Don't radical fundamental principles read the national self interest and individual rights. This is
your book show. Oh right, everybody, welcome to your own book show,
Part two, Part two. I am back. I after a WiFi
outage. We are back. Everything is good. WI Fi is good.
I think we're all set. Yeah, a little crisis. This is what
happens when you travel. This is the way it rolls. I guess this
doesn't work. God, all right, sorry, I have to I have
to do something here quickly. Another little snaffho, what's that? Let me
just get this done. Shouldn't take long? Well, as they say,
all right, So we talked about we talked about altruism in FIGN policy in
part one, which was earlier. We're going to talk about the effects of
globalization today on inequality. I found this really interesting story in The Economist saying
something that I've been saying for a long long time, and now there's kind
of empirical evidence that I was right. I love when that happens. It's
really, really really cool when that happens, particularly given you know, let's
say it's it's kind of a mainstream publication The Economist, not exactly pro me
but it is. It is once. Let me just do this, deletete
upload that later. We can close that, all right? So well,
there were up, so basically you know what is that is there? Uh?
Can you guys? Are you seeing a weird picture of pictures frozen again?
Oh god? What the hell is going on? Frozen with a sharp
yellow something other? No? No, all right, m frozen frozen there
as well? All right, maybe the outage in the outage is not over?
Uh, alright, guys, I think I'm gonna give up for the
night. This is ridiculous. Is what is the sound like? Can you
guys? Can you guys, do you guys hear the sound? Pictures frozen?
Screen is frozen? Audio is perfect? Um, yeah, right,
let's let's uh, let's do that if you can, if we can hear
me, let's just do Let's just to sound and forget about the video,
all right. So I came across this article an economist. The title of
the article is globalization may not have increased in income inequality after all for well
over ten years. Really, it's it's not twelve thirteen years. Since the
financial crisis of the late two thousands, there's been the story in the world
that we live at a time of maxed out inequality. You know, this
is caused by capitalism, it's caused by neoliberalism, it's caused by so called
free markets. And what we have is this systemic, real problematic inequality in
the United States, but really globally, and the globalization has made has basically
made the rich, particularly the one percent, much much much richer, while
working less people have stagnated, and indeed the poor have gotten poor or stagnated,
so the gap between them has just exploded. Now I've given talks about
why in a free market, granted we don't live in one, one shouldn't
even care about inequality, inequalities irrelevant, But of us have said that I
am very suspicious of the data. You know, every time I look at
the data, that's not what I see. It's also true that when a
lot of this, a lot of this thinking about inequality as a consequence of
a book written by Thomas Piketty and work that Piquetti and others have done on
inequality, it seems suspect to me from the beginning because Piquetti, both his
theoretical model and just his whole approach was philosophically corrupt, and then publications like
The Financial Times and others found problems with the data, kind of creative manipulation
of the data, let's call it that. But nobody questioned. In spite
of that, there were questions about the data, questions about the methodology,
very very few questions. People questioned. The ultimate result, it was basically
taken as a truth, a truth that they're just accepted on faith, almost
on faith, based on Piquetti's book, based on the data available, which
was very questionable, and just this became the story. And you know,
I wrote my book Equal Is Unfair as a response to that story to try
to say, wait a minute, no, that that's not what's going on,
and this is just this is just not true, right, this is
just not true and the and you know, and that's that was a big
motivation behind for writing Equal Is Unfair. You know, the bigger issue was
Jennifer reminds me that we published that book eight years ago this month. A
big part of that was not primarily that know, the story's wrong, although
we did say that the primary motivation was the story's irrelevant. The inequality is
not the issue. Inequality is not the problem. If there's a problem in
the US economy's lack of freedom. It's not inequality. Inequality explode during the
nineteenth century, and that was all good. That the whole issue of inequality,
the whole framing of the issue as inequality, the whole obsession with inequality
was wrong and and philosophically corrupted and corrupted by you know, by envy,
by altruism, by egalitarianism, by the notion that somehow things should be equal,
somehow we should all be the same, somehow the wealth should be equally
distributed in the world out there, you know, and the the and you
know, that was that was the that was the that was the story.
And you know, so we made a philosophical case, we made a moral
case, and and you know, we try to we try to basically change
people's attitude towards the issue of inequality and try to promote the idea that that
they should stop thinking about it, they should stop obsessing about it, and
that it really wasn't an issue. It really wasn't an issue. And now
the economist is saying, just empirically, just as the data, globalization did
not increase inequality. And of course this all lines up with the story I
told you last time. I think it was last night. Maybe it was
a few days ago. I can't remember about China right, about the fact
that Chinese manufacturing Chinese cheap goods, This wasn't yesterday, it was It was
the last show I did from home in Puerto Rico. The Chinese manufacturing Chinese
cheap products were not a detriment to America, but indeed were good for America.
That they increased our wealth, that they increased the quality of life and
stand of living, particularly for the for the poor and the middle class.
And indeed that everybody benefited from globalization. Everybody benefited from the from these cheap
goods that the Chinese sent to the United States. I know there were people
in the chat that disagreed, But the economists is saying, it turns out
that if we need to take into account everything, and you adjust the numbers
and you look at it properly and you're not biased for the soophically like Piquetti
was, that the reality is that inequality in the United States actually shrunk.
Now, what the economist says is they didn't look at the one percent.
It's probably true that the one percent wealth exploded. They looked at the ten
percent and the difference between the ten top ten percent and the bottom and the
bottom actually shrunk, and it makes sense. Globalization actually makes things more efficient,
it reduces the costs, It raises productivity globally, but it also by
in a sense, getting the United States to focus on where it has its
comparative advantage, raises productivity, raises wages, raises wealth creation in the United
States and everybody everywhere where the trade is going on. So it's great to
see, it's great to see. It's great, great to see confirmation.
And you know, the sad thing is, the tragic thing is that it
doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter how much I say,
it doesn't matter how many economists say, it doesn't matter that pretty much every
economist really understands the principle of globalization, of free trade and why they're helpful.
It doesn't matter. If we rewrite the history and see that, and
you can see from that history that yes, globalization is beneficial and helpful.
Our politicians in our political class is not interested in that story. That story
actually reduces their power if they come out and say, yes, globalization.
Turns out globalization is good, was good. We should strive for free trade.
Well, that means that markets are good. Free markets are good.
Maybe we should deregulate, Maybe we should lower taxes, Maybe we should open
up our markets. Maybe we should lower tariffs to zero. And guess what
that means. Less power to the politicians in Washington. They have every incentive
in the world to tell us the globalization is bad for us, and they
can manage the economy better. They will do a good job. And in
that sense, God, it doesn't matter who wins the election. Indeed,
in this sense, Trump is worse than Biden. Biden has kept all of
Trump's tariffs, and it probably instituted a few of his own. But Trump
is not committed to ten percent tariffs on all goods imported into the United States.
Basically, expect the ten percent increase in your taxes, a ten percent
increase in the cost of all the goods that you put us. It'll make
American industry less productive, it will make American industry less competitive, It'll make
your wages ultimately go down. Trump is also committed to a sixty percent tariff
on Chinese goods. Why not just embargo China if you think it's an enemy,
But a sixty percent tariff means that China will raise its tariffs. It
means that forget about agricultural goods selling into China, forget American exports of Caterpillar
and other companies into China. You're gonna corner China into potentially into war by
devastating or by eliminating their ability to trade with US, and you're gonna cripple
the American economy. You're going to increase costs dramatically in the US economy,
and by doing so, people will lose their jobs and the economy will suffer
significantly. I mean, the funny thing is that he could do all this
and yet two of his presidency, and by the time he's y, you
know, out of the presidency, if he ever leaves, the economy might
be fine. The consequence of all this might be longer term. Indeed,
the consequence of the tariffs that Trump passed in his first term are still being
felt today and have played out exactly how you'd expect. Losses of jobs,
loss of wealth creation and creating industries in the United States that are less productive,
less efficient, less competitive. And that's gonna play out over the next
decade, two decades, three decades. Trump won't be remembered as the cause
except by a few economic historians, and nobody pays attention to us or to
them. I'm not an economic historian. So in spite of the fact the
globalization is good for us, it's good for the people selling us stuff.
Trade, as we know, and maybe somebody can teach Trump, but I
doubt I doubt they will be able to Trade is win win, So when
we benefit, they benefit. When they benefit, we benefit. And trade
does not create distortions in our economy. Quite the opposite. It creates great
efficiency, greater productivity, and greater wealth creation. And that great efficiency,
greater productivity, greater wealth creation is something that shockingly that if you understand capitalism,
unsurprisingly, is something that everybody benefits from. And the latest studies that
are published in academic journals where they've looked at the statistics, they've looked at
the empirics, and they seem legit. The latest studies show that all the
stories telling us about working class stagnation, all the stories he's telling us about
wage income, wealth stagnation and inequality explosion all wrong. This economy has done
better than people expected, indeed much better than people expected. The working class
in America have done fine in spite of how they feel, and inequality is
actually not grown in spite of how people feel, and in spite of the
stories they have been told and that they tell themselves. And this is something
it's hard to convince people. It's like telling somebody, you know, New
York today, as bad as you hear it is, is like a gazillion
time safer than it was in the nineteen eighties and early nineties. It's a
lot cleaner and a lot nicer, and a lot everything than it was in
the nineteen seventies. New York, as bad as it is, as blue
as it is, as overflowing as it is with immigrants, is by every
dimension of well being, better than it was in the distant past. But
that's not how we remember the past. And statistics data, actual facts,
motor rates, violent crime rates, things like that. Nobody kids, nobody
kids. The primary focus is on demonizing the present and a longing for a
for a mythical past that didn't really exist, where everything was amazing, amazing.
Globalization leads to job outsourcing, absolutely, and the g leads to even
more job creation locally. That's the reality. Look at how many people today
are employed in the United States. Look at how many people employed in the
United States today, many many, many, many many more people that were
employed forty years ago. The number of jobs in the United States is dramatically
higher than it was forty years ago. We've got a growing population, We've
got the lowest unemployment rate in American history. Pretty much women are working,
not quite at the rates they were working, you know, just before the
financial crisis, but certainly at the rates that they were working in the nineteen
seventies and eighties, before globalization and jobs. More jobs that were lost have
been created. That's cap that's how markets work. And you can say,
but they don't make it as much money as they used to, That's just
not true. They make much more. You can't survive on one income,
That's just not true. You can. The data is unequivocal. Wages,
wealth, income has gone up. Standard living, quality of life. How
much time at work you have to spend to buy groceries, how much time
at work you have to spend to buy electricity, all gone down. The
only thing the only things that have really gone up in price a college education
and college education and the sorry college education. Housing and what is the healthcare,
all three regulated by the government. Of course, money supply has gone
up as well. Your income has gone up a lot more than the money
supply. I mean it's not even close, not even close. You want
to use M two, you want to use M one, you want to
use whatever measure you want. You want to use gold, gold prices,
your wages, your income or the average wages, the average income, the
mean income, the mean ages, whatever measure you want, have gone up
faster than the money supply. So when I tell you incomes have gone up,
I mean incomes have gone up in real terms in terms of what matters,
purchasing power. That's what matters. What matters for you in terms of
your stand of living, quality of life is the purchasing power of your money.
And in terms of purchasing power of your money, you are far better
off today because of globalization than you were back in the seventies and eighties before
globalization. So you can you can challenge these facts. You can pretend that
they don't exist. You can feel that they're wrong. You can buy into
the Trump and right wing rhetoric and the left wing rhetoric. I mean,
the Republicans used to be the optimist. Republicans used to be the people who
said, no, no, life's pretty good, what are you talking about.
The economy is doing pretty well. They bought into the entire left wing
story. Trump did that right the end of America, the decay of America,
you know, or was it something in the streets of America, carnage
in the streets of America? Pretty much. He said that the safest year
probably in American history in terms of murder and violent crime. But you would
rather believe Trump than believe the data. You would rather trust your emotions than
trust the facts. And that's the problem in America today. You know,
the problem in America today is that Americans have lost sight of reality and are
focused today purely on emotion, purely in emotion, and making America great again
when you don't know what America is is not optimistic, it's just delusional.
And the reality is that Trump didn't make America great again. He didn't do
anything, anything sustainable, anything permanent, anything that would make America great again.
Not a thing. I mean, yeah, in terms of making America
great again, maybe lowering the corporate tax, but even that kind of pretty
small when you think about making America great again. Imagine whatever making America great
again agenda would really be, like, these people are not about making America
great again. The only tax cut that was meaningful that Trump did was a
corporate tax rate, and that was meaningful and that was important, and that
was really really good. Best thing he did probably altho there were no real
tax cuts, and indeed his tariffs wiped out any benefit that the tax cuts
provided. The thing is freezing again, huh. All right, let's see,
let's fix that. Well, keep playing with it until we get this
interesting, interesting, interesting, interesting. Alright, this thing that I have
sucks. I think that's a technical term. All right. I think it's
unfrozen for a little while. We'll see how long it lasts. All right.
I have a piece of equipment, if anybody knows, I have a
cam Link four K cam link, which converts the camera video into streamable video.
And it's brand new. Cam Link is the recommended brand, it's the
recommended thing to convert video. And it heats up, it heats up,
and when it heats up, it feezes the picture. And that's what happened
in the last two times, not what originally happened with the bandwidth, but
it just happened. That's what's feeding the picture now, and that's it's just
ridiculous. It's a it's a brand new piece of equipment. This is what
its function is. It's actually, you know, doing what it's supposed to
do. It's the do It's the do It's the do It's the do It's
the do It's the do It's the do It's the do It's the do It's
the do It's. The do It's the do It's. The do It's the
do It's the do It's. The do It's the do It's the do It's
the do It's the do It's the do It's the do It's the do It's
the do It's the do It's the do It's the do It's. The do
It's the do It's the do It's the do It's the do It's. The
do It's. The do It's the do It's. The do It's. The
do It's. The do It's. The do It's. The do It's the
do It's. The do It's. The do It's. The do It's.
The do It's. The do It's. The do It's. The do It's
the do It's the do It's the do It's the do It's the do It's
the do It's. The do It's the do It's the do It's the do
It's the do It's. The do It's. The do It's the do It's.
The do It's. The do It's. The do It's the do It's.
The do It's the do It's the do it's the do It's the do
It's the do It's the do It's the do It's the do It's the do
It's the which to do? Alright? One? Two three, h all
right, I don't know. This strikes me as a lot of drama.
Uh. And is the video working or is the video frozen as well?
Video working and audio or just audio just video or just something? What is
let me know what is going on? All right? Testing one, two,
three, frozen picture with looping wood that was before Now everything works all
good? Now, all right, all right, So anyway, that's the
story of inequality. It is the story of globalization, at least a bit
of the story. Let's move on. God, you know this show needs
to end. But I do have a lot of super chet I do have
a bunch of superchet questions from the previous show. I see nobody this show
has done any any superchech questions. You guys are abandoning me and punishing me
for the for the lack of the lack of I don't know good tech supports.
I guess all right, help a Campbell. Do you think a few
hundred years from now, when objectivism is the norm, they will look back
at our time and realize, I'm in miss something in her method on how
to change a culture. That's why our movement is so slow. I don't
know that im Rand said a lot about the method of how to change a
culture. I mean, she says very little about it. She was not
an advocate and an objectivist movement, so maybe to that extent she chimed in,
but but really she didn't talk about about how to change your culture She
talked about ideas, ideas shape the world, and that's but in terms of
what programs to do, what kind of activities to do, all she really
said is speak out, speak out, don't let injustice pass without speaking out,
don't let the bad guys win without you fighting back, and write speak
That's really the only advice she gave us. Now, when we look back
at some point and realize I miss something, I'll just ask the general question.
Sure, I mean she's not omniscient and omnipotent. She did, you
know, is not infallible and know everything, So you know, will one
day some genius be able to find something we could have done better? Sure?
What implication that has for cultural change? I don't know. And why
our movement is moving so slow I don't think is a mystery at all.
But it's frustrating. But it's not a mystery, and that is that our
ideas are radical. Ideas are radical radical. Somebody's asking what cam I use?
I use a Sony, a Sony something one hundred with a z's camera
with a ZS lens, So Sony one hundred. It's a compact camera,
very good compact camera. That is the cam I use that's what I use
on the road. It's not what I use at home. At home,
I use a bigger camera, Sony Alpha six six. All right, you
know I have to comment on Ken just because Ken, you don't know what
you're talking about about. I mean, that's just a fact, that's just
generally true. But on globalization, globalization is the only application for trade the
objectives and can stand by. Indeed, there's too little globalization. What should
it be happening is the United States is and should implement zero tariffs across all
products. It should lower taxes on trade to zero. Using cosion in order
to restrict trade using cosion in order to manipulate trade using cosion, or to
stop me from buying something from somebody in Thailand is a violation of rights.
So the only position anybody who's an advocate of free markets can take, anybody
who wants to move in the direction of free markets is zero tariffs in the
United States. And the result of zero tariffs in the United States is going
to be globalization because other people can make stuff better than we can. In
any other position, any position that does not involve basically zero tabs is an
anti freedom position. It's an anti individual rights position. It's an anti I
think, an anti objectivist position. Now again, if there's an enemy,
then have an embargo. But tariffs are never legitimate, never legitimate, not
if you understand objectivism, not if you understand individual rights, not if you
understand what freedom actually means. So the fact that China subsidizes their goods and
they're not playing fair is not relevant to this discussion. The fact that they're
subsidized, okay, they subsidize. Who's going to suffer from Chinese subsidies to
their companies Chinese? The Chinese are wasting their money, The Chinese are inefficient,
the Chinese are unproductive. To deny me the ability to benefit from that
is a violation of my rights. Now you could argue but the Chinese im
all fine, But then I have to make the decision as an individual objectivism
right, as an individual about who to trade with and who not a trade
with it. And it could be completely legitimate for an individual to say I'm
not buying anything from China because China it is a bad country. I don't
like them. Great, you have every model right to do that, the
government does not have any right to impose that on you unless the government declares
China as an enemy, and then you don't put tariffs on them, then
you don't allow any trade with them, you embargo them completely. This is
the way these people think. I mean, I've got to do this.
Sorry, I know I shouldn't interact with the chap, but you got to
do this because you got to get the way that people think. He says
tarifs are bad, which is inconsistent with what he said before when he said
globalization is bad. Tarifs are bad, but not as bad as what Biden
did when energy with energy. The dislocation caused by TAOS is difficult to know.
Now we know exactly what the dislocation of tariffs is. The studies are
being published already. The damage done by Trump tariffs is well documented. Indeed,
they've actually boiled it down to a number in terms of the damage it's
done to the US economy. So the economic literature is pretty clear and very
explicit and very definitive about the damage the tariffs are done. But more important
to this watch how they change the subject. Right I contradicted Ken on the
tariffs? He says, yeah, I guess I guess your own right on
tariffs. But Biden's worse, Like, who was talking about Biden? Who
cares about Biden? Why is Biden relevant to anything? So I didn't talk
about Biden. I just talked about globalization. Globalization is good, right,
not relevant to Trump, not relevant to Biden. Globalization is good. Biden
has kept all of Trump's tariffs. Is just as bad on tariffs. But
and let's think about what Biden's done with energy, since Ken is bringing this
up, and this is the you know, the stunning you know literally,
you know, cognitive challenges here, right, So first irrelevant, right,
Biden, Energy, different topic? Why are you switching topics on me when
the topic was tariffs and globalization? Because in their mind, this is the
Trump mindlessness syndrome, Trump mindlessness sympdrome, which people have, even people who
claim they don't like Donald Trump, they have it. And that is Biden
bad Trump, not Biden Trump good. So always shift the conversation to Biden
worse. So, yeah, Trump tariffs probably were bad, but Biden is
worse. Maybe what's the point. Why don't you get on my side and
fight against tariffs and maybe convince Trump and his followers not to have tariffs instead
of jumping on Oh, but it's which is every single Trump support does exactly
the same thing. But but Biden, Trump did this and this and this.
But Biden, come on, people, it's not it. We're not
in a race. We're not talking about voting. We're talking about facts.
We're talking about reality. We're talking about what we I should advocate for.
And you guys are either being dishonest or can't think or both. That's I
mean, that was a great reality. And then what was Ken's original thing
was? You know, globalization is globalism? What the hell is globalism?
Globalism is an anti concept. It's a complete another package deal. It doesn't
mean anything. It means globalization and world government. Nobody really believes in world
government except a few nuts at the World Economic Phone, right all, so
all you've got left is globalization criticizing it. Globalism is an anti concept.
It is a classic definition of an anti concept. It means nothing. Globalization
is good will government bad. Put them in the same concept. What do
you get an anti concept, A package deal? That's what globalism is.
Bet you know, keep doing what you're doing, Keep doing what you're doing,
keep keep keep deceiving, lying, manipulating it. Just to get Biden
out of his office just to let Trump win anything is okay. We're not
objective as to anymore. We're progress us now anything we say, the only
dimension that matters is getting Biden out of office. WELLIFO one hope Trump loses,
and I've said that many times. I think he's gonna win though,
which is tragic for me, but there you go. Well, actually,
it'll be a lot of fun if he wins, because we'll have a lot
to talk about, lots of stuff to talk about, all right, Michael
asks a negative view of whom humanity. Humanity can become a rationale for regulation,
and as everyone hates and distrusts one another more and more, they'll vote
to regulate and knock each other down more and more until me Lay saves the
world. Yes, I mean, well, other than Melia saving the world,
which I think he won't. I think he's he's anyway, we'll get
to there another time. But yeah, And the negative view of humanity is
a consequence of altruism. You don't think about the fact that if I have
to sacrifice for you, to have to sacrifice for humanity, I don't.
I don't like people. I make me worse off through my sacrifice. So
the more altruism we have, the more resentment you have, the more hate
and distrust you have, the more expect that to sacrifice the other people.
The more I resent them, the more I don't trust them, the more
I hate them. Therefore, the more regulations they will be, and the
more I think, oh, they're deceiving me. They're cooks, They're bad,
and I need regulations in order to control them. Altruism is the source
of the regulatory state. Altruism is the source of the welfare state. Altruism
is worth killing this world, killing this culture. It's it said, seed
money for you on's mobile equipment upgrade. God, I mean, it's not
even an issue of money. It's primarily in issue of space and getting equipment
that fits into a travel bag and everything. But it's finding equipment you can
trust. I mean again, I bought this. It's top of the line,
it's number one rated, a converted thing, and as you saw,
it kept freezing. I don't know. I have to surround it with ice
so it doesn't it doesn't get hot. I mean, it's it gets it's
working. It's getting hot from working. But that's its function. So I
don't understand, and unless these things are designed for short videos are off of
long videos. I just don't get it. But yeah, I will buy
a more expensive, different one that is more bulky and bigger and more difficult
to carry around. But so be it. We can't have this fleezing all
the time. So when I get back home before Latin America trip, I'll
have to buy a new video converter. All right, let's see. Not
a lot of super chats in the second session. I don't know. We
got all the anti uron books show people here dominating, dominating the viewership.
All right, Oh, but we got good numbers, a lot of people
watching live. That's good, all right, Neil Cohn. Since the US
military has a recruitment crisis, Yeah, no kidding, what do you think
about establishing US fallen legion made on the model of the French farm Legion?
No, no, no, why, I mean solved the recruiting problem.
And the recruiting problem is simple to solve. Stop sending kids, Stop sending
American troops to fight for things that either I never specified, ill defined,
and that do not promote American interests. Stop sending them with rules of engagement
that basically get them killed. I mean, if you came to me and
asked me, should I volunteer and go serve in the US military today,
I would say no, I'd say you're crazy. The military today, which
is focused on civilian casualties of the enemy more than in your life. I
wouldn't volunteer for that kind of army. But if the army fixed itself and
only engaged in wars, the wars of self defense, and stop worrying about
enemy casualties and worried about victory instead, then absolutely serving in the military is
rational and makes sense for an American. So that's what needs to be solved,
not the fallign legion, you know, And what difference does it make
if the foreigners, if you still are not dedicated to victory. So the
real problem with America, the real problem with America is it's foreign policy,
not not you know, this particular crisis of that particular crisis. So you
don't solve that by just bringing in foreign mercenaries. Michael, who's he who
has a why to live? Can bear almost anyhow, Yeah, I think
that's right. The why is what's important. Why do you want to live?
In other words, purpose meaning purpose is the key to having a good
life. You have that purpose in life. And if you have purpose in
life, yes you can. You can sustain almost anything. Liam. There
are a lot of useful idiots at the Cause Against Civilization. Yeah, some
of them are even here on the chat. James, would you say restaurants
and street food are better in London than New York City? You know,
I don't know. I have to admit I've probably eaten more. I've probably
eaten moored restaurants of my choosing in London than in New York City. So
London, I usually am here alone and I usually get to choose what restaurants
to go to. And in New York City it's usually a business dinner or
something like that. And then yeah, you get great steakhouses and you get
but the standard American food. There are great restaurants in New York. But
in terms of variety and diversity, I think London's better. I think the
food scene in London. Now, I don't know about street food. I'm
not big on street food, but in terms of restaur I think the restaurants
are better in London. I mean, You've got a two star michelan African
restaurant in London, I don't know that there's another two star Micheline African restaurant
anywhere in the world. And then you've got a one star Michelin rest African
restaurant, both a phenomenal, right, just phenomenal. You don't have that
anyway. You have a two star a Chinese restaurant in London. I don't
know where else there's a two star Chinese restaurant. I don't know if there's
one in New York. And then you've got then you've got a bunch of
just good restaurants that are not I think right now, I follow this list
the top fifty restaurants in the world. I think right now they're more London
restaurants in the top fifty than New York. I think even if you go
to the top hundred, I think they're more in London than New York.
So I would have to say right now, and that doesn't even include all
the little places that don't have Micheland stars are not listed. But it's just
phenomenal food. Now again, that exists in New York, but I have
a sense that it's even more so in London. And a lot of that
is because of something some of you dislike and a lot of that is because
of immigrants. The variety of immigrants, a variety of places that are coming
from has enhanced the food seene in London dramatically. So, as I said,
you get great African restaurants. There's a big immigration immigrant population from Western
Africa in London, a lot of Nigerians, but from other parts of Africa
as well, but typically West Africa, not East Africa. And then you've
got obviously be at least food which is phenomenal, but a lot of Asian
food. I mean, my hotel here is right in Chinatown and just with
inner radius of five minute walk, they are probably hundreds of restaurants, every
type of every type of Asian food, mamagine, and most of them really
really good. Then they's Spanish restaurants, French restaurants, it's just everything.
And as I said yesterday, I think even British food has gotten better.
Clock is it time to admit that Goop has morphed into a quasi Nazi party.
No, I think that is that it's still an exaggeration. I don't
think it's quite there. It's certainly moving in that direction, but it's not
quite there. I think that the goop is is morphing into fascist party,
but so is the Democratic Party. I think both parties ultimately a fascist it's
just different orientations. But no, Nazis were bad in a unique They were
uniquely evil in a way that I know. I don't think the Republican Party
has morphed into it yet, and I don't know that it will. Maybe
part of the reason is we just don't have the kind of charismatical leader that
Hitler was in America yet, who found a way to unify Germany around the
cause. In the United States seems more fragmented than ever because of the leaders
not unified around some dictator. Uh uheren Son greeting from Germany. Thank you
for all your content. Thanks for watching from Germany. Really really appreciate it.
I'm glad you're enjoying the content. All right, guys, we're almost
out of super chat questions, so fear fee to ask anything you want.
If you're interested in asking, now's the time, Clark says Tucker. Casson
reminds me a lot of Richard Spencer, same Haycotts, same dress. They
both inherited hundreds of millions of dollars from a wasp family. I didn't know
that about Richard Spencer and seek to be white nationalist philosopher Kings. Yeah,
I mean Richard Spencer's nastier and more evil and more explicitly racist. Tucker Cousen
is much if I don't know how racist he really is. I think Tucker
Coulson is a is secondhanded and seeks popularity and knows what his audience is looking
for and feeds the audience what they want. I don't think I think Richardspense
is an ideologue. I don't think Tucker Coulson is. I don't think he's
a I think he wants power. I think he wants popularity. And I
think he's pretty stupid. I mean, I thought once he was smart,
but he've become stupid. Or maybe it's an act, you know, because
because his audience is stupid, that he's trying to try to capture the audience
by doing stupid things. I mean, what he did in Moscow with the
fast food chain, what he did in Moscow with the grocery store is stupid.
It doesn't take much to figure out that you should think about exchange your
age. You can think about the percentage of how much people spend on their
food of their income that they spend on food that you're buying in a grocery
store. That's particularly nice because you're in a rich neighborhood. So is he
dishonest? And yeah, he's dishonest, and dishonesty makes you stupid. Tucker
Coust is a great example of that, So have you. Tuk Across as
a power lust is not quite yet on the white nationalist side, although he's
obviously implicitly supporting that position. Robert Spencer is Robert Richard Spencer. Sorry,
Richard Spencer is out and out a white nationalist. He's out there. He
says it, he supports it, he writes about it. He's not embarrassed
by it. He doesn't retract it. That's who he is. Tucker's not.
Tucker's still playing this game, all right. Paulo says, have you
had pie and mash and jellied eels? No? And I'm not going to.
I mean I've had it in the past, but I don't like British
food. Classic British food is and and pretty disgusting. Um and uh so
so no, m that due to Bunny, the incompetence is becoming next level.
I assume you're talking about me. Well, uh, you know what
can I say? You're still here for some reason. I don't know what
you're doing here. If you think I'm incompetent, Thank you a yell.
Frank Sais Spain soldiers changing their gender for benefits. That takes a pretty sick
mind. Changing their gender. They're claiming to be a different gender, they're
actually having operation, They're mutilating their own bodies for benefits. What exactly is
going on there? I'll have to research that. It sounds sounds a little
radical, other than maybe they're saying, oh, I'm a different gender that
you know, then it's easy to get the benefits by changing that in that
sense. But Talbin says, great point on globalization, trade and right wing
what about ism? All the best, but thank you, really appreciate it.
It's great to know that people are listening. Apaulos says, have you
any stories about visiting London? Now? I said earlier, I think in
the previous show, I said, how normal London looks. It looks like
it looked before COVID. It's packed with people, it's hustling, bustling,
and this perspective of you know, it's overrun by Muslims, and it's unsafe
and it's it's scary. I mean, maybe that's somewhere in the periphery,
and maybe that's on Saturdays or Sundays whenever it is that they protest. Maybe
that's what it's like, you know, it probably is. But I was
pleasantly surprised this evening walking around Soho and walking around the scenter of London by
just how many people are here. I mean literally, it was hard to
squeeze between the crowds and how normal it all looks, and how bustling the
restaurants are, and how many restaurants there are, and just London the way
it was and has been for the last couple of years. So Islam is
a real problem here, and certain parts of the city, you know,
in a sense devastated by this. The weekend protests are horrific and the fact,
I mean, it all boils down ultimately, it really boils down ultimately
to the fact that the police won't buy better laws. There's no rule of
law anymore. And this has always been the case, right, This has
always been the case that if you don't apply the laws to new immigrants,
if you let immigrants get away with bad stuff, then guess what they will
do. They will do bad stuff. They will learn from that that they
don't have to assimilate to the rule of law in the western country. That
they can uh keep the traditions of violence and badly treated women and all of
that and somehow get away with that and there are no consequences to that,
and that the new society that they've got will tolerate that. And that is
a hundred percent the wrong message to send, uh to send people. So,
I mean, London is is y, as I've said many times in
the past, one of my favorite cities in the world. It's it's a
walkable city. You can you can uh y you know, you can't walk
everywhere, but you can walk a big chunks of it. You can take
a u an uber places and they walk there. Every neighborhood is a little
different. It has this beautiful mixture of architecture old and new and and middle.
Uh. Every neighborhood has very much its own characteristics. It's it's similar
in that sense to New York in but in some ways more so actually,
because you know, it's older, so there's more variety. Little alleys in
some places white streets, and other places beautiful parks, beautiful parks, more
parks, and I think any other city I know really really magnificent and yeah,
just a just a fantastic place to visit. I don't know what it's
like to live here. I wouldn't want to drive here, and I'm not
sure I wanted to start a business here, but inters of visiting, yeah,
it's it's fantastic. And I encourage encourage you guys to travel, and
I encourage you guys to to travel all over and make London a part of
those travels. Yea. What do you think of Chagipt's poem writing skills?
I think the mediocre. I mean, I'm not an expert on poetry and
I haven't done a deep dive into Chatchept poetry, but what I've seen is
pretty mediocre. There's no Tennyson, there's no Shakespeare, there's no Milton in
any of those poems. So it's yeah, it's a it's a it's a
pretty it's it's it's really cool. It's really cool. Scotts, has any
news about your April May project yet? No? I mean I have news,
but I'm not telling you. I'm not sharing it with you. Contracts
are being signed, things are ready to go. But I will share information
with you. I will share information with you once once I need to so
on it need to know basis so probably probably early April, probably early April,
because I'll need people who live in the Miami area. I might need
some help from people in Miami. Am all right, Uh, let's see
how projectionist is. Great. Britain more than they should be, significantly more
than they should be, more than they promised they would be. Remember when
Brexit happened. The promise was that they would basically become a free trade island,
that they would sign trade agreements with the rest of the world, which
the EU did not allow them to do. Independently of the EU, they
would have a trade deal with the United States, and they tried. Neither
the Trumpet administration or the Bide administration actually wanted a trade deal with the UK
that freed up trade. They've got trade deals I think it was Australia and
some of all the British old British colonies, but not the United States.
But they lost the free trade deal they had with Europe, which was amazing,
right, And I don't think they've compensated. I don't think they've compensated
for that in any kind of way. So you know, they haven't made
up for the fact that they lost free movement of capital, goods and people.
There's still in spite of the increased immigration in the UK, there's still
a massive shortage of labor here, just like there was in the United States.
And they they used to make it was very easy for Spaniards and Portuguese
and Poles and Ukrainians. Ukrainians less but for for for Poles because Ukraine's are
part of the U, but all the participants in the Shengen, the free
immigration portion of the EU, to come to the UK and to work,
and it was great. It was great for the UK. It was great
for these people and jobs were filled. And now there's massive shortages positions,
and there's still a lot of immigration coming in. It's now immigration places like
Nigeria and Pakistan and India and places like that rather than from Europe. And
I don't think the Brits prefer this immigration now, I have no problem with
it, and but there's but as much as they has been and in spite
of the fact that the UK is in acession, though you can't tell in
London there's still a shortage of labor for places like restaurants and plays like that.
Uh, so you know it's uh, it is clearly, it is.
Clearly protectionism is strong in the UK unfortunately, and there was a movement
right after Brexit to bring about free trade. But I think I think the
the the the right in the UK is basically finished. The Concernedive Party is
going to suffer massive losses at the polls, and the left is the left
is anti trade, and then New Right is anti trade and their old Conservatives
who are pro trade are going to be kicked out. And they've done nothing.
They've done nothing in supportive trade. So I don't think tariffs are terrible
in the UK. I think generally it's relatively open for trade, but it's
far far less than what they promised when they did Brexit, and indeed they've
done nothing that they promised when they left Exit. They said they would deregulate,
they said they would, they said they would, they would increase trade,
they would increase globalization and trade. They said all these things and they
didn't do it. And I think a direct result from that, I mean
literally a direct result from that is recession. The UK economy is not doing
what and that's a direct result from Brexit and a direct result from the fact
that they haven't done the things that they promised they would do. Well,
all good things, we're all good things. That they haven't done the things
that they would do in terms of free trade and in terms of deregulation to
bring it about, to bring about great economic growth. So instead they have
a horrible recession. All right, Lee says, how you're on any ideas
on thought experiments to help sort one's values into hierarchy? Wow, thought experiments?
I mean what you really need to do is introspect, right, and
thought experiments are part of that, can be part of that. But yes,
I mean imagine yourself in different situations, think about what's valuable to you
or not. Make lists of values, Make lists of things that you get
excited about if you're passionate about. Cross reference to those lists with Are these
values pro life? Are they rational? Do they make sense? So don't
just accept something as a value because you quote value it because you won't want
it, But cross references with reason? Right? Is it irrational value for
me to hold? Is it pro life? Is it prolonging my life?
Is it the best use of my time? So emotions are guide to forming
these lists, but they're not a guide for what values you should pursue.
What values you should pursue. It should be a product of your reason.
It should be a product of of you know, figuring out what is consistent
with your life, what is good for your life in the long run.
All right, So I think just imagining yourself in different situations. Imagine you
know, so I want a sports call. So imagine getting a sports call.
What am I to do with it? How is my life going to
change? Is my life dramatically better because I have a sports call? I
want a sports call. It's cool to have a sports call. But is
the coolness come from the joy that you get from driving it? Can you
drive it? Are the roads such that you can actually drive it and get
the enjoyment out of it? Or is the cool come from the way other
people look at you? In the way other people? Well, that's secondhanded.
We don't like second handed values. We don't think they're good for you.
In objectivism, put that one aside. I'll have to deal with I
still have to deal with second handed issues in my life. So it's it's
imagine getting the thing, achieving that value, and then think about think about
all the things that that all the implications of that, and how it impacts
your life and does it further your life. Doesn't make your life better in
any kind of substantive way. Yeah, yeah, I mean, alright,
I'm looking at chat. I I I shouldn't. I shouldn't look at the
chat. Alright, Alright, you guys need some econ lessons and some just
basic lessons about facts. The the the the i UK never had the Euro
even though it was part of the European Union, it had anything with you.
The U is actually really good, you as good for the countries who
use it. It. It's far superior to the local currencies. Most of
the countries they use the Euro to accept the Germans. Almost every other country
has a tendency tained flight if they had their own currency. So, uh,
the the euro's good. The European Union is good. It's just not
as good as it could be. You know, the Euro should be gold
and and the European Union should move towards a a uh uh luzafacapolism and get
rid of all the regulations. But as compared to the alternative. The euro
and the European Union are pretty damn good, and the UK could have had
it better than the European Union, could have left the European Union and and
created something even better. But they didn't. They didn't make anything better.
They made things worse because they basically rejected the one fundamental value of the European
Union is free trade. There are no trade barriers between members of the European
Union, so there's one big trading block, and that in and of itself
is a massive wealth creator, and the UK used to be part of that
and it is no longer. So today between the UK and Europe there are
massive trade barriers, capital barriers and immigration barriers, and that makes the UK
poorer and it makes the EU slightly poor, makes both poor. Now,
the UK could have overcome that by liberalizing its own markets, by getting rid
of all the regulations that the EO imposed on and by getting rid of the
controls, by getting rid of the tariffs with other countries around the world.
But the UK didn't do that. It didn't do that. It didn't get
rid of the regulations and it it it it. It didn't get rid of
the uh tariffs, and as a consequence, the UK is getting poor and
Europe is doing better than the UK. And I think pretty much everybody agrees
that Brexit has been a disaster. If it was up for vote today,
it would fail by a big margin. Big margin. All right, everybody,
thank you. It's getting laid over here. It's already what eleven o'clock.
I'm gonna call it a night. I'll see you all. I don't
think tomorrow, but i'll see you all sometime, maybe from Amsterdam. I'll
do a show from Amsterdam, but if not, i'll see you again in
London next week. Bye, everybody, have a great night.