Latest / Yaron Brook Show / Iran - What Next?; AI - China Coming; ICE; DSA; Vance & GDP; Achievement | Yaron Brook Show

Transcript

Iran - What Next?; AI - China Coming; ICE; DSA; Vance & GDP; Achievement | Yaron Brook Show · Yaron Brook Show

• 0:02
  Speaker 1: A whole lot of the.
• 0:06
  Speaker 2: Video little sells and you need the divisional loss. This
• 0:14
  Speaker 2: is the show, all right, everybody, welcome to you on
• 0:22
  Speaker 2: book Show on this Monday, July twentieth. Everybody is doing well,
• 0:30
  Speaker 2: let's see. Yeah, so today we'll cover some of the
• 0:35
  Speaker 2: it don't use the World Cup wrapped up over the weekend.
• 0:40
  Speaker 2: Crazy crazy England fans game. I didn't see the game,
• 0:46
  Speaker 2: but then I had to go back and watch the highlights.
• 0:48
  Speaker 2: I mean, ten goals in a game you never see that.
• 0:52
  Speaker 2: That was Oh, I guess I need to press that button.
• 0:55
  Speaker 2: There we go. Now we have video, crazy crazy game.
• 0:59
  Speaker 2: Ten goals you never see that. It was. It was
• 1:02
  Speaker 2: super fun and uh, England beat fans. That's always good.
• 1:09
  Speaker 2: And yeah, and it was kind of exciting because the
• 1:13
  Speaker 2: French almost came back and you know, England dominated the
• 1:16
  Speaker 2: first half four nothing and then it was four to
• 1:18
  Speaker 2: three and there was five three, and there was five
• 1:20
  Speaker 2: five four and there was six four. Just a back
• 1:23
  Speaker 2: and forth, back and forth, lots of goals. Always fun
• 1:26
  Speaker 2: to see a game like that. You know, they need
• 1:29
  Speaker 2: the team was really playing defense for much of the game,
• 1:32
  Speaker 2: but it was completely open game. You wish more soccer
• 1:38
  Speaker 2: was like that, and and if there was a way
• 1:40
  Speaker 2: to make soccer more like that, that would be that
• 1:43
  Speaker 2: would be I mean football more like that, that would
• 1:45
  Speaker 2: be great. I don't know how you do it. The
• 1:47
  Speaker 2: fact is teams can't play defense, and they do, and
• 1:50
  Speaker 2: when they do, it's very hard to score goals, as
• 1:53
  Speaker 2: we saw in the final. The final, on the other hand,
• 1:55
  Speaker 2: was a boring game. Uh it's playing played well. I
• 1:59
  Speaker 2: don't think spctacularly. Particularly they they didn't. They couldn't. They
• 2:05
  Speaker 2: couldn't score goals. So which even though they dominated the game,
• 2:09
  Speaker 2: they dominated possession, They they had shots on goal, they
• 2:13
  Speaker 2: were in the box, they had corners, they had you know,
• 2:16
  Speaker 2: they had opportunities, lots of opportunities. They couldn't score. And
• 2:20
  Speaker 2: Agentina just played terribly. They they you know, I guess
• 2:24
  Speaker 2: they were good in defense. Maybe they can get credit
• 2:26
  Speaker 2: for Spain not scoring. I'm not even sure that's true.
• 2:29
  Speaker 2: But other than that, they did nothing. They couldn't get
• 2:33
  Speaker 2: the game going. They couldn't move the ball, they couldn't attack,
• 2:38
  Speaker 2: and Messi was a non entity the entire game because
• 2:42
  Speaker 2: unless unless on, Gentina attacks and gets in the ball somehow,
• 2:46
  Speaker 2: and organizers in a way to give him some space.
• 2:49
  Speaker 2: There's just nothing he can do, and indeed there was
• 2:51
  Speaker 2: nothing he could do, so it was not a fun
• 2:55
  Speaker 2: game to watch at all. Spain was the better team.
• 2:58
  Speaker 2: I'm glad it won in the end. It deserves to win.
• 3:02
  Speaker 2: It deserves to win. It played it played batter football,
• 3:05
  Speaker 2: you can't. I mean, Argentina did not have a shot
• 3:08
  Speaker 2: on goal for one hundred and fifteen minutes right the
• 3:11
  Speaker 2: whole regular time and and most of the most of
• 3:16
  Speaker 2: the you know, extra extra time. So yeah, they played terribly,
• 3:24
  Speaker 2: so why exactly what's the blame? Of course, they also
• 3:29
  Speaker 2: got They also got pretty aggressive in the following which
• 3:33
  Speaker 2: resulted in one guy getting two yellow cards, which means
• 3:37
  Speaker 2: a red car which means they played with ten players
• 3:39
  Speaker 2: for a big chunk of the game, another reason they
• 3:41
  Speaker 2: couldn't attack and score. I'm glad it didn't go to
• 3:47
  Speaker 2: to penalty kicks because again I think I think Spain
• 3:53
  Speaker 2: deserve to win, and I'm glad. I'm glad they won,
• 3:56
  Speaker 2: and they I'm glad they won, you know, in a
• 3:59
  Speaker 2: sense playing football rather than penalty gigs, which which I don't.
• 4:05
  Speaker 2: You know, it's inevitable that some games will be determined
• 4:08
  Speaker 2: that way, it's not the greatest way to determine a game,
• 4:12
  Speaker 2: to determine a game. So I mean, what was missing?
• 4:17
  Speaker 2: I think what it would have improved the game significantly
• 4:20
  Speaker 2: if Spain had had scored a goal in the in
• 4:24
  Speaker 2: the beginning of the first half, like if Scann Spain
• 4:28
  Speaker 2: scored a goal ten minutes in, it would have forced
• 4:32
  Speaker 2: Argentina to take more risk, to push more, uh and
• 4:37
  Speaker 2: and and and and to go into Spain's area and
• 4:40
  Speaker 2: to try to score one way or the other. And
• 4:42
  Speaker 2: it would have made a much more interesting game. The fact, unfortunately,
• 4:45
  Speaker 2: that Spain did not score. They played beautifully, that passes
• 4:49
  Speaker 2: will go just and all that, but they didn't score,
• 4:52
  Speaker 2: uh and and is you know, it basically hurt the
• 4:58
  Speaker 2: game because the longer they didn't score, the more Argentina
• 5:01
  Speaker 2: was playing for tie. And then by the time they
• 5:03
  Speaker 2: got to ten players that were suddenly playing for tie
• 5:07
  Speaker 2: and and yeah, it was just it was just not
• 5:10
  Speaker 2: good and Messy did not have the opportunity to shine,
• 5:14
  Speaker 2: to do anything anything dramatic or significant. Sadly, sadly, all right,
• 5:22
  Speaker 2: but I am I'm sad that the World Cup is over.
• 5:24
  Speaker 2: I'm not really sad because God, it consumed a lot
• 5:28
  Speaker 2: of time. It was a lot of fun, so I
• 5:29
  Speaker 2: don't regret it. A lot of fun. But I couldn't
• 5:31
  Speaker 2: do this like every week. I mean, that would be impossible.
• 5:34
  Speaker 2: I wouldn't get anything done. It was way out. I
• 5:37
  Speaker 2: would get a lot done, but I would be exhausted.
• 5:39
  Speaker 2: There's way too much work and trying to work around
• 5:45
  Speaker 2: the football games and working into the night. As you know,
• 5:49
  Speaker 2: I fly tomorrow to Austin to do a an eight
• 5:52
  Speaker 2: hour seminar on capitalism with Don Watkins, and then I
• 5:57
  Speaker 2: fly to Phoenix to do an eight hour class on
• 6:00
  Speaker 2: iron Rand and in another eight hour class on venture
• 6:04
  Speaker 2: capital on private equity. So I'm going to be doing
• 6:07
  Speaker 2: I'm going to doing eight twenty four hours basically speaking.
• 6:13
  Speaker 2: May you know, donal will will leave me a little
• 6:14
  Speaker 2: bit in the first eight twenty four hours. In you know,
• 6:21
  Speaker 2: six days, it's it's going to be intense. It's going
• 6:25
  Speaker 2: to be super intense, and much of the intensity has
• 6:28
  Speaker 2: been felt over the last week or so in prepping.
• 6:31
  Speaker 2: I actually have to have outlines for all of these things.
• 6:34
  Speaker 2: Actually have to know what I'm going to say about
• 6:36
  Speaker 2: all these things. The iron Rand and venture capital stuff,
• 6:41
  Speaker 2: I've never taught before, so this is these are brand
• 6:43
  Speaker 2: new courses. I don't have any prepared material. I mean
• 6:48
  Speaker 2: obviously know my iron Ran stuff and I know something
• 6:50
  Speaker 2: about venture capital, but you still have to prepare to
• 6:53
  Speaker 2: do an eight hour course and entertain students and keep
• 6:55
  Speaker 2: them engaged in alive and awake, and then it has
• 6:59
  Speaker 2: to be on video and has to be well on video.
• 7:01
  Speaker 2: So anyway, a lot of work, a lot of work
• 7:05
  Speaker 2: went into that. And yeah, all right, let's see what
• 7:19
  Speaker 2: we want to do here. We'll start with We'll start
• 7:24
  Speaker 2: with as we always do, as we have done for
• 7:27
  Speaker 2: the last few months. We'll start with von Tragically, two
• 7:32
  Speaker 2: more Americans so just were killed over the weekend in
• 7:34
  Speaker 2: Jordan when a bomb I guess hit and a building
• 7:38
  Speaker 2: that was serving as in the Sains barracks, UH, for
• 7:42
  Speaker 2: the troops. It's so that you know, I don't know,
• 7:46
  Speaker 2: that brings up the total in this war to sixteen. Uh.
• 7:51
  Speaker 2: Trump is furious, of course, and you know the USE
• 7:55
  Speaker 2: is going to attack them and do this and do that.
• 7:57
  Speaker 2: But I repeat myself, but I guess you have to
• 8:02
  Speaker 2: repeat yourself. US has no strategy, there's no strategy on
• 8:08
  Speaker 2: what to do with Iran. There's no end goal right now.
• 8:13
  Speaker 2: The end goal is to open the States of Homos.
• 8:15
  Speaker 2: But remember State of Homoes was open before the war started.
• 8:21
  Speaker 2: So the end goal is to open the state of
• 8:23
  Speaker 2: homone and make sure they don't have a nuclear program
• 8:27
  Speaker 2: and ideally they don't have a missile program, and they
• 8:33
  Speaker 2: stop funding terrorism around the region. Good luck achieving all
• 8:37
  Speaker 2: that without regime change. Regime change would be a goal,
• 8:42
  Speaker 2: but clearly that's not a goal. That's not how the
• 8:44
  Speaker 2: bombing is going. It's not how any of this activity
• 8:47
  Speaker 2: is going. It really is hard to tell what the
• 8:52
  Speaker 2: United States is doing. Tonight was the tenth night in
• 8:55
  Speaker 2: the road that the United States has been bombing Iran.
• 8:58
  Speaker 2: But they don't bomb in the day. There's a certain
• 9:01
  Speaker 2: period of hours that they bomb and then they leave
• 9:02
  Speaker 2: you on alone for the rest of the time. What
• 9:05
  Speaker 2: do they expect to achieve doing this, It's not clear.
• 9:10
  Speaker 2: There's still a lot more than needs to be done
• 9:12
  Speaker 2: just in order to keep the State of HomeOS open.
• 9:15
  Speaker 2: The reality is that you want to still attacking ships
• 9:19
  Speaker 2: that are trying to pass through the strait, and so
• 9:32
  Speaker 2: they're still attacking ships that are passing through the strait
• 9:37
  Speaker 2: successfully the United States has not eliminated the threat yet.
• 9:44
  Speaker 2: The bombing has not been intensive enough, it has not
• 9:46
  Speaker 2: been on the right places. Ground troops have not taken
• 9:50
  Speaker 2: over the islands.
• 9:51
  Speaker 3: They still have enough boats to be able to.
• 10:02
  Speaker 2: To be able to pull this off, right, So yeah,
• 10:11
  Speaker 2: I mean no strategy. It turns out there was never
• 10:18
  Speaker 2: a strategy. Just opened the strait of homoes since the
• 10:21
  Speaker 2: beginning of the war, and there's still no strategy about
• 10:25
  Speaker 2: anything about the very nature of this never so the
• 10:38
  Speaker 2: U the uh, this is just a it's a disaster,
• 10:47
  Speaker 2: you know, as I said with the negotiations, the fact
• 10:49
  Speaker 2: that they've started bombing again is better than negotiating, but
• 10:52
  Speaker 2: not much better. And it's very expensive, and there was
• 10:56
  Speaker 2: a real risk of the United States running out of ammunition.
• 11:00
  Speaker 2: And Trump seems oblivious to all of this, o prices
• 11:05
  Speaker 2: going up. He's not oblivious to that prices going up.
• 11:10
  Speaker 2: But the reality is that that none of the war
• 11:18
  Speaker 2: aims are being achieved, none of them. Were actually three
• 11:24
  Speaker 2: Americans killed, two in Jordan, one in UK when during
• 11:31
  Speaker 2: a controlled detonation of a down the Iranian drone. I
• 11:34
  Speaker 2: guess something went wrong. Trump went on social media today
• 11:39
  Speaker 2: and said every time he won kills an American soldiers,
• 11:43
  Speaker 2: They will pay for that killing many times. What does
• 11:45
  Speaker 2: that mean? How are they gonna pay? What are they
• 11:47
  Speaker 2: gonna pay? Another bridge? Another another? What? Another another boat? Another,
• 11:52
  Speaker 2: another refinery? And three soldiers? Ten soldiers, a thousand soldiers?
• 11:57
  Speaker 2: How many soldiers are going to die for every American?
• 12:00
  Speaker 2: And what is the endgame? Revenge? Vengeance? Your Central Command
• 12:09
  Speaker 2: says Sunday's air strikes targeted Iranian military command centers, air
• 12:12
  Speaker 2: defense and coastal surveillance sites, maritime capabilities, missile drone launchers sites,
• 12:18
  Speaker 2: and communication next networks, Exactly the same things that they
• 12:23
  Speaker 2: said every single night for the last ten nights. So
• 12:33
  Speaker 2: you know what more, Now, I suppose the United States
• 12:39
  Speaker 2: did attack to Breeze, and to Brieze is believed to
• 12:43
  Speaker 2: have huge underground missile bases run by the RGC, But
• 12:49
  Speaker 2: where those missile bases hit in not clear. And again
• 12:55
  Speaker 2: most of the air strikes were in the south south southwest,
• 13:00
  Speaker 2: around the bundle, around the around the street, basically the
• 13:06
  Speaker 2: shore off the straight. But yeah, no strategy. No, you know,
• 13:18
  Speaker 2: are we in all out war? Are we not? In
• 13:20
  Speaker 2: all all out of war? And again no, no goals
• 13:24
  Speaker 2: no aims, just just nothing, nothingness. I mean, you on
• 13:29
  Speaker 2: census the weakness, and it boldly threatened over the weekend.
• 13:34
  Speaker 2: It basically is is thinking about invading Quads in order
• 13:39
  Speaker 2: to seize two US military bases, take the soldiers hostage,
• 13:44
  Speaker 2: bring them back to Iran. I mean, could you imagine?
• 13:51
  Speaker 2: And they could do it? They could do it us
• 13:54
  Speaker 2: right now? Is so I don't know you're prepared, Uh,
• 14:00
  Speaker 2: I'm thinking imagine if the Iranians invaded Iraq, took the
• 14:07
  Speaker 2: two US bases, took American soldiers hostage, and forced them
• 14:12
  Speaker 2: back into Iran. I mean, Trump would be apoplectic, But
• 14:16
  Speaker 2: what would you do. He'd negotiate, get the hostages back,
• 14:20
  Speaker 2: negotiate of course, to get to quit. They'd probably go
• 14:25
  Speaker 2: through Iraq, although they have a small border with Quait,
• 14:29
  Speaker 2: so how to tell what exactly they would do? But yeah,
• 14:32
  Speaker 2: I mean I don't think they'll do it because I
• 14:34
  Speaker 2: think they were afraid. But is the US prepared for
• 14:38
  Speaker 2: something like that? One would hope, But given the United
• 14:42
  Speaker 2: States is not being prepared really for anything, I'm super skeptical.
• 14:47
  Speaker 2: I mean, as I said originally, the US is not
• 14:51
  Speaker 2: prepared for the taking the closing of the Strait of Homoz,
• 14:54
  Speaker 2: which was the obvious thing the Iranians were going to
• 14:56
  Speaker 2: do once war started. So why would anything at this
• 15:01
  Speaker 2: point surprise you? Nothing? Nothing, nothing should surprise you at
• 15:04
  Speaker 2: this point. All right, let's see a I So, yeah,
• 15:18
  Speaker 2: we talked about last time, we talked about the fact
• 15:20
  Speaker 2: that Kimmy K three is out and it is as
• 15:26
  Speaker 2: good on certain parameters as the open AI anthropic leading AI. Right,
• 15:36
  Speaker 2: But today, I guess ali Baba announced that it has
• 15:40
  Speaker 2: a new AI model and it is just almost as
• 15:45
  Speaker 2: good as Fable five and better than chetchipt five point six.
• 15:50
  Speaker 2: I think five point six is the latest, and it
• 15:55
  Speaker 2: is also going to be open source. It boasts two
• 15:58
  Speaker 2: point four trillion parameters. Trillion parameters. I don't even know
• 16:03
  Speaker 2: how to get my head around what that, how that works,
• 16:07
  Speaker 2: and what that means. I don't think anybody can really.
• 16:11
  Speaker 2: It's their flagship large language models, and it's available and
• 16:18
  Speaker 2: will be ultimately available in the United States. Ali Baba
• 16:23
  Speaker 2: says it's the new models, among the most powerful available today,
• 16:27
  Speaker 2: comparable to leading for tier AI models from the US,
• 16:30
  Speaker 2: second only to Fable five. It plans to make the
• 16:34
  Speaker 2: model open weight soon, so open source, you can you
• 16:38
  Speaker 2: can actually make changes to it, and it'll be available
• 16:41
  Speaker 2: for developers to download and modify, which means outside of control. Again.
• 16:50
  Speaker 2: So these are two Chinese models now open source, much
• 16:54
  Speaker 2: much much much cheaper than the topic and open ai
• 16:59
  Speaker 2: and yeah, outside the control of the US government and
• 17:05
  Speaker 2: available to all. It again places serious question marks on
• 17:11
  Speaker 2: the business model of open ai and Nentropic. What are
• 17:14
  Speaker 2: they actually going to do? How are they going to
• 17:18
  Speaker 2: charge their really high fees when you can get Ali
• 17:22
  Speaker 2: Baba's model for a for a lot less and for
• 17:27
  Speaker 2: something that's almost just as good. There's also z dot Ai,
• 17:32
  Speaker 2: which constantly puts out new models and it is likely
• 17:37
  Speaker 2: to catch up. Ali baba stock win f five percent
• 17:40
  Speaker 2: on the Hong Kong Exchange and generally, you know, Chinese
• 17:46
  Speaker 2: tech were up other AI models, you know, so it's
• 17:53
  Speaker 2: going to be, you know, this real competition. And the
• 17:59
  Speaker 2: thing about China is China's applying these AI models really
• 18:03
  Speaker 2: really fast. They have a robust startup environment in China.
• 18:09
  Speaker 2: They're applying these AI models to robots and to apps.
• 18:15
  Speaker 2: There was just an AI I Guess convention in China.
• 18:19
  Speaker 2: It's the biggest AI convention in China is on right now.
• 18:24
  Speaker 2: It's in Shanghai. It's twenty football fields, twenty football fields
• 18:31
  Speaker 2: of exhibits filled with hardware applying AI to everyday life.
• 18:37
  Speaker 2: Earbuds that listen to a meeting and produce the transcripts. Robots.
• 18:42
  Speaker 2: Robots were everywhere, supposedly dancing in unison, making cappuccinos, shooting
• 18:47
  Speaker 2: soccer balls, messaging visitors, and playing the piano. A fewy
• 18:54
  Speaker 2: Ai pet battered its eyelashes at couing onlookers. Somebody showed
• 19:04
  Speaker 2: me a little fury Ai pets that did very little
• 19:09
  Speaker 2: but anyway responded somehow to your emotion. It was weird.
• 19:17
  Speaker 2: It was weird. But yeah, these things are going to
• 19:20
  Speaker 2: be huge, right, fury pets, furry little things that are
• 19:26
  Speaker 2: super cute, make cute noises and somehow vibate based on
• 19:31
  Speaker 2: the emotion that you have and who knows what else
• 19:34
  Speaker 2: do These are going to be huge. There's going to
• 19:36
  Speaker 2: be a massive market for these things. I mean, if
• 19:39
  Speaker 2: you want to start up and make money, that's the
• 19:43
  Speaker 2: thing I'm telling you. Anyway, this is this is like
• 19:50
  Speaker 2: this way, Ali Baba announced. You can see videos online
• 19:54
  Speaker 2: of robots playing soccer and China is all in. Chinese
• 20:01
  Speaker 2: companies are all in Chinese regulation of AI, as long
• 20:06
  Speaker 2: as that doesn't criticize the Chinese government and doesn't present
• 20:11
  Speaker 2: the actual history of China. Everything else, I mean, free
• 20:15
  Speaker 2: speech is constrained, but pretty much everything else is a
• 20:18
  Speaker 2: go in China, and the entrepreneurial environment is robust, and
• 20:27
  Speaker 2: you know, this is gonna be huge, and it's gonna
• 20:29
  Speaker 2: be all over the world. People are gonna be using
• 20:30
  Speaker 2: these AI models. And again, the Chinese models open source.
• 20:33
  Speaker 2: Any development can download it, tinker with it, change it,
• 20:37
  Speaker 2: apply it to a particular app to particular application, particular robot,
• 20:41
  Speaker 2: particular thing without having to pay these unbelievable high rates
• 20:47
  Speaker 2: to Anthropic and Open Eye. So yeah, so you know,
• 21:01
  Speaker 2: in the past, in the past, they believed Americans believed
• 21:09
  Speaker 2: that these AI models that the Chinese were coming out
• 21:12
  Speaker 2: with were basically models based on American models, some kind
• 21:17
  Speaker 2: of distillation of the Anthropic and open AI models. They
• 21:22
  Speaker 2: no longer believe that, given the success of these other,
• 21:26
  Speaker 2: these other models, there's something else going on here. And
• 21:31
  Speaker 2: they're doing this again, I remind you, said the soul
• 21:35
  Speaker 2: Oh said this in a previous show. They're not they're
• 21:37
  Speaker 2: doing this without in video chips, without that the top
• 21:40
  Speaker 2: end in video chips, at least not in quantity. They
• 21:43
  Speaker 2: might have a few that they've smuggled in, but they're
• 21:45
  Speaker 2: doing it without the quantity of AI chips. And in
• 21:51
  Speaker 2: the meantime in the US, you know, we're restricting uh
• 21:58
  Speaker 2: anthropic by We have Fable, but Fable has guard rails,
• 22:03
  Speaker 2: and these god rails restrict its use. These open AI
• 22:07
  Speaker 2: models have no god rails. Indeed, according to David Sachs,
• 22:12
  Speaker 2: KIMMI three a meeting from a tweet of his, kimm
• 22:15
  Speaker 2: three just fixed fifteen critical security bugs that Codex and
• 22:20
  Speaker 2: Fable refused because of cyber godrails. He continues, there's no
• 22:27
  Speaker 2: reason to limit American models on tasks that Chinese models
• 22:31
  Speaker 2: handle without issue. We're only making ourselves less competitive, He says.
• 22:38
  Speaker 2: Here's another example, Hugging Face, which is a company I
• 22:43
  Speaker 2: guess try to tried using American frontier models to analyze
• 22:49
  Speaker 2: an AI powered cyber attack, but the guardrails blocked the
• 22:54
  Speaker 2: request containing real exploit payloads, so they switch to GLM
• 23:01
  Speaker 2: five point two running locally. The guard rails actually impaired
• 23:05
  Speaker 2: defense of security. So we're putting guardrails because the government's afraid. Generally,
• 23:16
  Speaker 2: I'd say one of the differenceies between US, US and
• 23:19
  Speaker 2: Chinese companies is Americans are driven much more by fear.
• 23:27
  Speaker 2: We're afraid, you know, Chinese are not driven by fear.
• 23:33
  Speaker 2: They're driven by tech optimism, driven by the idea that
• 23:37
  Speaker 2: you know, tech will will allow them to match the
• 23:42
  Speaker 2: United States and beat US. And you know, the US
• 23:47
  Speaker 2: shouldn't be competing with China. The use should just be
• 23:50
  Speaker 2: producing the best damn stuff in the world. But we're
• 23:54
  Speaker 2: not going to because we're afraid. We won't build, you know,
• 24:00
  Speaker 2: gaspop plants, electricity plants because we're afraid of the climate.
• 24:08
  Speaker 2: We won't build nuclear power plants because we're afraid of
• 24:12
  Speaker 2: radiation or whatever. We won't build because we're afraid that
• 24:20
  Speaker 2: some womb, this habitat will be destroyed. We won't, you know,
• 24:28
  Speaker 2: push ahead with AI because we're afraid AI is going
• 24:33
  Speaker 2: to destroy all the jobs. And by the way, it's
• 24:36
  Speaker 2: probably terminata and they're going to want to kill all
• 24:39
  Speaker 2: human beings and wipe us all out. And people really
• 24:43
  Speaker 2: believes this. I met was it now? Was it last year?
• 24:47
  Speaker 2: A year ago? June? Last year? I met a very
• 24:52
  Speaker 2: well known and well established computer science specialist in AI,
• 24:58
  Speaker 2: kind of a guru in the field. He's a he's
• 25:02
  Speaker 2: a fan of mine. It turns out you listen to
• 25:03
  Speaker 2: my show once in a while, and he said, no,
• 25:08
  Speaker 2: I mean, we've got maybe two years, maybe three humanities finished.
• 25:12
  Speaker 2: AI will kill us all and we don't know how
• 25:14
  Speaker 2: to stop it. I mean that kind of fear. Yeah,
• 25:22
  Speaker 2: and their White House continuously thinks about an FDA for AI.
• 25:28
  Speaker 2: But you know, right now, without an fd A foy AI,
• 25:38
  Speaker 2: it's just kind of it's just kind of random regulations.
• 25:41
  Speaker 2: It's not clear what the standard is. It's not clear
• 25:44
  Speaker 2: what it's trying to achieve. Here's from a report written
• 25:48
  Speaker 2: by by some economists. It says the White House is
• 25:52
  Speaker 2: executive vote on Frontier I supposedly set up a voluntary
• 25:54
  Speaker 2: evaluation process for Frontieri models that, according to its to
• 25:59
  Speaker 2: the text, should not be interpreted as a pre released
• 26:02
  Speaker 2: vetting or licensing regime. However, once Anthropic decided to expand
• 26:07
  Speaker 2: access to its Fable and Mythust models, the White House
• 26:10
  Speaker 2: responded by invoking export control powers that would prevent foreign
• 26:14
  Speaker 2: nationals from accessing these models, even if they reside in
• 26:18
  Speaker 2: the United States. As anthropic itself admitted enforcing this mandate
• 26:24
  Speaker 2: was so complex that there was no choice but to
• 26:26
  Speaker 2: shut down the models. Before this incident, there was no
• 26:30
  Speaker 2: indication that these export controls would be involved, could be
• 26:35
  Speaker 2: invoked an anthropic in the AI industry at large, or
• 26:38
  Speaker 2: quote off God. This episode clearly draws out the issue
• 26:43
  Speaker 2: with the current evaluation regime. It is seemingly arbitrary. Yeah,
• 26:49
  Speaker 2: the industry has no clear and public standard over what
• 26:52
  Speaker 2: would make air models safe for dangerous, and there is
• 26:55
  Speaker 2: no clarity over what the executive can and cannot do
• 26:59
  Speaker 2: to the models. It deems to be too dangerous to release.
• 27:03
  Speaker 2: This uncertainty a scene in recent examples can disrupt not
• 27:06
  Speaker 2: only AI companies but also businesses worldwide that rely on
• 27:11
  Speaker 2: these products. They're gone to say, to be click heavy handed.
• 27:18
  Speaker 2: Pre approved processes like those used by the FDA are
• 27:21
  Speaker 2: deeply flawed and ultimately an undesirable approach for government moving
• 27:26
  Speaker 2: fast For governing fast moving AI, however, it is an
• 27:31
  Speaker 2: established process that must make decisions on technical grounds typed
• 27:35
  Speaker 2: to specific risks rather than broad concerns about perceived capacity
• 27:39
  Speaker 2: or computing power. This guarantees due process provides a degree
• 27:43
  Speaker 2: of predictability and outcome, and it shows appropriate congressional oversight.
• 27:48
  Speaker 2: All these are currently lacking in the White House's ad
• 27:51
  Speaker 2: hoc approach. There's nothing worse than the arbitrary. And that's
• 27:59
  Speaker 2: why AI regulations are like right now. It's not that
• 28:03
  Speaker 2: they're not being regulated, they are, But who knows what
• 28:07
  Speaker 2: those regulations are, who knows what they mean, who knows
• 28:09
  Speaker 2: how they'll be applied, who knows who you know on
• 28:17
  Speaker 2: what they will be applied to? So what's going to happen?
• 28:26
  Speaker 2: I mean, open A Andthropic are in trouble. I think
• 28:30
  Speaker 2: they're in trouble because one, they are susceptible to the
• 28:36
  Speaker 2: White House's arbitrary regulations, and b their whole business model
• 28:42
  Speaker 2: relies on charging very high fees for the use of
• 28:44
  Speaker 2: their models, and they have to compete with open source
• 28:47
  Speaker 2: models that are dramatically cheaper, dramatically cheaper. So what's the solution?
• 28:56
  Speaker 2: I mean, I think I know what the solution is,
• 28:58
  Speaker 2: and I think this is a solution that many people
• 29:00
  Speaker 2: within the Trump administration are probably leaning towards. The solution
• 29:05
  Speaker 2: is for the United States government to take a ten
• 29:07
  Speaker 2: percent stake in all American AI companies and then to
• 29:13
  Speaker 2: ban China's best AI models from being used in the
• 29:18
  Speaker 2: United States, forcing American companies and American consumers to use
• 29:25
  Speaker 2: only American models. So this is quite possible. It's easy
• 29:41
  Speaker 2: to argue that there's national security issues here. You know,
• 29:46
  Speaker 2: Commerce has already floated entity list threats, security advisories, and
• 29:51
  Speaker 2: executive orders to scare everyone off the Chinese models. Now
• 29:58
  Speaker 2: these were killed internally in the past, but really we
• 30:04
  Speaker 2: really think that this is I mean Trump, I don't
• 30:11
  Speaker 2: think this will be killed indefinitely. I mean Jada Vance
• 30:14
  Speaker 2: is not going to kill it. Nonald Trump is not
• 30:16
  Speaker 2: going to kill it. I don't know who would kill it.
• 30:20
  Speaker 2: David Sachs maybe, but David Sex is not there anymore,
• 30:25
  Speaker 2: and it's not clear how independent he was to begin with.
• 30:30
  Speaker 2: So the real danger here is that the US will
• 30:33
  Speaker 2: write to the rescue of American AI companies by banning
• 30:40
  Speaker 2: competition from in this case, Chinese companies, and do it
• 30:46
  Speaker 2: in the name of national security so nobody can argue
• 30:48
  Speaker 2: with it, and as a consequence give US models that
• 30:55
  Speaker 2: are protected from competition and therefore will probably be less
• 30:58
  Speaker 2: good and going to be super expensive, super expensive. But
• 31:13
  Speaker 2: particularly if the US government has an equity stake in it.
• 31:17
  Speaker 2: They could argue, oh, this is good for the American people,
• 31:19
  Speaker 2: and the American people will make money, their money back
• 31:21
  Speaker 2: because their equity will go up, and all that garbage
• 31:25
  Speaker 2: socialism in other words, or semi socialism, whatever the hell
• 31:30
  Speaker 2: they want to call it, fascism maybe, so that to me,
• 31:37
  Speaker 2: you know, seems like a reasonable out. It's not a
• 31:42
  Speaker 2: reasonable in terms of good reasonable in terms of the
• 31:45
  Speaker 2: way the trumpet administrator will think about this out to
• 31:48
  Speaker 2: the dilemma that they face and something by the way
• 31:51
  Speaker 2: that anthropic and open the eye a likely to lobbyfore
• 32:00
  Speaker 2: to lead a lot before it. They want that protection.
• 32:08
  Speaker 2: Their business model depends on it. They've IPOs, which should
• 32:14
  Speaker 2: happen any week now, are dependent on them being able
• 32:17
  Speaker 2: to charge huge amounts of money for what they're providing,
• 32:23
  Speaker 2: because the reality is that they're going to be spending
• 32:28
  Speaker 2: I don't know, gazillions of dollars in data centers and
• 32:32
  Speaker 2: to make that money back, they're going to have to
• 32:34
  Speaker 2: charge you a lot of money and people are gonna
• 32:36
  Speaker 2: have to use their models a lot, and that means
• 32:38
  Speaker 2: no competition from cheap Chinese models that are just as
• 32:42
  Speaker 2: good and don't need as many data centers, which you
• 32:46
  Speaker 2: have to wonder what the hell is going on? You
• 32:50
  Speaker 2: have to wonder about these data centers. Are they really needed?
• 32:55
  Speaker 2: How are the Chinese producing similar models without them? How
• 33:00
  Speaker 2: are they doing it without the most advanced chips in
• 33:03
  Speaker 2: the world. I thought to train these models you needed
• 33:06
  Speaker 2: super duper most advanced chips possible. Chinese don't have the
• 33:13
  Speaker 2: kind of data centers we have. They will build them,
• 33:15
  Speaker 2: and they can build them. They don't have the restrictions
• 33:18
  Speaker 2: we have. They don't have New York saying no data
• 33:21
  Speaker 2: centers here for yeah, even Texas is considering no data
• 33:24
  Speaker 2: data centers here. They don't have not in my backyard.
• 33:27
  Speaker 2: In China. They decide to do it. They just do
• 33:30
  Speaker 2: it for better, mostly for worse, but sometimes for better.
• 33:37
  Speaker 2: Well really never for better if you take the whole
• 33:39
  Speaker 2: picture in mind. So open AI and an topic are
• 33:46
  Speaker 2: probably asking for the regulation and probably making the national
• 33:50
  Speaker 2: security points. So we're heading towards the most status economy
• 33:58
  Speaker 2: where the leading tech I think is going to be
• 34:02
  Speaker 2: protected by government. It's a little scary. I mean, goverment
• 34:05
  Speaker 2: has done little things like this, but nothing I think
• 34:10
  Speaker 2: on the cutting edge like this is and says Kimmy
• 34:17
  Speaker 2: K three is not really open yet. They haven't actually
• 34:21
  Speaker 2: released the model and weights. We should stick to the facts. No,
• 34:25
  Speaker 2: but they say they will, and other Chinese models have
• 34:29
  Speaker 2: and there's reasona believe they will. The the what do
• 34:34
  Speaker 2: you call it, the Ali Baba model hasn't released any
• 34:38
  Speaker 2: of that yet. They've only just announced that the model
• 34:41
  Speaker 2: is what it is. Nobody's actually seen or used it.
• 34:44
  Speaker 2: But you know, I doubt they're actually going to renege
• 34:50
  Speaker 2: on that now. Maybe these models are not as good
• 34:53
  Speaker 2: as people claim now, not as good as the companies claim.
• 34:56
  Speaker 2: Now it's mainly the companies. But yeah, uh yeah, it's uh.
• 35:08
  Speaker 4: Yeah, all right.
• 35:22
  Speaker 2: So yeah, AI is going to be the fund in
• 35:28
  Speaker 2: which markets and government intersect and we'll see, you know,
• 35:35
  Speaker 2: we'll see how it develops into the future. Right yeah, yeah,
• 35:40
  Speaker 2: says you can pay for it. So currently you can
• 35:42
  Speaker 2: buy the model. You can pay for it, but they
• 35:46
  Speaker 2: haven't released they haven't given you access to the models themselves.
• 35:49
  Speaker 2: The open source kind of stuft, but they say they're
• 35:52
  Speaker 2: going to, right, all right, chat ChiPT five point six
• 36:02
  Speaker 2: seems pretty top notch to me, Kevin says, yeah, it
• 36:06
  Speaker 2: is top notch. But supposed to these Chinese models are
• 36:10
  Speaker 2: just as good, and they cost a fraction a lot less.
• 36:17
  Speaker 2: I mean I use chatchipt in cord and sometimes Gemini,
• 36:23
  Speaker 2: and yeah, they for the process I need them, They're great.
• 36:27
  Speaker 2: I haven't tried the Chinese models. It would be interesting
• 36:30
  Speaker 2: to try the Chinese models right now, you know. I
• 36:35
  Speaker 2: the reason I continue to would continue to pay is
• 36:38
  Speaker 2: because these models are being trained on me. But it
• 36:41
  Speaker 2: wouldn't take that long for me to train a new
• 36:44
  Speaker 2: model on my stuff. So you know, there's a lot. Yeah. Again,
• 36:51
  Speaker 2: the fact that the fact that they are the fact
• 36:55
  Speaker 2: that the American models are good models, the best models
• 36:58
  Speaker 2: right now. It's it's a question of price points. And
• 37:04
  Speaker 2: for most individuals it's not very expensive, but for businesses
• 37:08
  Speaker 2: that use this intensely, it's hugely expensive. And if they
• 37:14
  Speaker 2: can build their own models in house, on their own servers,
• 37:20
  Speaker 2: then why not? All right? All right? Another story we
• 37:36
  Speaker 2: keep returning to, and we'll keep returning to probably throughout
• 37:39
  Speaker 2: the Trumpet administration is ice. There was an interesting story
• 37:43
  Speaker 2: in the New York Times, some investigative reporting into what
• 37:50
  Speaker 2: happened to the what happens to people who are uh
• 37:53
  Speaker 2: you know, uh arrested by Ice on assault charges. So
• 38:00
  Speaker 2: these are people typically taking the photos supposedly assaulting officers.
• 38:06
  Speaker 2: We keep hearing about assaulting officers and harassing them and
• 38:11
  Speaker 2: interfering investigations and all of that. And it turns out
• 38:14
  Speaker 2: the Trumpet demonstation has already filed assault charges against them,
• 38:19
  Speaker 2: more than five hundred and fifty people. Five hundred and
• 38:24
  Speaker 2: fifty people. So these could be American citizens, legal residents,
• 38:33
  Speaker 2: you know, it could be anybody right now. So far,
• 38:37
  Speaker 2: of the five hundred and fifty, four hundred have been resolved,
• 38:43
  Speaker 2: that is, four hundred have got a court or being
• 38:46
  Speaker 2: settled in advance. Half of those have basically gone against
• 38:53
  Speaker 2: the government. Either juries have acquitted defenders, judges have thrown
• 38:59
  Speaker 2: out the charge, a prosecutors just withdrew them for lack
• 39:04
  Speaker 2: of any any hope of success, I mean half. Now,
• 39:10
  Speaker 2: that's an abysmal record for a justice department that almost
• 39:15
  Speaker 2: never loses criminal cases. In ninety percent of Justice Department
• 39:22
  Speaker 2: in criminal cases, ninety percent ninety zero defendants plead guilty
• 39:28
  Speaker 2: or are convicted a trial, and he had fifty percent
• 39:36
  Speaker 2: don't even make it, or fifty percent total. You know,
• 39:39
  Speaker 2: they can't get a conviction. You know, these reporters supposedly
• 39:53
  Speaker 2: obtained court filings of every assault case, reviewed, hearing transcripts,
• 39:57
  Speaker 2: interviewed witnesses and federal officials, watch videos of dozens and
• 40:01
  Speaker 2: encounters that led to them, and you know, the administration
• 40:06
  Speaker 2: is basically using the you know, use of the law
• 40:11
  Speaker 2: has been less about protecting federal agents than about protecting
• 40:16
  Speaker 2: providing legal cover to cower protesters and immigrants into submission.
• 40:26
  Speaker 2: You charge people without merit to shut them up, to
• 40:30
  Speaker 2: silence them, to get them away, to have them stop filming,
• 40:34
  Speaker 2: to to have demonstrations go away. And you know, really
• 40:40
  Speaker 2: this is a way of intimidating people to silence them.
• 40:51
  Speaker 2: So uh, you know, they've they've tried to dive back
• 40:58
  Speaker 2: some of their most more confrontational tactics. So there are
• 41:02
  Speaker 2: few assault charges now than there were earlier in the year.
• 41:06
  Speaker 2: But there's a new big wave of enforcement and it's
• 41:09
  Speaker 2: pretty aggressive. We've seen now two immigrants being killed, one
• 41:13
  Speaker 2: in Texas and one in Maine. And you know, we'll
• 41:21
  Speaker 2: see what we'll see what happens moving forward. But according
• 41:25
  Speaker 2: to this in dozens of cases, court records and video
• 41:27
  Speaker 2: show federal agents were forced to get physical involved in shoving, tackling,
• 41:32
  Speaker 2: or pepper sprain defendants. Many defendants successfully argued that the
• 41:36
  Speaker 2: salts they were accused of were actually acts of self defense,
• 41:41
  Speaker 2: and this worked. Judges repeatedly chastised prosecutors and immigration agents
• 41:47
  Speaker 2: for misconduct, including distorting facts and withholding evidence. Two judges
• 41:53
  Speaker 2: found that agents purposefully destroyed evidence, including ordering a defendant
• 41:57
  Speaker 2: to delete cell phone Vhotos officers charged more than two
• 42:02
  Speaker 2: dozen people who were filming or following agents, often while
• 42:06
  Speaker 2: honking car hons, blowing whistles, or shouting warnings like lamiguys coming.
• 42:11
  Speaker 2: There was no allegation of physical contact with the agents.
• 42:16
  Speaker 2: In more than one hundred cases, prosecutors did not claim
• 42:19
  Speaker 2: that any agents were injured, and at least seven other
• 42:22
  Speaker 2: cases officers injured were injuries were caused by their own
• 42:27
  Speaker 2: colleagues' actions. A judge last fall dismissed assault charges against
• 42:32
  Speaker 2: an immigrant, ruling that the agent involved had been cut
• 42:35
  Speaker 2: by shods of glass from a car window he himself
• 42:39
  Speaker 2: had smashed. Sixty five times, prosecutors abandoned or downgraded charges
• 42:47
  Speaker 2: before hitting a deadline to present evidence to a grand
• 42:50
  Speaker 2: jury or judge. Former prosecutors said this pattern of rapid
• 42:55
  Speaker 2: retreat was unusual and signaled that the cases should never
• 42:58
  Speaker 2: have been brought. So ICE is abusive. Ice is you know,
• 43:09
  Speaker 2: going after people for no reason, and you know the
• 43:17
  Speaker 2: videos out there, the examples out there. I recommend reading
• 43:22
  Speaker 2: the entire story. It has lots of examples and stories.
• 43:25
  Speaker 2: And you can say this is the New York Times.
• 43:27
  Speaker 2: It is the New York Times. So the Unyork Times
• 43:29
  Speaker 2: is the only newspaper I know that actually went and
• 43:31
  Speaker 2: got the records and screened the records. And they bias
• 43:35
  Speaker 2: might be that they're doing this story or not other
• 43:37
  Speaker 2: stories that would maybe paint the left in a bad light,
• 43:41
  Speaker 2: like what happened at Plant and I talked about that
• 43:44
  Speaker 2: when they didn't, But they did the work here. And
• 43:49
  Speaker 2: I don't see right wing people going nuts about this
• 43:53
  Speaker 2: as all lies and this is wrong. I don't see
• 43:56
  Speaker 2: anybody suing the New York Times defamation because they got
• 44:00
  Speaker 2: their status right wrong and their stories are wrong. So yeah,
• 44:18
  Speaker 2: it's a long story. It's a long article. Investigative journalism.
• 44:22
  Speaker 2: The reality is that the mainstream media are the only
• 44:24
  Speaker 2: people who actually do well documented you know, methodological, mythologically valid,
• 44:33
  Speaker 2: investigative journalism. They're biased. They're biased in the stories they
• 44:36
  Speaker 2: pick and the stories they don't pick, and they may
• 44:39
  Speaker 2: be biased in some of the conclusions they come to.
• 44:42
  Speaker 2: But the data is the data, and they're the only
• 44:45
  Speaker 2: ones who get the data. We wouldn't have any data
• 44:49
  Speaker 2: about what ICE is doing without the mainstream media investigating
• 45:04
  Speaker 2: all right. Democratic Socialists of America a favorite political party.
• 45:12
  Speaker 2: Democratic Socialist in America is a separate political party from
• 45:15
  Speaker 2: the Democrats. But who are the Democrats of a fielding
• 45:20
  Speaker 2: a number of you know, candidates that are basically Democratic
• 45:28
  Speaker 2: Socialism of America have Democratic Socialism America influences ideas, they
• 45:36
  Speaker 2: support the Democratic Socialist of America platform. They're all in
• 45:40
  Speaker 2: on DSA in spite of running as Democrats. So it's
• 45:45
  Speaker 2: worth while looking at what the DSA's platform platform actually
• 45:49
  Speaker 2: is because you know, a lot of these candidates believe
• 45:59
  Speaker 2: in the stuff and what the DSA. What these candidates
• 46:05
  Speaker 2: are trying to do, I mean, I don't think they
• 46:07
  Speaker 2: have a chance, but they're trying to do is turn
• 46:10
  Speaker 2: the Democratic Party into a DSA party. They're trying to
• 46:14
  Speaker 2: move it to the DSA. So what does the DSA
• 46:17
  Speaker 2: believe it believes in government run food, So agriculture would
• 46:23
  Speaker 2: be governed, run supply chains for food, grocery stores, all
• 46:26
  Speaker 2: of that costco Walmart, all that would be governed run.
• 46:30
  Speaker 2: Forget about private farming. Farming, you know, and we know,
• 46:34
  Speaker 2: we know, we know. Collectivizing farms and collectivizing the supply
• 46:38
  Speaker 2: chain food has worked magic in places like Venezuela. Just amazing,
• 46:46
  Speaker 2: just amazing. So it's so governor run food. They want
• 47:02
  Speaker 2: us to starff to death. In other words, govern run housing.
• 47:06
  Speaker 2: We know how that ends. Horrible housing. Governor run medicine,
• 47:11
  Speaker 2: A lot less medicine. Government run transportation. Yeah, I mean
• 47:15
  Speaker 2: those bus services and those subway systems that the government
• 47:19
  Speaker 2: runs are just amazing, how well kept and well maintained
• 47:23
  Speaker 2: and how well functioning they are. And they want to
• 47:26
  Speaker 2: nationalize all large corporations and essential industries so white, you know,
• 47:33
  Speaker 2: they just want to They just want to nationalize AI,
• 47:38
  Speaker 2: just have the government run it. Well, I mean probably
• 47:41
  Speaker 2: if you push the DSA. They say the workers should
• 47:44
  Speaker 2: run it. Everything should be run as co ops corps,
• 47:49
  Speaker 2: so ultimately AI should be a topic and open AI
• 47:55
  Speaker 2: should be co ops. They want to draft a new
• 47:59
  Speaker 2: constitution for the United States to help with the existing constitution.
• 48:03
  Speaker 2: They want to defund the Department of War. We should
• 48:06
  Speaker 2: basically completely, you know, dismantle our military, slavery reparations, unlimited free,
• 48:15
  Speaker 2: free abortions, and gender affirming care for all, including minors,
• 48:20
  Speaker 2: and it should be free. The government should pay for
• 48:22
  Speaker 2: all of it. Taxpayers pay for everyone's entire student debt.
• 48:29
  Speaker 2: And they want free higher education for all and for
• 48:34
  Speaker 2: as many degrees as you want. They want to take steps,
• 48:40
  Speaker 2: not all the way immediately. They want to take steps
• 48:44
  Speaker 2: towards fully abolishing the police and the prisoness system, so
• 48:50
  Speaker 2: no police, no prisons, and they want to abolish, you know,
• 48:57
  Speaker 2: little things like the presidency, the Supreme Court, in the Senate.
• 49:02
  Speaker 2: In other words, they want a pure democracy. They want
• 49:05
  Speaker 2: a pure democracy. Majority will for everything, except the majority
• 49:09
  Speaker 2: can't decide on things they don't like. So if the
• 49:11
  Speaker 2: majority votes against abortion, that is not acceptable. So there's
• 49:15
  Speaker 2: certain things that this new constitution will probably protect. The
• 49:19
  Speaker 2: right to abortion and the right to food, and the
• 49:21
  Speaker 2: right and education and the right to the government has
• 49:23
  Speaker 2: to give you all these things no matter how people vote.
• 49:34
  Speaker 2: So that is the DSA, and these people are serious.
• 49:41
  Speaker 2: They're being interviewed right now on TV everywhere because they're very,
• 49:44
  Speaker 2: very successful. Within the Democratic Party, there's enough Democrats who
• 49:49
  Speaker 2: believe in this stuff. I mean, this is the maga
• 49:52
  Speaker 2: of the left in some senses politically more delusional than
• 49:58
  Speaker 2: the maga of the left. The mag of the left.
• 50:00
  Speaker 2: The Mega still want to work within the existing constitution.
• 50:02
  Speaker 2: They still have some semblance of maybe we like it.
• 50:07
  Speaker 2: These people just aballish it. So these these are more extreme,
• 50:11
  Speaker 2: more radical than Mega. This is the crazy, crazy left.
• 50:16
  Speaker 2: This is the hippies of the sixties. Who you know,
• 50:19
  Speaker 2: who've rebirth of the Hippies and the sixties, and you
• 50:25
  Speaker 2: know McGovern who ran in seventy two, is you know,
• 50:30
  Speaker 2: would would embrace much of this, not all of it.
• 50:35
  Speaker 2: You know, they're bolished the police in prisons. I wonder
• 50:38
  Speaker 2: how many Americans would vote for that. I wonder how
• 50:43
  Speaker 2: many Americans would vote for that? All right, crazy crazy leftist,
• 50:52
  Speaker 2: crazy rightists.
• 50:54
  Speaker 5: It's a frigging crazy world. Yeah uh, somebody, you ask,
• 51:04
  Speaker 5: without prisons, what would the DSA do with political prisoners
• 51:07
  Speaker 5: farming squads?
• 51:08
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, they won't call them prisons, They'll call
• 51:10
  Speaker 2: them gulags, concentration camps, and they won't call them police.
• 51:17
  Speaker 2: What did what did? What did MAO call? I mean, oh, no,
• 51:21
  Speaker 2: I know what they'll call them. Sorry, they won't be prisons,
• 51:24
  Speaker 2: they won't be golugs, they won't be concentration camps. What
• 51:26
  Speaker 2: do we know? They'll be called? This is for sure
• 51:30
  Speaker 2: the name that they will give them. Anybody want to
• 51:32
  Speaker 2: guess what is the name that DSA members would send
• 51:37
  Speaker 2: their political opponents to. What will be the name of
• 51:40
  Speaker 2: the facility that they send them to. It's straight out
• 51:47
  Speaker 2: of Mao. And these people are yes, one, two, three
• 51:50
  Speaker 2: thinks is absolutely right? And so is uh shout us
• 51:54
  Speaker 2: about re education camps. These will be re education camps.
• 51:58
  Speaker 2: I mean they're not they're not prisons. They're educating. They're
• 52:03
  Speaker 2: giving you up a value. It's good for you. It's
• 52:06
  Speaker 2: actually for your own good. You're going it's all for
• 52:10
  Speaker 2: your own good. And they won't call they won't call
• 52:17
  Speaker 2: them the police, they won't call them the secret Service.
• 52:20
  Speaker 2: Well they call them, I mean, I can't remember what
• 52:23
  Speaker 2: Mao's thugs, the kind of the students who rounded up
• 52:28
  Speaker 2: people to send them to re education camps during the
• 52:31
  Speaker 2: Cultural Revolution, they'll call them revolutionaries. I don't know what
• 52:36
  Speaker 2: they'll call them. There was something out of Mao. I
• 52:38
  Speaker 2: call them something out of Mao. I mean, I don't
• 52:40
  Speaker 2: know if you saw Steve Hassan Piker. Hassan Piker. Uh,
• 52:45
  Speaker 2: tell them, tell everybody that you know going to show
• 52:49
  Speaker 2: and say Mao is one of his political heroes. We
• 52:51
  Speaker 2: know this because when you know he went to China
• 52:53
  Speaker 2: and was praising Mao to the hills. This is the
• 52:58
  Speaker 2: killing fields, right, Jason said, just rewatch the killing Fields. Yeah,
• 53:12
  Speaker 2: you should watch first. They killed my father. I think
• 53:17
  Speaker 2: it's better than the killing fields. All right, more emotionally impactful.
• 53:25
  Speaker 2: Read guards they'll call them read guards. The protectors, they'll
• 53:29
  Speaker 2: call them protectors, protectors of the revolution. All right. Jade
• 53:37
  Speaker 2: vanswers in the news a lot, and he keeps coming
• 53:40
  Speaker 2: into the news. He's got a new book out, which
• 53:44
  Speaker 2: I'll probably have to read. But he's got a new
• 53:46
  Speaker 2: book out. He is emerging as the consensus leader of
• 53:50
  Speaker 2: the new rite. And in his new book and as
• 53:56
  Speaker 2: well as interviews that he's done. The other things that
• 54:01
  Speaker 2: Jdevans attacks is the idea of GDP, an idea of
• 54:09
  Speaker 2: comparing GDPs across countries, GDP P capita across different countries.
• 54:17
  Speaker 2: Life is not about GDP, he will tell you right,
• 54:21
  Speaker 2: the economy is not allowed GDP. And so I thought
• 54:29
  Speaker 2: we talked a little bit about this, and there's a
• 54:30
  Speaker 2: Noah Smith wrote a good article about this. So this
• 54:35
  Speaker 2: is from JD. Vance's book. If you're focused on GDP,
• 54:39
  Speaker 2: a six dollars pints of Japanese strawberries is no different
• 54:43
  Speaker 2: from a six dollar pints of American strawberries. If you're
• 54:46
  Speaker 2: focused on dollars and cents, each contributes equally to the
• 54:50
  Speaker 2: economic indicator, to indicators, to GDP. But if everyone in
• 54:54
  Speaker 2: Japan eats better strawberries than everyone in America, assuming Japanese
• 54:58
  Speaker 2: strawberries are much better than American ones, the economic indicators
• 55:01
  Speaker 2: have failed to measure something meaningful. And that's absolutely true.
• 55:06
  Speaker 2: GDP does not capture quality. It does not capture quality
• 55:11
  Speaker 2: needed by a way do most inflation numbers. In my view,
• 55:17
  Speaker 2: inflation over the last one hundred and something years has
• 55:20
  Speaker 2: been overstated. Most free market people out there think that
• 55:25
  Speaker 2: inflation is understated, and certainly the price of gold suggests
• 55:30
  Speaker 2: that it's understated. But I would argue that it's overstated.
• 55:34
  Speaker 2: Inflation on price inflation the increase in prices, not the
• 55:38
  Speaker 2: monetary increase in prices has been overstated. Prices have gone
• 55:43
  Speaker 2: up a lot less because what the CPI, particularly stomically
• 55:48
  Speaker 2: more so today, did not capture is the dramatic increase
• 55:53
  Speaker 2: in quality, but more than that, the dramatic increase in
• 55:58
  Speaker 2: new products that weren't there before, the jump in stand
• 56:01
  Speaker 2: of living. In spite of us paying the same price
• 56:04
  Speaker 2: or maybe a little bit higher price, the jump in
• 56:06
  Speaker 2: stand of living is much higher. So he's right, He's right.
• 56:12
  Speaker 2: You know, Japan has a lot of products and services
• 56:16
  Speaker 2: that are a little bit nicer than what we have
• 56:19
  Speaker 2: in America. And you know, according to Noah, he gives
• 56:27
  Speaker 2: some examples, Japan has clean of tables at Starbucks, slightly
• 56:30
  Speaker 2: better tasting food and things like that. Right, And if
• 56:37
  Speaker 2: you try to adjust for quality differences between different countries,
• 56:42
  Speaker 2: you're not going to go anywhere because it's too hard
• 56:44
  Speaker 2: to do. And of course even the quality differences are
• 56:48
  Speaker 2: to some degree individual, different people, different places, so you
• 56:55
  Speaker 2: can't really compare these kind of quality differences between countries
• 57:00
  Speaker 2: where GDP is. But he stay forward and is easy
• 57:02
  Speaker 2: to compare. There are lots of problems with GDP. Lots
• 57:08
  Speaker 2: of problems with GDP, and particularly if you compare in
• 57:13
  Speaker 2: countries with different lifestyles, and so you could point that out,
• 57:20
  Speaker 2: and you could talk about, you know, challenges with GDP
• 57:23
  Speaker 2: and how to you know, how to adjust them or not,
• 57:26
  Speaker 2: and how to just look at GDP numbers but then
• 57:30
  Speaker 2: also look underneath the hood and look a look at
• 57:32
  Speaker 2: other differences. But Jdvans, of course doesn't do that. This
• 57:35
  Speaker 2: is what he says. When I got back home, a
• 57:38
  Speaker 2: friend asked me, what if I'd learned anything on my
• 57:40
  Speaker 2: toop to Japan, Yes, I replied, snightly. Maybe economics is
• 57:45
  Speaker 2: just fake. In other words, for JD. Vance, just throw
• 57:49
  Speaker 2: out GDP completely and here's you know, here's what he says.
• 57:55
  Speaker 2: That makes what he's really after clear. Quote. As the
• 58:00
  Speaker 2: decline of Christianity, ooh, supplice supplies has left us without
• 58:05
  Speaker 2: a shared moral language, economics has stepped into the vacuum.
• 58:10
  Speaker 2: We pretend they are scientific answers to questions of values
• 58:14
  Speaker 2: take one of the major issues of the twenty twenty
• 58:17
  Speaker 2: four campaign and a significant focus of our time in
• 58:19
  Speaker 2: the White House. Should our trade policy be oriented around
• 58:23
  Speaker 2: protecting domestic industries and jobs, or around ensuring a short
• 58:28
  Speaker 2: term supply of cheap consumer goods. Now, No, the complete
• 58:34
  Speaker 2: false dichotomy. There, complete false dichotomy. You're not trading those
• 58:39
  Speaker 2: are not the two things you're trading off. I mean,
• 58:42
  Speaker 2: you could say, should our trade policy be oriented towards
• 58:44
  Speaker 2: protecting domestic industries and jobs or around providing a higher
• 58:50
  Speaker 2: standard living, quality of life, innovation and progress in America,
• 58:56
  Speaker 2: Maybe that's the trade off. I think that's closer to tradeoff.
• 58:59
  Speaker 2: But he's purposely setting up the trade off, you know,
• 59:02
  Speaker 2: in a different way. Now, Christianity gave us moral language,
• 59:07
  Speaker 2: moral values where we could evaluate this. And if it
• 59:10
  Speaker 2: was between supply of cheap consumer goods and protecting jobs, well,
• 59:15
  Speaker 2: of course you protect jobs a Christianity, you know, sacrifice
• 59:19
  Speaker 2: the consumers to the job owners. As if there's a
• 59:21
  Speaker 2: conflict there is if the people with jobs are not
• 59:23
  Speaker 2: the people who consume. The whole way of framing this
• 59:28
  Speaker 2: is so wrong and so skewed. So it's demagoguey. And
• 59:36
  Speaker 2: again Jdvans is too smart not to know this. I mean,
• 59:41
  Speaker 2: the idea that economists urge values of base consumerism on
• 59:46
  Speaker 2: society and ignore other all considerations. It's just bs vance.
• 59:59
  Speaker 2: At the end of the day, he wants us to
• 1:00:00
  Speaker 2: care about spiritual elevation, morality, community, the things that American
• 1:00:07
  Speaker 2: rights cares about. I mean the left. What does the
• 1:00:11
  Speaker 2: left care about inequality? Power? I mean, they're all the same.
• 1:00:16
  Speaker 2: They all want to dabble and use government in order
• 1:00:18
  Speaker 2: to achieve their particular ends. Vance goes on to right,
• 1:00:25
  Speaker 2: we now live in a society almost blinded to considerations
• 1:00:28
  Speaker 2: outside of the economic. I wish because the economic is
• 1:00:32
  Speaker 2: better than any other considerations these people would bring up. Now,
• 1:00:37
  Speaker 2: I don't argue for economic values as the primary, but
• 1:00:41
  Speaker 2: I'd argue for economic values above the values that Jdvan's
• 1:00:44
  Speaker 2: argues for. This way I'm thinking is in havn't the
• 1:00:47
  Speaker 2: opposed to the Christian way, which demands more focus on people. Take,
• 1:00:52
  Speaker 2: for instance, the time we spend without children. Domestic labor
• 1:00:57
  Speaker 2: that done by moms and dads, if unpaid, is uncounted
• 1:01:01
  Speaker 2: in measures of GDP. That's right because it's not economically
• 1:01:05
  Speaker 2: productive GDP on accounts economically productive activities. It's productive in
• 1:01:10
  Speaker 2: a personal sense. It's vastly important in a personal sense,
• 1:01:16
  Speaker 2: non economic one. He continues, when I leave work to
• 1:01:20
  Speaker 2: spend time with my children, when I cook them dinner,
• 1:01:23
  Speaker 2: or argue with them about eating their carrots. I'm engaged
• 1:01:26
  Speaker 2: in economically unproductive work, that's right. No money changes hands,
• 1:01:30
  Speaker 2: that's right, So it doesn't show up in our national figures.
• 1:01:33
  Speaker 2: By contrast, if I left for then at six pm
• 1:01:36
  Speaker 2: and return to work until midnight, while paying a total
• 1:01:39
  Speaker 2: stranger to look after my kid, my contribution to GDP
• 1:01:42
  Speaker 2: would be much higher. Absolutely. But of course, part of
• 1:01:49
  Speaker 2: the reason you can work short of hours and to
• 1:01:52
  Speaker 2: give your kids is because you've made enough money to
• 1:01:58
  Speaker 2: be able to do that. Not the case in very
• 1:02:02
  Speaker 2: poor societies. He continues, if you step away from the
• 1:02:06
  Speaker 2: glory of economic statistics, so much of American life has
• 1:02:10
  Speaker 2: gone wrong, and the influx of prescription opiods became a
• 1:02:14
  Speaker 2: flood of synthetic opiods, which has led to tens of
• 1:02:17
  Speaker 2: thousands of deaths each year and the declining life expectancy
• 1:02:20
  Speaker 2: among the substantial portion of our society. That's because we
• 1:02:24
  Speaker 2: criminalized it. So we took it out of this sphere
• 1:02:26
  Speaker 2: of economics and made it the sphere of black market.
• 1:02:30
  Speaker 2: We took it out of the white market and put
• 1:02:32
  Speaker 2: it into the black market. Economics doesn't change, he goes on,
• 1:02:36
  Speaker 2: We have made great progress and by the way this
• 1:02:40
  Speaker 2: all assumes. This is the way. It just drives me crazy.
• 1:02:43
  Speaker 2: The way they talk about the opioids is if the
• 1:02:47
  Speaker 2: opioids force you to use them. The opioids come into
• 1:02:51
  Speaker 2: the country and you have to use them. It's like
• 1:02:53
  Speaker 2: they force themselves on you once they answer the country,
• 1:02:56
  Speaker 2: once prescription is written, you have to take them. I
• 1:03:01
  Speaker 2: mean I have. I've had opious doctors have prescribed me
• 1:03:06
  Speaker 2: op yours, and I like, We'll take one or two
• 1:03:08
  Speaker 2: and then I'll stop taking them because I don't want
• 1:03:09
  Speaker 2: them as pain killers. You have a choice. You have
• 1:03:17
  Speaker 2: a choice, he says. We've made great progress in reducing
• 1:03:23
  Speaker 2: infant mortality, but we send our children into a world,
• 1:03:26
  Speaker 2: even in the physical security of their own homes, that
• 1:03:29
  Speaker 2: bombards them with images and influences that have left them isolated, depressed,
• 1:03:33
  Speaker 2: and increasing eate risk of self harm. Really, we are
• 1:03:37
  Speaker 2: more disconnected, lonely, and isolated even in the midst of
• 1:03:40
  Speaker 2: historical levels of material comfort. It's true, and he should
• 1:03:43
  Speaker 2: ask ask the question of why. Course his return is
• 1:03:47
  Speaker 2: always Christian values. All this economic abundance coexists with intense
• 1:03:51
  Speaker 2: spiritual misery. We orient people towards a life of consumption.
• 1:03:55
  Speaker 2: Who's we? We tell them to find meaning in the
• 1:03:58
  Speaker 2: home they buy, the money they own, the prestige of
• 1:04:01
  Speaker 2: their jobs. Who's we We bombard them with all manner
• 1:04:05
  Speaker 2: of creature comforts and add their consumption price club megasized
• 1:04:11
  Speaker 2: junk to our national GDP. It's just economics. We use
• 1:04:15
  Speaker 2: that GDP as a yard stake for a broader society.
• 1:04:18
  Speaker 2: Which is why it's impossible for false profit why it's
• 1:04:22
  Speaker 2: possible for false prophets, for false profit economists to argue
• 1:04:27
  Speaker 2: that the American dream is healthy even a suicide and
• 1:04:30
  Speaker 2: addiction rates, soul and the laft of children fades on
• 1:04:34
  Speaker 2: our streets. Wow, I mean, where do they get such
• 1:04:40
  Speaker 2: a dark perspective on life? Where does it come from?
• 1:04:44
  Speaker 2: It comes from, you know, some kind of Christian apocalypse? Insanity,
• 1:04:54
  Speaker 2: addiction rates sowing. Addiction rates are actually going down dramatically,
• 1:04:58
  Speaker 2: death from addiction out over the last few years, since
• 1:05:02
  Speaker 2: twenty twenty three, oh, twenty twenty four, last three years,
• 1:05:06
  Speaker 2: wait down? Is suicide really way up? Probably not? And
• 1:05:17
  Speaker 2: how much of this is related to the fact that
• 1:05:20
  Speaker 2: people keep telling them how bad things offer them? How
• 1:05:24
  Speaker 2: much is this because we don't teach them to take
• 1:05:25
  Speaker 2: push some responsibility for their own happiness. How much of
• 1:05:28
  Speaker 2: this is because we don't teach them I'm all code
• 1:05:31
  Speaker 2: of self interest, a pursuit of happiness. It's not for
• 1:05:38
  Speaker 2: a lack of Christianity. Christianity's going gung ho. I mean
• 1:05:41
  Speaker 2: it's shrinking a little bit, but only at themogins. It's
• 1:05:44
  Speaker 2: still a vast majority of American is a Christian. But
• 1:05:58
  Speaker 2: you know, what are we talking about? And by the way,
• 1:06:03
  Speaker 2: suicide and drug addiction lower GDP, so economy should be
• 1:06:09
  Speaker 2: against them. You know, the more opiates you take, the
• 1:06:15
  Speaker 2: less hard you work. Here's from a Philadelphia FED report
• 1:06:24
  Speaker 2: in twenty twenty three. There's going evidence that the opioid
• 1:06:26
  Speaker 2: epidemic has harmed many aspects of the real economy, including
• 1:06:30
  Speaker 2: the labor market, consumer finance, municipal finance. According to analysis
• 1:06:34
  Speaker 2: from the Council of Economic Advisors twenty nineteen report, the
• 1:06:38
  Speaker 2: annual economic cost of opioid epidemic, including the cost of
• 1:06:41
  Speaker 2: lives lost, is estimated about seven hundred billion in twenty
• 1:06:45
  Speaker 2: eighteen alone, and over two point five trillion from twenty
• 1:06:49
  Speaker 2: fifteen to twenty eighteen. That's a lot. So if you
• 1:06:57
  Speaker 2: care about GDP, you don't want to. And if we
• 1:07:05
  Speaker 2: took away people's cvs and took away their massive homes
• 1:07:09
  Speaker 2: and took away their large green TVs and high speed
• 1:07:11
  Speaker 2: internet access, and what would we have if we took
• 1:07:18
  Speaker 2: away the AC We'd have Europe. Is that what we
• 1:07:22
  Speaker 2: want do is is being poor the alternative. And if
• 1:07:28
  Speaker 2: we took away even more, we'd have the Middle Ages.
• 1:07:39
  Speaker 2: So you know what is the solution? I mean, I
• 1:07:43
  Speaker 2: know he thinks the solution is this solution is more Christianity.
• 1:07:51
  Speaker 2: And you know, if you look at if you look
• 1:07:56
  Speaker 2: at measures of GDP versus life expectancy, highly correlated, higher GDP,
• 1:08:03
  Speaker 2: the longer you live. If you look at measures the
• 1:08:06
  Speaker 2: GDP related to child mortality, the higher the GDP, the
• 1:08:10
  Speaker 2: fewer kids die. If you look at GDP related to
• 1:08:15
  Speaker 2: maternal deaths, the higher the GDP, the fewer mothers die
• 1:08:19
  Speaker 2: at childbirth. If you look at measures the GDP related
• 1:08:23
  Speaker 2: to how many doctors they are medical doctors, higher the
• 1:08:26
  Speaker 2: GDP generally, the more doctors you have. If you look
• 1:08:31
  Speaker 2: at GDP versus high quality water like clean water now here,
• 1:08:41
  Speaker 2: the good news is a lot of poor countries have
• 1:08:43
  Speaker 2: clean water because rich countries have helped them get there
• 1:08:46
  Speaker 2: and given them the technology. But the reality is high
• 1:08:49
  Speaker 2: the GDP, the more likely it is you have access
• 1:08:52
  Speaker 2: to clean drinking water, electricity. I mean, if you look
• 1:08:59
  Speaker 2: at how many you know people traveling tourism, So is
• 1:09:07
  Speaker 2: it good for people in one country go travel the world? Well,
• 1:09:11
  Speaker 2: it turns out the higher the GDP of the country,
• 1:09:13
  Speaker 2: the more traveling they do, the more tourists, the more
• 1:09:16
  Speaker 2: they become tourists. That's kind of good. And then with
• 1:09:20
  Speaker 2: regards his claim about the parent who works high long
• 1:09:23
  Speaker 2: hours and all that, average annual working hours drops significantly
• 1:09:30
  Speaker 2: the higher the GDP is, it's just absurd. Average years
• 1:09:38
  Speaker 2: in schooling is higher the higher the GDP is. Literacy
• 1:09:42
  Speaker 2: rates correlatd with GDP. Learning outcomes is what do you
• 1:09:47
  Speaker 2: know after school colloraated with GDP. I mean, it's not
• 1:09:50
  Speaker 2: perfect corelations of exceptions, and the US doesn't always do
• 1:09:54
  Speaker 2: well in all these measures, but basically, and then if
• 1:09:57
  Speaker 2: you just ask people if they're satisfied with life, countries
• 1:10:02
  Speaker 2: with high GDP have greatest satisfactions with life than countries
• 1:10:06
  Speaker 2: with low GDP. That's just reality. Now, you know, that's
• 1:10:17
  Speaker 2: GDP per capita more right, So I think all of
• 1:10:20
  Speaker 2: the yes, all the correlations I told you are GDP
• 1:10:24
  Speaker 2: per capita GDP per capita. But to get gdpeople capital high,
• 1:10:28
  Speaker 2: you have to have high GDP. So again about China
• 1:10:31
  Speaker 2: has high GDP but low GDP per capita. So it's
• 1:10:34
  Speaker 2: not really really high on any one of these parameters,
• 1:10:39
  Speaker 2: like life satisfaction in China pretty low. Life satisfaction in
• 1:10:42
  Speaker 2: the US very high, and we have high gdpeople capita,
• 1:10:48
  Speaker 2: among the highest in the world. And if you look
• 1:10:51
  Speaker 2: at Norway, which actually has higher GDP per capita than
• 1:10:55
  Speaker 2: the US, it has higher life satisfaction, whatever the hell
• 1:11:00
  Speaker 2: that means. Let's assume there's some you know, Israel has
• 1:11:04
  Speaker 2: high life satisfaction, high gdpeople capita relatively speaking to the
• 1:11:08
  Speaker 2: rest of the world. There's some exceptions, you know, Saudi Arabia,
• 1:11:12
  Speaker 2: Quit CATSA have high gdpeople capitals and low life satisfaction.
• 1:11:16
  Speaker 2: That has to do with the regime. Right. So GDP
• 1:11:22
  Speaker 2: not a perfect measure, misses a lot of things, flawed
• 1:11:26
  Speaker 2: in many many ways. But the reality is that it's
• 1:11:32
  Speaker 2: as good as we got. It's actually quite good, actually
• 1:11:36
  Speaker 2: quite good, and it's highly correlated with a lot of
• 1:11:42
  Speaker 2: other things that are really good. All right, let's look up.
• 1:11:48
  Speaker 2: Let's look at some achievements quickly. Here's a he's a
• 1:11:53
  Speaker 2: cool one. The American View of Shipping, whatever the hell
• 1:11:56
  Speaker 2: that is, has approved. It's a regulatory agency that approved
• 1:12:00
  Speaker 2: ships approved the design of a container ship. They would
• 1:12:05
  Speaker 2: run on two modular salt nuclear reactors placed amidship where
• 1:12:11
  Speaker 2: collision and waveloads are lowest, with no fuel tanks and
• 1:12:18
  Speaker 2: no funnel that feed. That feed volume carries the take
• 1:12:24
  Speaker 2: up space. In other words, this ship could carry fifteen
• 1:12:29
  Speaker 2: thousand containers twenty five knots on a hall sized it's
• 1:12:37
  Speaker 2: sized for the Panama Canal, for the Panic Canal once
• 1:12:42
  Speaker 2: it's widened. I think they're widening right now, so that's
• 1:12:45
  Speaker 2: pretty cool. I think this is a South Korean South
• 1:12:53
  Speaker 2: Korean ship, a South Korean design. Of course, there are
• 1:12:57
  Speaker 2: innovators in ship design. And again they've received approval in
• 1:13:01
  Speaker 2: principle from the American Bureau of Shipping for the conceptual
• 1:13:04
  Speaker 2: design of this container ship. And that'd be cool. We
• 1:13:09
  Speaker 2: start having nuclear powered container ships moving stuff. I mean,
• 1:13:12
  Speaker 2: it's unbelievably cheap to move product today from place to place.
• 1:13:17
  Speaker 2: Imagine how much cheaper it's going to become if you
• 1:13:20
  Speaker 2: could have nuclear power ships doing it and assuming you know,
• 1:13:25
  Speaker 2: the regulations didn't make this so expensive. Now the salt,
• 1:13:29
  Speaker 2: so you know, the radiation is not a big problem
• 1:13:33
  Speaker 2: from what I take. And remember that we've got nuclear
• 1:13:36
  Speaker 2: power submarines, we've got nuclear power aircraft carriers that do fine.
• 1:13:41
  Speaker 2: Here's here's a weird one, right. The FCC is just
• 1:13:45
  Speaker 2: to prove the federal government has just to prove. The
• 1:13:47
  Speaker 2: FCC plans by a startup company to test a satellite.
• 1:13:53
  Speaker 2: They would use a sixty foot mirror to reflect sunlight
• 1:13:59
  Speaker 2: back to Earth after dark as part of a project,
• 1:14:03
  Speaker 2: the company says would power solar farms, provide light for
• 1:14:09
  Speaker 2: rescue workers, and illuminate city streets. I mean that sounds
• 1:14:16
  Speaker 2: a little wild, and I don't know how it illuminates
• 1:14:19
  Speaker 2: city streets exactly, you know, other than illuminating the whole city.
• 1:14:23
  Speaker 2: And I'm not sure people would want that. There's a
• 1:14:25
  Speaker 2: purpose for night sleep, and I don't know that you
• 1:14:28
  Speaker 2: want everything around you illuminated. But it is kind of
• 1:14:31
  Speaker 2: an interesting concept and it would solve a big problem
• 1:14:36
  Speaker 2: for solar farms if you could do this cheaply enough.
• 1:14:40
  Speaker 2: But you know, it sounds expensive and impractical, but you know,
• 1:14:45
  Speaker 2: I think it's super cool that people thinking outside of
• 1:14:47
  Speaker 2: the boxing crazy ideas and trying to build stuff and
• 1:14:52
  Speaker 2: you know, go for it and let's see what works
• 1:14:54
  Speaker 2: and what doesn't. These are startups. People are putting up
• 1:14:58
  Speaker 2: private capital to try these things and to see if
• 1:15:00
  Speaker 2: they work. Chasbat says with the nuclear ships, the ships
• 1:15:08
  Speaker 2: has an advantage due to the unlimited supply of cooling water. Yeah, absolutely,
• 1:15:14
  Speaker 2: great point. Okay, just some other stuff that just is
• 1:15:21
  Speaker 2: just amazingly positive news. Ninety two percent of the world's
• 1:15:25
  Speaker 2: population had access to electricity in twenty twenty four. That's
• 1:15:29
  Speaker 2: up from eighty four percent in twenty ten. About eighty
• 1:15:33
  Speaker 2: six percent of those still without electricity live in sub
• 1:15:36
  Speaker 2: Sahon Africa, but pretty much everybody else outside of sub
• 1:15:39
  Speaker 2: Sahon Africa has electricity. Seventy five percent of global population
• 1:15:46
  Speaker 2: had access to clean cooking fuels in twenty twenty four.
• 1:15:50
  Speaker 2: That's up from fifty seven percent in twenty ten. That's
• 1:15:53
  Speaker 2: a huge improvement twenty percent. These are kind of the
• 1:15:57
  Speaker 2: intangibles that you probably don't actually get from GDP. For example, electricity,
• 1:16:02
  Speaker 2: how many people have electricity is not captured by increases GDP.
• 1:16:06
  Speaker 2: And yet there it is because I mean, you spend
• 1:16:12
  Speaker 2: to build the electric infrastructure, but then it's a it's done.
• 1:16:19
  Speaker 2: The amount of energy used per unit of economic output
• 1:16:23
  Speaker 2: fell from POxy four point seventy five mega jewels in
• 1:16:28
  Speaker 2: a twenty twenty one you know, in PUT twenty twenty
• 1:16:33
  Speaker 2: one Purchasing power party adjusted dollars of GDP in you
• 1:16:39
  Speaker 2: know that. Sorry, that was in twenty ten four point
• 1:16:43
  Speaker 2: seven five. So these all adjusted, just to assume they're
• 1:16:45
  Speaker 2: all adjusted dollars four point seven five to three point
• 1:16:49
  Speaker 2: seven six and twenty twenty three a decline of twenty
• 1:16:52
  Speaker 2: one percent. Said, now, in order to produce the same
• 1:16:56
  Speaker 2: unit of output, it takes twenty one percent less energy,
• 1:17:03
  Speaker 2: which is amazing, truly amazing, and that means increase efficiency,
• 1:17:09
  Speaker 2: increased productivity, and the ability to produce more more with
• 1:17:14
  Speaker 2: the same amount of energy twenty percent more. Bottom line,
• 1:17:21
  Speaker 2: the world is getting better, and the world is getting better,
• 1:17:28
  Speaker 2: you know, to a large extent. The world is getting
• 1:17:29
  Speaker 2: better because GDP is going because we're getting richer. It's
• 1:17:34
  Speaker 2: getting richer. That makes it possible for us to get better,
• 1:17:40
  Speaker 2: all right, guys, that is the news for this Monday,
• 1:17:43
  Speaker 2: July twentieth, Thank you all for being here. Wow, we
• 1:17:48
  Speaker 2: had a great super chat day while I was While
• 1:17:52
  Speaker 2: I was doing though that we got a bunch of
• 1:17:54
  Speaker 2: fifty dollars questions and a few twenty dollars questions and
• 1:17:58
  Speaker 2: a few five I think the majority of questions are
• 1:18:01
  Speaker 2: like fifty dollars and above. So thank you, thank you,
• 1:18:03
  Speaker 2: thank you to all of you guys. This is amazing
• 1:18:07
  Speaker 2: and it wore basically showed forty five dollars for the
• 1:18:11
  Speaker 2: third hour goal which we might go into the third
• 1:18:12
  Speaker 2: hour given how many questions we actually have. All right,
• 1:18:16
  Speaker 2: Ty will remind you this show is made possible through
• 1:18:19
  Speaker 2: contributions of you, the listener. Couldn't happen without you, so
• 1:18:24
  Speaker 2: thank you. Your support makes the show possible. Couldn't exist
• 1:18:27
  Speaker 2: without you. I'd have to do something different for my income.
• 1:18:32
  Speaker 2: The way to support the show is the super chats
• 1:18:37
  Speaker 2: is great. Stickers. Stickers are fantastics where you don't have
• 1:18:41
  Speaker 2: to ask questions, you just make a contribution on YouTube.
• 1:18:44
  Speaker 2: YouTube is a good place for those of you who
• 1:18:46
  Speaker 2: are live, but most of you, an overwhelming majority of you,
• 1:18:49
  Speaker 2: listen to this show, watch this show when it's not live.
• 1:18:52
  Speaker 2: And you can't actually contribute for you the best place
• 1:18:57
  Speaker 2: to contribute, and you should contribute because I assume you're
• 1:19:00
  Speaker 2: because you get a value, and you should trade with
• 1:19:02
  Speaker 2: me instead of just consuming my product without payment. You
• 1:19:07
  Speaker 2: can do that on Patreon on PayPal. Just search your
• 1:19:09
  Speaker 2: one book show on Patreon PayPal, set up on account,
• 1:19:12
  Speaker 2: create a monthly, regular contribution, and then forget about it.
• 1:19:16
  Speaker 2: And then you don't have to worry about it. And
• 1:19:17
  Speaker 2: every time I bug you about making autuition, you can
• 1:19:20
  Speaker 2: check that off and your head done that, it's all done.
• 1:19:23
  Speaker 2: It's good, all right, our sponsors. I want to remind
• 1:19:28
  Speaker 2: you that there's going to be a fantastic conference in Austin,
• 1:19:33
  Speaker 2: Texas September eleventh through thirteenth. You can find the program online.
• 1:19:39
  Speaker 2: And those of you are thirty five and younger are
• 1:19:46
  Speaker 2: eligible to apply for a scholarship. I know Lincoln has
• 1:19:50
  Speaker 2: already applied and has got an interview. The scholarship application
• 1:19:55
  Speaker 2: is a multi stage application, but you should apply. You've
• 1:19:58
  Speaker 2: got nothing to lose and a lot to gain. You
• 1:20:00
  Speaker 2: can get you know, uh free travel expense. They cover
• 1:20:05
  Speaker 2: travel expenses and and your tuition, So apply. You can
• 1:20:09
  Speaker 2: apply on iinrand dot oak slash ybs, ironmand dot oak slashybs,
• 1:20:14
  Speaker 2: and you'll see a link there to the application. Defenders
• 1:20:17
  Speaker 2: of Capitalism dot com is a website dedicated to defending
• 1:20:20
  Speaker 2: capitalism from a model philosophical, economic, political, social perspective, run
• 1:20:26
  Speaker 2: by Michael Williams. I have contributed much to the program.
• 1:20:30
  Speaker 2: Check it out, sign up for the newsletter, uh and
• 1:20:33
  Speaker 2: and and support our efforts to bring the education of
• 1:20:36
  Speaker 2: capitalism to the world. Finally, alex Epstein. Alex Epstein is
• 1:20:42
  Speaker 2: the world authority on all things energy related. Also, what
• 1:20:49
  Speaker 2: do you call it? AI data centers. That's a big
• 1:20:52
  Speaker 2: thing for him right now, AI data centers. So check
• 1:20:55
  Speaker 2: check out the AI Data Center's work that he's done.
• 1:20:57
  Speaker 2: Alex Epstein does substect dot com Excepstein dot upstack dot
• 1:21:01
  Speaker 2: com and that's it. So reminder Patreon, uh and UH
• 1:21:10
  Speaker 2: you can also use PayPal support the show really really appreciated.
• 1:21:17
  Speaker 2: Let's see, all right, let's just jump into the superchat.
• 1:21:20
  Speaker 1: Let's start with a remo for sixty eight dollars sixty euros,
• 1:21:27
  Speaker 1: which turns into like almost seventy dollars now that the
• 1:21:30
  Speaker 1: actual exchange rate YouTube.
• 1:21:32
  Speaker 2: Supplies me, it probably supplies me at exchange rate that
• 1:21:35
  Speaker 2: is that values, you know, the the the the UO
• 1:21:39
  Speaker 2: at less than a dollar. But anyway, it is what
• 1:21:42
  Speaker 2: it is, he says. Thoughts on the decline in value
• 1:21:45
  Speaker 2: of SpaceX. SpaceX is now trading at one eighteen. I
• 1:21:49
  Speaker 2: think something like that significantly below it's i IPO was
• 1:21:54
  Speaker 2: one thirty five. It peaked at what almost two hundred,
• 1:21:58
  Speaker 2: and it has come down to one eighteen. How can
• 1:22:01
  Speaker 2: it go down this fast in such a short amount
• 1:22:03
  Speaker 2: of time after this IPO? Too many retail investors for example, No,
• 1:22:08
  Speaker 2: I don't know what too many it means. I mean
• 1:22:11
  Speaker 2: basically sanity is you know, is is being applied. Look,
• 1:22:21
  Speaker 2: SpaceX valuation made no sense when it went public. People
• 1:22:26
  Speaker 2: bought it because it was, you know, a They bought
• 1:22:32
  Speaker 2: it right at the beginning because they thought it would
• 1:22:34
  Speaker 2: go up, and it did go off a while on
• 1:22:36
  Speaker 2: the hype. It's kind of a megameme stock and a
• 1:22:39
  Speaker 2: lot of people sold at the top because they made
• 1:22:41
  Speaker 2: their money and they walked away. But they bought it
• 1:22:46
  Speaker 2: on the expectation that Musk was going to make them
• 1:22:49
  Speaker 2: a fortune somehow. Even though the company losing is losing
• 1:22:53
  Speaker 2: money today. They bought it because they believe maybe Xai
• 1:22:57
  Speaker 2: would be the AI company in the world. But everybody's
• 1:23:01
  Speaker 2: revaluing AI right now, and it's not clear Xai can
• 1:23:05
  Speaker 2: compete with the Chinese models, And it's not clear how
• 1:23:08
  Speaker 2: it's going to make money. It's building massive data centers.
• 1:23:11
  Speaker 2: How it's going to make money off of those data
• 1:23:13
  Speaker 2: centers not clear at all. It can make money off
• 1:23:19
  Speaker 2: of the rockets, but how much and how much does
• 1:23:24
  Speaker 2: it need to make, you know, to justify its valuation.
• 1:23:28
  Speaker 2: So I think people are coming to terms with the
• 1:23:30
  Speaker 2: actual economics of SpaceX, which is driving valuations down. Is
• 1:23:35
  Speaker 2: the AI business really worth that much? How much is
• 1:23:38
  Speaker 2: the space business worth now? You know, alone must believes
• 1:23:42
  Speaker 2: that SpaceX is going to own the world. It's going
• 1:23:44
  Speaker 2: to be bigger than the world because it's going to
• 1:23:46
  Speaker 2: be interplanetary. But that's in a long time from now,
• 1:23:50
  Speaker 2: and it's a high risk project. So whatever cash flows
• 1:23:54
  Speaker 2: you might project way into the future, you have to
• 1:23:58
  Speaker 2: discount it today. And when you discount really large cash
• 1:24:02
  Speaker 2: flows in the future with an appropriate risk premium to today,
• 1:24:05
  Speaker 2: it turns out it's not worth that much. So people
• 1:24:09
  Speaker 2: are revaluating Space six is still at one hundred and eighteen,
• 1:24:15
  Speaker 2: with way more than I think the underlying economics justifies.
• 1:24:21
  Speaker 2: So it is still, you know, super expensive. I told
• 1:24:29
  Speaker 2: you when IPO happened that a lot of IPOs have
• 1:24:34
  Speaker 2: initial very initial, huge hype. They go up and then
• 1:24:37
  Speaker 2: they come down, and a year later are usually trading
• 1:24:40
  Speaker 2: below the IPO price. That's true many ideas, and yet
• 1:24:44
  Speaker 2: a lot of IPOs, even when that happens ten years later,
• 1:24:48
  Speaker 2: are trading way above the IPO price. Look at Google,
• 1:24:51
  Speaker 2: look at Facebook, look at all these They had huge
• 1:24:54
  Speaker 2: IPOs and then they settled down, they went down, and
• 1:24:58
  Speaker 2: then they went through the status SpaceX is already so expensive.
• 1:25:05
  Speaker 2: I don't know what that site is. It's already one
• 1:25:07
  Speaker 2: of the biggest companies in the world and has no profits.
• 1:25:14
  Speaker 2: How does it justify this valuation. I just don't know.
• 1:25:16
  Speaker 2: So it doesn't supply me. Now there's just another factor.
• 1:25:20
  Speaker 2: Sometime later this month or early August, some of the
• 1:25:26
  Speaker 2: original shareholders, some of the investors, the venture capitalist employees,
• 1:25:32
  Speaker 2: will be vesting. That means that they will be able
• 1:25:35
  Speaker 2: to sell some of their stock. So sometime in late
• 1:25:39
  Speaker 2: July early August, approximately nine hundred and eleven million shares
• 1:25:44
  Speaker 2: unlock and become available to trade. That happens on the
• 1:25:52
  Speaker 2: second trading day after space excess first quarterly earning reports.
• 1:25:56
  Speaker 2: So we'll see when that earning report comes out. I
• 1:26:00
  Speaker 2: think a lot of people are going to sell. A
• 1:26:03
  Speaker 2: lot of people who've got stock priced at pennies on
• 1:26:08
  Speaker 2: the dollar, if you will, are going to make a fortune.
• 1:26:12
  Speaker 2: They're going to become instant millionaires or centy millionaires or
• 1:26:17
  Speaker 2: in some cases billionaires, and they're going to sell. They're
• 1:26:20
  Speaker 2: going to at least they're gonna sell a portion of
• 1:26:22
  Speaker 2: their holdings now in August through October, another seven percent
• 1:26:27
  Speaker 2: get released every two or four weeks. On December eighth,
• 1:26:32
  Speaker 2: the standard one hundred and eighty day lock up period
• 1:26:34
  Speaker 2: ends for basically all the remaining shares except for you
• 1:26:38
  Speaker 2: loan musk shares and all those people. So all the
• 1:26:42
  Speaker 2: venture capitalists who invested, all the private equity that invested
• 1:26:46
  Speaker 2: over decades, and they've been sitting on paper gains that
• 1:26:51
  Speaker 2: they have not been able to liquidate, they might sell.
• 1:26:54
  Speaker 2: And I think the market is suddenly realizing any day now,
• 1:26:58
  Speaker 2: you know, uh spa sexual release learnings, and then there'll
• 1:27:02
  Speaker 2: be a big push to sell and then from that
• 1:27:05
  Speaker 2: point until December eighth, different people will be able to sell.
• 1:27:09
  Speaker 2: And then December eighth there's a big selling point. So
• 1:27:12
  Speaker 2: a lot of people expecting I think the stock to
• 1:27:15
  Speaker 2: be lower at the end of the year. But look,
• 1:27:17
  Speaker 2: you can't separate out the decline in SpaceX from what's
• 1:27:20
  Speaker 2: happened to chip stocks, what's happened to people's views about AI,
• 1:27:28
  Speaker 2: the uncertainty about AI. All of that is connected, and
• 1:27:33
  Speaker 2: I think people are reevaluating what SpaceX is actually worth.
• 1:27:39
  Speaker 2: And look, the spike up was driven by retail investors
• 1:27:43
  Speaker 2: and kind of meme stock phenomena. The bounce down is sanity.
• 1:27:51
  Speaker 2: It's sanity, Thank you emo, It's very generous. Let's see
• 1:27:57
  Speaker 2: there was Yeah, anything else is fifty author fifty dollars.
• 1:28:03
  Speaker 2: Does much of Trump's success come from his refusal to apologize,
• 1:28:09
  Speaker 2: his absolute refusal to back down even when he's completely wrong.
• 1:28:13
  Speaker 2: This lack of bending the knee towards political correctness and
• 1:28:18
  Speaker 2: altruism has resonated with the American public. Yeah, I think
• 1:28:21
  Speaker 2: that's right. I don't know what you mean by success,
• 1:28:23
  Speaker 2: you mean political success. Yes, I think there is a
• 1:28:27
  Speaker 2: significant proportion of American public that's fed up with the
• 1:28:30
  Speaker 2: mealy mouthed, soft peddling, apologetic you know, politically correct politicians
• 1:28:40
  Speaker 2: out there and explicitly altruist stake. I mean, the fact
• 1:28:43
  Speaker 2: that he he's poking it to the elites, the fact
• 1:28:48
  Speaker 2: that he says what he thinks thinks in quotation marks,
• 1:28:53
  Speaker 2: the fact that he just doesn't care, the fact that
• 1:28:55
  Speaker 2: he is not altruistic. You know, he's guided biotism ultimately
• 1:29:01
  Speaker 2: in his decision making, see the one you are, but
• 1:29:04
  Speaker 2: he's not explicit about it. The fact that he's not whining.
• 1:29:08
  Speaker 2: I mean he whines, but in a different kind of way. Yeah,
• 1:29:10
  Speaker 2: I think that's his appeal to whoever he appeals to.
• 1:29:16
  Speaker 2: It's kind of a macho, kind of macho thing, which
• 1:29:20
  Speaker 2: remind you I didn't mention that Andrew Tats and his brother,
• 1:29:24
  Speaker 2: I guess being arrested and they'll be extradited to the UK,
• 1:29:29
  Speaker 2: which is you know, is going to accuse them of
• 1:29:33
  Speaker 2: rape and all kinds of other human trafficking and a
• 1:29:37
  Speaker 2: lot of other things. So maybe maybe maybe he will
• 1:29:41
  Speaker 2: actually receive justice. Author you mentioned most people typically can
• 1:29:48
  Speaker 2: only think in binaries. Is the peal of altruism that
• 1:29:53
  Speaker 2: if the strong aunt meant to protect the weak. There
• 1:29:57
  Speaker 2: would be no rational moral reason why the strong shouldn't
• 1:30:01
  Speaker 2: exploit or subjugate the week. I mean that is that
• 1:30:06
  Speaker 2: is the binary thinking that they have. Right, So you've
• 1:30:09
  Speaker 2: got two alternatives. You've got the alternative of we use
• 1:30:13
  Speaker 2: morality to force people to, you know, sacrifice to others,
• 1:30:22
  Speaker 2: and if we don't do that, then people will force
• 1:30:28
  Speaker 2: others to sacrifice to them. And that particularly applies to strong,
• 1:30:31
  Speaker 2: but it applies to groups, the tribes, it applies to
• 1:30:34
  Speaker 2: really everybody. Everybody will be angling to take advantage of
• 1:30:38
  Speaker 2: other people. And so the two alternatives are sacrifice or
• 1:30:45
  Speaker 2: be sacrificed or you know, sacrifice to others or demand
• 1:30:52
  Speaker 2: that others sacrifice to you. And the idea that sacrificing
• 1:30:59
  Speaker 2: others to yourself is somehow wrong I think people get
• 1:31:06
  Speaker 2: and they view it as the only alternative is to
• 1:31:08
  Speaker 2: sacrifice others. And part of that is to restrain the strong.
• 1:31:12
  Speaker 2: I guess a perspective on restraining the strong in the
• 1:31:17
  Speaker 2: name of the week. Remember, the Christianity that really invents
• 1:31:21
  Speaker 2: altruism at scale is born out of weakness. It is
• 1:31:28
  Speaker 2: a group that is a minority in an empire that
• 1:31:33
  Speaker 2: doesn't either care about them, or in some places persecutes them.
• 1:31:38
  Speaker 2: But where they are clearly a weak minority, and they
• 1:31:42
  Speaker 2: are often the poor, and they are often lack any power,
• 1:31:48
  Speaker 2: so they have a strong incentive to teach that the
• 1:31:51
  Speaker 2: meeks will inherit the earth. They have a strong incentive
• 1:31:54
  Speaker 2: to teach that you should sacrifice for the poor, you
• 1:31:57
  Speaker 2: should sacrifice for the weak. So yes, I think that
• 1:32:02
  Speaker 2: binary thinking is exactly that, all right. Not your average
• 1:32:07
  Speaker 2: algorithm has a two part question each fifty dollars, thank you,
• 1:32:11
  Speaker 2: thank you, Not your average algorithm. I mean hearing the
• 1:32:15
  Speaker 2: argument lately that the welfare state, rather than transitioning an
• 1:32:19
  Speaker 2: economy to socialism, actually prevents socialism, that only a market
• 1:32:25
  Speaker 2: economy can provide enough surplus well to perpetually sustain a
• 1:32:29
  Speaker 2: welface system, and the welfare system's implementation was supported by
• 1:32:35
  Speaker 2: major industries in industrialists during the Great Depression to prevent
• 1:32:40
  Speaker 2: the rise of actual socialism. I mean, I think that
• 1:32:44
  Speaker 2: a lot of people think that way. I know a
• 1:32:47
  Speaker 2: lot of rich people say we have to have a
• 1:32:50
  Speaker 2: welfare state because otherwise poor people will kill us. There'll
• 1:32:55
  Speaker 2: be a revolution. Everybody thinks of the French Revolution. If
• 1:33:00
  Speaker 2: we don't pay off the poor, the guillotines will come
• 1:33:05
  Speaker 2: out and they'll kill us. But there's really no example
• 1:33:12
  Speaker 2: of that in history. You know, the French Revolution was
• 1:33:20
  Speaker 2: not primarily about economic inequality. It was economic inequality, but
• 1:33:27
  Speaker 2: it was also political inequality. There was a king, there
• 1:33:30
  Speaker 2: were aristocrats who are above the law. There's no quality of rights,
• 1:33:34
  Speaker 2: there's no quality of law. A country like the United
• 1:33:38
  Speaker 2: States or place like Hong Kong or Singapore, places where
• 1:33:41
  Speaker 2: there is vast inequality, but there's a rule of law,
• 1:33:45
  Speaker 2: equality of rights. There's no reason to believe that the
• 1:33:50
  Speaker 2: masses will rise up against because postially the masses are
• 1:33:54
  Speaker 2: massively benefiting from the inequality. I've often said that economics
• 1:33:59
  Speaker 2: is not a trickle down, it's about flood down. The
• 1:34:04
  Speaker 2: existence of billionaires creates massive values to all of us,
• 1:34:09
  Speaker 2: and people at some level know that, whether they'll admit
• 1:34:14
  Speaker 2: it to themselves or not. But which people feel guilty.
• 1:34:20
  Speaker 2: They feel bad for being rich. They haven't acted on
• 1:34:24
  Speaker 2: the altruism and as a consequence of that, as a
• 1:34:32
  Speaker 2: consequence of that, they you know, looking for ways in
• 1:34:36
  Speaker 2: which to appease that guilt. The welfare state is a
• 1:34:38
  Speaker 2: great way for them to pease the guilt, and they
• 1:34:41
  Speaker 2: explain it to themselves as this is just self defense,
• 1:34:46
  Speaker 2: This is just self defense. No, it's true. There only
• 1:34:48
  Speaker 2: a market economy can provide the surplus wealth to sustain
• 1:34:53
  Speaker 2: a welfare system. Now for how long, it's not clear.
• 1:34:57
  Speaker 2: We're going to test how long, I think in the
• 1:34:59
  Speaker 2: next decades in the West. But there's no reason to
• 1:35:05
  Speaker 2: believe that without a welfare state, what you get is socialism.
• 1:35:11
  Speaker 2: Without a welfare state, you get wealth, you get a
• 1:35:17
  Speaker 2: rising tide, you get standard living, quality of life going
• 1:35:22
  Speaker 2: up dramatically, and it goes up faster for the poor
• 1:35:26
  Speaker 2: people than it does for rich people. I know that's
• 1:35:28
  Speaker 2: hard to believe, but it is. Poor people's lives get
• 1:35:30
  Speaker 2: better faster than rich people's lives get better. So poor
• 1:35:35
  Speaker 2: people are the biggest beneficiaries of capitalism there there is.
• 1:35:40
  Speaker 2: And if people believe that and accepted that, and learned
• 1:35:43
  Speaker 2: that and understood that and embraced it, and so the
• 1:35:47
  Speaker 2: morality of not raising poor people up but the reality
• 1:35:51
  Speaker 2: of freedom, then they wouldn't after in a sense, pay
• 1:35:54
  Speaker 2: off the poor not to rebel, even though the poor
• 1:35:57
  Speaker 2: word thinking of rebelling with welfare, which arguably institutionalizes people
• 1:36:05
  Speaker 2: into poverty, doesn't really eliminate it. It creates a permanent
• 1:36:13
  Speaker 2: underclass and reduces economic growth, and by reducing economic growth,
• 1:36:17
  Speaker 2: reduces the ability to poor people to grow out of poverty.
• 1:36:25
  Speaker 2: So yes, I mean, what's his name, God, the German
• 1:36:30
  Speaker 2: chancellor in the nineteenth century, famous God. This name is
• 1:36:34
  Speaker 2: on a tip of my tongue. I mean. Germany introduced
• 1:36:38
  Speaker 2: in the late nineteenth century the first welfare state, and
• 1:36:42
  Speaker 2: it was explicitly introduced in order to curb the growth
• 1:36:47
  Speaker 2: of socialism. But it's not like the alternative was capitalism.
• 1:36:54
  Speaker 2: Germany didn't have really capitalism. Bismock. Bismock introduced the Welfist
• 1:37:00
  Speaker 2: date in Germany. Thank you, I like numbers, and the
• 1:37:06
  Speaker 2: reason was to hold back the socialists and the communists.
• 1:37:16
  Speaker 2: But the alternative wasn't capitalism. It should have been capitalism.
• 1:37:19
  Speaker 2: Capitalism does a much better job holding them back because
• 1:37:22
  Speaker 2: it makes them rich relatively speaking. So yeah, I hear
• 1:37:36
  Speaker 2: that argument all the time. I've heard it for years.
• 1:37:40
  Speaker 2: It goes back to Bismarck. It was part of the
• 1:37:43
  Speaker 2: justification by the industrialists supporting the New Deal in the
• 1:37:47
  Speaker 2: nineteen thirties. But it is wrong and it is a
• 1:37:52
  Speaker 2: capitulation that is completely unnecessary, and we all suffer for it,
• 1:37:56
  Speaker 2: including the port, including the warlfare recipients who would be
• 1:38:00
  Speaker 2: much better off with capitalism and no welfare. Nature observer.
• 1:38:07
  Speaker 2: I thought Deep Seak had developed a technology that does
• 1:38:10
  Speaker 2: not rely on high end chips, and this caused Nvidia
• 1:38:14
  Speaker 2: to go down for a while. So many all new
• 1:38:16
  Speaker 2: Chinese models are BASEDLINS. Well, I mean that's what they claimed,
• 1:38:22
  Speaker 2: and then the claim was no, they actually figured out
• 1:38:27
  Speaker 2: a way, basically, in some way to copy open AI Orthropic,
• 1:38:32
  Speaker 2: that is, to take advantage of what AI Andthropic had
• 1:38:35
  Speaker 2: done and to leverage that. I don't know the technicalities
• 1:38:38
  Speaker 2: of it. I don't know how that's done. But now
• 1:38:42
  Speaker 2: people are coming to the conclusion and maybe they really
• 1:38:44
  Speaker 2: have figured out something and new technology. Maybe there is
• 1:38:48
  Speaker 2: a new technology that's spreading around China that makes it
• 1:38:52
  Speaker 2: possible to build models without the need for very advanced
• 1:38:55
  Speaker 2: chips and massive these massive training algorith protocols. So I
• 1:39:02
  Speaker 2: don't know how they're doing it, and I think people
• 1:39:07
  Speaker 2: I don't think many people do know, but the reality
• 1:39:11
  Speaker 2: is that they're achieving it. And yeah, and the Deep six,
• 1:39:20
  Speaker 2: the fears people have of what Deep six would do
• 1:39:24
  Speaker 2: to chip manufacturers, to AI companies in the US are
• 1:39:28
  Speaker 2: in a sense coming real, actually coming real. The fear
• 1:39:37
  Speaker 2: is that they have a completely different way of doing
• 1:39:38
  Speaker 2: it where they don't need and they can complete with
• 1:39:41
  Speaker 2: compete without their most advanced chips, which nobody nobody saw coming, James.
• 1:39:50
  Speaker 2: Do many people not change their ideas because their beliefs
• 1:39:54
  Speaker 2: become their identity, Their beliefs become a psychological survival mechanism
• 1:39:59
  Speaker 2: for their pseudo self esteem. How do you break down
• 1:40:02
  Speaker 2: people's walls to get them to switch premises? I mean,
• 1:40:08
  Speaker 2: you're absolutely right, James, That's exactly what happens. And it
• 1:40:13
  Speaker 2: gets more intense, and the walls get taller and stronger
• 1:40:19
  Speaker 2: the older they get, because the more they've committed to
• 1:40:23
  Speaker 2: this particular mechanism, the more of their self esteem, pseudo
• 1:40:28
  Speaker 2: self esteem, the more of their identity is tied up
• 1:40:31
  Speaker 2: with these ideas. And this is why it's very hard
• 1:40:37
  Speaker 2: to break through to them, and in some cases impossible.
• 1:40:40
  Speaker 2: It just you can't break through, particularly if you take
• 1:40:44
  Speaker 2: into account also in RAN's identification. Then most people choose
• 1:40:48
  Speaker 2: at some point in their life not to go all
• 1:40:52
  Speaker 2: the way conceptual not to engage in their most abstract
• 1:40:57
  Speaker 2: of thinking, so that if you challenge them from that level,
• 1:41:02
  Speaker 2: they're stuck. And this is why it's very very hard
• 1:41:05
  Speaker 2: to change people's ideas, why it almost never happens. When
• 1:41:09
  Speaker 2: there is a big shift, it's usually a shift at
• 1:41:12
  Speaker 2: the emotional level or a shift that is in the
• 1:41:15
  Speaker 2: same direction as their ideas, even if not complete match.
• 1:41:19
  Speaker 2: So communists can become fascist. Fascists can become communists much
• 1:41:24
  Speaker 2: easier than a collectivist to become an individualist. But this
• 1:41:30
  Speaker 2: is why, if our goal is convincing, our audience is
• 1:41:36
  Speaker 2: young people and young meaning sixteen to thirty, because the
• 1:41:44
  Speaker 2: barriers are not that tall at that point, the walls
• 1:41:47
  Speaker 2: are not that thick, the psychological commitment is not quite
• 1:41:51
  Speaker 2: as intense, so we need to focus on young people.
• 1:41:57
  Speaker 2: I've always advocated for focusing on young peoples. High school students,
• 1:42:01
  Speaker 2: college students that is our audience. Young professionals just out
• 1:42:05
  Speaker 2: of college that is the audience. Now their exceptions to
• 1:42:11
  Speaker 2: any one of these things. Taughts Fani came to objectivism
• 1:42:14
  Speaker 2: at forty, but their exceptions their exceptions. It's hard, it
• 1:42:21
  Speaker 2: is very very hot. So if you have limited resources.
• 1:42:28
  Speaker 2: You want to target them at young people rather than
• 1:42:30
  Speaker 2: at older people. Michael, Can we take some solace in
• 1:42:40
  Speaker 2: the fact that even nakedly corrupt thugs like Trump and
• 1:42:43
  Speaker 2: Newsome no to not completely destroy capitalism. They know they
• 1:42:49
  Speaker 2: can only maintain the corruption if there is an economy.
• 1:42:53
  Speaker 2: They're not going to make us all poor. Well, I mean,
• 1:42:56
  Speaker 2: for now, maybe that's true, But there's clearly a slow
• 1:43:02
  Speaker 2: descents and a and an increase in the amount of
• 1:43:05
  Speaker 2: controls and regulations that they want to impose. They're clearly
• 1:43:08
  Speaker 2: testing the boundaries of what's possible and what's not. And
• 1:43:13
  Speaker 2: you give them too much credit in the sense that
• 1:43:17
  Speaker 2: they have the ability to just do enough not to
• 1:43:21
  Speaker 2: destroy capitalism. But they don't know what they're doing, not really,
• 1:43:28
  Speaker 2: and at some point they could easily make a mistake
• 1:43:30
  Speaker 2: and yes, destroy capitalism, even if they don't intend to.
• 1:43:33
  Speaker 2: And I agree with you, I don't think they intend to.
• 1:43:35
  Speaker 2: They want to keep the golden goose, patching those eggs,
• 1:43:38
  Speaker 2: laying those eggs, but their ability to calibrate it, I
• 1:43:47
  Speaker 2: would definitely question that. So there's always a risk that
• 1:43:51
  Speaker 2: they would do something that tips the balance and puts
• 1:43:56
  Speaker 2: us on a path towards destruction. I think Trump is
• 1:44:02
  Speaker 2: playing with that, like, for example, taking ten percent or
• 1:44:06
  Speaker 2: taking stakes in private companies is one of those things
• 1:44:10
  Speaker 2: that could over the long run be so devastating. The
• 1:44:14
  Speaker 2: capitalism will not be able to recover from it, and
• 1:44:18
  Speaker 2: we will become poorer. I don't know how poor, but
• 1:44:21
  Speaker 2: we will become poorer. All right, That is all the
• 1:44:25
  Speaker 2: fifty dollars questions. That was a lot of questions. Thank
• 1:44:27
  Speaker 2: you guys, really really appreciate that. Thank you Michael and
• 1:44:31
  Speaker 2: James and Nature Observer and not your average I'll goithm
• 1:44:34
  Speaker 2: one hundred combined and authors one hundred two questions and remo,
• 1:44:38
  Speaker 2: thank you guys. All right, Andrew, what have you found
• 1:44:42
  Speaker 2: to be the most challenging aspect of preparing your course
• 1:44:45
  Speaker 2: on Nron Rand and how are you planning to tackle it?
• 1:44:50
  Speaker 2: I mean, really, it's the teach material I've never really
• 1:44:53
  Speaker 2: taught before, which is metaphysics and epistemology. Those are going
• 1:44:57
  Speaker 2: to be the most challenging for me. The ethics I've
• 1:44:59
  Speaker 2: taught many times and different formats in different ways. Obviously,
• 1:45:03
  Speaker 2: capitalism the politics is going to be easy, esthetics will
• 1:45:06
  Speaker 2: be challenging. So I'm only doing half a class on aesthetics,
• 1:45:09
  Speaker 2: and partially what I decided to do is to compress
• 1:45:13
  Speaker 2: how much I talk about metaphysics and epistemology into one class,
• 1:45:18
  Speaker 2: really focus it on the intrinsic subjective objective trichotomy, really
• 1:45:26
  Speaker 2: position ran versus religion versus subjectivism, relativism. You know, mention
• 1:45:35
  Speaker 2: concept formation, the problem of universals, and hint at how
• 1:45:38
  Speaker 2: she solves them, but not try to teach them that,
• 1:45:42
  Speaker 2: although you know, I think concert formation is not that hard,
• 1:45:46
  Speaker 2: but yeah, the more you get into deep epistemology, the
• 1:45:50
  Speaker 2: harder the more difficult would be for me to teach it.
• 1:45:54
  Speaker 2: And another thing is how to teach the novels without
• 1:45:59
  Speaker 2: giving away too much of the plot and without the
• 1:46:02
  Speaker 2: students having read the novels, So using the novels during
• 1:46:05
  Speaker 2: the course, but not giving away too much, which is
• 1:46:09
  Speaker 2: you know, I'm basically figuring that out as I go
• 1:46:12
  Speaker 2: along on how to, I'll give them an overview of
• 1:46:15
  Speaker 2: each novel in the front, and then sprinkle in examples
• 1:46:18
  Speaker 2: from the novels in between, hoping really to get them
• 1:46:22
  Speaker 2: intrigued enough to go read the novels. That's my purpose.
• 1:46:25
  Speaker 2: Purpose of a course like this at the end of
• 1:46:26
  Speaker 2: the day. Is to get them to read the books.
• 1:46:30
  Speaker 2: It's to get them to read the novels. It's to
• 1:46:32
  Speaker 2: get them to engage in the philosophy themselves. Read Atlas,
• 1:46:36
  Speaker 2: read the Founded, or for those who don't want to
• 1:46:38
  Speaker 2: read fiction, read opap engage with the philosophy Hopper Campbell.
• 1:46:49
  Speaker 2: How come the people in New Hampshire with the live,
• 1:46:53
  Speaker 2: free or Die flags don't produce the Silicon Valley while
• 1:46:58
  Speaker 2: all the productive tech broke who is working on AI
• 1:47:01
  Speaker 2: and that will transform the world for the better, all
• 1:47:05
  Speaker 2: voted from Amdani. Well, I don't know, They're all voted
• 1:47:08
  Speaker 2: for Maamdanio, even the majority of them voting done. I mean, look,
• 1:47:15
  Speaker 2: if you are willing to. I mean. The bottom line
• 1:47:20
  Speaker 2: is this, most of the people attracted the libertarian ideas,
• 1:47:24
  Speaker 2: not most. A lot of the people attracted the libertarian
• 1:47:26
  Speaker 2: ideas are weird. They're weird people. They're not necessarily very
• 1:47:32
  Speaker 2: productive people. The people who devote their lives and they
• 1:47:35
  Speaker 2: focus and their energy to obsessing about particular libertarian causes.
• 1:47:43
  Speaker 2: They don't spend a lot of time on their own
• 1:47:47
  Speaker 2: life on achieving and producing and creating a building. They
• 1:47:51
  Speaker 2: spend it on arguing and debating and and wanting their
• 1:47:56
  Speaker 2: guns and their drugs and their I don't know what
• 1:47:59
  Speaker 2: else they want to do on on their property. And
• 1:48:03
  Speaker 2: they're just not that engaged with production and and and uh,
• 1:48:09
  Speaker 2: you know, creating the best possible life for themselves. They're
• 1:48:12
  Speaker 2: obsessed with political arguments and political issues and political ideas
• 1:48:18
  Speaker 2: and and they're willing to go to New Hampshire not
• 1:48:22
  Speaker 2: because they want to build a business there and they
• 1:48:25
  Speaker 2: want to create and build and make something there, but
• 1:48:27
  Speaker 2: because they're pursuing a political cause. You know, they just
• 1:48:35
  Speaker 2: I've never I haven't met that many people who've gone
• 1:48:39
  Speaker 2: to New Hampshire in the name of live feade who
• 1:48:41
  Speaker 2: actually understand what that term means, what freedom actually means,
• 1:48:44
  Speaker 2: understand why I do this talk For libertarians, I've done
• 1:48:48
  Speaker 2: it in a number of times and it's quite stunning.
• 1:48:51
  Speaker 2: I ask them why is freedom important? And they have
• 1:48:56
  Speaker 2: all these political, economic, social answers and it's all bogus.
• 1:49:05
  Speaker 2: Why is freedom important? Because underfeedom I can live. I
• 1:49:12
  Speaker 2: can live the best life for myself possible. I can
• 1:49:17
  Speaker 2: I have the most opportunities to pursue my happiness. I mean,
• 1:49:23
  Speaker 2: freedom is about me. But they don't see it that way.
• 1:49:29
  Speaker 2: So what you have is people who actually want to build, create,
• 1:49:32
  Speaker 2: make something, that actually have self esteem tie to work
• 1:49:37
  Speaker 2: and production and creation, and many of those people just
• 1:49:42
  Speaker 2: don't have time for political arguments and political ideas. They
• 1:49:46
  Speaker 2: go to Silicon Value to make and produce, and yeah,
• 1:49:49
  Speaker 2: maybe when they make it, they become leftists because they've
• 1:49:53
  Speaker 2: never challenged their underlying belief sets that they had growing up.
• 1:49:57
  Speaker 2: But the point is that they primary irritation is a
• 1:50:01
  Speaker 2: healthy orientation. They This is why I love producers. I
• 1:50:04
  Speaker 2: don't care what their politics is. That's why I love
• 1:50:06
  Speaker 2: Silicon Valley. I don't care that so many of them
• 1:50:08
  Speaker 2: are leftists and now a lot of them are new right.
• 1:50:11
  Speaker 2: I love the spirit of building. I love the spirit
• 1:50:13
  Speaker 2: of entrepreneurship. I love the spirit of producing, of creating wealth,
• 1:50:20
  Speaker 2: and that virtue wealth creed. Far it's far more important
• 1:50:28
  Speaker 2: than anything, than than than the politics that they adhere to.
• 1:50:32
  Speaker 2: And it's sad that they have bad politics. It's sad
• 1:50:34
  Speaker 2: for them because the morality ultimately catches up with them
• 1:50:38
  Speaker 2: and they become uh and they become riddled with guilt.
• 1:50:45
  Speaker 2: But much more significant, they want to They want to
• 1:50:50
  Speaker 2: do something they want to change the world, they want
• 1:50:52
  Speaker 2: to create, they want to build, and yes, these days
• 1:50:56
  Speaker 2: they're captured by people on the right, because the people
• 1:50:59
  Speaker 2: are right are not embarrassed by wanting to build and produce.
• 1:51:04
  Speaker 2: People like Malcolm Dresen and uh, you know, Peter Teo
• 1:51:08
  Speaker 2: are unembarrassed by their entrepreneurial skills. They're not embarrassed by
• 1:51:13
  Speaker 2: the wealth they've created. And that's a virtue. They bad
• 1:51:17
  Speaker 2: political ideas, but again it's a virtue not to be
• 1:51:20
  Speaker 2: embarrassed and not to apologize and not feel guilty and
• 1:51:25
  Speaker 2: and to embrace it and to love it and much
• 1:51:29
  Speaker 2: of it. Why they have people like that than the
• 1:51:30
  Speaker 2: leeches and I much have it? Why have people like that? Then?
• 1:51:34
  Speaker 2: So called libertarians who fly the flag and you know,
• 1:51:39
  Speaker 2: want to do all kinds of weird things in their property,
• 1:51:42
  Speaker 2: but if never built really anything of substance, never pursued
• 1:51:46
  Speaker 2: their own happiness, really and are irrational and partially attracted
• 1:51:50
  Speaker 2: the libertarian ideas because they want permission to be irrational.
• 1:51:55
  Speaker 2: That's a good formulation. A lot of libertarians, a lot
• 1:51:58
  Speaker 2: of people attracted the libertarianism because it gives them permission
• 1:52:05
  Speaker 2: to be complete subjectivists. Complete relativists, complete irrationalists, and those
• 1:52:16
  Speaker 2: people again are not builders. They're not my kind of people. Liam,
• 1:52:35
  Speaker 2: Would we be seeing this type of energy deregulation if
• 1:52:39
  Speaker 2: it weren't for the influence of Alex Epstein. Will Alex
• 1:52:47
  Speaker 2: be able to protect AI growth and data center expansion
• 1:52:52
  Speaker 2: like he's done with fossil fuel industry, Well, I mean
• 1:52:55
  Speaker 2: it's going to be interesting, but always seeing this type
• 1:52:58
  Speaker 2: of energy deregation, I mean to some extent, Trump was
• 1:53:01
  Speaker 2: doing this in his first term. I think he's more radical.
• 1:53:06
  Speaker 2: I think there's more industry support. I think there's more
• 1:53:09
  Speaker 2: support around it because of Alex, And no question, Alex
• 1:53:11
  Speaker 2: has played a crucial role, and maybe the crucial role
• 1:53:15
  Speaker 2: in making it happen. I don't know about AI. AI
• 1:53:19
  Speaker 2: is hated both by the left and the right. Right now,
• 1:53:24
  Speaker 2: Alex doesn't have a lot of time. Remember Alex has
• 1:53:27
  Speaker 2: been working on energy for a long time, but he's
• 1:53:31
  Speaker 2: also better at it. So maybe maybe Alex will single
• 1:53:34
  Speaker 2: handedly help save us from this disaster. But you know,
• 1:53:43
  Speaker 2: we will see, and you should definitely support his efforts
• 1:53:45
  Speaker 2: to do so. Liam says, did Trump decide to strike
• 1:53:50
  Speaker 2: you on because his advice is recognized it is an
• 1:53:54
  Speaker 2: immediate threat to the United States, or because he's a
• 1:53:57
  Speaker 2: bully that needed a target to throw his weight around
• 1:54:02
  Speaker 2: on something and to stay relevant and feared on the
• 1:54:07
  Speaker 2: world stage. I think probably a little bit of both.
• 1:54:10
  Speaker 2: I think it was an opportunity for him to show
• 1:54:12
  Speaker 2: how strong America is and to use that military and
• 1:54:14
  Speaker 2: he liked that. I think he's always talked about the
• 1:54:17
  Speaker 2: nuclear iwan nuclear. I think some of his devices around
• 1:54:20
  Speaker 2: him were definitely concerned about Iran going nuclear. He made
• 1:54:26
  Speaker 2: it one of his campaign issues to prevent Iran from
• 1:54:29
  Speaker 2: going nuclear, so that was an excuse. I think it's
• 1:54:31
  Speaker 2: a combination of both. I think it's a combination of both.
• 1:54:37
  Speaker 2: But he also wants to show the world didn't work
• 1:54:40
  Speaker 2: out quite that way. He showed the world his weakness. James.
• 1:54:46
  Speaker 2: Even if Jimmy Carter engaged in deregulation, if he had
• 1:54:49
  Speaker 2: won a second term, he would not have had the
• 1:54:52
  Speaker 2: molo crusade against communism like Reagan did. The Soviet Union
• 1:54:57
  Speaker 2: would not likely have collapsed under the second quarter term.
• 1:55:02
  Speaker 2: He wouldn't have had them all crusade, no question about that.
• 1:55:05
  Speaker 2: He would have not had them all crusade. But I
• 1:55:07
  Speaker 2: think the Soviet Union would have collapsed no matter what.
• 1:55:10
  Speaker 2: Whether it collapsed in eighty nine or whatever, it would
• 1:55:14
  Speaker 2: taken another five years, I don't know, but it would
• 1:55:17
  Speaker 2: have collapsed. It was finished. I mean, once Gobachev gets
• 1:55:22
  Speaker 2: the power and he starts compromising with communism and starts
• 1:55:28
  Speaker 2: loosening things up, and the Russians see what's possible. They're
• 1:55:33
  Speaker 2: not going backwards. So it was just a matter of
• 1:55:36
  Speaker 2: time at that point. So I don't think Jimmy Cotter
• 1:55:39
  Speaker 2: would have made that big of a difference. I don't
• 1:55:41
  Speaker 2: think Reagan is that responsible. I mean, he definitely inspired
• 1:55:47
  Speaker 2: a lot of the people in East Germany, so yeah,
• 1:55:49
  Speaker 2: it bought he bought some time. But this was kind
• 1:55:53
  Speaker 2: of a historical inevitability. Rand predicted the Soviet Union would
• 1:55:58
  Speaker 2: collapse in this way, just a question of when, And yes,
• 1:56:01
  Speaker 2: Jimmy Catter would have taken longer, but it still would
• 1:56:03
  Speaker 2: have happened. Harper Campbell. Despite how allegedly altruistic world, what
• 1:56:11
  Speaker 2: made Reagan and Malay popular is the enthusiastic pro freedom agendas. Yes,
• 1:56:18
  Speaker 2: but remember Milay was popular primarily not because of his
• 1:56:23
  Speaker 2: pro freedom agenda, but primarily because he was a breath
• 1:56:26
  Speaker 2: of fresh air after you know, decades and decades and
• 1:56:30
  Speaker 2: decades of disaster, and the Argentina people will basically at
• 1:56:34
  Speaker 2: the point of we'll try anything, and to some extent
• 1:56:38
  Speaker 2: that was true of Reagan. He comes in at a
• 1:56:41
  Speaker 2: very dark point in American history. Jimmy Cotter is very unpopular.
• 1:56:47
  Speaker 2: The Uranians are holding Americans hostage in the embassy, you know,
• 1:56:51
  Speaker 2: in embassy workers in Iran. The US has just failed
• 1:56:55
  Speaker 2: to rescue them, and Americans have died trying. You know,
• 1:57:00
  Speaker 2: the economy is doing very poorly. Japan is kicking up,
• 1:57:03
  Speaker 2: but the Germans are kicking up, but we are. Inflation
• 1:57:08
  Speaker 2: is high, unemployment is high. So Reagan only became popular,
• 1:57:14
  Speaker 2: I think by eighty four because of his freedom agenda,
• 1:57:17
  Speaker 2: because the economy had recovered. But it's not like people
• 1:57:21
  Speaker 2: actually respond to freedom messages. They don't. Usually they sometimes do,
• 1:57:28
  Speaker 2: and the question is what causes them to sometimes respond
• 1:57:31
  Speaker 2: and other times not to. But it's not that if
• 1:57:36
  Speaker 2: you had a candidate right now we had a freedom agenda,
• 1:57:38
  Speaker 2: he would win. I don't think you would. I think
• 1:57:39
  Speaker 2: he'd be rejected because people today in America not interested
• 1:57:42
  Speaker 2: in freedom. They're interested in going after those immigrants, papacam.
• 1:57:48
  Speaker 2: But why can't Trump slash taxes and regulations and become
• 1:57:52
  Speaker 2: popular like Reagan and me lay Well, because you know
• 1:58:02
  Speaker 2: he would have to work with Congress for it, and
• 1:58:04
  Speaker 2: he doesn't have the personality for it, and he doesn't
• 1:58:06
  Speaker 2: really believe in it that much. And it's not clear
• 1:58:09
  Speaker 2: how popular Mela is. We'll see, we'll see in the
• 1:58:12
  Speaker 2: next elections. But he's already cut taxes. And you can't
• 1:58:18
  Speaker 2: slash taxes. There's too much expenditures. Indeed, you probably have
• 1:58:22
  Speaker 2: to raise taxes in the short run. I mean, cutting
• 1:58:26
  Speaker 2: taxes doesn't make any sense right now. I would simplify taxes,
• 1:58:30
  Speaker 2: which is what Reagan did in eighty six. He raised
• 1:58:33
  Speaker 2: taxes and simplified them, which I think was the real
• 1:58:35
  Speaker 2: contribution Reagan made tax wise, Slashing taxes would be a
• 1:58:40
  Speaker 2: disaster right now. All you would do is increase debt,
• 1:58:44
  Speaker 2: slashing regulations. That requires working with Congress to pass laws.
• 1:58:49
  Speaker 2: And Trump doesn't care enough. He doesn't care about freedom,
• 1:58:53
  Speaker 2: he doesn't care about regulations, herpochemical continuities. Does this base
• 1:59:00
  Speaker 2: don't want that? No, they don't. He'd prefer to threaten
• 1:59:04
  Speaker 2: people with ice to win elections. Rather than make their
• 1:59:07
  Speaker 2: lives better. Yes, yes, this whole agenda is a negative one,
• 1:59:13
  Speaker 2: anti Ice, anti China, now anti Iran. I guess it's
• 1:59:17
  Speaker 2: not a positive agenda. It's not a pro human life agenda.
• 1:59:23
  Speaker 2: I mean, compare his speeches to Reagan speeches and you
• 1:59:26
  Speaker 2: get a completely different sense of his goals, his purpose. Author.
• 1:59:33
  Speaker 2: If you haven't been exposed objectivism to make sense of
• 1:59:36
  Speaker 2: the world, then keep you tied to reality. In times
• 1:59:39
  Speaker 2: of stress and injustice, it's very easy to go insane.
• 1:59:43
  Speaker 2: It's probably why mental illness and drug addiction are so common. Yeah,
• 1:59:48
  Speaker 2: I think that's right. I think that having a bad
• 1:59:52
  Speaker 2: philosophy definitely increases the amount of drug addiction and probably
• 1:59:56
  Speaker 2: also increases the amount of insanity, of mental illness in
• 2:00:01
  Speaker 2: our wild depression and other things. A lot of that
• 2:00:04
  Speaker 2: is connected to bad philosophy and bad ideas. Stephen, my
• 2:00:12
  Speaker 2: seventy six year old dad just pointed out to me
• 2:00:15
  Speaker 2: the iron Rand paragraphs in Vance's new book tonight. I
• 2:00:19
  Speaker 2: guess you'll have to read it now. Sorry, but I
• 2:00:21
  Speaker 2: won't have to. And it's just one of the many
• 2:00:26
  Speaker 2: reasons I'm thankful for this show. I you know, Vance
• 2:00:30
  Speaker 2: has written in the past. I've read in the past
• 2:00:33
  Speaker 2: that he went through an Ironman phase and that he
• 2:00:37
  Speaker 2: rejected it. He went through an atheist objectivist phase, and
• 2:00:41
  Speaker 2: then he rejected that partially thanks to Peter Teel who
• 2:00:45
  Speaker 2: introduced him kind of to a more Christian perspective on
• 2:00:47
  Speaker 2: the world. Yeah, thank you, Steven Chris with fifth dollars,
• 2:01:00
  Speaker 2: Thank you, Chris Chris. I'm disappointed that Tom Brady, the
• 2:01:04
  Speaker 2: NFL's most successful player, would compete in quotation marks with
• 2:01:09
  Speaker 2: Jack Paul and algorithm savvy provocatur and thereby lend legitimacy
• 2:01:15
  Speaker 2: to these spectacles. Is the similar to rands sanction of
• 2:01:19
  Speaker 2: the victim? Well, I don't know, right, because I don't
• 2:01:23
  Speaker 2: know exactly what you're talking about. I don't know who
• 2:01:25
  Speaker 2: Jack Paul is and what he's competing with. It's not
• 2:01:30
  Speaker 2: clear he's a victim here, but he is sanctioned evil,
• 2:01:34
  Speaker 2: you know, if what you're saying is true or sanctening
• 2:01:36
  Speaker 2: bad stuff, sancting bad stuff. So, uh yeah, this is
• 2:01:46
  Speaker 2: an issue of dignity. It's an issue of honor in
• 2:01:50
  Speaker 2: objectives ethics terms, it's an issue of integrity to lower
• 2:01:55
  Speaker 2: yourself to, you know, play games with I guess somebody
• 2:02:05
  Speaker 2: that's on savvy is wrong because it's it goes against
• 2:02:11
  Speaker 2: against your values as a as a as a successful person.
• 2:02:15
  Speaker 2: This is boxing. Jack Paul is a boxer. I don't
• 2:02:18
  Speaker 2: know what Jack Paul is. Maybe maybe Chrys will tell
• 2:02:21
  Speaker 2: us in the chat more about Jack Paul and what's
• 2:02:24
  Speaker 2: going on. I don't know. Sometimes I'm not up to
• 2:02:28
  Speaker 2: speed on some of the cultural things going on. Chasbad
• 2:02:33
  Speaker 2: for this scholarship. Does it apply to someone who is
• 2:02:36
  Speaker 2: under thirty five in Jupiter years? Sadly no, Sadly no,
• 2:02:41
  Speaker 2: I don't even know how to translate Earth years to
• 2:02:45
  Speaker 2: jupiter is, although I'm sure chet CUPETI can help with that.
• 2:02:49
  Speaker 2: No Earth here is thirty five on nice triice. But Andrew,
• 2:02:57
  Speaker 2: do objectives have things to learn from the modern wave
• 2:03:01
  Speaker 2: of intellectuals converting to Catholicism? What void is Catholicism ostensibly
• 2:03:08
  Speaker 2: fulfilling the objectivism could actually fulfill for seekers of meaning
• 2:03:13
  Speaker 2: in life? Well, I mean they're looking for meaning. But look,
• 2:03:22
  Speaker 2: objectivism is selling you on a whole philosophy, whole way
• 2:03:27
  Speaker 2: of viewing the world, and it's a controversial, conflicted, conflict
• 2:03:37
  Speaker 2: way way of looking at the world. That's in conflict
• 2:03:39
  Speaker 2: with the common perceptions out there in the culture. So
• 2:03:45
  Speaker 2: I don't know if we have much to learn from
• 2:03:47
  Speaker 2: the Christians. I think the thing we should learn is
• 2:03:50
  Speaker 2: to focus on meaning, to focus our energy on communicating
• 2:03:57
  Speaker 2: the fact that objectivism has something to say about meaning,
• 2:04:01
  Speaker 2: the meaning of life, and that what people converted to
• 2:04:11
  Speaker 2: Christianity are doing is exactly undermining that, right, undermining that. So,
• 2:04:25
  Speaker 2: you know, I think we need to be more forceful
• 2:04:27
  Speaker 2: in our attack on religion, an attack on faith as
• 2:04:34
  Speaker 2: rejecting meaning. The only way to get your head around
• 2:04:42
  Speaker 2: the concept of meaning is through reason, not by rejecting reason.
• 2:04:46
  Speaker 2: So the whole thing is, I don't think we have
• 2:04:49
  Speaker 2: anything to learn for Christians. We have something to learn
• 2:04:52
  Speaker 2: about where we need to emphasize our educational efforts given
• 2:04:58
  Speaker 2: Christianity's success in swaying people. Okay, Chris says something about
• 2:05:04
  Speaker 2: Tom Brady slapped him in the face at some event
• 2:05:06
  Speaker 2: over the weekend. It's absolutely ridiculous. Yeah, I mean, I
• 2:05:10
  Speaker 2: think that's right. I think it's beneath Brady to do
• 2:05:15
  Speaker 2: this kind of stuff. But look, I don't know what
• 2:05:18
  Speaker 2: Brady's moral characters. I don't know how much his understanding
• 2:05:21
  Speaker 2: is so I don't really have I don't really know
• 2:05:28
  Speaker 2: what to expect of Brady. But yeah, it's sad because
• 2:05:31
  Speaker 2: he was a great athlete and you'd want him to
• 2:05:33
  Speaker 2: be a good human being to reflect that the fact
• 2:05:38
  Speaker 2: that he was such a great athlete, and to be
• 2:05:40
  Speaker 2: a good quarterback, you have to be smart in some way.
• 2:05:43
  Speaker 2: So yes, Andrew says, connecting reason with spirituality, well, I
• 2:05:51
  Speaker 2: mean it depends what you mean by spirituality, because I
• 2:05:54
  Speaker 2: mean reason is spiritual. Reason is non material, right, So
• 2:05:58
  Speaker 2: spirituality is a tricky concept. Then you've got to be
• 2:06:00
  Speaker 2: careful not to fall into the definition of spirituality, which
• 2:06:05
  Speaker 2: means anti reason, right, the opposite of reason, which means
• 2:06:10
  Speaker 2: you know, unexplainable. Spirituality no, means that of consciousness and
• 2:06:14
  Speaker 2: reason is a part of your spirit, all right. Andrew
• 2:06:22
  Speaker 2: has a Oh, there's a bunch of stickers that I
• 2:06:26
  Speaker 2: wanted to thank Wes, thank you for the sticker, and Stephen,
• 2:06:33
  Speaker 2: thank you, Greg and Bonnie thank you, and Paul thank
• 2:06:40
  Speaker 2: you twice. Paul did two stickers, and uh, I think
• 2:06:48
  Speaker 2: I got everybody, and if not, here's my sticker. Thank
• 2:06:52
  Speaker 2: you to everybody who did a sticker. Really appreciate that. Okay,
• 2:06:55
  Speaker 2: Andrew had a question from I don't know when, from
• 2:06:59
  Speaker 2: some show that I can get to. So here it is,
• 2:07:02
  Speaker 2: have you looked closely at Trump's Trump account at the
• 2:07:05
  Speaker 2: Trump Account program? Just listen to the All In podcast
• 2:07:09
  Speaker 2: with David Sachs at all where they were waxing poetic
• 2:07:14
  Speaker 2: about them as a huge win for capitalism. I mean,
• 2:07:17
  Speaker 2: it's not a huge win for capitalism, but it's a
• 2:07:19
  Speaker 2: huge win for saving, which is good, and that's good
• 2:07:23
  Speaker 2: ultimately for investment and therefore for the market. It doesn't
• 2:07:28
  Speaker 2: teach anybody anything about capitalism quor capitalism. These are tax
• 2:07:34
  Speaker 2: free accounts that you can set up for a child
• 2:07:36
  Speaker 2: when they're born. The government will put a thousand dollars
• 2:07:39
  Speaker 2: in it. That's the bad part of the program. The
• 2:07:42
  Speaker 2: good part is you can contribute I think up to
• 2:07:44
  Speaker 2: five thousand dollars every year into this account, and that's fantastic.
• 2:07:49
  Speaker 2: It means that if you do that, and if you
• 2:07:51
  Speaker 2: can afford to put five thousand dollars every year into
• 2:07:53
  Speaker 2: this account and it occurs and it grows tax free,
• 2:07:58
  Speaker 2: then your child when they get the age of twenty
• 2:08:00
  Speaker 2: or thirty or forty will have a sizeable amount of money,
• 2:08:05
  Speaker 2: a sizeable amount of money in that account by the
• 2:08:10
  Speaker 2: time they're adults, and that is a great thing. So
• 2:08:14
  Speaker 2: I'm all four tax fee accounts and making them available
• 2:08:17
  Speaker 2: to basically babies is a good idea. It's one of
• 2:08:22
  Speaker 2: the few good ideas Trump has had. I wish again
• 2:08:26
  Speaker 2: the government didn't put money in them. Charity Michael Dell
• 2:08:30
  Speaker 2: has contributed billions of dollars to contributing small amounts of
• 2:08:34
  Speaker 2: money into these accounts. I think that's a great way
• 2:08:37
  Speaker 2: to do charity, to put money into kids, let's say
• 2:08:41
  Speaker 2: poor kids accounts, and that will accrup a tax fee.
• 2:08:45
  Speaker 2: So every parent, whether you like Trump or not, should
• 2:08:48
  Speaker 2: get a Trump account for their babe, for their kids.
• 2:08:51
  Speaker 2: It makes complete sense. And it's not linked to education
• 2:08:55
  Speaker 2: everything else. All these are the text fee are linked
• 2:08:57
  Speaker 2: to retirement. Education. These are now I don't know exactly
• 2:09:01
  Speaker 2: the rules of when you can withdraw it and how
• 2:09:03
  Speaker 2: much taxes you pay when you draw it, but I
• 2:09:06
  Speaker 2: do know that they accrue tax free into the future.
• 2:09:12
  Speaker 2: I find all in podcasts often really valuable and interesting
• 2:09:17
  Speaker 2: and sometimes just annoying and obnoxious. It's a it's a
• 2:09:21
  Speaker 2: really mixed bag. Remo says I don't know how you
• 2:09:26
  Speaker 2: root for Argentina and Brazil. Unsportsmanlike conduct is really ruining
• 2:09:31
  Speaker 2: the game for me. Uh and they excel at it.
• 2:09:34
  Speaker 2: They have no integrity, honesty or justice, zero sportsmanship. I
• 2:09:38
  Speaker 2: don't know. I mean, I certainly don't think that applies
• 2:09:41
  Speaker 2: to Brazil. I don't remember Brazil behaving and any kind
• 2:09:44
  Speaker 2: of unsportsmanlike conduct or doing really brutal things. Indeed, in
• 2:09:47
  Speaker 2: the old days it was Brazil, it was always brutalized.
• 2:09:50
  Speaker 2: The only way to stop the dribbling was for UKPAN
• 2:09:54
  Speaker 2: players to basically beat them up and to tackle them
• 2:09:58
  Speaker 2: and to be brutle. It's how Pelee was knocked out
• 2:10:03
  Speaker 2: of one World Cup, the nineteen sixty two I think
• 2:10:06
  Speaker 2: World Cup knocked out in one of the games through
• 2:10:09
  Speaker 2: an injury, and how they try to stop him in
• 2:10:11
  Speaker 2: nineteen seventy. So I don't know if that's true. Brazil
• 2:10:17
  Speaker 2: and I like the way they play football and with Argentina,
• 2:10:21
  Speaker 2: my support of Argentina is basically my support from Messy.
• 2:10:24
  Speaker 2: I think Messi is the greatest player of all time.
• 2:10:28
  Speaker 2: I love the way he plays, I like the way
• 2:10:30
  Speaker 2: he handles the ball and the way he thinks. I
• 2:10:34
  Speaker 2: don't like the way Argentina played yesterday, and they all
• 2:10:39
  Speaker 2: much more aggressively physical than I think they should be.
• 2:10:44
  Speaker 2: I heard that there was some significant unsupportsman like conduct
• 2:10:47
  Speaker 2: after the game. I didn't see it, so I don't know,
• 2:10:50
  Speaker 2: and that is sad and unfortunate and bad. And you know,
• 2:10:55
  Speaker 2: I generally I wouldn't support Argentina football if Missy didn't
• 2:11:00
  Speaker 2: play this. So I mean, I think Spain deserved to
• 2:11:04
  Speaker 2: win because they played. They played a great game, they
• 2:11:06
  Speaker 2: played beautiful soccer, beautiful football. So yeah, Jacob, Not a
• 2:11:17
  Speaker 2: single childhood vaccine was tested against a saline placebo in
• 2:11:20
  Speaker 2: clinical trials. I don't think that's true. For example, the
• 2:11:27
  Speaker 2: landmark nineteen fifty four SOULK polio trial included over four
• 2:11:31
  Speaker 2: hundred thousand school children, half receiving the active vaccine and
• 2:11:36
  Speaker 2: another half receiving an inert saline injection. Similarly, sailing or
• 2:11:42
  Speaker 2: inert placebos were used in clinical trials for the measles
• 2:11:45
  Speaker 2: Rubello HPV and NUMO cocal vaccines. So I just don't
• 2:11:53
  Speaker 2: think that's true. I think that's propaganda. This is based
• 2:11:58
  Speaker 2: on Gemini. Don't Gemini is lying to me here. I'm
• 2:12:02
  Speaker 2: happy to cross reference this with CHECHPT and XAI and
• 2:12:07
  Speaker 2: anybody else. But it's just not true. So I don't
• 2:12:11
  Speaker 2: think that's true. Now, new vaccines in modern trials are
• 2:12:16
  Speaker 2: not tested against the sailine, that's true. They're tested against
• 2:12:20
  Speaker 2: old vaccines. So when you introduce a new vaccine, you
• 2:12:24
  Speaker 2: have kids on the old vaccine versus kids on the
• 2:12:26
  Speaker 2: new vaccine, and you test to see if the new
• 2:12:29
  Speaker 2: vaccine is moreificacious and less damaging than the old vaccine.
• 2:12:32
  Speaker 2: Makes complete sense, given that you now that you have
• 2:12:35
  Speaker 2: a working vaccine, it would be immodel to inject kids
• 2:12:40
  Speaker 2: with siline. So just not true. There's a lot of
• 2:12:46
  Speaker 2: misinformation about vaccines. That is one of them. Neo, What
• 2:12:51
  Speaker 2: is going to take to force these Gulf countries to
• 2:12:54
  Speaker 2: start attacking Iran? A strong US, the US committed to victory.
• 2:13:00
  Speaker 2: Why would they attack you on if they're not convinced
• 2:13:03
  Speaker 2: that the US is going to follow through and actually
• 2:13:05
  Speaker 2: win this and achieve regime change. Imagine if they attack
• 2:13:09
  Speaker 2: you on and then the United States gets to deal
• 2:13:11
  Speaker 2: with you on and you want gets stronger, and now
• 2:13:14
  Speaker 2: they're more vulnerable to you one. So the only way
• 2:13:17
  Speaker 2: they'll attack is they believe the United States is committed
• 2:13:19
  Speaker 2: to victory. Jacob. The childhood vaccine schedule never tested in totality.
• 2:13:27
  Speaker 2: If added more vaccines, pull ten shills, more immune system dysregulation,
• 2:13:34
  Speaker 2: autoimmune diseases. There's just no evidence of that. There's just
• 2:13:38
  Speaker 2: no evidence of that. I mean, these things have been
• 2:13:41
  Speaker 2: tested over and over again and since hundreds of millions
• 2:13:44
  Speaker 2: of kids literally I think hundreds of millions of kids
• 2:13:48
  Speaker 2: are getting these various vaccine schedules, and they vary from
• 2:13:51
  Speaker 2: country to country. There is a massive You can test this,
• 2:13:56
  Speaker 2: you can see what happens. You can see across countries.
• 2:13:59
  Speaker 2: Are kids in Denmark because they have a different vaccine schedule,
• 2:14:02
  Speaker 2: and kids in Germany and kids in England, and kids
• 2:14:04
  Speaker 2: in the United States, and kids in China who maybe
• 2:14:06
  Speaker 2: don't get vaccinated. Are they different outcomes? Is the more
• 2:14:10
  Speaker 2: prevalence of aut immune diseases. All this is testable and
• 2:14:14
  Speaker 2: is observable, and again, no evidence that vaccines do harm
• 2:14:22
  Speaker 2: and do damage. It's just not there, just not there. Now.
• 2:14:29
  Speaker 2: You know, I'm not an expert, but every time I
• 2:14:31
  Speaker 2: look at these things they put up about time somebody
• 2:14:33
  Speaker 2: comes with some claim about the vaccines, about this stuff,
• 2:14:37
  Speaker 2: and you go and actually do the research, and you
• 2:14:39
  Speaker 2: go down the rabbit hole. It's bs Now, I know,
• 2:14:42
  Speaker 2: there's a whole rabbit hole where it's all true, and
• 2:14:45
  Speaker 2: you know, but that's I think that is made Upland
• 2:14:49
  Speaker 2: every time I test this, the COVID vaccines was the
• 2:14:52
  Speaker 2: best because the data was real, you could test it,
• 2:14:55
  Speaker 2: you could see it, you could observe it. And I
• 2:15:00
  Speaker 2: I looked at the data from every angle, and the
• 2:15:03
  Speaker 2: claims of the anti vaxxes against the COVID vaccines amounted
• 2:15:07
  Speaker 2: to zilch, nada, nothing. It was a massive, you know,
• 2:15:16
  Speaker 2: massive fail for the anti vax So why should I
• 2:15:18
  Speaker 2: believe them on anything else? And they still put out
• 2:15:21
  Speaker 2: stuff and every study, the studies come out constantly, year
• 2:15:26
  Speaker 2: after year, better refining the data about deaths and excess deaths,
• 2:15:32
  Speaker 2: and all of them show that the COVID vaccines saved
• 2:15:35
  Speaker 2: millions of lives and didn't and the side effects were there.
• 2:15:39
  Speaker 2: Everything has side effects, but on the cost of benefit analysis,
• 2:15:42
  Speaker 2: it's not even close, not even close. Jacobo, doctor Stanley Plotkin,
• 2:15:51
  Speaker 2: and doctor Catherine Edwards under Oath admitted the childhood vaccines
• 2:15:55
  Speaker 2: clinical trials were not designed to rule in out autism.
• 2:16:01
  Speaker 2: But there's no causal link between vaccines and autism. Again, tested, tried,
• 2:16:06
  Speaker 2: evaluated many many times. The clinical trials maybe didn't. But
• 2:16:14
  Speaker 2: you don't need clinical trials. You need a mechanism, and
• 2:16:20
  Speaker 2: there is none. There's no causal relationship and there's no
• 2:16:24
  Speaker 2: empirical correlation. There just isn't any more than an empirical
• 2:16:28
  Speaker 2: corelation between many other things. And I mean there's no causality.
• 2:16:37
  Speaker 2: Nobody's shown causality, and indeed it's not clear that there's
• 2:16:43
  Speaker 2: an autism epidemic. That's the other aspect of it. A
• 2:16:47
  Speaker 2: lot of the autism increases, it just increases in diagnosis
• 2:16:51
  Speaker 2: of stuff that's always existed. So I mean, there's are
• 2:16:58
  Speaker 2: all I don't know what motivates this, but it's you know,
• 2:17:04
  Speaker 2: for most people, the motivation is kind of an anti science,
• 2:17:08
  Speaker 2: anti pharmaceutical, anti profit motive. Not for everybody, but for
• 2:17:15
  Speaker 2: a lot of people. Huppa Campbell, lower IQ. Less educated
• 2:17:19
  Speaker 2: people seem to have an easier time resonating with a
• 2:17:23
  Speaker 2: leave me alone pro freedom ideology. I don't think that's
• 2:17:27
  Speaker 2: true at all completely, you know. I mean, it's true
• 2:17:34
  Speaker 2: that people who go to a university and get an
• 2:17:36
  Speaker 2: education are corrupted by that education because the education sucks.
• 2:17:41
  Speaker 2: But I don't think that low intelligence take IQ is
• 2:17:45
  Speaker 2: a proxy for intelligence, that low intelligence resonate more exact opposite.
• 2:17:50
  Speaker 2: Freedom was an achievement of highly intelligent, highly educated people
• 2:17:55
  Speaker 2: during the Enlightenment and today. I mean, really, the Appalachi Mountains,
• 2:18:01
  Speaker 2: the family of JD. Vans resonate, freedom resonates with them.
• 2:18:05
  Speaker 2: I don't believe that. I don't think. I don't think
• 2:18:08
  Speaker 2: that's true. Their welfare recipient leeches. And I think if
• 2:18:14
  Speaker 2: you go to the uneducated people in the inner cities,
• 2:18:18
  Speaker 2: uneducated people in a lot of the countryside in America,
• 2:18:21
  Speaker 2: in poor areas, no, they're not They're not pro freedom
• 2:18:25
  Speaker 2: at all. They want their stuff, They want people to
• 2:18:29
  Speaker 2: give them stuff. I don't think there's a relationship between
• 2:18:32
  Speaker 2: intelligence and advocacy for freedom. I think there's a relationship
• 2:18:37
  Speaker 2: between education, because education corrupts James do. A lot of
• 2:18:44
  Speaker 2: these welfare policies come from rich people who have never
• 2:18:47
  Speaker 2: been poor. They don't see the destruction their policies are
• 2:18:51
  Speaker 2: doing to these communities, they have no personal interactions with. No.
• 2:18:56
  Speaker 2: I don't think that's I think a lot of it
• 2:18:58
  Speaker 2: comes from people who are poor, and look, some people
• 2:19:01
  Speaker 2: will poor, remember that their parents got welfare checks which
• 2:19:04
  Speaker 2: allowed them to ultimately have food and go to school
• 2:19:09
  Speaker 2: and get an education. And you know, JK. Rollins wrote
• 2:19:15
  Speaker 2: Harry Potter, the first Harry Potter book, while she was
• 2:19:18
  Speaker 2: a single mom on welfare. So not all welfare stories
• 2:19:21
  Speaker 2: are bad stories. And the reality is that a lot
• 2:19:26
  Speaker 2: of these people, you know, maybe even attributes on their
• 2:19:30
  Speaker 2: success to the fact that their parents got welfare. So
• 2:19:33
  Speaker 2: it's not clear cut. It's not so clean to say
• 2:19:37
  Speaker 2: people get welfare they're destroyed. Yeah, but maybe their children
• 2:19:41
  Speaker 2: somehow see that they got food and they can't imagine
• 2:19:45
  Speaker 2: the alternative where their parents actually went to work. They
• 2:19:49
  Speaker 2: think the alternative is we're even poorer and we don't
• 2:19:52
  Speaker 2: have food. So again, it requires thinking to see that
• 2:19:59
  Speaker 2: the alternatives welfare, that there's an alternative to welfare state,
• 2:20:03
  Speaker 2: that there's that the world is not. Either they get
• 2:20:06
  Speaker 2: welfare they die, which is what a lot of people
• 2:20:09
  Speaker 2: think it is, And a lot of people who got
• 2:20:11
  Speaker 2: welfare think this situation was like that. All right. Jacob
• 2:20:17
  Speaker 2: goes on with the with this aluminum adjuvants taken up
• 2:20:23
  Speaker 2: by macrophages brought to the brain causes encephalitis, possibly enco fellowpathy.
• 2:20:35
  Speaker 2: More shots, more illumine the brain. And yet hundreds of
• 2:20:41
  Speaker 2: millions of kids, hundreds of millions of kids have been
• 2:20:44
  Speaker 2: receiving these shots for generations now. And do we see
• 2:20:48
  Speaker 2: a dramatic increase in these brain diseases? In these diseases,
• 2:20:53
  Speaker 2: I know, do we see large concentrations of aluminumnus? It's
• 2:20:58
  Speaker 2: easy to test, you can test the fluid. Do we
• 2:21:01
  Speaker 2: see massive concentration of aluminum in the brain? I mean,
• 2:21:09
  Speaker 2: allow me to be super skeptical. Look, this is the
• 2:21:12
  Speaker 2: root of my skepticism. At least of all doctors and
• 2:21:21
  Speaker 2: at least of all scientists really care about patients, They
• 2:21:30
  Speaker 2: care about health, They want to do the right thing.
• 2:21:35
  Speaker 2: Some of them are geniuses, some of them are just
• 2:21:37
  Speaker 2: average doctors and scientists. And none of them are bothered
• 2:21:42
  Speaker 2: by this. None of them have seeing this trend. None
• 2:21:48
  Speaker 2: of the medical journals that we have this alarm around aluminum.
• 2:21:54
  Speaker 2: So the argument is the pharmaceutical companies buy them off.
• 2:21:57
  Speaker 2: Really are doctors that corrupt that you can buy off
• 2:22:01
  Speaker 2: a whole profession? I just don't believe it. And I
• 2:22:05
  Speaker 2: know doctors I grew up with doctors. My father was
• 2:22:08
  Speaker 2: a doctor. If my doctor thought that or saw evidence that,
• 2:22:14
  Speaker 2: you know, this stuff was going on, you couldn't buy
• 2:22:18
  Speaker 2: them off. There's no not enough money in the world
• 2:22:20
  Speaker 2: to buy them off. So where are they? And I'm
• 2:22:26
  Speaker 2: saying ninety percent of doctors are like this, So where
• 2:22:28
  Speaker 2: are the ninety percent? Why is it? So you know,
• 2:22:31
  Speaker 2: why there's so few doctors who advocate for this, and
• 2:22:34
  Speaker 2: why are those few doctors make a living off of
• 2:22:37
  Speaker 2: exactly this and advocating for a bunch of other, you know,
• 2:22:43
  Speaker 2: wacky ideas around medicine. We're living longer, we're living healthier.
• 2:22:48
  Speaker 2: There are issues, there's a that relate. I mean, you know,
• 2:22:52
  Speaker 2: if you said this is causing young people now to
• 2:22:56
  Speaker 2: have more colon cancer, Okay, I know there's more colon
• 2:22:59
  Speaker 2: cancer young young people, and I'm worried to that that
• 2:23:01
  Speaker 2: should be something that should really be investigatd What is
• 2:23:04
  Speaker 2: causing that? You know? I don't know. I mean, if
• 2:23:07
  Speaker 2: you maybe there's a link between childhood vaccines and colon cancer,
• 2:23:10
  Speaker 2: I don't know, but I want something that's real and
• 2:23:15
  Speaker 2: then people are studying that. People are trying to figure
• 2:23:19
  Speaker 2: out what's causing the colon cancer in young people, much
• 2:23:22
  Speaker 2: higher rates of colon cancer and young people in the past.
• 2:23:24
  Speaker 2: What's causing that? What do we do about that? So
• 2:23:31
  Speaker 2: you know, again, all the doctors I know, not all
• 2:23:34
  Speaker 2: the doctors. I know a couple of doctors who agree
• 2:23:37
  Speaker 2: with you, but almost all the doctors I know, well
• 2:23:40
  Speaker 2: of a ninety percent of the doctors I know, don't
• 2:23:44
  Speaker 2: see this, and they study this stuff. This is what
• 2:23:49
  Speaker 2: they do. No, Noah. What do you think about the
• 2:23:56
  Speaker 2: morality of commodity traders trading with adversaries of the US
• 2:24:02
  Speaker 2: who were sanctioned and helping those countries get around the sanctions. Yeah,
• 2:24:07
  Speaker 2: I mean, I think that's horrible. Commodity traders who trade
• 2:24:11
  Speaker 2: with sanctioned individuals who are clearly enemies of the United States,
• 2:24:17
  Speaker 2: you know, their penalties for that. They're breaking the law,
• 2:24:19
  Speaker 2: and it's morally wrong. It's morally wrong. Now, you know,
• 2:24:24
  Speaker 2: assuming assuming these are real enemies of the United States.
• 2:24:28
  Speaker 2: But yeah, if they're facilitating trade with India, with Iran,
• 2:24:33
  Speaker 2: or with Russia, that is against their self interest because
• 2:24:39
  Speaker 2: it undermines the security of their own country where they live,
• 2:24:43
  Speaker 2: and therefore it's against their self interest and it's morally wrong.
• 2:24:48
  Speaker 2: It's also illegal. Author You mentioned most of the deregulation
• 2:24:52
  Speaker 2: took place under Jimmy Carter. What did Reagan deregulate of
• 2:24:55
  Speaker 2: any significance. I think mostly what Reagan did was a
• 2:25:03
  Speaker 2: little bit like what Trump is doing. Rained in the
• 2:25:06
  Speaker 2: regulators and changed the attitude. And with Reagan it lasted.
• 2:25:11
  Speaker 2: It lasted, at least until Obama. He changed the attitude
• 2:25:17
  Speaker 2: of regulators. He changed their attitude to woods being in
• 2:25:22
  Speaker 2: most cases the exception is going after Wall Street, but
• 2:25:27
  Speaker 2: in most cases to a much more hands off approach.
• 2:25:31
  Speaker 2: So it was the so much that he passed bills.
• 2:25:33
  Speaker 2: That was Jimmy Carter. That was great success of Jimmy Carter,
• 2:25:36
  Speaker 2: that got rid of whole regulations. It was more the
• 2:25:41
  Speaker 2: changing the atmosphere, changing the attitude of the regulatory agencies,
• 2:25:46
  Speaker 2: and that impacted, you know. He added more deregulation of
• 2:25:51
  Speaker 2: railroads and trucking and transportation, generally airlines, some finance, although
• 2:25:59
  Speaker 2: they also went pretty hard on Wall Street in New
• 2:26:02
  Speaker 2: York through the Justice Department. Yeah, I don't have a
• 2:26:08
  Speaker 2: list in front of me, but it's mainly raining. Some
• 2:26:11
  Speaker 2: of it in anti trust. They changed the anti trust
• 2:26:13
  Speaker 2: doctrine under Trump, where they went after fewer cases and
• 2:26:19
  Speaker 2: under much more stringent conditions. If you will, Elysses, what
• 2:26:31
  Speaker 2: would the S and P five vend look like in
• 2:26:33
  Speaker 2: a purely capitalist system? What did it constantly go up?
• 2:26:37
  Speaker 2: And if it didn't, what would explain drops? Well, Look,
• 2:26:42
  Speaker 2: the SMP five vender is an index of five hundred companies.
• 2:26:45
  Speaker 2: Some of those companies would be successful, some of it
• 2:26:48
  Speaker 2: were not. Given that the economy would be constantly expanding
• 2:26:53
  Speaker 2: and growing, the S ANDB five would mostly go up,
• 2:27:00
  Speaker 2: maybe not go up quite as much as it goes
• 2:27:02
  Speaker 2: up today because it goes up today, possibly because of inflation,
• 2:27:05
  Speaker 2: monetary inflation, but it would still go up, you know,
• 2:27:09
  Speaker 2: less than what it does now. In an enomenal terms.
• 2:27:16
  Speaker 2: The thing that would make it go down would be
• 2:27:20
  Speaker 2: farm policy shocks, wars, invasions, trade blockages, other things that
• 2:27:29
  Speaker 2: would hurt the economy. Other things that might made or
• 2:27:31
  Speaker 2: go down is dramatic technology shocks. They could be periods
• 2:27:40
  Speaker 2: of overinvestment like there was in dot coms, or over
• 2:27:42
  Speaker 2: investments like they were in railroads in the old days
• 2:27:45
  Speaker 2: they could cause, or in automobiles that could cause a
• 2:27:50
  Speaker 2: period of realignment with some companies were in bankrupt. I
• 2:27:55
  Speaker 2: don't know if the whole less and P would go down,
• 2:27:57
  Speaker 2: but maybe a big technology shock like AI might cause
• 2:28:01
  Speaker 2: it to go down as some companies decline and other
• 2:28:04
  Speaker 2: companies rise and the index has to be readjusted. But
• 2:28:08
  Speaker 2: basically it would be pretty upward direction. All right, guys,
• 2:28:16
  Speaker 2: thank you really appreciate it. IM not sure what to
• 2:28:19
  Speaker 2: tell you about future shows over the next couple of
• 2:28:22
  Speaker 2: weeks because I'm traveling so much, but they probably Yeah,
• 2:28:27
  Speaker 2: I'm pretty sure there won't be a show tomorrow, and
• 2:28:31
  Speaker 2: then you know, maybe Wednesday there'll be a show, will
• 2:28:34
  Speaker 2: probably and if it is, it'll be late in the evening.
• 2:28:40
  Speaker 2: Maybe Thursday. Nothing, Friday, nothing, Saturday, nothing, Sunday, nothing, Monday, nothing, Tuesday.
• 2:28:50
  Speaker 2: Show on Wednesday, maybe on Thursday. And then I'm flying again.
• 2:28:55
  Speaker 2: So once I get to Lisbon, which is basically in
• 2:29:00
  Speaker 2: the first of August, I think then we'll start getting
• 2:29:03
  Speaker 2: into a schedule and it'll be more routine. But the
• 2:29:06
  Speaker 2: next two weeks gonna be really tough on programming. I
• 2:29:11
  Speaker 2: will do what I can. I'll try to sneak in
• 2:29:13
  Speaker 2: a few shows here and there, but it's going to
• 2:29:15
  Speaker 2: be difficult. If my courses at Peterson Academy are going
• 2:29:19
  Speaker 2: really really well, and I don't have to do that
• 2:29:22
  Speaker 2: much prep. Then maybe I can do it a show
• 2:29:26
  Speaker 2: after them, but I'm also teaching four hours straight, so
• 2:29:29
  Speaker 2: I'm not sure I'll have the energy to do a show.
• 2:29:31
  Speaker 2: So anyway, don't I know you're gonna go through withdraw.
• 2:29:35
  Speaker 2: But over the next week, really the whole week, don't
• 2:29:39
  Speaker 2: expect weekend a day. Maybe, don't expect shows. Andrew has
• 2:29:43
  Speaker 2: a last minute question. Rand, when asked if her disbelief
• 2:29:48
  Speaker 2: in religion meant that she doesn't acknowledge mysteries, said, I
• 2:29:53
  Speaker 2: don't think mysteries are a licensed to invents. I don't
• 2:29:57
  Speaker 2: think mysteries are licensed to invent fans. Fantasies can also
• 2:30:02
  Speaker 2: apply to anti vaccine theories. Yes, I think that's absolutely right.
• 2:30:06
  Speaker 2: It's a great way to put it. I don't think
• 2:30:08
  Speaker 2: mysteries are licensed to invent fantasies. And this is what
• 2:30:12
  Speaker 2: God has always been, the explanation for all the mysteries.
• 2:30:15
  Speaker 2: That we have a fantasy, explanation for the mysteries for
• 2:30:19
  Speaker 2: the things we can't explain, for the things we don't
• 2:30:21
  Speaker 2: yet know. Thank you, everybody see you when I see you,
• 2:30:27
  Speaker 2: not sure exactly, but have a great week without me.