs will be there forever for capitalists
• 1:12:54
  Speaker 1: to invest capital to build stuff that replace inputs, because
• 1:12:58
  Speaker 1: if the taks go away four years, then suddenly they
• 1:13:03
  Speaker 1: will be the new factories that they build will go
• 1:13:05
  Speaker 1: out of business because the stuff the fauners will start
• 1:13:09
  Speaker 1: imputing again, exporting it again at much cheaper rates. So
• 1:13:16
  Speaker 1: the reality is that and given done certainly about tariffs,
• 1:13:21
  Speaker 1: giving the vaultellity need to have. Given Trump changes his
• 1:13:23
  Speaker 1: mind every few days, nobody's investing in building factories in
• 1:13:28
  Speaker 1: the United States to replace the goods that have been tariffed.
• 1:13:32
  Speaker 1: All that's happening is people are buying less of those
• 1:13:34
  Speaker 1: goods and they're taking the hits and they're paying more
• 1:13:37
  Speaker 1: money for them. That's why the government has received tariff revenue,
• 1:13:44
  Speaker 1: increase tariff revenue because people are actually buying the imported
• 1:13:48
  Speaker 1: stuff at a higher price. That higher price reflects the taxes.
• 1:13:55
  Speaker 1: So it will not own shore manufacture because of uncertainty
• 1:14:02
  Speaker 1: and because tafts are just not high enough. They would
• 1:14:04
  Speaker 1: have to be much higher to ensure it. Now it's
• 1:14:07
  Speaker 1: much more likely that what will happen is you'll get
• 1:14:09
  Speaker 1: a what's called the tariff arbitrage. What what happened is
• 1:14:13
  Speaker 1: manufacturing will move from high tariff locations to low tariff countries,
• 1:14:20
  Speaker 1: and we'll import them from the lower tariff countries instead
• 1:14:23
  Speaker 1: of what we used to input from the high tarff countries.
• 1:14:26
  Speaker 1: But the likelier that they actually come back to the
• 1:14:28
  Speaker 1: United States is close to zero. And indeed, what we
• 1:14:32
  Speaker 1: saw last year was a net lost to manufacturing, not
• 1:14:35
  Speaker 1: a net increase. We did not see any increases to
• 1:14:39
  Speaker 1: manufacturing in the United States because of tariffs. Tas hot
• 1:14:43
  Speaker 1: manufacturing because they hurt exports. They hoot manufacturing, because they
• 1:14:47
  Speaker 1: hurt the standard living of Americans, and therefore demand by
• 1:14:50
  Speaker 1: Americans and therefore drops. Okay, Finally, the only legitimate argument
• 1:15:01
  Speaker 1: you can make about tariffs, but it's not legitimate, is
• 1:15:05
  Speaker 1: national security. There's certain industries we need to protect in
• 1:15:10
  Speaker 1: the United States because international security in a war, we
• 1:15:14
  Speaker 1: need to be able to produce at home. Tariffs are
• 1:15:20
  Speaker 1: not a way to do that. Tariffs are not a
• 1:15:23
  Speaker 1: way to do that. If you tariffs semiconductors coming from Taiwan,
• 1:15:29
  Speaker 1: you will not create an American chip industry micropostas the industry,
• 1:15:35
  Speaker 1: and if you do, it'll be very expensive and very
• 1:15:38
  Speaker 1: inefficient and very unproductive. That is not the way to
• 1:15:45
  Speaker 1: secure national security manufactured for that, you need to come
• 1:15:51
  Speaker 1: up with it with a plan, a strategy, and how
• 1:15:56
  Speaker 1: to encourage friend sharing, how to encourage reduction in friendly
• 1:16:01
  Speaker 1: territories or if it has to be in the United States,
• 1:16:04
  Speaker 1: how does the Defense Department guarantee that stuff is made
• 1:16:11
  Speaker 1: in America? By having forward contracts, by paying above market prices,
• 1:16:18
  Speaker 1: by paying companies to build manufacturing facilities and mothballing them.
• 1:16:22
  Speaker 1: There are a lot of ways in order to do it.
• 1:16:29
  Speaker 1: We have Intel already building out their foundry to produce
• 1:16:32
  Speaker 1: advanced chips. Have you seen Intel's financial statements? Have you
• 1:16:37
  Speaker 1: seen how badly Intel is performing? Have you seen the
• 1:16:40
  Speaker 1: fact that nobody wants to buy Intel chips because they're
• 1:16:45
  Speaker 1: expensive and they're not very good. Have you seen the
• 1:16:49
  Speaker 1: fact that even the advanced chips that Intel is building
• 1:16:52
  Speaker 1: can't compete with two nanometer chips coming out from TSMC.
• 1:17:01
  Speaker 1: Intel is incompetent, has been incompetent for a long time.
• 1:17:05
  Speaker 1: It should go bust, It should go bankrupt, It should
• 1:17:08
  Speaker 1: stop making chips in the United States because it's not
• 1:17:11
  Speaker 1: good at it. Maybe somebody, an entrepreneur, can figure out
• 1:17:16
  Speaker 1: how to make chips in the United States and be
• 1:17:18
  Speaker 1: good at it, But nobody's gonna allocate capital to them
• 1:17:21
  Speaker 1: because right now the government is subsidizing Intel. It's pick
• 1:17:28
  Speaker 1: the winners and losers, and it's picked a bad company
• 1:17:32
  Speaker 1: as the winner. Just check out Intel stock price recently
• 1:17:38
  Speaker 1: and check out its latest financial statements, and check out
• 1:17:42
  Speaker 1: the history of Intel, and it's conyism. Really since the
• 1:17:45
  Speaker 1: nineteen eighties. The only reason for tariffs, the only thing tariffs,
• 1:17:58
  Speaker 1: you know, facilitate, it's cronyism. You can see that with
• 1:18:04
  Speaker 1: the Trump administration, and Trump administration is hypercrony They sell goodies,
• 1:18:11
  Speaker 1: they give exclusions to companies, They manipulate the tariff policies
• 1:18:17
  Speaker 1: to favor some industries the expensive other industries. Complete cronyism.
• 1:18:22
  Speaker 1: That is the one outcome that we've gotten from TIFFs.
• 1:18:26
  Speaker 1: Nothing good, nothing good comes from tariffs. It's just a tax.
• 1:18:31
  Speaker 1: And those of us who believed in freedom generally generally
• 1:18:37
  Speaker 1: believe that taxes are bad, their violations of rights, They
• 1:18:44
  Speaker 1: distort the economy, and the fewer taxes the better, the
• 1:18:48
  Speaker 1: lower taxes the better. And taros were really, really, really
• 1:18:52
  Speaker 1: low in America before twenty sixteen, before Trump was elected,
• 1:18:57
  Speaker 1: and they had been declining globally for decades. We were
• 1:19:02
  Speaker 1: really approaching a period. We were approaching a period of
• 1:19:11
  Speaker 1: free trade, really free trade where barriers were dropping. China
• 1:19:16
  Speaker 1: was reduced terraffs dramatically over the last twenty years and
• 1:19:20
  Speaker 1: had reduced non tariff barriers to trade. Not all barriers
• 1:19:23
  Speaker 1: to trade are tariffs. But that was true everywhere around
• 1:19:27
  Speaker 1: the world. It wasn't perfect, it was far from perfect,
• 1:19:31
  Speaker 1: but the direction was the right direction. We were moving
• 1:19:35
  Speaker 1: towards freer and freer and freer trade. Trump has caused
• 1:19:41
  Speaker 1: the United States, at least the reverse that direction. Trade
• 1:19:45
  Speaker 1: with the United States today is the least free it
• 1:19:50
  Speaker 1: has been since World War Two. The rest of the
• 1:19:57
  Speaker 1: world might still embrace free trade, they trade with one another,
• 1:20:02
  Speaker 1: but the United States has now created in an island
• 1:20:05
  Speaker 1: of inefficiency lack of productivity caused by trade barriers. All right,
• 1:20:29
  Speaker 1: all right, A one thousand. You can ask a question
• 1:20:32
  Speaker 1: in the super chat if you want me to answer that.
• 1:20:35
  Speaker 1: But you're basically wrong, and you're basically wrong about intel,
• 1:20:41
  Speaker 1: and you're wrong about the strategy, and you're wrong about
• 1:20:43
  Speaker 1: the optimal strategy of how to make sure we have
• 1:20:45
  Speaker 1: chips for an emergency. The last thing you want is
• 1:20:49
  Speaker 1: to alig on Intel, which has not proved its capabilities,
• 1:20:55
  Speaker 1: and they have strategies that the US coming could e
• 1:20:59
  Speaker 1: gain in securing chips in the United States. And indeed
• 1:21:06
  Speaker 1: there are two foundries, two companies that produce chips in
• 1:21:08
  Speaker 1: the United States for the Defense Department that are not Intel,
• 1:21:12
  Speaker 1: and maybe they should be producing more chips. But subsidizing
• 1:21:17
  Speaker 1: Intel and is there is by far the wrong strategy,
• 1:21:22
  Speaker 1: and taking an equity stake in Intel is a disaster.
• 1:21:26
  Speaker 1: All right. I know I keep answering, Aim, I shouldn't,
• 1:21:29
  Speaker 1: I shouldn't I should ignore him? All right? That is trade. Now.
• 1:21:36
  Speaker 1: What I'm gonna do now is I'm gonna look at
• 1:21:38
  Speaker 1: the super chats and see take all the questions about trade.
• 1:21:43
  Speaker 1: Then I'm gonna do some song reviews, and then I'll
• 1:21:47
  Speaker 1: finish up the questions whatever questions exist beyond that. All right,
• 1:21:53
  Speaker 1: let's start with Jennifer pro tariff arguments. Trade deficit, bad,
• 1:21:58
  Speaker 1: dependence on hostile nations for necessary goods, destroying manufacturing jobs,
• 1:22:03
  Speaker 1: retaliation for tariffs put on us. That's all the stupid
• 1:22:06
  Speaker 1: arguments I can think of. Okay, let's see trade deficits,
• 1:22:09
  Speaker 1: bad trade deficits. I didn't talk about trade deficits. I
• 1:22:13
  Speaker 1: should so thank you for asking that, Jennifer, trade deficits.
• 1:22:16
  Speaker 1: How can trade efficis be bad? I mean, I have
• 1:22:19
  Speaker 1: a massive trade deficit with the grocery store. I go
• 1:22:23
  Speaker 1: to the grocery store and I spend my money there,
• 1:22:25
  Speaker 1: and the grocery store never does a super chat, never
• 1:22:28
  Speaker 1: does a super chat, so I never get my money
• 1:22:31
  Speaker 1: back from the grocery store. Now does that mean I'm
• 1:22:35
  Speaker 1: worse off? For better off? If I have a trade
• 1:22:38
  Speaker 1: deficit with the grocery store. I traded with the grocery store.
• 1:22:42
  Speaker 1: I gave them money and I got stuff. I'm better off,
• 1:22:46
  Speaker 1: they're better off. That's the whole point of win win. Now,
• 1:22:52
  Speaker 1: when you're talking about the international trade, it is true
• 1:22:55
  Speaker 1: that when I buy something from Mexico, they now have dollars,
• 1:23:03
  Speaker 1: and when they want to go buy stuff in Mexico,
• 1:23:06
  Speaker 1: they can't use those dollars. So what do they do. Well,
• 1:23:12
  Speaker 1: they have to either buy stuff from an American using
• 1:23:19
  Speaker 1: those dollars, or they have to invest in America, buy
• 1:23:25
  Speaker 1: a bond, by a stock still, buy stuff by real
• 1:23:28
  Speaker 1: estate in America. So the reality is that trade deficits
• 1:23:34
  Speaker 1: are offset by investment. Subpluses. There's a massive surplus of
• 1:23:42
  Speaker 1: investment in America because every dollar that some foreigner has
• 1:23:50
  Speaker 1: because he sold something to an American and got a
• 1:23:53
  Speaker 1: dollar in exchange, every one of those dollars comes back
• 1:23:57
  Speaker 1: to America, typically as an investment. Some of the dollars
• 1:24:04
  Speaker 1: are spent on importing, on our exports. But there's an imbalance, right,
• 1:24:09
  Speaker 1: there's a there's trade deficit. The gap about a trillion
• 1:24:12
  Speaker 1: dollars is for any investment in the United States. So
• 1:24:21
  Speaker 1: trade deficits don't matter because the dollars flow back to
• 1:24:24
  Speaker 1: the US. And let's say the Mexicans doesn't want to
• 1:24:28
  Speaker 1: buy anything from the US, but he needs to buy
• 1:24:31
  Speaker 1: I don't know, he needs to buy I was gonna
• 1:24:36
  Speaker 1: say gasoline, but they have plenty of oil in Mexico.
• 1:24:40
  Speaker 1: So he needs to buy copper from Chilian. So he
• 1:24:47
  Speaker 1: uses the dollars to buy Chilean copper because the dollar
• 1:24:52
  Speaker 1: is used for international trade. Now the Chilean has the dollar.
• 1:24:56
  Speaker 1: The Chilean needs oil, so he gives the dollar to
• 1:24:59
  Speaker 1: the Soud and he gets the oil. Now Saudi has
• 1:25:03
  Speaker 1: a dollar. He buys American stocks with that dollar, and
• 1:25:09
  Speaker 1: the dollar is back in the US. That's how trade
• 1:25:14
  Speaker 1: on a global scale happens. And it's why. By the way,
• 1:25:18
  Speaker 1: the dollar is used as the kind of currency, it's
• 1:25:22
  Speaker 1: because everybody has them, because they're all selling stuff to
• 1:25:25
  Speaker 1: the US. They all have dollars, and yet they have
• 1:25:28
  Speaker 1: their in ace sense get rid of those dollars, so
• 1:25:30
  Speaker 1: they might as well use it for trade among each other.
• 1:25:32
  Speaker 1: And the dollars relatively stable, and they trust the political
• 1:25:35
  Speaker 1: system in the US at least they used to, and
• 1:25:38
  Speaker 1: therefore the dollar is used for most global trade, but
• 1:25:43
  Speaker 1: the dollars all flow back to the US, so trade
• 1:25:45
  Speaker 1: deficits don't matter. Dependence on hostile nations for necessary goods,
• 1:25:50
  Speaker 1: that's a national security issue. And yes, we should think
• 1:25:53
  Speaker 1: about are they goods that we have to produce in
• 1:25:57
  Speaker 1: the United States? And if they are, then we need
• 1:26:00
  Speaker 1: to find strategies by which to make those goods in
• 1:26:05
  Speaker 1: the United States. But national security is way, way, way
• 1:26:10
  Speaker 1: over used as an excuse. Just notice that tariffs on
• 1:26:15
  Speaker 1: furniture are justified by national security. Tariffs and cause automobiles
• 1:26:22
  Speaker 1: justified by national security. But if we find it good,
• 1:26:26
  Speaker 1: let's say rare earth materials, then what we need to
• 1:26:29
  Speaker 1: do is deregulate the mining business, deregulate land ownership, deregulate
• 1:26:36
  Speaker 1: the ability to build manufacturing plants that can produce the mining,
• 1:26:43
  Speaker 1: and then the defense uponment can then go to companies
• 1:26:47
  Speaker 1: that own the mines and own their refining capabilities and
• 1:26:51
  Speaker 1: say we'll buy x amount of this rare earth material
• 1:26:57
  Speaker 1: for the next ten years at twenty percent of a
• 1:27:00
  Speaker 1: market prices. And that is a subsidy in a sense,
• 1:27:06
  Speaker 1: but that is a way in which you're now creating
• 1:27:10
  Speaker 1: an incentive for capital to flow in, for people to produce,
• 1:27:13
  Speaker 1: the people to create, for competition to arise. And yes,
• 1:27:18
  Speaker 1: the government will be overpaying for the next ten years,
• 1:27:20
  Speaker 1: but now you'll have a domestic industry this producing that
• 1:27:23
  Speaker 1: rewarth material that you actually need for national security reasons.
• 1:27:28
  Speaker 1: It's just like when we buy a fifteen, so the
• 1:27:30
  Speaker 1: goverment is overpaying for fifteens. They have to otherwise nobody's
• 1:27:35
  Speaker 1: going to invest in f sixteens, f thirty fives, sixteens
• 1:27:38
  Speaker 1: or whatever it is. There's no we're not going to
• 1:27:44
  Speaker 1: rely on international competition to build our weapon systems. So
• 1:27:48
  Speaker 1: we overpay for the weapons systems, knowing we're overpaying, but
• 1:27:51
  Speaker 1: knowing that we have to buy them domestically. Anything that
• 1:27:54
  Speaker 1: we have to buy literally have to proven through national
• 1:27:58
  Speaker 1: security strategy, overpay, make long term commitments, and you'll see
• 1:28:03
  Speaker 1: capital flowing into that industry to produce the thing that
• 1:28:05
  Speaker 1: you need. Destroying manufacturing. It's true that phone competition can
• 1:28:13
  Speaker 1: destroy it, particularly industry in the United States, but it
• 1:28:18
  Speaker 1: does so by lowering prices, by making it more efficient,
• 1:28:22
  Speaker 1: and thus by improving the quality of life and stand
• 1:28:25
  Speaker 1: of living off Americans. It's just like what would happen
• 1:28:31
  Speaker 1: if in another state. Let's say you know you're you'rere
• 1:28:35
  Speaker 1: euinnning an autofactory in Michigan, and then somebody opens up
• 1:28:40
  Speaker 1: a auto factory that's much more productive, much more efficient,
• 1:28:45
  Speaker 1: and doesn't use what do you call it, union labor
• 1:28:49
  Speaker 1: in South Carolina. Well, some auto companies in Michigan will
• 1:28:56
  Speaker 1: have to close some factories because they can't be Should
• 1:29:02
  Speaker 1: we ban that, should we ban competition? Well, now we're
• 1:29:06
  Speaker 1: just expanding competition across the oceans, which is great. More
• 1:29:11
  Speaker 1: division of labor, more specialization, yes, more what shooptet are
• 1:29:17
  Speaker 1: called creative destruction. But the creative destruction is a net
• 1:29:22
  Speaker 1: positive win win ultimately, and that creates more jobs, not
• 1:29:28
  Speaker 1: less jobs, higher paying jobs, not low way paying jobs.
• 1:29:31
  Speaker 1: Wages have gone up with globalization, not down, and the
• 1:29:37
  Speaker 1: number of jobs has gone up, not down. The number
• 1:29:40
  Speaker 1: of jobs in manufacturing has gone down, but that's mostly
• 1:29:43
  Speaker 1: because of automation. We still manufacture a lot in the
• 1:29:47
  Speaker 1: United States in spite of globalization, and we make more
• 1:29:52
  Speaker 1: money because we have focused on the things we're particularly
• 1:29:55
  Speaker 1: good at. Comparative advantage. All right, the rest I think
• 1:30:01
  Speaker 1: I have covered, Thank you, Jennifer Adam By USA. Why
• 1:30:07
  Speaker 1: not just buy only from your state, your city, your neighborhood.
• 1:30:12
  Speaker 1: Of course we wouldn't be better off. Time to revisit
• 1:30:15
  Speaker 1: objectivist Island. Yeah, yes, I mean absolutely. It is no
• 1:30:21
  Speaker 1: logic can buy USA. You should buy the best, cheapest,
• 1:30:26
  Speaker 1: highest quality for the price product you can buy because
• 1:30:29
  Speaker 1: it's in yourself interest to do so, and you shouldn't
• 1:30:33
  Speaker 1: care where it's made. Indeed, as Harry Binswanger writes in
• 1:30:39
  Speaker 1: his essay on by America as an American, if you
• 1:30:45
  Speaker 1: buy because something's made in America and not because something's
• 1:30:48
  Speaker 1: the best quality per dollar spent, you are being an
• 1:30:51
  Speaker 1: American because you're being sacrificial for the sake of the States,
• 1:30:57
  Speaker 1: for the sake of I don't know. Some some buy
• 1:31:01
  Speaker 1: USA mythology by the best at the best price, and
• 1:31:09
  Speaker 1: that's true. By USA, it's the whole we now have
• 1:31:12
  Speaker 1: buy local. Why why I want to buy the best?
• 1:31:19
  Speaker 1: You know, so many things are If you bought local,
• 1:31:21
  Speaker 1: you would never buy a computer, never buy chip micros processor.
• 1:31:25
  Speaker 1: You wouldn't buy anything with my core processes because almost
• 1:31:27
  Speaker 1: none of you live in a locality where microprocesses are built.
• 1:31:32
  Speaker 1: And that's good because building micro processes needs economies of scale. Wes,
• 1:31:43
  Speaker 1: thank you for the fifty bucks. Really appreciated. I never
• 1:31:47
  Speaker 1: understood how other countries are supposed to pay the tariffs.
• 1:31:50
  Speaker 1: I mean, how does the US government collect the tariff
• 1:31:53
  Speaker 1: from a Chinese company. It's obviously obvious someone in the
• 1:31:57
  Speaker 1: US has to pay the triff. Yes, that's another myth
• 1:31:59
  Speaker 1: about tariff, that somehow foreign countries pay the tariff. Now
• 1:32:04
  Speaker 1: here's how theoretically it would work. But they wouldn't pay anything.
• 1:32:08
  Speaker 1: They would just eat it. So the idea is they
• 1:32:13
  Speaker 1: so want to sell their stuff in the US that
• 1:32:17
  Speaker 1: what they do is they reduce the price by the
• 1:32:22
  Speaker 1: amount of the tariff, so that American consumers don't pay
• 1:32:27
  Speaker 1: any higher price. They paid the same price they did
• 1:32:30
  Speaker 1: before the tariff, but now a certain percentage of that
• 1:32:36
  Speaker 1: price goes to the US government as the tax, and
• 1:32:41
  Speaker 1: while and the US consumer is no worse off, it's
• 1:32:46
  Speaker 1: just the Chinese company is getting less money and the
• 1:32:51
  Speaker 1: US government is getting more money. That's the theory, and
• 1:32:55
  Speaker 1: it works, right. It works. If faron companies eat the tariff,
• 1:33:05
  Speaker 1: prices for US goods don't increase. It's just the recipient
• 1:33:13
  Speaker 1: of what you pay changes from the Chinese company to
• 1:33:15
  Speaker 1: now the Chinese company plus the government. But the reality
• 1:33:19
  Speaker 1: is they can't profit margins, and most of these goods
• 1:33:24
  Speaker 1: are very small, and suddenly you're increasing it costs by
• 1:33:29
  Speaker 1: fifteen percent, and you expect them to eat that, and
• 1:33:34
  Speaker 1: you're increasing the fifteen percent on all their competitors as well.
• 1:33:39
  Speaker 1: So they're not going to eat it. They're going to
• 1:33:41
  Speaker 1: make the consumer eat it, which is exactly what happens.
• 1:33:45
  Speaker 1: And we saw last year that the effective tariff that
• 1:33:49
  Speaker 1: US consumers are paying are in a sense of higher prices.
• 1:33:55
  Speaker 1: It was seven point six percent last year. It'll be
• 1:33:58
  Speaker 1: over ten percent this year because it's rule in now
• 1:34:00
  Speaker 1: with the change in tariffs as of yesterday or as
• 1:34:03
  Speaker 1: a Friday, we'll see how it actually works and what
• 1:34:06
  Speaker 1: it actually works out to be. But there's literally so
• 1:34:11
  Speaker 1: that's how wes. That's how Trump can credibly argue that
• 1:34:18
  Speaker 1: feigners pay it because because prices don't go up and
• 1:34:23
  Speaker 1: then the feigner but they get less money for the
• 1:34:26
  Speaker 1: product because the taxes has to be paid out of
• 1:34:29
  Speaker 1: that price, so they're eating it. But the reality is
• 1:34:34
  Speaker 1: that that's not happening, and it never does happen. When
• 1:34:36
  Speaker 1: tarists go up, it's the consumer that eats it because
• 1:34:41
  Speaker 1: profit margins are not high enough for businesses to eat
• 1:34:44
  Speaker 1: the tariff. Feign businesses to eat the teff. Chinese companies
• 1:34:48
  Speaker 1: barely make any money on the stuff they sell. Americans
• 1:34:52
  Speaker 1: f lip it milk. Intialism the belief that man cannot
• 1:34:57
  Speaker 1: decide It is the idea here the collective or king
• 1:35:02
  Speaker 1: is above the individual. It is collectivism, the denial that
• 1:35:05
  Speaker 1: man needs to think to negate man as man. Bad
• 1:35:08
  Speaker 1: economics is just the consequences. Yes, I mean every time
• 1:35:13
  Speaker 1: the government is intervening in the economy, it is a
• 1:35:17
  Speaker 1: reflection of a belief that you as an individual shouldn't
• 1:35:22
  Speaker 1: in a sense, cannot make decisions for yourself that there
• 1:35:25
  Speaker 1: is some central planner, there's somebody up in government who
• 1:35:29
  Speaker 1: is better qualified, better equipped to make decisions for you.
• 1:35:35
  Speaker 1: And therefore, any time any government intervention in the economy,
• 1:35:38
  Speaker 1: whether it's mook into list or otherwise, is a reflection
• 1:35:42
  Speaker 1: of a philosophical system that denies you. Agency denies you
• 1:35:48
  Speaker 1: the ability to make decisions for yourself. And it's an
• 1:35:52
  Speaker 1: implicit acceptance of a philosophy that says you are not
• 1:35:55
  Speaker 1: capable of, or not competent to, or don't have the
• 1:35:59
  Speaker 1: right to make decisions for yourself. And that's true of
• 1:36:04
  Speaker 1: tariffs as well. The government is going to decide whether
• 1:36:07
  Speaker 1: you should input stuff from buy stuff from China or not.
• 1:36:13
  Speaker 1: Let's see Gail says, well, you mean to say that
• 1:36:17
  Speaker 1: don't add billions and billions to the making economy. No,
• 1:36:21
  Speaker 1: they do add billions to government because there are tax
• 1:36:27
  Speaker 1: that's being raised and we pay that tax, and therefore
• 1:36:31
  Speaker 1: the government has higher revenues. And that is not good.
• 1:36:35
  Speaker 1: That is, raising taxes has never been good. If you
• 1:36:38
  Speaker 1: want to close the deficit, which we all should want,
• 1:36:42
  Speaker 1: not the trade deficit, which is irrelevant, but the government deficit,
• 1:36:48
  Speaker 1: which is very relevant. That is that the government spends
• 1:36:51
  Speaker 1: much more than it takes in the way to do
• 1:36:54
  Speaker 1: that is by cutting spending, not by raising taxes. Republicans
• 1:36:58
  Speaker 1: always used to understand that. But now we're tariffs, they
• 1:37:03
  Speaker 1: advocate for raising taxes. Actually, it's not true. Republicans always
• 1:37:06
  Speaker 1: used to understanding. Republicans have always been the political party
• 1:37:09
  Speaker 1: of tariffs. Going back to nineteenth century, Republicans were the
• 1:37:13
  Speaker 1: ones who were pro tariffs. Democrats were the ones who
• 1:37:16
  Speaker 1: are anti traves. That's true through most of American history,
• 1:37:21
  Speaker 1: with exception of the late twentieth century, where Democrats were
• 1:37:26
  Speaker 1: pro tuts and Republicans were anti tais until Trump. Um
• 1:37:42
  Speaker 1: let's see um Simon says, why does the US president
• 1:37:57
  Speaker 1: the government have any say in economics or true between
• 1:38:00
  Speaker 1: individuals and companies. Well, because because we haven't restricted them
• 1:38:06
  Speaker 1: from having that say, we don't recognize economic rights the
• 1:38:10
  Speaker 1: same as we do other kinds of rights. We have
• 1:38:13
  Speaker 1: granted the government the power to intervene in our lives
• 1:38:18
  Speaker 1: when it comes to economics in a big way, and
• 1:38:23
  Speaker 1: our economic rights have not been protected at all. That's
• 1:38:31
  Speaker 1: just that's true of trade, but that's true of all
• 1:38:34
  Speaker 1: the regulations and taxes and so on. Plus we have
• 1:38:37
  Speaker 1: a huge government that has to fund itself in some way,
• 1:38:40
  Speaker 1: and therefore we have approved them to tax us, which
• 1:38:47
  Speaker 1: is a clear violation of our rights. It's the Amendment
• 1:38:51
  Speaker 1: to Constitution that allows the income tax as an example
• 1:38:53
  Speaker 1: of them. And you Kearn says Devil's Advocate Advocate. The
• 1:38:58
  Speaker 1: problem isn't trade. It's Trifon's dilemma, which the US is
• 1:39:04
  Speaker 1: required to run persistent deficits to keep international trade running.
• 1:39:12
  Speaker 1: That's just not true, right. International trade can still run
• 1:39:20
  Speaker 1: even if the United States has a balanced trade. It
• 1:39:29
  Speaker 1: just means that the dollars flow back to the United
• 1:39:32
  Speaker 1: States in the form of purchasing American goods. So there's
• 1:39:40
  Speaker 1: just no Now, there's nothing wrong with deficits. So running
• 1:39:46
  Speaker 1: a deficit in order to facilitate lots of dollars out
• 1:39:50
  Speaker 1: there in the world is fine, although the reality is
• 1:39:55
  Speaker 1: again the dollars all come home in the form of
• 1:39:57
  Speaker 1: either buying either formative from the United States perspective exports,
• 1:40:04
  Speaker 1: or in the form of investments. One way, the other
• 1:40:06
  Speaker 1: dollars come home. Let's see if there's any other. It's
• 1:40:21
  Speaker 1: hard to understand the argument, right, Philippa says, it's hard
• 1:40:30
  Speaker 1: to understand the argument of national security for tariffs. US
• 1:40:34
  Speaker 1: has plenty of valors, and it can buy and stock
• 1:40:36
  Speaker 1: already made stuff for future use. Absolutely, And the US
• 1:40:40
  Speaker 1: produces a lot of stuff and in time of wall
• 1:40:43
  Speaker 1: can shift production very quickly. And in the United States says,
• 1:40:49
  Speaker 1: more manufacturing capacity capabilities today than ever in its history
• 1:40:54
  Speaker 1: with less labor. But that's because of automation. But it
• 1:40:57
  Speaker 1: has the manufacturing capabilities. So yes, the national security argument
• 1:41:02
  Speaker 1: is a bogus argument. National observe Nature observer says, I
• 1:41:08
  Speaker 1: don't think there's any national leader who thinks that tariffs
• 1:41:11
  Speaker 1: are wrong in principle. They do trade deals only to
• 1:41:15
  Speaker 1: make trade stable or quote fair. Example, Connie does this. Yes,
• 1:41:21
  Speaker 1: I agree, there is no national leader, maybe with the
• 1:41:24
  Speaker 1: exception of Milay, who at least understands this. Whether he's
• 1:41:27
  Speaker 1: willing to implement it or not, we'll see. But there's
• 1:41:31
  Speaker 1: not who understands the tariffs are wrong in principle. But
• 1:41:35
  Speaker 1: they are wrong in principle because there are no national
• 1:41:40
  Speaker 1: leaders out there willing to give up the power the
• 1:41:42
  Speaker 1: tariffs give them. That's the reality. Stephen says, would you
• 1:41:54
  Speaker 1: commend Command Roberts. Command Roberts for his clear and logical writing.
• 1:41:59
  Speaker 1: Did you want to stand epa versus West Virginia? Can
• 1:42:03
  Speaker 1: you explain that case and how it differs from learning. Well,
• 1:42:07
  Speaker 1: we're not going to do that now because it's not
• 1:42:09
  Speaker 1: related to tariffs. Yeah, I mean Roberts did a good job. Again,
• 1:42:13
  Speaker 1: I think Ghostich did a better job. I think ghost
• 1:42:15
  Speaker 1: Itch is an argument, but I haven't read Roberts in
• 1:42:19
  Speaker 1: detail yet. And bet Roberts came to the right decision.
• 1:42:27
  Speaker 1: So good for Roberts, and his decision is clear and short.
• 1:42:33
  Speaker 1: Twenty one pages. That's an achievement. It's a good fame.
• 1:42:36
  Speaker 1: All right, Let's do some song reviews and then I'll
• 1:42:44
  Speaker 1: go back to your questions and finish up the super
• 1:42:49
  Speaker 1: chats so you can keep asking super chat questions. By
• 1:42:52
  Speaker 1: the way, we've only raised half of what we should
• 1:42:55
  Speaker 1: be raising. Because we're in the second hour, we're probably
• 1:42:57
  Speaker 1: going to go into our third hour behind on the fundraising.
• 1:43:01
  Speaker 1: So not good. Not good. Last few days we've been
• 1:43:09
  Speaker 1: last few days have been short on contributions on the
• 1:43:16
  Speaker 1: super chats. So it would be great if some of
• 1:43:20
  Speaker 1: you picked it up a little bit. All right, let's
• 1:43:22
  Speaker 1: see I'm looking for Okay, so let's start with. First
• 1:43:29
  Speaker 1: song is called the Uh, Let the Bad Times Roll.
• 1:43:35
  Speaker 1: This is from John John Glue Let the Bad Times Roll.
• 1:43:39
  Speaker 1: It's the Offsprings twenty twenty one hit, Let the Bad
• 1:43:45
  Speaker 1: Times Roll. It's kind of a what would you call
• 1:43:50
  Speaker 1: it a typical song. It's it's got kind of upbeat
• 1:43:55
  Speaker 1: music and it's playing off Let the good good Times Roll.
• 1:43:59
  Speaker 1: And this is like the Bad Times Role, but it's
• 1:44:01
  Speaker 1: got that same upbeat music as if it's about the
• 1:44:04
  Speaker 1: good times, but it's really criticizing kind of what's going
• 1:44:09
  Speaker 1: on in the world. And it's it's primarily criticizing uh,
• 1:44:12
  Speaker 1: kind of the world and the Trump and kind of
• 1:44:16
  Speaker 1: uh what happened on the Trump presidency. There's direct references
• 1:44:21
  Speaker 1: to Trump in the song. It's kind of a it's
• 1:44:26
  Speaker 1: got a fun beat and a fun melody. It's it's
• 1:44:30
  Speaker 1: again upbeat and and and crazy. Oh Baby, Let the
• 1:44:35
  Speaker 1: Bad Times Roll. Machiavelli flow, Hey Lincoln, how does your
• 1:44:39
  Speaker 1: grave role? The idea of Lincoln rolling in his grave,
• 1:44:42
  Speaker 1: given what's what's happening here? It was there's some direct
• 1:44:48
  Speaker 1: references to to kind of Trump stuff, Mexicans and Blacks
• 1:44:51
  Speaker 1: and Jews, got it all figured out? For you gonna
• 1:44:55
  Speaker 1: build a wall. Let's decide apathy or suicide. I I
• 1:45:00
  Speaker 1: think the you know this, apathy and suicide keeps coming back.
• 1:45:03
  Speaker 1: It's the idea that you have a choice. You can
• 1:45:06
  Speaker 1: either commit suicide, which is basically vote for Trump, or
• 1:45:10
  Speaker 1: the status quo nothing changes, which is what the alternative is. UH.
• 1:45:16
  Speaker 1: And the passion is on the side of suicide, and
• 1:45:20
  Speaker 1: the apathy is on the side of the status quo.
• 1:45:24
  Speaker 1: And you know that the bad times roll, the bad
• 1:45:28
  Speaker 1: times are rolling is a consequence, so well, don't think
• 1:45:33
  Speaker 1: we're crazy crazy when you see all the hell we're raising.
• 1:45:38
  Speaker 1: It's it is. It's a fun song, you know. I
• 1:45:45
  Speaker 1: like that. I wouldn't listen to it again, I don't think.
• 1:45:48
  Speaker 1: But it's got a nice beat. It's it's it's got
• 1:45:50
  Speaker 1: a nice uplifting and again it's it's cynical and critical
• 1:45:55
  Speaker 1: of UH, of of what is what is happening? Let
• 1:46:02
  Speaker 1: me see if there's something else I wanted to say.
• 1:46:04
  Speaker 1: It became a major rock hit, a top Billboard mainstream
• 1:46:09
  Speaker 1: rock charts. It's all about political disillusionment. It's a reflection
• 1:46:15
  Speaker 1: on kind of world leaders giving up on solving crisis.
• 1:46:20
  Speaker 1: That's the apathy. So the people who are doing stuff
• 1:46:23
  Speaker 1: a suicidal. The people were apathy of giving up. And
• 1:46:26
  Speaker 1: that's the best we can hope for, is the giving
• 1:46:28
  Speaker 1: up because the others all suicidal. It's Machiavalian, right mechia
• 1:46:33
  Speaker 1: value flow is in the lyrics again, direct references to
• 1:46:37
  Speaker 1: the twenty sixteen election. Oh there's a reference to locker up.
• 1:46:42
  Speaker 1: Where's the locker up stuff? There's a direct reference to
• 1:46:44
  Speaker 1: locker up here, So direct references to Trump. Yeah, now
• 1:46:51
  Speaker 1: it was all a lie, but that bitch won't get
• 1:46:54
  Speaker 1: in my way. Keep shouting what I like, lock her up,
• 1:46:58
  Speaker 1: lock her up? Now that's a good one, I gotta
• 1:47:00
  Speaker 1: say so. Clearly a song that is reflection of reflecting
• 1:47:08
  Speaker 1: on Trump and his way. You know, I enjoyed the music.
• 1:47:13
  Speaker 1: I guess it's a it's in its own way, a
• 1:47:16
  Speaker 1: protest song. I don't know how effective it is that
• 1:47:18
  Speaker 1: a protest song. You know, the the upbeat, positivity of
• 1:47:23
  Speaker 1: the melody and the beat, crash with the with the
• 1:47:29
  Speaker 1: with the cynical downbeat, let the bad times roll lyrics
• 1:47:35
  Speaker 1: of the song. But that's kind of what I guess
• 1:47:38
  Speaker 1: makes it makes it fun and somewhat interesting, all right,
• 1:47:44
  Speaker 1: second song is No Doubt, No doubt, It's my life.
• 1:47:51
  Speaker 1: It's my life. So it's my life is an older song,
• 1:47:55
  Speaker 1: which was it was a song by Talk Talk in
• 1:47:58
  Speaker 1: nineteen eighty four and it was re uh you know uh.
• 1:48:03
  Speaker 1: It was done by No Doubt with what's her name,
• 1:48:07
  Speaker 1: ugly loo uh singing the lead in it. This one
• 1:48:16
  Speaker 1: is is again it's upbeat, fast, uh, melodic, very it
• 1:48:22
  Speaker 1: has an eighty sound to it, even though this particular
• 1:48:25
  Speaker 1: version was done in in in the early two thousands,
• 1:48:29
  Speaker 1: I think, or maybe the nineties, but it's got that
• 1:48:33
  Speaker 1: eighty eighty feel to it. Gwen Stefani Storry not Aglilo,
• 1:48:37
  Speaker 1: Gwen Stefani. So it's it's it's sung by Gwen Stefani.
• 1:48:40
  Speaker 1: She has a good voice, and you know it's got
• 1:48:44
  Speaker 1: it's got that upbeat, melodic and and very uh you know,
• 1:48:50
  Speaker 1: a live kind of beat to it. Again, it's got
• 1:48:55
  Speaker 1: this in spite of the the the kind of positivity
• 1:49:00
  Speaker 1: of the sound, the melody, the beat. It's a pretty
• 1:49:05
  Speaker 1: downer of a song. It's it's it's my life, but
• 1:49:10
  Speaker 1: it's it's my life, which is being you know, people
• 1:49:14
  Speaker 1: are screwing over and you know, so it's I'm standing
• 1:49:19
  Speaker 1: up for myself. This is a woman standing up for herself,
• 1:49:24
  Speaker 1: but one that is it's in defiance of other people
• 1:49:30
  Speaker 1: trying to screw me over. So it's a very defiant song. Certainly.
• 1:49:35
  Speaker 1: The music video has a fan fatale character killing three
• 1:49:40
  Speaker 1: different men in it. It's not clear what the men
• 1:49:42
  Speaker 1: have done to her, but she murders all three and
• 1:49:45
  Speaker 1: then she's in the music video. She is executed for it.
• 1:49:51
  Speaker 1: But it's a it's got to feel good, and again
• 1:49:56
  Speaker 1: the music video contradicts the feel good like she's killing
• 1:49:59
  Speaker 1: people and she he gets killed herself by the authority.
• 1:50:02
  Speaker 1: She's on trial, but it's like a stand up in
• 1:50:05
  Speaker 1: your face, I'm gonna do it again. It's fun, it's
• 1:50:10
  Speaker 1: it's it's got a candy quality to it in terms
• 1:50:15
  Speaker 1: of the the the music, but it's you know, it's
• 1:50:23
  Speaker 1: not a it's not a song that it's not a
• 1:50:25
  Speaker 1: song you're gonna I think when dislikes it's just not
• 1:50:29
  Speaker 1: particularly interesting. I don't find it that particularly interesting. You know. Oh,
• 1:50:34
  Speaker 1: it's my life, don't you forget. It's my life. It
• 1:50:36
  Speaker 1: never ends, it never ends, it never ends. But then
• 1:50:38
  Speaker 1: she's being executed. She i guess it does ends. Funny
• 1:50:41
  Speaker 1: how I blind myself. I never knew I was sometimes
• 1:50:44
  Speaker 1: played upon, Afraid to lose. Oh, I'd let myself. I
• 1:50:50
  Speaker 1: tell myself, what good do you do? Convince myself. It's
• 1:50:54
  Speaker 1: it's about putting yourself down and it's standing up for yourself.
• 1:50:57
  Speaker 1: It's my life. Don't you forget? It's my life. It
• 1:51:00
  Speaker 1: never ends, it never ends. So it's got this conflicted
• 1:51:05
  Speaker 1: character who's been used and abused and let herself be
• 1:51:12
  Speaker 1: used and abused and then decides to stand up for
• 1:51:15
  Speaker 1: herself in spite of that. So kind of again a
• 1:51:19
  Speaker 1: mixture between and a bit of a contradiction between I
• 1:51:22
  Speaker 1: think the music and the actual theme. But very eighties upbeat, cute. Again.
• 1:51:32
  Speaker 1: I would never listen to it more than once. It's
• 1:51:35
  Speaker 1: like candy. You know, you taste it and it's fine,
• 1:51:39
  Speaker 1: and it's good, but it leaves no no lasting impression.
• 1:51:43
  Speaker 1: It's not it's not gonna stay with me. Here's a
• 1:51:49
  Speaker 1: song that is not candy. This is called Hello Hello,
• 1:51:53
  Speaker 1: Hello Heaven, Hello, sung by Young Blood. So this is Hello,
• 1:51:57
  Speaker 1: Heaven Hello, sung by Young Blood. It's a nine minute song,
• 1:52:01
  Speaker 1: very atmospheric, it's got a very melodic very pretty beautiful beginning.
• 1:52:09
  Speaker 1: It then gets very angry. Uh and and and and
• 1:52:13
  Speaker 1: and you know the singer is yelling and and anti melodic,
• 1:52:17
  Speaker 1: and it ends again on a very kind of soft,
• 1:52:21
  Speaker 1: soft note. It's how to tell what it's really about
• 1:52:24
  Speaker 1: just from the lyrics, you know, it's it's it's not
• 1:52:29
  Speaker 1: clear is he talking to is he talking to God?
• 1:52:32
  Speaker 1: Is he talking to his past? Is he's talking about
• 1:52:37
  Speaker 1: the future? What does he actually want? Uh? Then it
• 1:52:41
  Speaker 1: goes into this anger. You know, since I was a
• 1:52:44
  Speaker 1: little boy, I devised a windmill gate gateway. They kicked
• 1:52:48
  Speaker 1: me in the mud and they told me that's the
• 1:52:50
  Speaker 1: price you pay. So it's very again somebody who's got
• 1:52:54
  Speaker 1: beaten up and kicked around, and he's angry, and he's
• 1:52:57
  Speaker 1: gonna he's gonna move into the future in spite of that,
• 1:52:59
  Speaker 1: and he's gonna succeed in spite of that. I mean,
• 1:53:02
  Speaker 1: I think it's interesting musically. I like songs that change
• 1:53:06
  Speaker 1: in mood and don't have one just just simple story
• 1:53:11
  Speaker 1: to tell, but has actually a change and a and
• 1:53:14
  Speaker 1: a flunctuation, which this definitely does you know it it
• 1:53:24
  Speaker 1: you know, supposedly the the hello. There's a lot of
• 1:53:27
  Speaker 1: Hello Hello, Hello, Hello, repeated in the song. Supposely that
• 1:53:31
  Speaker 1: has a double meaning. It's a greeting to his future
• 1:53:34
  Speaker 1: and a fallwell to his past self. So a lot
• 1:53:38
  Speaker 1: of this is a dialogue with his past self. Uh.
• 1:53:42
  Speaker 1: There's a line one step into heaven, but first you'll
• 1:53:46
  Speaker 1: go to hell and back. That's repeated a number of times.
• 1:53:51
  Speaker 1: This symbolizes the painful processes of supposedly self reclamation, self
• 1:53:57
  Speaker 1: moving forward and and and and giving, you know, stepping
• 1:54:01
  Speaker 1: out of the past and moving forward and achieving. So
• 1:54:04
  Speaker 1: it's got a sudden positivity instead of moving forward. I'm
• 1:54:08
  Speaker 1: not going to be dragged down by my past. I'm
• 1:54:10
  Speaker 1: not going to be dragged down by the bad things
• 1:54:12
  Speaker 1: people have done to me. There's a Helloa you are
• 1:54:17
  Speaker 1: you out there? Do you know me? Do you love me?
• 1:54:19
  Speaker 1: Do you hate me? This is this is kind of
• 1:54:23
  Speaker 1: the opening lines. This is again vulnerability. Is he talking
• 1:54:29
  Speaker 1: to Who's he talking to exactly? It's not clear. Maybe
• 1:54:32
  Speaker 1: he's talking to himself, which is probably the most likely thing,
• 1:54:36
  Speaker 1: and again trying to move forward. Maybe he's talking to
• 1:54:39
  Speaker 1: the audience. There's a chance I won't see you tomorrow,
• 1:54:43
  Speaker 1: so I will spend today saying hello. And this is
• 1:54:48
  Speaker 1: in the in an acoustic kind of midsection. I don't
• 1:54:54
  Speaker 1: know if I can make it, but I know it's
• 1:54:57
  Speaker 1: how I feel so again, emotional driven, driven forward, but
• 1:55:06
  Speaker 1: acknowledging kind of a painful past. And it's an interesting song. Again,
• 1:55:10
  Speaker 1: I don't particularly like it. And you guys, you know,
• 1:55:13
  Speaker 1: you know you choose music I don't particularly like. You know,
• 1:55:19
  Speaker 1: you really have to take to figure out the meaning
• 1:55:22
  Speaker 1: of the lyrics, and it's hard to completely sympathize. Again,
• 1:55:27
  Speaker 1: I like the chain of tone. I like the change
• 1:55:30
  Speaker 1: of music, the change of pace in between. If you're
• 1:55:33
  Speaker 1: going to do a nine minute song, you'd better have
• 1:55:35
  Speaker 1: variation in it. He has a voice. I like it
• 1:55:39
  Speaker 1: more when it's when it's soft and melodic with an
• 1:55:45
  Speaker 1: acoustic less when he's yelling or angry. But rock is angry,
• 1:55:51
  Speaker 1: I mean rock vehemently is is angry? All right. One
• 1:55:58
  Speaker 1: most song, let's see this is FX. This is winning
• 1:56:04
  Speaker 1: by Nefix. I don't know what fix win NEFX And
• 1:56:08
  Speaker 1: I suppose the Fix has been influenced by objectivism. Somebody said,
• 1:56:12
  Speaker 1: and you can see in some of the lyrics, Uh,
• 1:56:15
  Speaker 1: there's some lyrics here that that that uh sound like
• 1:56:19
  Speaker 1: they're being influenced. Uh the second line. So here's the
• 1:56:23
  Speaker 1: first part of the song. I I I can feel
• 1:56:26
  Speaker 1: the blood creeping up from the heathens. God will, got fight,
• 1:56:32
  Speaker 1: got pride, got reason, got reason, got reason. If you
• 1:56:41
  Speaker 1: want to go eat, then you know I'm going to
• 1:56:43
  Speaker 1: feed them. If you're coming for me, hope you're ready
• 1:56:47
  Speaker 1: for a demon. So this is some kind of like
• 1:56:50
  Speaker 1: an anthem. It's like standing up for yourself. It's very
• 1:56:54
  Speaker 1: much sung. I don't know what you call the style,
• 1:56:57
  Speaker 1: uh rap, I don't know. I don't know the This
• 1:57:01
  Speaker 1: is not my kind of music, and I don't particularly
• 1:57:05
  Speaker 1: I don't particularly like it. I don't like the singing.
• 1:57:08
  Speaker 1: But it's it's it's resilience against hardship. It's self reliance
• 1:57:14
  Speaker 1: and discipline. It's like, I can do this. I have
• 1:57:17
  Speaker 1: a competitive edge. I'm thinking long term. I've got reason.
• 1:57:22
  Speaker 1: You know, I've got fight, I've got pride. It's very
• 1:57:27
  Speaker 1: much a standing up for yourself. And I guess you
• 1:57:29
  Speaker 1: guys like these kind of songs because it's a theme.
• 1:57:32
  Speaker 1: It seems like I can feel the blood creeping up
• 1:57:37
  Speaker 1: from the heathens. I can feel the blood creeping up
• 1:57:39
  Speaker 1: from the heathens. Got will got fight. God will got fight,
• 1:57:44
  Speaker 1: got pride, got reason, got pride, got reason. If you
• 1:57:47
  Speaker 1: want to go eat, If you want to go eat,
• 1:57:49
  Speaker 1: then you know I'm gonna feed him. I don't know
• 1:57:51
  Speaker 1: what that means. If you're coming for me, if you're
• 1:57:53
  Speaker 1: coming for me, hope you're ready for a demon, right,
• 1:57:56
  Speaker 1: So this is I'm gonna I'm gonna beat you. I'm
• 1:57:58
  Speaker 1: I could be a demon. So I don't know. Not
• 1:58:02
  Speaker 1: my music, I don't like it. It's it's it's no melody.
• 1:58:06
  Speaker 1: It's all rhythm, right, no melody, no harmony, just rhythm, rhythm, rhythm. Uninteresting.
• 1:58:14
  Speaker 1: It's it's like maybe it maybe it stands up as poetry,
• 1:58:18
  Speaker 1: and I'm not an expert on poetry. Maybe there's poetry here,
• 1:58:22
  Speaker 1: but there's no music here. It's not musical in my view,
• 1:58:26
  Speaker 1: so I can't really relate to it. But I get
• 1:58:31
  Speaker 1: you know, I I do find it interesting that somebody
• 1:58:33
  Speaker 1: would say God reason in a song like this. It's
• 1:58:36
  Speaker 1: because nothing in the lyrics other than God reason suggests reason.
• 1:58:40
  Speaker 1: Everything else is about emotion, So it's almost like a
• 1:58:43
  Speaker 1: gratuitous thing there. Because he's been influenced by objectivism, saying
• 1:58:47
  Speaker 1: he knows he has to be pro reason or something
• 1:58:49
  Speaker 1: like that. All right. Finally, finally there's a philosophy book
• 1:59:00
  Speaker 1: asked me to review the Academic Festival Overture by Brahms,
• 1:59:06
  Speaker 1: which is a ten minute piece by Brahms written and
• 1:59:10
  Speaker 1: I think in eighteen eighty I think it's in eighteen eighty,
• 1:59:14
  Speaker 1: and in particular there's a famous performance of this piece
• 1:59:19
  Speaker 1: by Leonard Bernstein, who is one of the great conductors
• 1:59:25
  Speaker 1: of the twentieth century. Not one of my favorites, but
• 1:59:28
  Speaker 1: still a great conductor of the twentieth century. This is
• 1:59:33
  Speaker 1: a beautiful piece. This is my music. This is the
• 1:59:36
  Speaker 1: music I love. It's supposed to be. This is a
• 1:59:41
  Speaker 1: piece of music written by Brahms for university in thanks
• 1:59:48
  Speaker 1: for the fact that they gave him an honorary doctorate.
• 1:59:53
  Speaker 1: But it's not the kind of piece of the university
• 1:59:56
  Speaker 1: probably expected, because it is a piece that basically takes
• 2:00:01
  Speaker 1: drinking songs, kind of German university drinking pub drinking songs,
• 2:00:08
  Speaker 1: I think four of them, and weaves them together into
• 2:00:12
  Speaker 1: an orchestral ten minute piece. It's it's got this tension
• 2:00:19
  Speaker 1: between being a little formal and and a little standoffish
• 2:00:29
  Speaker 1: and revelatory. And drinking right song. And you can see
• 2:00:33
  Speaker 1: it in the way this video of Bernstein conducted this,
• 2:00:37
  Speaker 1: which I encourage you to watch. It's a lot of fun.
• 2:00:40
  Speaker 1: You can see it in the way he conducts the
• 2:00:42
  Speaker 1: parts where he's he's holding the orchestra back, you know,
• 2:00:45
  Speaker 1: be a strange and then they go all wild and
• 2:00:47
  Speaker 1: that's more of the drinking stuff. And it's it really
• 2:00:53
  Speaker 1: is a joyous and interesting piece. I mean, this is
• 2:00:57
  Speaker 1: what great music is like. It has, it evokes a
• 2:01:04
  Speaker 1: number of different emotions. It changes pace, it's got different melodies,
• 2:01:12
  Speaker 1: you know, weaving one into the other. It is just
• 2:01:16
  Speaker 1: a it's entertaining. It's only ten minutes. It's entertaining, but
• 2:01:20
  Speaker 1: it's it's it's it's driven, it evokes strong emotions, it's complex.
• 2:01:27
  Speaker 1: The fact that you've got a whole orchestra means that
• 2:01:30
  Speaker 1: you can elicit a whole variety of different sounds out
• 2:01:34
  Speaker 1: of them. There's the wind instruments and the violins and
• 2:01:37
  Speaker 1: the basses and the It really is a fun piece.
• 2:01:41
  Speaker 1: I encourage you to watch it ten minutes. If you're
• 2:01:43
  Speaker 1: not into classical music, this is a good piece to
• 2:01:47
  Speaker 1: you know, uh, one of many to introduce yourself to it,
• 2:01:51
  Speaker 1: particularly if you watch the video and it's it's it's
• 2:01:56
  Speaker 1: not a not a bad way to uh, to get
• 2:01:59
  Speaker 1: a little, a little piece of it. Yeah, I mean
• 2:02:04
  Speaker 1: people have identified the four songs. You can there are
• 2:02:07
  Speaker 1: elements from in the melody of all four songs that
• 2:02:12
  Speaker 1: that are included in there. It's called the Academic Festival Overture,
• 2:02:20
  Speaker 1: which was a celebratory orchestra work by Johann Brahms. It's uh.
• 2:02:27
  Speaker 1: It was described by the composer as quote boisterous Pott
• 2:02:31
  Speaker 1: Perrie of student drinking songs. Fun. All right, those I
• 2:02:40
  Speaker 1: think I'm I think I've done all the song reviews.
• 2:02:43
  Speaker 1: If you have asked me to do a song review
• 2:02:45
  Speaker 1: and i've it's and I've not done it yet, then
• 2:02:48
  Speaker 1: I'm missing it and you're gonna have to remind me
• 2:02:50
  Speaker 1: or send me something to remind me about it. It's
• 2:02:53
  Speaker 1: not on my list for some reason. H And it
• 2:02:55
  Speaker 1: needs to be all right. It would be great if
• 2:02:59
  Speaker 1: somehow we manage to bring in about one hundred and
• 2:03:06
  Speaker 1: fifty dollars still to get to our two hour goal.
• 2:03:10
  Speaker 1: Never mind that three our goal. We've already passed two hours,
• 2:03:13
  Speaker 1: so it'd be good to get to the two our goal,
• 2:03:15
  Speaker 1: so please consider you know, supporting stickers are great because
• 2:03:20
  Speaker 1: you don't have to think of a question and stick
• 2:03:23
  Speaker 1: us in any amount really valuable. Jeffrey did a twenty
• 2:03:25
  Speaker 1: dollars sticker. Thank you, Jeffrey, Exit did a sticker. Let's
• 2:03:30
  Speaker 1: see who else stick us up here? Oh yeah I didn't.
• 2:03:34
  Speaker 1: Thank Paul. Thank you for the sticker, Tony and the Thumb,
• 2:03:42
  Speaker 1: Katherine free Market Capital, thank you guys for the sticker.
• 2:03:46
  Speaker 1: I really appreciate it. We still got one hundred over
• 2:03:49
  Speaker 1: one hundred people watching. Just do a stick out whatever,
• 2:03:52
  Speaker 1: whatever you value the show, you could afford or the
• 2:03:56
  Speaker 1: combination of the above and support the show in some way,
• 2:04:01
  Speaker 1: and that just chips away at the goal and it
• 2:04:03
  Speaker 1: helps us fund the show because this show is only
• 2:04:08
  Speaker 1: exists because of support from you. Can't exist otherwise. My
• 2:04:12
  Speaker 1: time is dedicated to the show rather than other stuff
• 2:04:18
  Speaker 1: because you are paying me. That's the way it is,
• 2:04:22
  Speaker 1: all right, Michael. Is a two part question, Thank you, Michael.
• 2:04:25
  Speaker 1: Are people able to hold a contient epistemology because they
• 2:04:29
  Speaker 1: don't really hold it? Because you can't. It's just a
• 2:04:32
  Speaker 1: game of moving woods around, for gotcha. Whereas the people
• 2:04:36
  Speaker 1: who gravitated towards objectivesm have actually attempted to apply different
• 2:04:40
  Speaker 1: philosophies to really see what's actually true. Well, I don't
• 2:04:48
  Speaker 1: know what exactly you mean by the question, So the
• 2:04:51
  Speaker 1: question is not that clear. People hold the content epistemology
• 2:04:56
  Speaker 1: by default. They haven't really learned to think. They've been
• 2:05:03
  Speaker 1: told that reality maybe exists, maybe doesn't, not to take
• 2:05:06
  Speaker 1: it too seriously. They haven't been taught kant, they haven't
• 2:05:11
  Speaker 1: been taught to contient epistemology. They've been taught, more likely skepticism.
• 2:05:18
  Speaker 1: They've been taught not to trust their mind, not to
• 2:05:22
  Speaker 1: trust reality, not to particularly put any waiting on facts
• 2:05:29
  Speaker 1: versus emotions. But that's not because they've been taught at
• 2:05:34
  Speaker 1: content in pistology. Those are the consequences of contents postroology
• 2:05:38
  Speaker 1: ultimately as filtered through many many thinkers on the way.
• 2:05:42
  Speaker 1: Or they've been taught kind of postmodernism, which is there
• 2:05:46
  Speaker 1: is no absolute anything, there's no real reality, there's just
• 2:05:51
  Speaker 1: or they've been taught the kind of linguistic analysis it's
• 2:05:53
  Speaker 1: just would play. So they've been taught all kinds of
• 2:05:59
  Speaker 1: weird deface the philosophies that are basically undermined the capacity
• 2:06:04
  Speaker 1: to think. So what that manifests itself in is primarily skepticism, emotionalism,
• 2:06:13
  Speaker 1: and inability to use their mind, and inability and lack
• 2:06:18
  Speaker 1: of interest in using their mind. So again it's not
• 2:06:23
  Speaker 1: like people hold and a pistemology. They don't. They hold
• 2:06:26
  Speaker 1: a particular way of using their minds that has been
• 2:06:30
  Speaker 1: shaped by views of pistemology that they have been and
• 2:06:33
  Speaker 1: they've been taught this way of using their mind, in
• 2:06:36
  Speaker 1: this case, not using their minds, and that's what they've
• 2:06:39
  Speaker 1: absorbed and integrated and that's how they live. Thank you,
• 2:06:48
  Speaker 1: Michael Paul Ferris finally live on YouTube. Intel is a
• 2:06:57
  Speaker 1: cony company making it making it second in hand, therefore
• 2:07:01
  Speaker 1: inferior because it does not have the pressure of competition
• 2:07:05
  Speaker 1: to make a superior product. And to do tariffs have
• 2:07:08
  Speaker 1: a similar make a superior product? And do tariffs have
• 2:07:12
  Speaker 1: a similar effect? Yes, to have do exactly the same thing.
• 2:07:15
  Speaker 1: They protect domestic industries that then don't have an incentive
• 2:07:20
  Speaker 1: to become more and more efficient. They sit on their
• 2:07:23
  Speaker 1: lawrels because they know they're protected. Nobody's going to buy
• 2:07:27
  Speaker 1: imported goods because they're too expensive. They can raise prices
• 2:07:31
  Speaker 1: or most to the level of the external products plus
• 2:07:35
  Speaker 1: the tariff, and they can stay inefficient and unproductive, and
• 2:07:39
  Speaker 1: over time that becomes culsified and becomes worse. Intel is
• 2:07:47
  Speaker 1: being subsidized and protected by the American government since the
• 2:07:50
  Speaker 1: nineteen eighties, and while it's gone through bouts of innovation
• 2:07:55
  Speaker 1: like in the late eighties early nineties, it is mostly
• 2:07:59
  Speaker 1: atrophied and the innovation has been at TCMC and not
• 2:08:06
  Speaker 1: or even at AMD. Intel's competitive domestically or at Nvidia.
• 2:08:12
  Speaker 1: Think about the fact that Intel completely missed AI chips.
• 2:08:18
  Speaker 1: AMD did not. AMD is a competitor the Nvidia. Invidia
• 2:08:22
  Speaker 1: dominates that space, but all the innovative chip designs are
• 2:08:26
  Speaker 1: made outside of Intel, and all the innovative fabrication of
• 2:08:32
  Speaker 1: chips is made outside of Intel. Intel is one of
• 2:08:34
  Speaker 1: the only country companies in the world that does both
• 2:08:37
  Speaker 1: design and fabrication. And that's not a good model. That's
• 2:08:40
  Speaker 1: a model that's been shown time and time and time
• 2:08:44
  Speaker 1: again not to be productive, not to be a good
• 2:08:52
  Speaker 1: way of doing things. So but that's what taos do.
• 2:09:01
  Speaker 1: They protect industries. In Intel's case, going back to the
• 2:09:06
  Speaker 1: nineteen eighties, they had quotas and Japanese micro processes coming
• 2:09:12
  Speaker 1: in memory chips in those days coming into the United
• 2:09:14
  Speaker 1: States or to protect the Intel, and now the United
• 2:09:19
  Speaker 1: States and the chip back gave them a huge subsidy.
• 2:09:22
  Speaker 1: And now Trump has taken a government has taken a
• 2:09:25
  Speaker 1: ten percent interesting Intel, which basically guarantees it won't go bankrupt.
• 2:09:30
  Speaker 1: So you've got a massive misallocation of capital as a consequence.
• 2:09:35
  Speaker 1: And taaros are just another form of intervention in the economy,
• 2:09:39
  Speaker 1: another form in which you distort the economy, another form
• 2:09:42
  Speaker 1: in which you create misallocations of capital in the economy.
• 2:09:45
  Speaker 1: So they're just as destructive. Thank you, Paul. All Right,
• 2:09:58
  Speaker 1: let's see Linda asked yesterday, but I didn't answer. What
• 2:10:12
  Speaker 1: do you think about requiring politicians to be educated? AOC
• 2:10:16
  Speaker 1: comes to mind. I don't think it makes any difference.
• 2:10:19
  Speaker 1: I mean, you've got very educated politicians who are just
• 2:10:22
  Speaker 1: as bad as AOCO is not particularly bad. It's the
• 2:10:30
  Speaker 1: problem with politicians is not their miseducation. It's their philosophy.
• 2:10:36
  Speaker 1: It's their corruption. It's their lack of ability to think.
• 2:10:39
  Speaker 1: It's their pragmatism, it's their selling out to pressure groups.
• 2:10:45
  Speaker 1: It's not that they don't know stuff that can be fixed.
• 2:10:51
  Speaker 1: But it's not like eoc is open to being educated.
• 2:10:54
  Speaker 1: And think about some of the more educated people there
• 2:10:57
  Speaker 1: are just as bad as the less educated people like
• 2:11:00
  Speaker 1: Elizabeth Wowna is very educated. Scott it she's a she's
• 2:11:04
  Speaker 1: a law professor. Doesn't help. Catherine says, I hope you
• 2:11:11
  Speaker 1: read with us i man essay in the members only
• 2:11:15
  Speaker 1: show soon again. I enjoyed reading the missing link. Yeah,
• 2:11:18
  Speaker 1: I will. And by the way, we also did Selfishness
• 2:11:22
  Speaker 1: without a Self. If you missed that show, it's in
• 2:11:24
  Speaker 1: the members section and you can catch up with it
• 2:11:27
  Speaker 1: over there. Let me just see something so Raphael says,
• 2:11:44
  Speaker 1: I saw Benzo Gozzoli's triumph of Thomas Aquinas at the Louver.
• 2:11:54
  Speaker 1: I thought the main battle was against Augustinian Platonism, but
• 2:11:59
  Speaker 1: in the painting of Veronese is defeated, representing another form
• 2:12:04
  Speaker 1: of Aristotle. That's quite possible, But what it could represent
• 2:12:10
  Speaker 1: is a shallow understanding of the whole thing, which means
• 2:12:13
  Speaker 1: it really is Christianity defeating Islam, rather than two Ristotilians
• 2:12:22
  Speaker 1: battling it out. And that wouldn't be surprising, right because
• 2:12:26
  Speaker 1: the painter probably didn't understand the sense in which what
• 2:12:30
  Speaker 1: made Aristotle, which made a Quinas and a very ease
• 2:12:35
  Speaker 1: is so significant, was Aristotle. So I'm not surprised that
• 2:12:44
  Speaker 1: they saw it in a most superficial way, which is
• 2:12:47
  Speaker 1: Augustine as a Christian, as a Muslim. It represents the
• 2:12:52
  Speaker 1: victory of Christianity over Islam. Now, I remember that you
• 2:12:57
  Speaker 1: know a Quinas read read all of a veryin is
• 2:13:03
  Speaker 1: an he is. Much of his understanding of abistol comes
• 2:13:07
  Speaker 1: from a virins villain is. So the issue of Islam
• 2:13:14
  Speaker 1: versus Christianity is insignificant in the big picture, Lyn, thank you.
• 2:13:20
  Speaker 1: Does dissonant and disjointed classical music reflect the composer's negative
• 2:13:25
  Speaker 1: sense of life, that is Schoenberg's Pierrot Luniel or Shostakovich's
• 2:13:30
  Speaker 1: Quotet number eight. I mean, I think it's more than that.
• 2:13:35
  Speaker 1: I think it reflects a rejection of reality in some sense,
• 2:13:42
  Speaker 1: a rejection suddenly of because it's not just you can
• 2:13:48
  Speaker 1: have a bad sense of light, but just produce still
• 2:13:51
  Speaker 1: produce beautiful music that's just dark and malevolent. This is
• 2:13:56
  Speaker 1: worse than that. This is rejecting beauty, its rejecting the
• 2:13:59
  Speaker 1: essence of music. It's creating non music in a sense.
• 2:14:03
  Speaker 1: I think dissonant and disjointed is non music. Some of
• 2:14:09
  Speaker 1: it voted lines a noise rather than music. So I
• 2:14:12
  Speaker 1: think it's much more than just a negative sense of life.
• 2:14:15
  Speaker 1: It's an explicit, conscious rejection a beauty. And yeah, I
• 2:14:23
  Speaker 1: said this of the essence of what music is and
• 2:14:25
  Speaker 1: what makes music. It's a rejection of melody, it's a
• 2:14:28
  Speaker 1: rejection of harmony. It's a rejection of beauty. Steven says,
• 2:14:33
  Speaker 1: in our voluntary tax system, can there be transaction fees
• 2:14:37
  Speaker 1: or other kinds of fees involved in selling your property? Yes, absolutely,
• 2:14:42
  Speaker 1: to the extent that you needed registered with the government,
• 2:14:45
  Speaker 1: or the extent that the government needs to be a
• 2:14:47
  Speaker 1: gaven tour in some way or another. Then various fees
• 2:14:51
  Speaker 1: and contracts on various types of contracts is a good
• 2:14:54
  Speaker 1: way for the government to be raising revenue. Yes, I
• 2:14:57
  Speaker 1: think that's a major way in which the government raises
• 2:14:59
  Speaker 1: revenue in a voluntary tax system. Michael, do you know
• 2:15:04
  Speaker 1: if Jepizis is Red Rand a fan? I don't bet.
• 2:15:07
  Speaker 1: I suspect he has. I suspect he's Red Rand. I
• 2:15:11
  Speaker 1: don't know if he's a fan, but but I'm pretty
• 2:15:13
  Speaker 1: sure he's red her. Uh. Kiki is Adamson a trader
• 2:15:19
  Speaker 1: forgetting Polar pardoned? No any more than anybody else is
• 2:15:23
  Speaker 1: a is a trader for getting somebody pardoned. Uh. Polar spied,
• 2:15:29
  Speaker 1: but he spied for an ally. That is a lot
• 2:15:33
  Speaker 1: less bad than spying for an enemy. Uh. And you know, uh,
• 2:15:40
  Speaker 1: Trump pardons people every day who've done worse for this
• 2:15:43
  Speaker 1: country than than Poulard, Who've stolen your money, who've who've
• 2:15:49
  Speaker 1: defrauded you on a massive scale. You know, who tried
• 2:15:53
  Speaker 1: to overturn an election January sixth. So all pardons, all
• 2:15:58
  Speaker 1: the pardons that I've seen, have been not all, almost
• 2:16:03
  Speaker 1: all of them have been horrific and awful. Pallard is
• 2:16:07
  Speaker 1: just one more that you can add to the list,
• 2:16:09
  Speaker 1: but not any worse than most of the other partners
• 2:16:13
  Speaker 1: I've seen. Steven, how do you explain all the economists
• 2:16:19
  Speaker 1: who sent a letter to Congress asking them to raise
• 2:16:22
  Speaker 1: them in the wage. There are a lot of really
• 2:16:24
  Speaker 1: bad economists, a lot of really bad economists who now
• 2:16:29
  Speaker 1: some of them are willing to accept the tradeoff. And
• 2:16:33
  Speaker 1: the trade off is that some people make more money
• 2:16:39
  Speaker 1: and some people will never have a job. And since
• 2:16:42
  Speaker 1: we have a welfare state. They're willing to accept that
• 2:16:44
  Speaker 1: some people remaine on welfare and will never have a job.
• 2:16:48
  Speaker 1: Those are the least skill peoples in our economy, and
• 2:16:53
  Speaker 1: they're willing to take that trade off. I remember Jennet
• 2:16:55
  Speaker 1: Yellen writing an ourbed basically acknowledging that trade off and
• 2:17:00
  Speaker 1: in the end coming out on the side of yeah,
• 2:17:02
  Speaker 1: it's better to have them in a ways than that one,
• 2:17:06
  Speaker 1: given a complete understanding of the consequences, and I think
• 2:17:10
  Speaker 1: these economists understand the consequence dosn't are willing to live
• 2:17:13
  Speaker 1: with them. I think they're evil and wrong, but it's
• 2:17:16
  Speaker 1: not that they don't get the economics. They understand that
• 2:17:19
  Speaker 1: raising the minimum wage reduces employment. Blue Soil. I was
• 2:17:27
  Speaker 1: going to buy a trip to Puerto Verota in Mexico today.
• 2:17:32
  Speaker 1: Good thing I didn't. With the violence today, What do
• 2:17:34
  Speaker 1: you think Mexico does about the dark hotel problem? Similarly
• 2:17:39
  Speaker 1: to El Salvador, Love the show, No, they're not going
• 2:17:42
  Speaker 1: to do El Salvador. I mean what they're doing is
• 2:17:45
  Speaker 1: performative what's called performative virtue signaling. They're trying to keep
• 2:17:50
  Speaker 1: the Trump administration at bay. This administration in Mexico has
• 2:17:54
  Speaker 1: no interest in taking on the drug hotels. It's too
• 2:17:57
  Speaker 1: violent and too difficult for them. And you know, most
• 2:18:03
  Speaker 1: of the drug problems really in the United States, not
• 2:18:05
  Speaker 1: in Mexico. But the drug cataels do kill a lot
• 2:18:08
  Speaker 1: of politicians and are too powerful. The torop administration is
• 2:18:13
  Speaker 1: making noises about maybe sending troops into Mexico or drones
• 2:18:19
  Speaker 1: or bombing Mexico, whatever, unless Mexico does something about the cartels.
• 2:18:24
  Speaker 1: So Mexico seems to be doing some stuff. So today
• 2:18:27
  Speaker 1: killed the leader of the most violence of the cartels,
• 2:18:31
  Speaker 1: and as a consequence is massive violence erupted in parts
• 2:18:36
  Speaker 1: of Mexico. But you know nothing, They're not gonna do
• 2:18:42
  Speaker 1: what else Alvado did. Uh, And the cartels are not
• 2:18:47
  Speaker 1: going anyway. The cartels will still exist tomorrow, and in
• 2:18:51
  Speaker 1: a year from now, and in five years from now.
• 2:18:53
  Speaker 1: As long as drugs are illegal, there will be cartaels. Stephen,
• 2:18:57
  Speaker 1: would you comment commend Roberts for clear logical writing. Yeah,
• 2:19:01
  Speaker 1: I think he did a good job. Did you understand
• 2:19:03
  Speaker 1: epa versus West Virginia? Can you explain that case and
• 2:19:07
  Speaker 1: how it differs from learning resources. I'll just say I'm
• 2:19:12
  Speaker 1: not going to get into a whole analysis in it.
• 2:19:14
  Speaker 1: For now, that would require a whole show, and it
• 2:19:17
  Speaker 1: require bringing in a legal expert. But the basic idea
• 2:19:20
  Speaker 1: is that the EPA doesn't get a make up the rules.
• 2:19:27
  Speaker 1: That is that it can only do what Congress has
• 2:19:32
  Speaker 1: told it to do. It cannot rely on its own
• 2:19:37
  Speaker 1: experts too, you know, intero. But the law, the law
• 2:19:44
  Speaker 1: has to be clear and set. That is in judges
• 2:19:48
  Speaker 1: have in the past because of Chevron, this is the
• 2:19:51
  Speaker 1: nineteen eighties case, the courts were basically told to defer
• 2:19:57
  Speaker 1: to the agencies in terms of interpretation of the law.
• 2:20:02
  Speaker 1: And what EPAFSS Junior basically says is it brings the
• 2:20:06
  Speaker 1: courts back in to interpret the law and to basically
• 2:20:11
  Speaker 1: see where the agencies.
• 2:20:12
  Speaker 3: Are going beyond what actual the law actually says and
• 2:20:19
  Speaker 3: taking on more power than the law is actually granted them.
• 2:20:29
  Speaker 1: Real spuck, can you return tariff dollars by giving irs
• 2:20:33
  Speaker 1: tax credits?
• 2:20:35
  Speaker 3: No?
• 2:20:35
  Speaker 1: Because well maybe for some corporations in corporate taxes, you
• 2:20:42
  Speaker 1: could do something like that, I guess, but it's not
• 2:20:44
  Speaker 1: going to be to individuals. They're not attorney talists to
• 2:20:47
  Speaker 1: the individuals. The returning talists to the companies who paid them,
• 2:20:51
  Speaker 1: and the individuals are never going to see those even
• 2:20:54
  Speaker 1: though ultimately the individuals paid, because the companies just raid
• 2:20:58
  Speaker 1: prices on the individuals. So it's exporters will basically build
• 2:21:03
  Speaker 1: the government for it, and you know the government will
• 2:21:07
  Speaker 1: maybe through the taxes that may the other way, we'll
• 2:21:09
  Speaker 1: refund them the taves. All right, Michael says, have you
• 2:21:13
  Speaker 1: ever got a question during Q and A that has
• 2:21:15
  Speaker 1: changed your mind on a subject? No? I've got a
• 2:21:19
  Speaker 1: lot of questions that have got me to think more
• 2:21:22
  Speaker 1: deeply about a question, But I can't remember any specific
• 2:21:25
  Speaker 1: case where actually changed my mind or something. Maybe it's happened,
• 2:21:28
  Speaker 1: but I can't remember. Real Spock, Ukraine hit Russia missiles today?
• 2:21:33
  Speaker 1: Please comment, I can't because I don't know. I haven't
• 2:21:37
  Speaker 1: seen it. Ukraine hits Russian missiles on a regular basis.
• 2:21:42
  Speaker 1: Ukraine is becoming much better at hurting Russia and attacking Russia.
• 2:21:47
  Speaker 1: So but this particular one, I just don't know. Because
• 2:21:53
  Speaker 1: I wasn't watching the news today because I wasn't about
• 2:21:57
  Speaker 1: to do a news show today, so I didn't too
• 2:22:00
  Speaker 1: much attention to use this morning. It was busy doing
• 2:22:03
  Speaker 1: other stuff. Whoops, what did I do? They tried to
• 2:22:09
  Speaker 1: do something and it didn't work. One second. Give me
• 2:22:11
  Speaker 1: a minute. Let's see Ukraine hits Russian ballistic missiles producer.
• 2:22:24
  Speaker 1: According to Kiev Ukraine. Oh, this is the interesting thing.
• 2:22:30
  Speaker 1: These are Flamingo missiles. These are grounder ground missiles produced
• 2:22:35
  Speaker 1: by the Ukrainians, built by the Ukrainians. They used a
• 2:22:38
  Speaker 1: Flamingo missile to hilt a Russian plant manufacturing ballistic missiles
• 2:22:43
  Speaker 1: in Russia's remote southern region, which means quite a distance
• 2:22:48
  Speaker 1: fourteen hundred kilometers eight hundred miles. So this is a
• 2:22:52
  Speaker 1: proof of concept. They're proving their ability to use they
• 2:22:57
  Speaker 1: domestically produced flamingo missile to hit deep into Russian territory.
• 2:23:04
  Speaker 1: These are the kind of missiles the United States has
• 2:23:06
  Speaker 1: refused to sell the Ukrainians, and now they're producing them themselves,
• 2:23:12
  Speaker 1: which is pretty amazing. And they hit a factory that
• 2:23:19
  Speaker 1: actually also produces Russian nuclear missiles, so great, good for
• 2:23:25
  Speaker 1: the Ukrainians. It's a good step. It's a good move,
• 2:23:28
  Speaker 1: and it shows how Ukraine has improved and advanced its
• 2:23:33
  Speaker 1: fighting capacity and if with the right support, could actually
• 2:23:37
  Speaker 1: defeat the Russians. All right, let's with like seventy five
• 2:23:43
  Speaker 1: dollars short of a goal, but just stickers now because
• 2:23:46
  Speaker 1: I don't have time to answer questions because I have
• 2:23:49
  Speaker 1: a hard stop in like ten minutes. John says, this
• 2:23:53
  Speaker 1: seemed to be a growing movement against data centers. Have
• 2:23:56
  Speaker 1: you been following this, Yes, there is. It drives up
• 2:24:00
  Speaker 1: at elecricity costs because it uses so much power. Supposedly
• 2:24:04
  Speaker 1: they use up a lot of water, so there's water constraints.
• 2:24:08
  Speaker 1: And of course there's just an opposition to AI more
• 2:24:12
  Speaker 1: broadly in the opposition to industrialization and the opposition of
• 2:24:17
  Speaker 1: data said, it comes both from the green left, from environmentalists,
• 2:24:22
  Speaker 1: and from MAGA, who is very skeptical of AI. But
• 2:24:27
  Speaker 1: it's not surprising anytime there's a big advance. Anytime you
• 2:24:32
  Speaker 1: actually want to build manufacturing or any kind of other
• 2:24:36
  Speaker 1: capacity in the United States, people push back against you.
• 2:24:42
  Speaker 1: This is part of the myth of the reindustrialization of America.
• 2:24:46
  Speaker 1: Part of the reason why we don't have a lot
• 2:24:48
  Speaker 1: of manufacturing in America is because of the environmental regulations
• 2:24:50
  Speaker 1: that were passed because people objected the industrialization. Part of
• 2:24:54
  Speaker 1: the reason we don't manufacture rare earth materials in the
• 2:24:57
  Speaker 1: United States. The entire reason we don't is because of regulations.
• 2:25:01
  Speaker 1: The restrict mining and restrict building of factories to refine
• 2:25:04
  Speaker 1: the railroad materials. So it's it's all self inflicted. And
• 2:25:11
  Speaker 1: you know that's what people kind of ignore, Michael. Instead
• 2:25:16
  Speaker 1: of making home affordable, Donny proposers stealing more from homeowners
• 2:25:20
  Speaker 1: through property taxes. Socialism at its finest. Yes, the property
• 2:25:24
  Speaker 1: taxes go up, Rents will go up, not down. Housing
• 2:25:28
  Speaker 1: will become less affordable, not more. Of course then home uh.
• 2:25:33
  Speaker 1: You know, owners of big apartment buildings will go bankrupt.
• 2:25:37
  Speaker 1: The city will take them over, and it's a way
• 2:25:40
  Speaker 1: for Mamdani to nationalize the stock of housing in New
• 2:25:43
  Speaker 1: York City. With all the disasters that will lead to Romans.
• 2:25:49
  Speaker 1: Should they be trade restrictions against countries with slave labor?
• 2:25:55
  Speaker 1: Not necessarily, You as an individual should not buy goods
• 2:26:01
  Speaker 1: way you know the goods were made by slave labor.
• 2:26:04
  Speaker 1: It's not the government's job to protect you and to
• 2:26:07
  Speaker 1: prevent you from doing something imol. It's emol to buy
• 2:26:10
  Speaker 1: goods from slave labor. But that's your responsibility as an
• 2:26:14
  Speaker 1: individual not to do it, not the government's responsibility to
• 2:26:17
  Speaker 1: protect you from yourself. Michael I noticed Indians are getting
• 2:26:22
  Speaker 1: some of the same hate as Jews. Yes, successful minorities,
• 2:26:25
  Speaker 1: yet no other group have a larger net positive contribution
• 2:26:29
  Speaker 1: to society. I don't know what a net positive contribution
• 2:26:32
  Speaker 1: to society is. That's kind of a collectivistic terminology that
• 2:26:38
  Speaker 1: we don't use. In the Iran books show they make
• 2:26:41
  Speaker 1: a lot of money, they're massive contributors to themselves, and
• 2:26:45
  Speaker 1: they're not a drain on the government. So yeah, they
• 2:26:49
  Speaker 1: hate it, just like the Jews, like any successful minority
• 2:26:52
  Speaker 1: is hated. They're different and they're successful, which breeds resentment
• 2:26:57
  Speaker 1: and envy. Stephen, thanks, thank you for the sticker, Paul,
• 2:27:01
  Speaker 1: Thank you for the sticker, Stephen. As a last question,
• 2:27:04
  Speaker 1: are there any sane and modern Islami countries today, for
• 2:27:07
  Speaker 1: that matter, any relatively sane and rights suspecting countries at all? No?
• 2:27:12
  Speaker 1: I mean the better Islami countries like Albania, which is
• 2:27:16
  Speaker 1: dominantly Muslim but very secular and a very secular government.
• 2:27:23
  Speaker 1: Bosnia is probably the same thing, Kosovo Azerbaijan is secular
• 2:27:30
  Speaker 1: but a dictatorship. Those other ones at least free countries.
• 2:27:33
  Speaker 1: But no, there's no rights respecting country. Singapore maybe to
• 2:27:37
  Speaker 1: some extent, but not other respects. There's no rights respecting
• 2:27:43
  Speaker 1: in any kind of big way in the world today.
• 2:27:47
  Speaker 1: Sadly all right, everybody, thank you, I appreciate it. After run,
• 2:27:53
  Speaker 1: I will see you all tomorrow. We've got two shows tomorrow,
• 2:27:56
  Speaker 1: a new show early. It'll be at twelve pm Eastern Time,
• 2:28:03
  Speaker 1: twelve pm Eastern Time, and then I'm interviewing Tara Smith
• 2:28:08
  Speaker 1: at seven pm Eastern Time. So Tara Smith tomorrow at
• 2:28:11
  Speaker 1: seven pm Eastern Time, and then you showed at twelve
• 2:28:14
  Speaker 1: pm Eastern time. And thank you to all the super chatters.
• 2:28:20
  Speaker 1: Don't forget if you want to become a monthly supporter
• 2:28:22
  Speaker 1: to check out Patreon, and I guess I'll see you
• 2:28:26
  Speaker 1: all tomorrow. Bye, everybody, have a great rest of your weekend.