Latest / Yaron Brook Show / AMA & Hangout with Contributors (Feb 2026) | Yaron Brook Show

Transcript

AMA & Hangout with Contributors (Feb 2026) | Yaron Brook Show · Yaron Brook Show

0:02
Speaker 1: A lot of them, undamental principles of edom, last self
0:08
Speaker 1: interest and an individual ONTs. This is the show, all right, everybody,
0:20
Speaker 1: welcome to your one book show on this Saturday, February
0:25
Speaker 1: twenty posts. Today is our a m A show. Ask
0:30
Speaker 1: Me Anything, and we have a panel on live and
0:34
Speaker 1: then of course the super chat is open. You can
0:37
Speaker 1: use that to ask questions. It's a small panel, so
0:41
Speaker 1: we'll see. We'll see how we do. Maybe people will
0:43
Speaker 1: join us. Sometimes they join us a little late, but
0:49
Speaker 1: we will see how that goes. So you guys on
0:52
Speaker 1: the super chat, you've got opportunities to ask ask anything,
0:56
Speaker 1: use the super chat to do it. All right, Let's
1:00
Speaker 1: start with Jennifer.
1:04
Speaker 2: You know how in the United States we have a
1:07
Speaker 2: I guess it's called the double jeopardy rule, where if
1:12
Speaker 2: you are a quitted of a crime, then you can't
1:14
Speaker 2: be tried.
1:15
Speaker 3: Again even if new evidence comes up.
1:19
Speaker 4: You know that rule?
1:20
Speaker 1: Yep? Yep.
1:22
Speaker 3: Do you think that's a good thing or like some
1:26
Speaker 3: people would say, well, if you get like really overwhelming
1:29
Speaker 3: evidence later, then you get away with it. But then
1:32
Speaker 3: other people would say, well they had their chance and
1:36
Speaker 3: they didn't have enough evidence, so you can't keep bugging
1:40
Speaker 3: the person over and over, right, Yeah.
1:43
Speaker 1: I mean I think it makes sense. I think most
1:45
Speaker 1: countries have double jeopardy type rules. Oops, what's that? But
1:55
Speaker 1: I haven't really thought about it, so it would be
1:57
Speaker 1: good question to ask somebody who's you know, one of
2:00
Speaker 1: our legal guys who have maybe thought about it. I
2:03
Speaker 1: can imagine that if you if a major piece of
2:07
Speaker 1: evidence came about it was really a big deal that
2:15
Speaker 1: you you know, you'd still want to prosecute somebody. But
2:20
Speaker 1: I think the the the risk of prosecuting somebody over
2:24
Speaker 1: and over again with with minimal new stuff is probably
2:27
Speaker 1: too large, too large for that. So yeah, I mean,
2:32
Speaker 1: I think it's I think it makes sense, but I
2:35
Speaker 1: haven't really thought about it much, so I don't you know,
2:39
Speaker 1: I'm open to arguments to the contrary.
2:42
Speaker 3: Yeah, maybe there'd have to be if there's some kind
2:45
Speaker 3: of standard, like you said, if a certain type of
2:47
Speaker 3: evidence came up later, that you can use it, but
2:49
Speaker 3: it would have to be very strict rules about it,
2:51
Speaker 3: so you don't keep chasing the same personal and over.
2:54
Speaker 1: Yeah, maybe there'd be something like some grandeur that had
3:00
Speaker 1: to come together to determine whether you could prosecute again
3:04
Speaker 1: or you know some it would have to be the best.
3:06
Speaker 1: The ball would have to be pretty high h for
3:10
Speaker 1: for a continued prosecution. Okay, thank you, Thanks Jennifer Adam
3:19
Speaker 1: h Yes.
3:21
Speaker 5: I recently saw on a Polish channel a discussion of
3:28
Speaker 5: the differences between the different tanks that Poland has been
3:35
Speaker 5: buying in the last few years, and one of the
3:40
Speaker 5: things mentioned is that the Korean K two is hermetically
3:47
Speaker 5: sealed against chemical, biological, radioactive warfare and also against the water,
3:59
Speaker 5: and it has a snorkele like a submarine, a five
4:04
Speaker 5: meter snorkel, so that it can actually travel on the
4:09
Speaker 5: bottom of a lake of a river and only emerge
4:16
Speaker 5: when it's tactically indicated. Somehow, the US Abrams cannot be
4:28
Speaker 5: sealed in this way, and one commenter said that this
4:37
Speaker 5: is because it uses a turn by an engine, and
4:43
Speaker 5: the turnbin an engine is necessary in order to power
4:50
Speaker 5: some electrical weapons that.
4:56
Speaker 1: Are still secret.
4:58
Speaker 5: But with Turm buying power they could have adequate power
5:03
Speaker 5: to deploy without those extra weapons. The Abrams is just
5:12
Speaker 5: not as good at tank as a cake too. What's
5:15
Speaker 5: your take on that.
5:17
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know that being sealed is that important.
5:21
Speaker 1: One was the last time anybody used chemical weapons of
5:24
Speaker 1: biological weapons, And I mean it sounds nice to be
5:27
Speaker 1: able to hide in a lake in the water, but
5:30
Speaker 1: I don't know if any example in history with it
5:32
Speaker 1: ever was used. So I mean maybe maybe Poland has
5:36
Speaker 1: some plans for something. So you know, I'd have to
5:42
Speaker 1: know more about firepower, speed, ability to navigate onterrain, the
5:50
Speaker 1: accuracy of the of the main gun that is, you know,
5:56
Speaker 1: they all use I think laser systems now and maybe
6:00
Speaker 1: they use AI how accurate that is. So I think
6:03
Speaker 1: there are lots of other considerations when evaluating which tanks.
6:09
Speaker 1: Which tanks are better. I mean, all of them are
6:14
Speaker 1: better than any of the Russian tanks. So in that sense,
6:19
Speaker 1: whatever Poland gets, as you know, as long as it's
6:22
Speaker 1: a new, modern tank, they are going to have dramatically
6:26
Speaker 1: superior capabilities to anything Russia has. I mean, most of
6:30
Speaker 1: Russia's more advanced tanks that weren't very advanced to begin with,
6:34
Speaker 1: we're destroyed by the Ukrainians, so you know, the T
6:40
Speaker 1: seventy two's the garbage, the T eighty two's we haven't
6:44
Speaker 1: seen anything dramatic. So yeah, I don't know enough of
6:51
Speaker 1: the details about the qualities of the different texts, But
6:54
Speaker 1: I think the being sealed is probably not as important,
7:01
Speaker 1: is uh, relative to other features that they might have.
7:06
Speaker 1: I mean, right now, I think the most important feature
7:09
Speaker 1: for a tank to have probably is some kind of
7:13
Speaker 1: capabilities to detect and and and and shield the tank
7:20
Speaker 1: from drones. Uh, you know drones right now than about
7:24
Speaker 1: an enemy of a tank and Uh. I don't know
7:28
Speaker 1: that anybody has that they've created these cages, uh that
7:32
Speaker 1: that that that work. But maybe maybe the US has
7:37
Speaker 1: some electronic warfare against drones that they could use. I
7:41
Speaker 1: doubt you could put a laser on a tank. I
7:43
Speaker 1: don't know if there's enough power, but maybe so. I
7:46
Speaker 1: mean to me that those are those are the bigger issues,
7:50
Speaker 1: rather than the ability to seal them completely off. I
7:53
Speaker 1: think them are cava seals off because the cava has
7:57
Speaker 1: a c it has air conditioning. So if you have
8:01
Speaker 1: a c you're probably pretty sealed. But I'm not even sure.
8:08
Speaker 5: The extended question is whether the US. Since the US
8:15
Speaker 5: pioneered the drones, you may remember that after ninety eleven
8:22
Speaker 5: we were operating drones against the potential basis of al Qaeda.
8:33
Speaker 5: We have a lot of experience with drones, and perhaps
8:38
Speaker 5: the extra power that the Abram says turbine can generate
8:44
Speaker 5: can be used to just spry the electronics of all
8:49
Speaker 5: the drones coming in so that they become inoperable.
8:54
Speaker 1: It might, I mean, I think they're using microwave technology
8:58
Speaker 1: to do that, but I don't know how effective it
8:59
Speaker 1: is being in Ukraine. I mean, all of these technologies
9:04
Speaker 1: are being tested right now in Ukraine, and I don't know.
9:10
Speaker 1: I haven't seen anything that is dominant that just overwhelms
9:14
Speaker 1: all the drones. So it's possible that they have something
9:18
Speaker 1: like that or some other electronic warfare that we're not
9:21
Speaker 1: familiar with. But you know, all of that would have
9:25
Speaker 1: been updated more recently out of lessons learned from Ukraine.
9:30
Speaker 1: I mean, the reality is drones have been used way
9:34
Speaker 1: before nine to eleven. I mean, Israel was using drones
9:39
Speaker 1: in nineteen eighty two. Now, they were used for intelligence
9:46
Speaker 1: gathering more than anything else. So they were being flown
9:48
Speaker 1: with cameras to take area of photographs of anemity territory.
9:53
Speaker 1: They weren't miss out law, they didn't have missiles that launched. Yes,
10:01
Speaker 1: the US US has been using drones for a long time,
10:04
Speaker 1: but it looks like the technologies leapfrog the United States
10:09
Speaker 1: to some extent. I don't think the US invested much
10:13
Speaker 1: in the small drones that are dominating the Russian Ukrainian battlefield.
10:22
Speaker 1: Those are drones that the Chinese dominate, and then the
10:27
Speaker 1: Iranians were very good at producing and the Russians basically
10:32
Speaker 1: took their technology and today arguably the best manufacturers are
10:36
Speaker 1: drone in the world. Battle ready for the kind of
10:40
Speaker 1: Ukrainian Russian front are the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians are building
10:44
Speaker 1: have drone factories in Ukraine. They've just built one in Germany.
10:48
Speaker 1: They're planning to build twelve twenty different factories all over
10:51
Speaker 1: Europe to produce drones in collaboration with Europeans. And they
10:57
Speaker 1: are using drug technology that they can fly, learn from
11:03
Speaker 1: immediately make changes, so very very adaptable to the battlefield.
11:08
Speaker 1: US is catching up and might be in a bed,
11:11
Speaker 1: might be ahead, but it definitely got got caught off
11:16
Speaker 1: God in terms of the way Jones we used and
11:19
Speaker 1: kind of the size of the drones the US, most
11:21
Speaker 1: of the U S Jones will large a scale. Thank you, Adam.
11:26
Speaker 1: Let's see Jacob.
11:29
Speaker 4: You're on.
11:29
Speaker 6: You always have the show right once I'm at the
11:31
Speaker 6: gym or head to the gym. So quick question and
11:36
Speaker 6: then another follow up. So I have registered for OCOND,
11:41
Speaker 6: but I have most likely a vendor visit for for
11:45
Speaker 6: the Europeans Ferry the dish soap that maybe during the
11:48
Speaker 6: same week, and I don't think I can push it.
11:52
Speaker 6: Is there a way to like transfer to donation or
11:55
Speaker 6: to have someone else go or refund?
11:57
Speaker 4: What do you or I.
11:59
Speaker 1: Think that funds until a particular date. I mean, I
12:02
Speaker 1: don't know the details, so it's beyond my pay grades
12:05
Speaker 1: has been for a long time, so checking the website
12:08
Speaker 1: or call somebody at the Iron Institute and ask them.
12:11
Speaker 1: But I think they have different refund things and what
12:14
Speaker 1: you know, maybe you can donate the part that you
12:17
Speaker 1: can't refund, don't get a refund on or something like that.
12:19
Speaker 6: Okay, And the other question, so I sent an email
12:24
Speaker 6: to you on value creation and mapping or in getting
12:28
Speaker 6: that so I had a thought of like software engineers
12:32
Speaker 6: or people at tech are usually their profit margins are
12:36
Speaker 6: forty to fifty and their salaries are mostly higher. And
12:42
Speaker 6: when I think of, okay, that may be a good
12:46
Speaker 6: capture of what those people are creating.
12:48
Speaker 4: But when I transfer it to my experience.
12:51
Speaker 6: In manufacturing, It's like I could be part of a
12:55
Speaker 6: project or lead a efficiency gain that results in one
12:59
Speaker 6: million or one point five million dollars. I've seen people
13:02
Speaker 6: do a cost savings initiative where they save on average
13:06
Speaker 6: two million dollars a year yep, and their salary is
13:09
Speaker 6: one hundred thousand or like one hundred and twenty five thousand,
13:12
Speaker 6: or I feel like in certain industries it's not the
13:14
Speaker 6: case where you do a cost savings in your salaries
13:19
Speaker 6: like three hundred four hundred, five hundred thousand.
13:21
Speaker 4: So it is how how do you think that's determined?
13:26
Speaker 6: Do you think there's some weird government effects where since
13:30
Speaker 6: the government's not involved in tech or it wasn't as involved,
13:33
Speaker 6: you could extract that what each individual employee own contributes.
13:38
Speaker 6: Or is it the overhead of manufacturing versus of a
13:42
Speaker 6: tech world where I'm able to give that two million
13:46
Speaker 6: dollar value creation back to the company because they have
13:50
Speaker 6: one hundred million dollars invested in a plant where a
13:52
Speaker 6: software manufacturer they don't have all that capital or overhead.
13:58
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I think it's all of the above,
14:02
Speaker 1: But you know, I'm not sure the comparison is right.
14:04
Speaker 1: That is, I don't know that in software, if you
14:08
Speaker 1: save a million dollars, you get thirty percent of that.
14:14
Speaker 1: I don't think it's I don't think I don't know
14:17
Speaker 1: that it's based on stuff like that. I think that
14:20
Speaker 1: I think the real question is how easy is it
14:24
Speaker 1: to replace you? What is the versus how he's is
14:29
Speaker 1: to replace? I mean you could Let's say you're working
14:34
Speaker 1: and you're saving the company a million dollars, and there's
14:37
Speaker 1: somebody else that Nvidia who to do what his does
14:42
Speaker 1: is like you know, one in a billion. They're like
14:46
Speaker 1: ten eight people on the planet Earth who could do
14:48
Speaker 1: what he does, and he also saves them a million dollars.
14:52
Speaker 1: But only he can save that million dollars. That is,
14:54
Speaker 1: you're not You couldn't replace him. Even though you can
14:56
Speaker 1: save your company million dollars, He's going to capture more
14:59
Speaker 1: of that million dollars then you can, because he is
15:05
Speaker 1: he is irreplaceable, whereas you might be right, So, supplying
15:10
Speaker 1: demand for labor, the supplying demand for the particular job
15:13
Speaker 1: is partially going to determine how much the kind of
15:17
Speaker 1: the the share of the productivity gain that you achieve
15:25
Speaker 1: between you and the employer. The more you are unique,
15:30
Speaker 1: the more you will capture of it, The more you
15:33
Speaker 1: are relatively easy to replace, and somebody else could also
15:38
Speaker 1: do the job of saving a million dollars, the more
15:41
Speaker 1: the company will capture the benefit. Does that make sense?
15:48
Speaker 6: Often often new it all it and think about But yeah,
15:52
Speaker 6: I mean initially it makes sense. But there's something there
15:55
Speaker 6: because there would be If you're easily replaceable, why didn't
15:58
Speaker 6: they hire someone else at the same or lower wage
16:03
Speaker 6: and accelerate that value creation? Well, I mean maybe this
16:08
Speaker 6: five hundred thousand rather.
16:09
Speaker 7: Than a million.
16:09
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's a cost of hiring somebody in you, there's
16:12
Speaker 1: a cost of replacing And you're not saying, if you
16:16
Speaker 1: don't give me two hundred thousand instead of one hundred thousand,
16:20
Speaker 1: I'm leaving. And if you did, they'd probably say, okay,
16:23
Speaker 1: leave and we'll get somebody to replace you. Whereas the
16:27
Speaker 1: guy in Nvidia, if he said give me half the profit, well,
16:31
Speaker 1: I'm leaving, and they go, well, we can't afford to
16:34
Speaker 1: have you leave because there's nobody who can replace you,
16:36
Speaker 1: so we'll give it to you, all right, thanks. Think
16:40
Speaker 1: of it in terms of the negotiation that happens, uh,
16:44
Speaker 1: And what happens if you tell your employer, yeah, I
16:47
Speaker 1: want more and if I'm not getting it, I'm leaving.
16:50
Speaker 1: How easy is it to replace you or not?
16:53
Speaker 5: Yep?
16:56
Speaker 1: All right, Andrew here you're on Hey, you can correct
17:04
Speaker 1: me if I'm wrong.
17:04
Speaker 8: But I think Rand thought that the left, a person.
17:11
Speaker 7: On the left might be easier to convince to objectivism
17:15
Speaker 7: than a person on the right because they take ideas
17:18
Speaker 7: it more seriously. And I wonder if that's the case,
17:23
Speaker 7: if you still think that that's true in modern times,
17:27
Speaker 7: And like, how do you evaluate or judge leftists who
17:33
Speaker 7: are maybe political politically ignorant, but they take morality seriously.
17:43
Speaker 1: Yeah. So I don't remember whoever saying something like that.
17:45
Speaker 1: So I don't remember whoever saying, yeah, people in the
17:49
Speaker 1: left are more likely to base objectivism to be open
17:54
Speaker 1: to my ideas. I don't think she thought that way.
17:58
Speaker 1: I don't think she thought in terms of left and
18:00
Speaker 1: right in that sense. She thought that people who have
18:04
Speaker 1: a mind and willing to use it, people who are
18:09
Speaker 1: conceptual will respond to her ideas, and people who are
18:14
Speaker 1: not or not and those kind of peoples on the
18:16
Speaker 1: left and those kind of people on the right, and
18:19
Speaker 1: I don't think she targeted a message to either side,
18:23
Speaker 1: or did particular events and not others for those reasons.
18:27
Speaker 1: I mean, I might be wrong, but I can't remember
18:29
Speaker 1: her saying people on the left are more likely. I
18:33
Speaker 1: just don't remember that. In terms of today, I don't know.
18:37
Speaker 1: If you're on the fall left, you're probably hopeless, and
18:40
Speaker 1: you're from the fall right, you're probably hopeless. And I
18:42
Speaker 1: don't think it's about taking more rallity seriously because the
18:45
Speaker 1: people who take morality the most seriously today are the
18:48
Speaker 1: religious right. But their perstemology is such that I don't
18:52
Speaker 1: think they would ever be attracted to objectivism. So I
19:00
Speaker 1: think again, the question is who is thinking, And I
19:05
Speaker 1: don't think it's good to think in terms of left
19:08
Speaker 1: right in that context. It's who's thinking, you know. It
19:13
Speaker 1: might be atheists left or right. It might be center left,
19:19
Speaker 1: center right, mildly religious people, it might be a whole bunch.
19:24
Speaker 1: It's probably not people on the fall left or the
19:26
Speaker 1: far right, although we have to remember Nikosos on the
19:29
Speaker 1: fall left and he found objectivism and converted, if you will.
19:34
Speaker 1: So it happens, but it's unusual. It's usually people kind
19:38
Speaker 1: of struggling to figure out where they belong and neither
19:40
Speaker 1: here nor there. But I don't think there's any rule here.
19:47
Speaker 1: And this is the sense of which you have to
19:49
Speaker 1: put your message out there and see who responds to it.
19:54
Speaker 1: There's no one group we should focus on because that's
19:56
Speaker 1: the group. I don't know who those would be.
20:00
Speaker 7: But when you hear like AOC or Bernie Sanders or
20:05
Speaker 7: Elizabeth Warren, they seem more principled than people on the right.
20:12
Speaker 1: Really, I don't know why, more principal than jd Vance
20:16
Speaker 1: or Patrick Deneen or Vermule. I mean they all, they
20:21
Speaker 1: all seem principal to me. No, all statists, they're all principled.
20:26
Speaker 1: And the fact that you're principle doesn't mean you're better
20:29
Speaker 1: Hitler as principled. So so Stalin. So yeah, but I
20:37
Speaker 1: don't think that's even true. I think the fall left
20:39
Speaker 1: and the fall or the people on the left and
20:41
Speaker 1: people on the right are both principled and both bad.
20:45
Speaker 1: You know, Trump's not an example because he's not is
20:48
Speaker 1: he's the negation of principle. Uh, but that that is
20:53
Speaker 1: not true of people on the right. Okay, it's we
21:00
Speaker 1: don't like their principles but we don't like Elizabeth Wallings either.
21:05
Speaker 1: All right, let's see got some super chats here, j jgigbees.
21:11
Speaker 1: You mentioned that you watched a Spike Lee film recently.
21:16
Speaker 1: Was it highest to Lewis, Yes, his remake of the
21:19
Speaker 1: Corsaua film by chance you loved the original. Curious what
21:23
Speaker 1: your thoughts on Lee's remake was. I haven't seen it. Yeah,
21:26
Speaker 1: I didn't like it. It completely. I don't know it
21:35
Speaker 1: a completely changed the decision that the entrepreneur makes. It
21:42
Speaker 1: Basically it basically sells out the whole plot. So from
21:47
Speaker 1: in terms of the plot, I didn't like it. In
21:49
Speaker 1: terms of the actual movie making was just it was
21:53
Speaker 1: just weird and it was not good. It was not
21:56
Speaker 1: I didn't think it was well made. I mean, Denzel
22:01
Speaker 1: Washington is great. I could watch him do pretty much anything.
22:03
Speaker 1: But other than that, there was just it was unconvincing
22:08
Speaker 1: and it was it had a very different theme. Now
22:12
Speaker 1: I can't think right now of what the theme was,
22:14
Speaker 1: but it had. What I remember is that it was very,
22:17
Speaker 1: very different than the colors Saw. I wanted right when
22:20
Speaker 1: that I wanted to watch the Corsawa movie to kind
22:22
Speaker 1: of feel like I cleaned myself. I needed a shower
22:26
Speaker 1: to brush the stupidity off of me the Spike Lee
22:30
Speaker 1: stuff because they, you know, he I think denigrated the
22:37
Speaker 1: the the original. Thank you jjggbes. Yeah, I really regret
22:46
Speaker 1: watching that. It was not good. Uh CPQ. Happy to
22:51
Speaker 1: answer all your questions. It's called super chat. Two dollars,
22:56
Speaker 1: five dollars, ten dollars, one hundred dollars, whatever you want.
22:59
Speaker 1: I'll answer every single one of your questions if you
23:01
Speaker 1: use the chat, otherwise you're wasting your time. Robert here
23:07
Speaker 1: in Motown, getting ready for Great Lakes objectives. Monthly dinner,
23:12
Speaker 1: all right, anticipating Oconn, New Orleans. It's uh oh, I
23:19
Speaker 1: can't pronounce that word. Dwell dull and dwell Cajun soup.
23:26
Speaker 4: And dewey what's that and dewey sausage.
23:30
Speaker 1: And dewey and dewey Cajun soup pieces and dewey Cajun soup,
23:34
Speaker 1: muffalletta sandwiches tonight. Oh wow, that sounds actually good. Can
23:38
Speaker 1: I fly up and enjoining you guys? Actually, I'm going
23:41
Speaker 1: to a really good dinner tonight, so don't have any questions,
23:46
Speaker 1: but always appropriate appreciate that, I mean, thank you Robert. Yeah,
23:49
Speaker 1: I'm going to this restaurant where it's twelve seats around.
23:55
Speaker 1: The chef is there and his wife kind of shows
23:58
Speaker 1: the wine and clears the and matred ease the whole thing.
24:02
Speaker 1: It's just the two of them, and the chief basically
24:04
Speaker 1: cooks the meal right in front of you. I mean
24:06
Speaker 1: he's done a lot of the prep, but he's cooking
24:08
Speaker 1: the meal right in front of you, five courses. And
24:10
Speaker 1: what he does is every month he changes kind of
24:12
Speaker 1: the theme of the dinner, the main ingredient of the dinner.
24:16
Speaker 1: Tonight because it's February. February every it was Valentine's Day.
24:23
Speaker 1: This is i think the third year in the row
24:25
Speaker 1: he's doing. The ingredient that he uses in all the
24:29
Speaker 1: dishes is chocolate, and the last two dinners where chocolate
24:34
Speaker 1: was the main ingredient was spectacular. So tonight I'm going
24:39
Speaker 1: to the chocolate dinner at Epicuro So he has a
24:43
Speaker 1: picture of Epicurus, the Greek philosopher, on the wall, and
24:47
Speaker 1: it's a really nice place. So let's see. Chasbach says
24:53
Speaker 1: this is from Return of the Auchons, some star trek thing. Quote,
25:02
Speaker 1: Peace and contentment be with you. We are all one
25:07
Speaker 1: under the will of Landru. We're all one under the
25:12
Speaker 1: will of Landrew. That sounds very, very very depressing. I
25:17
Speaker 1: don't want to be under the will of Landru. Landrew
25:19
Speaker 1: sounds bad. That's very Bourgish, very non individualistic and mindless.
25:29
Speaker 1: Not sure what the context for that is chasbad other
25:32
Speaker 1: than pure entertainment. All right, let's see we got some
25:37
Speaker 1: stickers music of four Channel. Thank you, John, thank you,
25:42
Speaker 1: and I think I saw Jonathan thank you. All right,
25:45
Speaker 1: let's go back to Jennifer.
25:50
Speaker 2: Do you like any waltz's?
25:52
Speaker 1: Like?
25:52
Speaker 2: What waltz music do you like?
25:55
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean I like I like Strauss's Waltz's Jan
26:05
Speaker 1: Strauss not retch Straus, Jan Schtraus's waltzs uh LeHo if
26:11
Speaker 1: I remember, Wright has some really some really nice waltzes.
26:17
Speaker 1: What are the waltzes do I like? I mean, Strauss
26:21
Speaker 1: I think dominates when it comes to waltzs No, what
26:25
Speaker 1: do you think of Jennifer?
26:27
Speaker 3: I would say so, Yeah, everybody loves a big blue
26:30
Speaker 3: Dan you, which I do. But I like the Tales
26:32
Speaker 3: from Vienna Woods.
26:34
Speaker 4: Yeah, that one's really good.
26:37
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean yeah, Here's waltzes are just just Uh,
26:42
Speaker 1: it's just fantastic. So yeah, CPQ says, I have no money,
26:52
Speaker 1: Well neither do I. It turns up because you haven't
26:54
Speaker 1: given me any So why should I answer questions? Get
26:56
Speaker 1: somebody to ask your questions for you? You know, ask some
27:00
Speaker 1: people in the chat if they will ask your questions
27:02
Speaker 1: for you. Maybe somebody who has money would be willing
27:05
Speaker 1: to do that. All right, Adam, thank you, Jennifer. I
27:12
Speaker 1: can't dance, by the way, but I do like listening
27:15
Speaker 1: to them.
27:16
Speaker 5: We watched consecutively Trump getting rid of all the generals
27:23
Speaker 5: who are not personally loyal to him, and then she
27:31
Speaker 5: in China doing more or less the same thing, getting
27:35
Speaker 5: rid of all the generals whom he didn't consider more
27:40
Speaker 5: personally loyal to him than to the ideology of the party.
27:47
Speaker 5: Do you think it just imitation or do they had
27:51
Speaker 5: a real problem because China doesn't have a constitution, So
27:58
Speaker 5: what are the military going on to be loyal to
28:01
Speaker 5: other than their commander in chief?
28:07
Speaker 1: And I think I mean, look, basically, authoritarians want to
28:12
Speaker 1: make sure that the that the military is loyal to
28:14
Speaker 1: them as people, not not you know, and Trump doesn't
28:18
Speaker 1: know what the constitution is. He's never read it. He's
28:22
Speaker 1: never really hood of it. I don't think so what
28:26
Speaker 1: he you know, even though everybody sways to the constitution,
28:29
Speaker 1: what he really wants at generals that he thinks will
28:33
Speaker 1: do what he says when he says it, and Hexseth
28:37
Speaker 1: is like the guy who's supposed to implement all this now,
28:40
Speaker 1: I don't think he can really be successful because and
28:43
Speaker 1: this is the difference, is that that uh, it's it's
28:49
Speaker 1: not clear they got rid of generals that they thought
28:53
Speaker 1: were woke whatever they hell that means ones that that
28:56
Speaker 1: played into the hands of the left, maybe introduced certain
28:59
Speaker 1: war programs into the military. So he got rid of
29:03
Speaker 1: you got rid of those people. But I don't think
29:06
Speaker 1: there's literally being a you have to swear out of
29:09
Speaker 1: allegiance to Donald Trump or otherwise you fired kind of program.
29:13
Speaker 1: And I don't know that you could see that. I
29:15
Speaker 1: don't know that the generals are really willing to do
29:19
Speaker 1: whatever Trump says. I mean, you can see that in
29:21
Speaker 1: that big meeting where heg Seth and Trump spoke to
29:25
Speaker 1: the generals and they were like, I don't know, a
29:27
Speaker 1: couple of hundred people in the room, all the generals,
29:30
Speaker 1: they all flew in from all over the world, and
29:33
Speaker 1: they were not happy. They weren't like, they didn't clap,
29:37
Speaker 1: they didn't share, they didn't they you know, everything that
29:40
Speaker 1: Trump expected. He expected claps, he expected smiles, he expected nods,
29:46
Speaker 1: and he got none of it. Right.
29:48
Speaker 5: And so.
29:51
Speaker 1: I think out generals, even the ones that haven't been
29:56
Speaker 1: kicked out, are pretty independent minded and they know, oh,
30:00
Speaker 1: there's a constitution, and and you know, I generally I
30:04
Speaker 1: don't have a high opinion of people who stay in
30:05
Speaker 1: the military very much. But you know, I think I
30:08
Speaker 1: think they're they're reasonably good, and they're properly motivated, and
30:14
Speaker 1: I don't think they're just Trumpists no matter what. They
30:16
Speaker 1: might be a few, but I don't think generally they are.
30:19
Speaker 1: In in China.
30:21
Speaker 6: They did get rid of the commander for southcom before
30:26
Speaker 6: Southern Spirit because he wouldn't authorize as many strikes.
30:29
Speaker 1: Yeah, they got rid of him. And then they just
30:31
Speaker 1: got rid of another guy, the chief pr guy. They
30:36
Speaker 1: just fired a colonel, a colonel or major. Yeah. I
30:39
Speaker 1: mean that keep doing that, that keep purging people that
30:41
Speaker 1: they think are questionable or that won't follow orders, not
30:46
Speaker 1: follow all orders. But I think there's a limit to that.
30:49
Speaker 1: I mean, we'll see. I think there's a limit. I
30:51
Speaker 1: think ultimately the military is not just Donald Trump's play thing.
30:57
Speaker 1: But although you know, he's not asking Congress for permission
31:01
Speaker 1: to tack you on. So if he taxs you on,
31:04
Speaker 1: he's going beyond the constitution, He's going beyond his authority.
31:08
Speaker 1: Of course, he knows nobody will nobody will stop him.
31:15
Speaker 1: China's a little different in a sense that all the
31:19
Speaker 1: generals in China swann allegiance to the Communist Party, that
31:22
Speaker 1: that's their allegiance. It's to the Communist Party, and it's
31:25
Speaker 1: chairman so Chi. And then the question is how loyal
31:29
Speaker 1: are they really and and how corrupt are they and
31:34
Speaker 1: what you know, While when he says we're pushing them
31:39
Speaker 1: because they're corrupt, it could be that they're pushing them
31:41
Speaker 1: because we don't like them, or it could be that
31:43
Speaker 1: they're really corrupt. I mean, the likelihood is that they're
31:46
Speaker 1: really corrupt. I think about your Chinese general, and China's
31:50
Speaker 1: throwing billions of dollars into new weapons systems, and you
31:54
Speaker 1: can pocket some of that. And in a culture that
31:58
Speaker 1: is much more favorably inclined towards corruption than in America,
32:03
Speaker 1: and I think a lot of America's general's pockets on
32:05
Speaker 1: the money too, So I think there's a lot of
32:06
Speaker 1: corruption at the Pentagon. But in China it's magnitudes more
32:12
Speaker 1: than it is in the United States because it's the
32:15
Speaker 1: whole culture's corrupt in China, So Sara's corruption. But look,
32:20
Speaker 1: the guy he just kicked out was really the number
32:24
Speaker 1: two in the Chinese Communist Party after she, so he
32:28
Speaker 1: was a real threat to Chio's authority. They were friends
32:32
Speaker 1: for decades, but she was worried. It seems like who
32:36
Speaker 1: knows exactly what happened, but it seems like she was
32:39
Speaker 1: worried that this guy would try to replace him, particularly
32:43
Speaker 1: given the economy in China's not doing well, so he
32:47
Speaker 1: did a preemptive move and got rid of him. In China,
32:51
Speaker 1: it's much more about a real power play for complete
32:56
Speaker 1: control of the country because it's an authoritarian state. Who
32:59
Speaker 1: ever top controls everything. The United States was still not
33:04
Speaker 1: there yet, so the stakes are less, and the generals
33:11
Speaker 1: generally have not sworn allegiance to a political party or
33:13
Speaker 1: to the leader. In China, that's what they've expected. You expected.
33:18
Speaker 1: The generals are supposed to do exactly what she tells him.
33:23
Speaker 1: In America, that's not the expectations. So while it's while
33:28
Speaker 1: it's true everybody with an authoritarian tendency is going to
33:31
Speaker 1: want to control the military, Trump is going to have
33:34
Speaker 1: a much harder time doing it than she is because
33:37
Speaker 1: in she the military is already on the premise of
33:40
Speaker 1: whatever the Supreme Leader wants, we will do, whereas in
33:44
Speaker 1: America the premise is different, and he's going to have
33:47
Speaker 1: to overcome that. Thanks Adam Jacob.
33:54
Speaker 4: Related just part to thought.
33:57
Speaker 6: So for Taiwan, I was talking with my wife about
33:59
Speaker 6: the graph you showed of GDP and how Taiwan is
34:03
Speaker 6: low on a GDP spend for defense yep. Her when
34:08
Speaker 6: I told her that, she was like, oh, no, we
34:10
Speaker 6: spent a lot. And then it was like, uh, no,
34:13
Speaker 6: you don't.
34:18
Speaker 1: Or you're breaking up. You're breaking up. The last iihood
34:21
Speaker 1: was no, you don't.
34:23
Speaker 6: Yeah, and then she was like, oh, that's odd. So
34:26
Speaker 6: I think from what I understand, the KMT was basically, hey,
34:31
Speaker 6: we're not going to build up too aggressively, and that
34:34
Speaker 6: kind of seeped into the culture for decades where now
34:37
Speaker 6: it's just we are going to build artillery or we're
34:40
Speaker 6: going to do only actions that create enough pain for
34:46
Speaker 6: eventual evasion, not any for deployment capability, yep, of inflicting
34:52
Speaker 6: action or inflicting pain on the mainland because they think, hey,
34:56
Speaker 6: that's going to be too provocative to it's because influence
35:00
Speaker 6: the conflict to start. I'm curious what do you think
35:04
Speaker 6: it would take for that thought to change, because I
35:09
Speaker 6: would think after Israel Iran they would say, hey, we
35:13
Speaker 6: airpower is so important, is important to inflict damage, We
35:18
Speaker 6: need to invest in aircraft and for deployment. I think
35:22
Speaker 6: there's still I think it's the Porcupine model where we're
35:25
Speaker 6: just going to arm up the island where it's so
35:27
Speaker 6: painful for you to invade, and we'll have alliances with Japan,
35:33
Speaker 6: South Korea and the Philippines where they can act as
35:36
Speaker 6: our forward deployment rather than ourselves be self sufficient.
35:39
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, I don't think anybody is going to
35:41
Speaker 1: really forward deploy in the sense that nobody's going to
35:44
Speaker 1: land ground troops in China. I mean, it's just I
35:49
Speaker 1: can't imagine that being a strategy in war.
35:53
Speaker 6: I mean more forward deploy in terms of aircraft and
35:58
Speaker 6: missiles to so inflict on like factories on social refineries
36:03
Speaker 6: or their major hubs.
36:04
Speaker 1: Yeah. I certainly think Japan and Korea have the missiles
36:08
Speaker 1: to take out assets in mainland China. So does the
36:14
Speaker 1: United States. I don't think. I don't know about the Philippines,
36:19
Speaker 1: the uh you know, I don't know what it's going
36:23
Speaker 1: to take for Taiwan to buy those kind of missiles,
36:26
Speaker 1: at least to be able to I mean, you would
36:29
Speaker 1: think that at are very basic. You would want to
36:32
Speaker 1: take out the ports from which the ships trying to
36:35
Speaker 1: invade you are coming from. You would want to take
36:38
Speaker 1: out the infrastructure that makes deploying those ships possible along
36:43
Speaker 1: the coast of China. So you want to have some
36:46
Speaker 1: capacity to reach China. And then in terms of aircraft,
36:50
Speaker 1: it's tricky because China has such a huge air force.
36:55
Speaker 1: The airplanes might be inferior to like they F thirty five,
36:59
Speaker 1: but they have so many of them that it's not
37:03
Speaker 1: clear you would win that without US support. Uh So,
37:08
Speaker 1: I think Taiwan. I don't think Taiwan could do what
37:11
Speaker 1: Israel did. That is, Taiwan cannot dominate Chinese airspace. I
37:18
Speaker 1: think you're looking much more at a Russia Ukraine situation
37:23
Speaker 1: where neither party will dominate the airspace because neither party
37:26
Speaker 1: has enough resources to actually dominate it, and the air
37:29
Speaker 1: defense systems are too thick uh to be able to
37:33
Speaker 1: to be able to deal with so much more much
37:36
Speaker 1: more likely that they invest in drones, in drone technology
37:42
Speaker 1: that can be deployed uh, you know, across the straits
37:45
Speaker 1: to the mainland. But a lot of the a lot
37:49
Speaker 1: of the a lot of their investment needs to be
37:54
Speaker 1: into protecting the straits, and and that means in into
38:00
Speaker 1: the shipping lane, and that probably means uh, you know,
38:03
Speaker 1: submarine and boat drones that can take out the ships
38:07
Speaker 1: the China. So the porcupine strategy kind of on steroids,
38:13
Speaker 1: where you inflict so much pain that they would never
38:15
Speaker 1: consider doing it. But part of that pain needs to
38:19
Speaker 1: be to be able to hit the mainland. But I
38:21
Speaker 1: don't think you could do different the air. I just
38:23
Speaker 1: don't think you have the You'd have to have too many,
38:26
Speaker 1: too many planes, and and the the the Chinese would
38:30
Speaker 1: dominate the air. So I don't think that's the solution.
38:35
Speaker 1: I think it has to be drones. It has to
38:36
Speaker 1: be missiles.
38:38
Speaker 6: Yeah, So it would be basically porcupine plus a little
38:41
Speaker 6: bit of Iran strategy of overwhelm overwhelmed with ballistic missiles.
38:46
Speaker 1: Yeah, although hopefully they have smarter ballistic missiles than the
38:50
Speaker 1: Iranians do, so that you don't they can evade evade
38:55
Speaker 1: being shut down. You know, very few countries have as
38:59
Speaker 1: good of an air to system is Israel does. Now
39:03
Speaker 1: clear if China has it in China so big that
39:06
Speaker 1: I'm sure you could find holes in China's data fin
39:09
Speaker 1: system and penetrate and find ways to hit their targets.
39:17
Speaker 1: All right, thank you, Jacob Andrew. Yeah.
39:22
Speaker 7: I think one of the most morally inverted things that
39:25
Speaker 7: the Trump administration is doing is what it's its attitude
39:31
Speaker 7: towards Ukraine versus.
39:35
Speaker 1: Its attitude towards Russia.
39:37
Speaker 7: And I mean he made some Trump made some kind
39:42
Speaker 7: of like vague or mars like Zelenci's got to get moving. Ye,
39:46
Speaker 7: what what do you think he expects Olenski to.
39:49
Speaker 1: Do, Savender? I mean, he basically expects him to Savenda. Look,
39:55
Speaker 1: I mean the only worse, the only thing worse than
39:59
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's at towards Ukraine in Russia is his attitude
40:02
Speaker 1: towards Americans. But yeah, I mean his attitude in the
40:06
Speaker 1: Ukraine in Russia is just completely morally offensive, hubbable he is.
40:18
Speaker 1: He is absolutely he's absolutely corrupt. He's he's absolutely pro Russia.
40:24
Speaker 1: He wants Ukraine just to surrender. He he has no
40:31
Speaker 1: no respect for the truth. We know that he doesn't
40:34
Speaker 1: respect for the truth in anything. Uh, and he is
40:39
Speaker 1: take He loves Putin. You know, I've talked about this
40:42
Speaker 1: since they met during his first term term. He loves Putin.
40:46
Speaker 1: You know, he's just enamored with him. Now, maybe Putin
40:49
Speaker 1: has something over him. I doubt it, but maybe he does.
40:52
Speaker 1: But in any case, he loves Putin and and he's
40:56
Speaker 1: not willing to upset Putin. And he's willing to take
40:58
Speaker 1: Putin's side on any issue, no matter what. Now why exactly?
41:04
Speaker 1: I think he loves authoritarianism, authoritarians, and Putin is particularly
41:08
Speaker 1: good at being kind of a masculine masculine in quotation
41:13
Speaker 1: marks authoritarian, which Trump Trump, That's Trump's wet, wet dreams.
41:19
Speaker 1: So I think that's what it boils down to. He's
41:23
Speaker 1: willing to take Putin's side because he loves strong men,
41:26
Speaker 1: and in particular he loves Putin.
41:30
Speaker 8: Olenski is in an impossible situation.
41:33
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean Zelensky in Europe need to tell Donald
41:36
Speaker 1: Trump to go to hell. And they're starting to do that,
41:41
Speaker 1: like Europeans are starting to do that, right, They're starting
41:44
Speaker 1: to say, yeah, we're not going to agree to any PSTO.
41:46
Speaker 1: We're not gonna let you agree to degree to any
41:47
Speaker 1: p STO that doesn't include Russia leaving Georgia and Russia
41:51
Speaker 1: leaving Crimea, and Russia leaving all these places Moldova, and
41:55
Speaker 1: so they're setting terms that they know we're going to
41:58
Speaker 1: offend Trump and and that Putin is no wagan accept
42:02
Speaker 1: and they they maybe are finding the spine to say,
42:07
Speaker 1: you know, we can take on Russia, we can support
42:10
Speaker 1: Ukraine to take on Russia. We don't need the Americans.
42:13
Speaker 1: We'll see. But yeah, if Zelenski's relying on Trump, you
42:18
Speaker 1: might as well surrender because Trump will give him nothing.
42:21
Speaker 1: So he's on his own. The Europeans maybe a finding balls,
42:28
Speaker 1: you know, a spine, whatever you want to call it.
42:31
Speaker 1: Let's hope that's the case. Yeah, let's hope that's the case.
42:36
Speaker 1: There's certainly rich enough to take on Russia. They're richer
42:38
Speaker 1: than Russia, so Russia shouldn't be a big issue for them.
42:42
Speaker 1: But we'll see, all right, let's see not your average algorithm.
42:53
Speaker 1: Man's nature is good and benevolent, or we would not
42:56
Speaker 1: be here. True or false, I mean false. Man's nature
43:01
Speaker 1: is neither good or bad, benevolent or malevolent. I mean
43:06
Speaker 1: man's nature is that he has to choose. That's his nature.
43:12
Speaker 1: His nature is that he has to choose to be
43:14
Speaker 1: good or not, to be benevolent or not. And you
43:19
Speaker 1: know there are periods in which he chooses not to
43:24
Speaker 1: be good, and those are pretty nasty, horriable periods. World
43:27
Speaker 1: War two, you know, in Germany, in Russia, right now,
43:32
Speaker 1: all over the world, you've seen that. Look at look
43:34
Speaker 1: at look at at the Palestinians. They've chosen to be evil,
43:40
Speaker 1: chosen to be malevolent. And there are peers in which
43:44
Speaker 1: people make a choice to be good, and then the
43:46
Speaker 1: peers in which they make a choice to be blah,
43:48
Speaker 1: you know, neither here nor there, and or flunctuate between
43:51
Speaker 1: good and evil daily depending on the circumstances. So, no,
43:56
Speaker 1: we're not programmed to be good, we're not programmed to
43:59
Speaker 1: be benevolent. We have to make choices. And you know,
44:03
Speaker 1: you could argue that given that the human race has
44:06
Speaker 1: survived we've made more good choices and bad choices maybe,
44:11
Speaker 1: But remember we've lived under barbaric animal level conditions from
44:18
Speaker 1: most of the history of the human race. So it's
44:21
Speaker 1: only in the last two hundred and fifty years out
44:25
Speaker 1: of a history of I don't know, one hundred thousand years,
44:27
Speaker 1: that human beings have been living up to our potential.
44:32
Speaker 1: And even then we get these bouts of evil like
44:36
Speaker 1: World War II, World War One, you know, pot and whatever.
44:40
Speaker 1: So yeah, there's no guarantee and there's no tendency. It
44:47
Speaker 1: has to be a real choice. Lean I recently watched
44:54
Speaker 1: confessions of a former climate activist from their Free Press.
44:58
Speaker 1: She sounds a lot like Alex Epstein. Yeah, I mean,
45:02
Speaker 1: there's a reason why she sounds like Alex Epstein, and
45:05
Speaker 1: that's because she's a big admirer of Alex's and she
45:09
Speaker 1: uses his material. She's read his book, she's probably a
45:13
Speaker 1: subscriber to his substack. You should be two, So she's
45:17
Speaker 1: getting her talking points from Alex. That's why she sounds
45:20
Speaker 1: like Alex. So yeah, I mean, Alex has had a
45:25
Speaker 1: big influence and one of one of the people he's
45:29
Speaker 1: influenced is the girl woman. I guess who does confessions
45:33
Speaker 1: of a former climate activist on the Free Press. She's
45:36
Speaker 1: talked about the fact that alex has influenced her. All right, Michael,
45:45
Speaker 1: was the court's ruling nowhere near strong enough. Since they
45:48
Speaker 1: didn't throw all tariffs out, Trump can still wreck havoc. No.
45:52
Speaker 1: I mean, look, the court canoni ruler what is in
45:55
Speaker 1: front of the court. Tariff's broadly were not in front
45:59
Speaker 1: of the court. That wasn't That wasn't the question before it.
46:02
Speaker 1: And of course tariffs are allowed according to the Constitution.
46:06
Speaker 1: The Constitution explicitly allows Congress they post harafs. And the
46:10
Speaker 1: Court has ruled that Congress can delegate certain of its
46:15
Speaker 1: authorities to the president, so that some laws have indeed
46:21
Speaker 1: delegated a tariff power to the president. And so a
46:26
Speaker 1: lot of the tariffs that Trump is imposed and is
46:28
Speaker 1: imposing now in a fit of anger in revenge, a
46:35
Speaker 1: lot of these tariffs are within the scope of the
46:37
Speaker 1: laws that allow him to impost tarraffs. The Court can't
46:42
Speaker 1: say we don't like tariffs, therefore we're ruling tabs unconstitutional.
46:46
Speaker 1: It has to ground whatever it does in the Constitution,
46:50
Speaker 1: and the Constitution, like it or not, allows Congress they
46:55
Speaker 1: post has and allows Congress to delegate the power to
46:58
Speaker 1: the president. Team post House. So no, I thought the
47:01
Speaker 1: decision was right on in a sense that it was
47:04
Speaker 1: limited to the question at hand. Did the law the
47:08
Speaker 1: IEE PA, the International Emergency something something something? Did that
47:14
Speaker 1: law allow Trump tam posed tariffs? And the answer is no,
47:20
Speaker 1: and that's what they willed. Do other laws allow Trump
47:23
Speaker 1: tampost tariffs? Yes, And past courts have recognized that if
47:29
Speaker 1: you want to stop Trump from doing tariffs, the court
47:34
Speaker 1: cannot stop him. Congress can. Congress can repeal those laws,
47:39
Speaker 1: or it can do a new law that says we
47:42
Speaker 1: are now asserting that all tariff powers returned to Congress.
47:47
Speaker 1: But that's never going to happen. It's never going to
47:50
Speaker 1: happen because, uh, you know, neither Democrats that Republic just
47:57
Speaker 1: want it, because they want whoever it is president to
48:01
Speaker 1: be able to have that power to do it. Somebody
48:04
Speaker 1: says this is the best quote ever. I doubt that.
48:07
Speaker 1: I doubt it's better than you know, the early courts
48:10
Speaker 1: in the early nineteenth century in terms of understanding of
48:14
Speaker 1: individual rights and understanding of the Constitution. I doubt that
48:17
Speaker 1: very much. But it is maybe the best court in
48:20
Speaker 1: modern times, maybe since the Great Depression, it's the best court.
48:25
Speaker 1: And look, by far the best on that court is Gorssage,
48:29
Speaker 1: but even Grosstage screws up early. I mean, it's the
48:32
Speaker 1: best quote ever. But this best quote ever basically repealed
48:38
Speaker 1: repealed Rose of versus Wade, which is a massive tragedy,
48:43
Speaker 1: a massive tragedy. So in the sense of that, this
48:47
Speaker 1: is an awful court. And think about the fact that
48:50
Speaker 1: this particular ruling, like yesterday, had to rely on three
48:55
Speaker 1: leftist judges that don't really believe in the constitutional basis
49:07
Speaker 1: for repealing this law. They just hate Trump, so they
49:10
Speaker 1: voted against Trump. So no, I don't think this is
49:15
Speaker 1: the quote best quote ever, And it's not a great
49:18
Speaker 1: quote by a long measure. That is still a court
49:21
Speaker 1: that has no understanding of individual rights. It's a quote
49:25
Speaker 1: that has to rely for a case like this on
49:28
Speaker 1: the liberal on the leftist judges. I mean, the three
49:31
Speaker 1: conservatives are voted against this are pathetic. Worse than pathetic.
49:35
Speaker 1: They should be you know, Thomas should be impeached at
49:37
Speaker 1: this point. He's used to be a good judge ten
49:40
Speaker 1: years ago, but since Trump has come to power, he
49:44
Speaker 1: has he has. He's suffering from the Trump zombie syndrome
49:50
Speaker 1: and is no longer qualified to be on the court.
49:55
Speaker 1: So no, this is not a quote that understands the
49:57
Speaker 1: Constitution or understands individual rights. And by the way, I
50:03
Speaker 1: said yesterday, they don't mention individual rights, but they they
50:06
Speaker 1: don't mention the Declaration Independence or something like that. And
50:09
Speaker 1: it turns out that in Roberts's decision he does mention
50:13
Speaker 1: the the the the the Declaration. I need to go
50:19
Speaker 1: read it and see exactly what he says about it.
50:23
Speaker 1: I don't think it.
50:24
Speaker 4: Would want to be the next Supreme Justice.
50:28
Speaker 1: What's that after?
50:29
Speaker 7: Who?
50:29
Speaker 4: Who would you want to be the next Supreme Justice
50:31
Speaker 4: after Roberts?
50:33
Speaker 1: Of courses, Well, no, you don't. You usually don't elevate
50:38
Speaker 1: somebody from within the court. You usually appoint somebody from
50:40
Speaker 1: the outside for the specific role of Chief Justice. So
50:46
Speaker 1: Roberts came in as Chief Justice from from day one.
50:53
Speaker 1: So I don't know who I would want. I don't
50:55
Speaker 1: know who would be a good Chief Justice. On call Goatte.
51:02
Speaker 1: I think I think i'd nominate him for the Supreme.
51:04
Speaker 4: Court if that happens. I top a few bottles.
51:07
Speaker 1: Of champagne a few, a few.
51:13
Speaker 4: Enough for one hundred people.
51:14
Speaker 1: Yeah, and and maybe the expensive stuff from from from
51:17
Speaker 1: real Champagne. Uh yeah. Or I don't know Ada Massa
51:22
Speaker 1: or or or Larry Salzman or any of our legal
51:28
Speaker 1: minds would be great. But that ain't happening, all right,
51:36
Speaker 1: Michael says TDS means Trump denial syndrome two two week.
51:41
Speaker 1: Two week denial is two week. It's Trump zombie syndrome.
51:45
Speaker 1: That's that's what we need to find. Uh, we need
51:47
Speaker 1: to make that a a common thing. Neo. Was MAO
51:55
Speaker 1: considered better than Hitler or Stalin for trying to decentralize
51:59
Speaker 1: power and fix the system? Is his intent considered a
52:04
Speaker 1: redeeming factor? No, I don't think so, and I don't
52:08
Speaker 1: know who considers him better than Stalin and Hitler. I
52:12
Speaker 1: think the main reason is that he's not Europeans, so
52:16
Speaker 1: people are not focused as much on what he did
52:19
Speaker 1: and don't know as much of his history. But no,
52:24
Speaker 1: Mao has no redeeming features. He probably killed more people
52:27
Speaker 1: than Hitler or Stalin, but it's hard to tell once
52:31
Speaker 1: you get into the tens of millions, it's hard to
52:33
Speaker 1: keep track of who killed more people. But absolutely Mao
52:43
Speaker 1: Mao is one of the belongs up there with Stalin
52:47
Speaker 1: in Hitler, all right, not you have a Jago with him.
52:56
Speaker 1: By twenty fifty, will all caused be electric and self
53:00
Speaker 1: Will this eliminate pollution in cities and increased life expectancy
53:03
Speaker 1: by decades? God? I mean there's so much there. So
53:08
Speaker 1: by twenty fifty, yeah, most cars, if not all cars
53:11
Speaker 1: will be self driving and will be electric. Self driving
53:14
Speaker 1: as much easier with electric than gasoline, and as battery
53:18
Speaker 1: technology gets better, you can imagine the range would increase significantly,
53:22
Speaker 1: I think, but increase life expectancy. You think life expectancy
53:30
Speaker 1: is short because it's shorter because of air pollution. You
53:34
Speaker 1: got to be kidding me. The people in Montana live
53:36
Speaker 1: longer than people in La I mean, if they do,
53:41
Speaker 1: then by a few months maybe, but by years by
53:44
Speaker 1: significant amounts. No, I don't think so, or in I
53:48
Speaker 1: don't know. In the middle of Kansas they live longer
53:51
Speaker 1: then they live in Los Angeles. Los Angeles being my
53:55
Speaker 1: standard for air pollution, for like car air pollution, right,
53:59
Speaker 1: millions and millions and millions of cause all the time.
54:03
Speaker 1: So if there is air pollution, they have the most
54:05
Speaker 1: right I doubt very much that air pollution from cause
54:10
Speaker 1: is a driving force behind shortened life expectancy. I I
54:20
Speaker 1: don't see it, don't see it.
54:23
Speaker 3: And it's so pray with driving cars lest people will
54:25
Speaker 3: die in car crashes.
54:26
Speaker 1: That might affect oh in that sense life expected you
54:30
Speaker 1: will go up, yes, but not pollutions.
54:32
Speaker 4: Yeah, no, I was thinking about. I mean, I mean,
54:34
Speaker 4: I don't know. But maybe with crashes, yeah, I can't remember.
54:37
Speaker 1: See seventeen thousands, I can't remember the number. It's a
54:40
Speaker 1: big number die every year. And car cashes that will
54:42
Speaker 1: go away, So that that would be pretty cool, that
54:46
Speaker 1: the number of car accidents will decline dramatically, number of
54:49
Speaker 1: young people who die in car accidents will go down significantly.
54:54
Speaker 1: And and yes, I don't think. I don't think equality
55:00
Speaker 1: is going to make that big of a change. I mean,
55:02
Speaker 1: if you think about today, even gas guzzling automobiles are
55:07
Speaker 1: not that polluting. The technology has come a long way
55:10
Speaker 1: of the internal combustion engine and the filtration systems and
55:13
Speaker 1: everything else to make them a lot less polluting. I
55:15
Speaker 1: just don't think pollution, particularly from cars these days, has
55:19
Speaker 1: a big impact on life expectancy. Again, look at places
55:23
Speaker 1: in the country that have low pollution and places who
55:27
Speaker 1: have high pollution, And is there a big difference in
55:29
Speaker 1: I don't think so, but mortality in carca accidents absolutely,
55:33
Speaker 1: I think Jennifer's right. All right, thank you, not your
55:41
Speaker 1: average algorithm. All right, the slate is clear on the
55:45
Speaker 1: super chats, so feel fee to jump in, and we
55:49
Speaker 1: should be trying. Ooh, we're already at the first hour
55:53
Speaker 1: and we need quite a bit to get to that
55:55
Speaker 1: first hour's target, so twenty dollars questions would be great height, Jennifer, have.
56:03
Speaker 3: You seen all the original Star Treks or no?
56:09
Speaker 1: Have I seen them all?
56:10
Speaker 3: Yeah?
56:11
Speaker 1: Yes, but it's been a long time, so you.
56:14
Speaker 4: Don't remember them real well, No.
56:16
Speaker 1: I don't remember what actually yesterday.
56:19
Speaker 3: Oh, there's this one where they actually show that these
56:25
Speaker 3: people in a plan that needs some help and they
56:27
Speaker 3: want to do it by force or they're going to die.
56:29
Speaker 3: I won't go into the details, and Kirk says it
56:32
Speaker 3: will help you, but you can't force us, you know. Anyway,
56:35
Speaker 3: In the end, he ends up having to fight them
56:38
Speaker 3: off and leaves them to die because they won't.
56:41
Speaker 4: Yeah, and it actually.
56:43
Speaker 3: Shows him refusing to sacrifice himself and his crew for
56:47
Speaker 3: these people and he leaves and they you assume they
56:50
Speaker 3: did die, and it's like, that was amazing because, i mean,
56:53
Speaker 3: Outside by Grand Art doesn't usually show them saying you
56:58
Speaker 3: should not sacrifice yours for someone you don't even know,
57:01
Speaker 3: even if they're gonna die.
57:03
Speaker 4: You know, it was pretty great.
57:05
Speaker 1: That's pretty good. I mean, Chasba wants me to review
57:08
Speaker 1: an episode of the original Star Trek of my choice.
57:11
Speaker 1: Maybe i'll maybe I'll look for that one.
57:14
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, it's called the Blink of an Eye.
57:16
Speaker 1: What's it called blink of an eye?
57:18
Speaker 4: Yeah, in the blink of an eye.
57:20
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's it's really it's unusual.
57:23
Speaker 1: Cool. Yeah, I mean the other thing about Star Treks
57:26
Speaker 1: were how philosophical they all were, you know, relative to
57:30
Speaker 1: what you see on TV today. It's it's they're pretty
57:32
Speaker 1: amazing because.
57:33
Speaker 3: Usually, you know, Kirk in a fifty minutes solves the
57:36
Speaker 3: problem and everything's great, right, And in this case, they
57:39
Speaker 3: couldn't solve it.
57:40
Speaker 4: They couldn't figure out how to help them. So, oh, well,
57:42
Speaker 4: you know we're not going to let you use us.
57:45
Speaker 1: Yeah, so good, too bad, Okay, I'll check it out. Cool.
57:50
Speaker 1: Did you have a question? No, okay, thank you. Thanks
57:55
Speaker 1: Jennifer Adam.
57:59
Speaker 5: Yes, have you seen the Korean TV series The Deep
58:05
Speaker 5: Rooted Tree.
58:08
Speaker 1: No, it is good.
58:11
Speaker 5: I think it's excellent, and there's a lot of character
58:21
Speaker 5: development taking on during the show, which I think, at
58:28
Speaker 5: least I find, you know, very uplifting.
58:34
Speaker 1: Good. Yeah, no, I haven't seen it. I'll check it out,
58:38
Speaker 1: thank you. Deep footed it's not tree with Tree with
58:44
Speaker 1: deep boots.
58:46
Speaker 5: There could be mistranslations. Okay, my translation would be the
58:54
Speaker 5: Deep Rooted Tree, but you never know how.
58:58
Speaker 1: Apple TV fifteen seventy fifteenth century like historical.
59:09
Speaker 5: Yes, it takes place, okay, cool during the next King
59:15
Speaker 5: after My Country.
59:17
Speaker 1: Okay, cool, I'll definitely try it. Thank you. All right, Andrew, So.
59:28
Speaker 8: Do we know why Tucker was in Israel to interview Huckaby?
59:34
Speaker 1: Oh?
59:35
Speaker 8: Okay, and he claims that he got he got detained.
59:43
Speaker 1: Yeah, he got detained in the VIP lounge. I mean
59:49
Speaker 1: he's a nut, He's a complete nut, and he just lies,
59:52
Speaker 1: straight out just lies.
59:55
Speaker 4: My god, he hates Israel.
59:58
Speaker 1: Yeah, you can tell by that. I haven't just watched
1:00:00
Speaker 1: bits of the interview with Huckaby. I mean, he he asks,
1:00:04
Speaker 1: he keeps asking Huckaby, how how you know why he
1:00:09
Speaker 1: beats his wife, right, I mean those kind of questions, right,
1:00:15
Speaker 1: And he comes out in the in the thing, he
1:00:17
Speaker 1: comes out saying every Jew in Israel should have a
1:00:22
Speaker 1: DNA test to prove that they have DNA roots in
1:00:30
Speaker 1: ancient Israel, right, because he knows that the Jews in
1:00:36
Speaker 1: Israel today are just a bunch of Europeans who are
1:00:38
Speaker 1: colonizing the place and don't have any historical roots in
1:00:42
Speaker 1: Israel as if. I mean, this is the problem that
1:00:45
Speaker 1: Israelis too often use the historical thing as an excuse
1:00:50
Speaker 1: as a justification for why the state of Israel exists,
1:00:53
Speaker 1: even if Aniel uses that, and it's a bogus reason.
1:00:58
Speaker 1: So you know the but he's he's he said, Okay,
1:01:02
Speaker 1: if you're going to use that excuse, let's test you
1:01:04
Speaker 1: off of DNA and let's see the reality is that
1:01:08
Speaker 1: the DNA tests, As far as I understand, do suggest
1:01:12
Speaker 1: that all Askanazi Jews go back to four women who
1:01:16
Speaker 1: lived in the livant I don't know, X thousands of
1:01:19
Speaker 1: years ago and who somehow survived the Christians repeatedly trying
1:01:27
Speaker 1: to kill every single Jew in Europe, like during the Crusades.
1:01:31
Speaker 1: The Jewish population in Europe came very close to zero.
1:01:36
Speaker 1: They killed so many Jews. But yeah, Tuka is on
1:01:40
Speaker 1: a crusade of his own to to to delegitimize Israel,
1:01:44
Speaker 1: and and you know, the the the conspiracy theories and
1:01:50
Speaker 1: the nonsense he spouts are just unbelievable, right, thank you,
1:01:57
Speaker 1: But he might be president one day, who knows. Oh God,
1:02:02
Speaker 1: oh God? Is wait all right, Jacob?
1:02:06
Speaker 6: I think I haven't been able to watch all the
1:02:09
Speaker 6: shows lately. But I have a one hundred and fifty
1:02:12
Speaker 6: dollars question from New Year's Eve that I emailed you, and.
1:02:16
Speaker 4: I don't know if you were able to answer reply, bat.
1:02:19
Speaker 1: I think I answered all of the questions you emailed me.
1:02:23
Speaker 1: Do you remember what it was? Ask it now?
1:02:26
Speaker 6: It was about family, and I know it was like
1:02:28
Speaker 6: I said it maybe personally may not be answered. I'll
1:02:32
Speaker 6: follow up on that, Okay, the other question, So, I'm
1:02:37
Speaker 6: on a low dose because I wanted to try GLPS,
1:02:41
Speaker 6: and notice like the food noise and everything else, which
1:02:45
Speaker 6: you would probably hate, has gone down a lot, whereas
1:02:48
Speaker 6: I'm very comfortably eating rice, chicken, ground beef and all
1:02:51
Speaker 6: that because I'm just not thinking about food that much.
1:02:55
Speaker 4: Do you foresee in the next five to ten years.
1:02:57
Speaker 6: A change in the will discussion once you have drugs
1:03:03
Speaker 6: that can eliminate certain noises and allow people to focus
1:03:07
Speaker 6: on their goals and aspirations and so like. For example,
1:03:11
Speaker 6: when we have a trip planning for Italy, and my
1:03:14
Speaker 6: wife and I were both thinking, Okay, two weeks out,
1:03:16
Speaker 6: we're going to stop. That way we can really enjoy
1:03:18
Speaker 6: the food, and then when we come back then we'll
1:03:22
Speaker 6: get back on it. That way we can focus on
1:03:23
Speaker 6: the work in our personal lives. So there's the conscious
1:03:26
Speaker 6: choice of isolating noise and making that choice there.
1:03:31
Speaker 8: So I know.
1:03:32
Speaker 1: People who took jipu ones, why could those jilpu ones.
1:03:36
Speaker 1: It didn't affect their ability to enjoy food. It just
1:03:39
Speaker 1: reduced their appetite, that is, they were hungry. So but
1:03:44
Speaker 1: when they ate, they still wanted to eat delicious food,
1:03:48
Speaker 1: So it didn't affect their appreciation for good food. So
1:03:54
Speaker 1: I'm not sure why you experiencing.
1:03:58
Speaker 6: I think it's a little bit of both, where it's
1:04:02
Speaker 6: the good food is high coloric, and then because you
1:04:05
Speaker 6: want to change your body type or get healthier, it's okay,
1:04:09
Speaker 6: I can only eat fifteen hundred calories before you start
1:04:13
Speaker 6: two twenty five hundred before you start feeling sick. So
1:04:16
Speaker 6: it's let's just get eat clean. And I'm focused extremely
1:04:20
Speaker 6: on the goal of the physique or the weight or
1:04:24
Speaker 6: the health benefit, whereas before it would be hey, I'd
1:04:28
Speaker 6: want to meal with a good amount of butter, lots
1:04:32
Speaker 6: of spices, and then the chicken thigh rather than chicken breast,
1:04:36
Speaker 6: and so on and so forth.
1:04:38
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, are you doing the injections of the
1:04:41
Speaker 1: pills injections. I'm waiting for the ability to do microdoes
1:04:50
Speaker 1: the pills, and then I'm going to try it. And
1:04:53
Speaker 1: when I try it, I'll let you know, because you know,
1:04:56
Speaker 1: I'm hoping that it just takes a way the hunger
1:05:02
Speaker 1: which causes me to snack during the day or eat
1:05:05
Speaker 1: during the day more than I should, because you know,
1:05:09
Speaker 1: if I get tired, I eat, if I you know,
1:05:11
Speaker 1: it's just a fill in, but that it doesn't change
1:05:17
Speaker 1: my because during the day I don't desire necessarily tasty food,
1:05:21
Speaker 1: but I like to have a good tasty meal, even
1:05:24
Speaker 1: if it's low cality. So I'm curious how that will
1:05:28
Speaker 1: affect it. But generally I don't I don't know that
1:05:30
Speaker 1: it's going to change the free will debate, because I
1:05:35
Speaker 1: don't know why it would have an impact on the
1:05:37
Speaker 1: free will debate. There's clearly clearly your body you know,
1:05:43
Speaker 1: has its it's sending you signals to the brain and
1:05:49
Speaker 1: sending you know, sending it goes through the brain. Uh,
1:05:52
Speaker 1: that you don't have control over, right, And Uh, that
1:05:57
Speaker 1: doesn't reject free will. It just says there's an element
1:06:00
Speaker 1: of brain signaling you called it noise that is not
1:06:07
Speaker 1: that is not under our control, right, And if I
1:06:13
Speaker 1: can mitigate some of that, maybe that puts more under
1:06:17
Speaker 1: my control and it allows me motive focus. I think
1:06:20
Speaker 1: it increases the quality, you know, just the quality of life,
1:06:25
Speaker 1: the quality of.
1:06:25
Speaker 6: Thinking, actually thinking. I mean for me too. It's not
1:06:31
Speaker 6: just food as alcohol. So it was used to be
1:06:34
Speaker 6: where I'd go out and you'd have four or five
1:06:36
Speaker 6: drinks over the course of three hours.
1:06:38
Speaker 4: Yeah, now it's just all right, that's gone.
1:06:40
Speaker 6: Or maybe a smoker would intentionally take it to maybe
1:06:45
Speaker 6: in the future there's drugs that counter the nicotine a
1:06:48
Speaker 6: lot better.
1:06:49
Speaker 4: Yep, so then they can get rid of that noise.
1:06:51
Speaker 6: So then would there be a lot more people that
1:06:54
Speaker 6: don't have the background and have to confront their ability
1:06:58
Speaker 6: to think orch is not to think, or in the
1:07:01
Speaker 6: past it was just automatic in the background, they chose
1:07:04
Speaker 6: not to think because they.
1:07:05
Speaker 4: Went along with the noise.
1:07:06
Speaker 6: But then once you get rid of all those unconscious
1:07:10
Speaker 6: signals of all right, you need to eat, you need
1:07:12
Speaker 6: to smoke, you need to drink, or you can toggle
1:07:16
Speaker 6: on and off the switch for gambling or any other addiction.
1:07:21
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean very possible. That is that it increases
1:07:27
Speaker 1: the quality of life, It increases your focus, it increases
1:07:30
Speaker 1: your ability to ignore the noise, and uh and yeah,
1:07:35
Speaker 1: so so people have to confront that more. I'm not
1:07:38
Speaker 1: sure that it'll lead to them thinking more. That that
1:07:41
Speaker 1: would be, that would be amazing, but that that would
1:07:44
Speaker 1: be that would be interesting. But clearly the GP one drugs,
1:07:50
Speaker 1: unless some new side effect comes about that that turns
1:07:54
Speaker 1: people away from them, I really are, in many respects
1:07:57
Speaker 1: kind of a miracle drugs in terms of eating, in
1:08:01
Speaker 1: terms of addiction, in terms of a lot of different things.
1:08:05
Speaker 1: So that they do take away a lot of these
1:08:09
Speaker 1: kind of desires that we have that are not always helpful.
1:08:13
Speaker 6: Yeah, I got mine from a compound pharmacy from crimew
1:08:17
Speaker 6: or that that blogger.
1:08:19
Speaker 4: Yep, And I saw.
1:08:20
Speaker 6: I think in the last week or two weeks they're
1:08:23
Speaker 6: trying to posh for end of those compound.
1:08:25
Speaker 1: For yes, they're trying to get they're trying to get
1:08:27
Speaker 1: rid of the compound pharmacies.
1:08:28
Speaker 6: Unfortunately, it saved at least two thousand dollars a year yep.
1:08:34
Speaker 1: For me, not surprised. Not surprised. Now we'll see how
1:08:38
Speaker 1: that all develops. But I don't want to take the injection,
1:08:42
Speaker 1: so I'm waiting for the pill, but I am going
1:08:44
Speaker 1: to try it. Thank you, Thanks Jacob Lincoln. Lincoln just
1:08:50
Speaker 1: joined us, Aaron, So my question is.
1:08:57
Speaker 9: You probably saw a couple days go is treat that
1:09:01
Speaker 9: went viral that showed the distribution of art from of
1:09:09
Speaker 9: the Louver and how you have generally increasing until you
1:09:13
Speaker 9: get to Roman Empire and then obviously after room falls
1:09:16
Speaker 9: crashes now for a thousand years, saying it's another proof
1:09:21
Speaker 9: of the dark Age is caused by Christian ethics until
1:09:24
Speaker 9: it starts to decline yep, which a correlates with technology
1:09:29
Speaker 9: declining every less any less currency being circulated. Do you
1:09:36
Speaker 9: think that if America.
1:09:38
Speaker 10: Falls into authoritarianism and to falls off as a country,
1:09:43
Speaker 10: is a similar dark age possible or is globalism too
1:09:47
Speaker 10: powerful now that it's not going to stop technological progress
1:09:51
Speaker 10: in the way that Rome Valling did.
1:09:54
Speaker 7: You know?
1:09:54
Speaker 1: It's how to predict these things. But I think it's
1:09:57
Speaker 1: going to be very difficult to stop technological progress or
1:09:59
Speaker 1: get of knowledge, given that the tools are everywhere. They're
1:10:04
Speaker 1: not just in the US and not just in Europe,
1:10:06
Speaker 1: all of Asia, South America and Nepal. I'm sure they're engineers,
1:10:10
Speaker 1: so you know, just everywhere. And to imagine a global
1:10:15
Speaker 1: a complete global collapse, I just don't see how that happens.
1:10:21
Speaker 1: You can see major stagnation, a drop off, but yeah,
1:10:25
Speaker 1: I don't think I don't think you can see. And
1:10:29
Speaker 1: I haven't seen that tweet. So if you find it,
1:10:33
Speaker 1: reach you know, what do you call it? Send me
1:10:36
Speaker 1: the link. But I think it's very unlikely to happen
1:10:43
Speaker 1: that way. It'll happen in a different way, and I
1:10:46
Speaker 1: don't know exactly how that'll be. You know. The alternative
1:10:50
Speaker 1: is some kind of nuclear catastrophe where a lot of
1:10:52
Speaker 1: people die and then there will shrink significantly, and but
1:10:57
Speaker 1: the knowledge is not just going to disappear, so uh,
1:11:05
Speaker 1: and so we'll see. So I don't think it's gonna happen.
1:11:11
Speaker 1: All right, thank you Lincoln. Let's see Linda. I like
1:11:15
Speaker 1: to give copy gift copies of The Romantic Manifesto to
1:11:19
Speaker 1: Quinn Code de fine Art. I like to gift copies
1:11:23
Speaker 1: of the Romantic Manifesto at not too at Quinn Coode
1:11:27
Speaker 1: de fine Art. Do you ever gift rand books? If so,
1:11:30
Speaker 1: which ones beside out the Shrug Fondhead? Which ones are
1:11:33
Speaker 1: your favorites? I don't. I don't gift iron Ran books.
1:11:39
Speaker 1: I don't have a circle of people that would be
1:11:42
Speaker 1: natural for me to give them to the people. Most
1:11:44
Speaker 1: of the people I know have already read the books.
1:11:47
Speaker 1: That's how I know them. So no, I mean, what
1:11:51
Speaker 1: are my other favorites? Virtual of Selfishness, Manic Manifesto, Capitalism,
1:11:56
Speaker 1: I mean Plostry who needs It is one of my favorites.
1:11:58
Speaker 1: But really it's the novels right Atla Shrug and the
1:12:01
Speaker 1: found Headers where if I was going to gift something,
1:12:04
Speaker 1: that's what I would be gifting. The Romantic Manifesto is
1:12:08
Speaker 1: very hard. It's it's a difficult book philosophically, it's it's
1:12:12
Speaker 1: hard and you need some background to understand it. And
1:12:17
Speaker 1: that background, I think can be found in Atlas Shugged
1:12:21
Speaker 1: and The fountain Head. Thanks Linda, all right, we'll do
1:12:26
Speaker 1: one more round. Jennifer, I'm down for thank you.
1:12:32
Speaker 11: Okay, thanks Jennifer Adam, you're muted, Yes, okay.
1:12:50
Speaker 5: What is the influence of philosophy of education and economic development?
1:12:59
Speaker 5: Because because if you look at East Asia, for example,
1:13:06
Speaker 5: the former Japanese Empire, where they adapted the Kashevich curriculum,
1:13:17
Speaker 5: is doing very well, with one big exception, which is
1:13:21
Speaker 5: the Philippines, where they have the American philosophy of education.
1:13:28
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean and how yeah yeah?
1:13:31
Speaker 5: How general is this around the world where some countries
1:13:38
Speaker 5: have better philosophy of education than others?
1:13:44
Speaker 1: I mean, I think there's the most places around the
1:13:48
Speaker 1: world have just a mediocre view of education, a mediocre
1:13:52
Speaker 1: system of education, and that is good enough for the
1:13:57
Speaker 1: kind of level of growth that we have today in
1:13:59
Speaker 1: the world. The United States has bad education and somehow,
1:14:05
Speaker 1: because of other institutional benefits, we somehow do as well,
1:14:11
Speaker 1: if not better than other countries in spite of that.
1:14:13
Speaker 5: So it always have immigrants and private Monssouri schools.
1:14:18
Speaker 1: Sure, you know, half the three quarters of the private
1:14:22
Speaker 1: Montsoi schools are not very good at Montssouri, you know,
1:14:26
Speaker 1: because anybody can label their school Montssouri as I think,
1:14:28
Speaker 1: you know, so you really have to check out the
1:14:31
Speaker 1: schools to make sure they're good. But we do have immigrants,
1:14:35
Speaker 1: at least we used to have. I'm not sure if
1:14:37
Speaker 1: we're still going to have in the future. But look,
1:14:41
Speaker 1: half of all startups in the US are founded by Americans.
1:14:46
Speaker 1: We could flip this, we could flip it. So there's
1:14:49
Speaker 1: still half that that that are decent. So anyway, the
1:14:55
Speaker 1: United States is hampered by it, but still survives. You
1:15:00
Speaker 1: has a better educational system in the US, but not great.
1:15:03
Speaker 1: It's still mediocre and it does okay. The Islamic world
1:15:08
Speaker 1: has an awful educational system, worse than America's, and that's
1:15:12
Speaker 1: part of why it struggles. It doesn't go anywhay. So
1:15:16
Speaker 1: educational philosophy is crucial because it's basically shaping the knowledge
1:15:24
Speaker 1: and the ability to think of future generations. So if
1:15:27
Speaker 1: a culture has an awful educational system and it really dominates,
1:15:32
Speaker 1: like let's say in the Muslim world and in parts
1:15:34
Speaker 1: of the United States, then it's crippling those societies. And
1:15:38
Speaker 1: certainly for some communities in the US, they're completely crippled.
1:15:43
Speaker 1: So one of the reasons you don't see a lot
1:15:45
Speaker 1: of mobility, let's say, in the Black community from poverty
1:15:52
Speaker 1: to middle classard anymore as much as you did, let's
1:15:54
Speaker 1: say in the forties and fifties, is because so many
1:15:58
Speaker 1: of the schools are rotten. And they're rotten because of
1:16:01
Speaker 1: progressive education. They're rotten because of they're all run by
1:16:05
Speaker 1: the government and they're run by unions, and therefore they
1:16:09
Speaker 1: don't gain the tools to break out of poverty, breake
1:16:12
Speaker 1: and and and break and advance in life. Whereas it
1:16:18
Speaker 1: is middle class that can send their kids the Montessori.
1:16:22
Speaker 1: You know, it's the middle class, it's more likely to
1:16:25
Speaker 1: find alternative schools. So yeah, I mean, it's it's hugely important.
1:16:32
Speaker 1: It's uh and it's it's in a sense sets the
1:16:35
Speaker 1: destiny of a country over the long run, because if
1:16:38
Speaker 1: you have a rotten educational system, the long run is
1:16:40
Speaker 1: going to be rotten. Because you can't think you can
1:16:45
Speaker 1: see that in American politics today. Americans can't think. Thanks
1:16:51
Speaker 1: Adam on that depressing thought.
1:16:53
Speaker 8: Andrew, Yeah, do you view the whole argument against the
1:16:59
Speaker 8: social media companies that like they're addicting people to their
1:17:03
Speaker 8: product as.
1:17:07
Speaker 7: Just absurd, like they are claiming that, like they use tactics,
1:17:14
Speaker 7: just like slot machines, you know, the casinos use slot
1:17:20
Speaker 7: machine you know, and psychological you know.
1:17:24
Speaker 8: But like, aren't they.
1:17:25
Speaker 7: Just providing a product that they are trying to get
1:17:29
Speaker 7: people to use, and of course they're going to try
1:17:31
Speaker 7: to make it as appealing as possible.
1:17:33
Speaker 1: Yeah, but that's that's the same with slot machines. What's
1:17:34
Speaker 1: the difference. It's exactly like slot machines. They're doing it
1:17:39
Speaker 1: to get you addicted. But of course whether you get
1:17:42
Speaker 1: addicted or not, it's up to you. But they they
1:17:47
Speaker 1: are setting their algorithms to you know, stimulate as much
1:17:52
Speaker 1: what is a simotonin or whatever it is in the
1:17:54
Speaker 1: brain that gives you pleasures so that you keep staying
1:17:57
Speaker 1: on the website and keep using it. Yeah, I have
1:18:01
Speaker 1: no question they're doing that. But so what it's it's
1:18:04
Speaker 1: your responsibility as a user to moderate and to know
1:18:10
Speaker 1: when to stop. I mean, I can even see myself
1:18:12
Speaker 1: sometimes sometimes I'll click on some of those YouTube shorts
1:18:17
Speaker 1: and you stop flipping, and you know, you have to
1:18:21
Speaker 1: make a conscious choice, no, stop, what am I doing?
1:18:24
Speaker 1: This is a waste of time? Dopamine. Dopamine not to
1:18:28
Speaker 1: its own. Yeah, it's a dopeamine hit. It's it's short
1:18:31
Speaker 1: little bits of candy. Like it's like chocolate, right, you
1:18:35
Speaker 1: can eat like they put in front of you twenty pieces,
1:18:40
Speaker 1: really beautifully looking pieces of chocolate, right, and you take
1:18:46
Speaker 1: one and it's super tasty, and then next one looks
1:18:49
Speaker 1: really appealing. You take another one, and you know it's
1:18:52
Speaker 1: up to you to say and off, son, off, I'm
1:18:53
Speaker 1: not going to take any more. If the restaurant is
1:18:57
Speaker 1: definitely you know, and they're not even charging per chuck,
1:19:00
Speaker 1: it's just they want it. They want you to feel
1:19:02
Speaker 1: like they're generous, and they you know, I don't know.
1:19:04
Speaker 1: You go to some of these fancy meals and they
1:19:06
Speaker 1: do these after the five desserts and twenty courses and everything,
1:19:11
Speaker 1: then they bring out all the chocolates. It's like, God,
1:19:13
Speaker 1: there's no end to this food. And at some point
1:19:16
Speaker 1: you have to be able to say no.
1:19:20
Speaker 7: Does it at all impact your thinking that for minors?
1:19:27
Speaker 11: No?
1:19:27
Speaker 1: Because that's of all the parents. The job of parents
1:19:32
Speaker 1: is to teach the kids to learn how to say no,
1:19:36
Speaker 1: and if they're not able to do themselves, then to
1:19:38
Speaker 1: do it for them. So the apps, the things that
1:19:42
Speaker 1: you can do to limit their number of hours a
1:19:46
Speaker 1: child can be on social media or on the web
1:19:48
Speaker 1: more generally, or what kind of websites they can go to.
1:19:51
Speaker 1: That's what parents are for. And parents don't want their
1:19:53
Speaker 1: kids to be in social media, they can ban them
1:19:56
Speaker 1: from social media. It's fairly easy to do. It's it's
1:20:02
Speaker 1: not the job of government. Great thanks Andrew Lincoln.
1:20:12
Speaker 9: So one of the things that has been I think
1:20:14
Speaker 9: a real trend of the twenty twenties has been the
1:20:18
Speaker 9: alongside AI has been the advancement with a lot of
1:20:20
Speaker 9: stuff in the biotechnology sphere in regards to obviously GLP ones,
1:20:26
Speaker 9: but also there's technology with extending human life, with extending
1:20:31
Speaker 9: lifespan through either pharmaceutical drugs or through stuff like what
1:20:35
Speaker 9: Brian Johnson is doing. Over one area that's also making
1:20:39
Speaker 9: progress that I think is promising, but the improvement to
1:20:44
Speaker 9: quality of life is maybe less obvious, has been this
1:20:48
Speaker 9: de extinction goal Ledbet's company, Colossal Biosences out in Dallas,
1:20:55
Speaker 9: where their goal is to essentially bring back extinct animals
1:21:01
Speaker 9: with the ablem to go being reviving thebling. The method
1:21:04
Speaker 9: got a bunch.
1:21:05
Speaker 1: Of up of funding.
1:21:06
Speaker 9: So what do you think would be the improving human
1:21:10
Speaker 9: quality of life to bring back extinct animals beyond just pleasure?
1:21:15
Speaker 1: I think that's it. I think it's a pleasure, you know,
1:21:18
Speaker 1: unless we can bring them back and eat them. Maybe
1:21:20
Speaker 1: maybe dinosaurs taste really good. I don't know. I doubt it.
1:21:23
Speaker 1: They're probably pretty tough, So I don't know. I don't
1:21:28
Speaker 1: I don't know what the point of being back extinct
1:21:30
Speaker 1: animals other than wouldn't it be cool to walk around
1:21:34
Speaker 1: in Jurassic Park? Right? What else is there? We're going
1:21:40
Speaker 1: to have artificial meat anyway, so we don't need them
1:21:43
Speaker 1: for me.
1:21:44
Speaker 9: So yeah, I mean it is basically just a nice
1:21:47
Speaker 9: vanity project of.
1:21:48
Speaker 1: I think it's a vanity project. I think it's a
1:21:50
Speaker 1: proof of concept, you know it Basically. The next thing
1:21:55
Speaker 1: is we can now, you know, in a sense, create people. Right,
1:22:01
Speaker 1: you can take DNA and and and artificially outside of
1:22:06
Speaker 1: the womb, we created artificial wombs and create human beings.
1:22:10
Speaker 1: So a lot of technology will need to be developed
1:22:13
Speaker 1: that is useful for human beings in you know, creating
1:22:19
Speaker 1: these recreating these animals. So there's a transferable technology, right.
1:22:27
Speaker 1: I think that's the benefit. All right, Jacob, thank you
1:22:31
Speaker 1: for the sticker, and Dave fifty dollars. Really appreciate the sticker.
1:22:36
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right, guys, Thank you everybody. I will
1:22:42
Speaker 1: see you all. What there is today, oh, tomorrow. I
1:22:46
Speaker 1: still don't know what I'm doing tomorrow. There is there
1:22:48
Speaker 1: will be a member's only show tomorrow, that is for sure.
1:22:52
Speaker 1: I just don't know what it's going to be, what
1:22:53
Speaker 1: the topic is going to be, but I will advertise
1:22:56
Speaker 1: it hopefully later today with the topic so you'll be
1:22:58
Speaker 1: able to see. All right, guys, thank you, Thank you Jennifer, Adam,
1:23:02
Speaker 1: Andrew Lincoln and Jacob who left us. I'll see you
1:23:07
Speaker 1: guys on the next day. A bie everybody, Hi, you're
1:23:11
Speaker 1: going bye.
1:23:14
Speaker 7: Oh