The radical fundamental principles of freedom, rational, self interest and individual wise.
This is the Yuran Brook show. Oh right, everybody, welcome you on
book Shows show. Thanks for joining me. I know Lanes follows hopefully with
you and you will enjoy just trying to create as much content as I have
as I can before I leave. I'm going I'm gonna be away for almost
four weeks starting tomorrow, so we will do a morning show, but other
than that, I'll be gone for three and a half almost four weeks.
I'll try to do as many shows as I can from the road. But
as you know, if you follow the book show, you know that it's
it's a challenge. Technology is a challenge, and then of course my time
is a challenge, and the time zone difference is a challenge. So shows
in the next three and a half weeks are going to be all over the
place in terms of time zones, because I'm going to be seven hours ahead
of East Coast time starting on Wednesday, and then much of the rest of
the trip, all of the rest of the cheap six hours ahead of East
Coast time. So not going to be easy to find a good time to
deliver these shows. But I will try, and we will do what we
can, and we will keep having fun with your book shows. All right,
So today I want to talk about China. I'm reading I think,
I think you guys know. I read this book called Chip Wars, which
I really liked and I highly recommended. I did a whole show on the
whole issue of Chip Wars, which really focus on on chips and the history
of micro processes and then relating add to the conflict between the United States and
China and their long term prospects for that of course, the use of chips
and weapons systems and the real risk of China having access really because of the
West, because they buy them for the West are the most advanced chip technology
that then they just plug into their smart bombs and missiles and airplanes and everything
else, and weib making we're basically facilitating their super advanced weaponry. Well,
I'm just about to finish. I'm close to finishing another book called Wireless Wars.
So this one is not about chip war. It's not about micro chips,
but it's about it's about wireless technology. And while it's true that neither
the chip war nor the wireless war is really a war, A big chunk
of it is related to national security. A big chunk of the competition conflict
and ultimately the decision making about how governments will respond is a national security issue.
And I think that's the partisue this is not just an issue of straight
trade. This is not a made up national security issue like steal or other
things. Uh. This is potentially, at least potentially a national security issue.
And I talked about why it was a national security issue when it came
to chipwool uh and and let me try to articulate why it's a national security
issue when it comes to wireless, um, when it comes to five G
communication. But at the end of the day, what I really want to
talk about is what do you do about all this? I mean, what
do you do? I mean? One, of course, one answer to
that is we need industrial policy, we need a chip back, we need
the government to invest in in technology, we need to government to invest in
wireless companies, we need to we need we need to bring back and build
in America. And of course I think that's a nonsense. UM. So
we'll talk about what I think should be done about China, about the legitimate
national security threat that is China. So put aside, put aside UH economics
just just for national security, a real objective national security threat, how do
we deal with China? So first, let's let's just set the table in
terms of wireless communication. Wireless communication now UH is ubiquitous. It's everywhere.
It connects um it connects everything. It doesn't just particularly with five G.
It doesn't just connect our phones. It doesn't just connect the Internet for us
to browse through Google. But it connects us to all things. It connects
me to my my, my air conditioning units to set to set the temperature,
it's connected, Census are connected throughout. We basically live in a world
that is connected through kind of five G wireless that from from U product if
from you know, a product, the product sense of the sense of phone
to phone, UH and and and and through the air to you know,
in an expanse of ever expanding universe of smart things that are all connected wirelessly
and and this is great, it's fantastic in five G made all possible,
and it's only going to get better, and it's only going to get more
and they're only going to be more things is connected. One of the challenges,
of course, with with a network like that way, everything's wireless and
everything is connected. Is that means that a lot of things that that have
national security implications, whips would happened. There are also connected, um so
there are missile sites, there are there are a variety of different different military
installations all over the United States that use wireless technologies and they are on the
network. They're connected to everybody else and everything else that is on the network,
and if somebody can break into on any given one point, they potentially
could have access to real national security problems. Now it's not that easy,
of course, to break in, and it's not that easy to have get
access to telecommunication terminals and switches and places where you can hack and access information
that has national security implications. But it would be a lot easier for you
to access that information if the people who built the equipment, the people who
are actually built and installed equipment all around you actually worked potentially for a government
that wanted to hack. And this is actually what has happened in telecommunication.
The number one leading company in the world today in five G communication for a
variety of reasons, we can get into the number one leading telecommunication company in
the world that builds five G telecommunication equipment. Is Huawei. It is a
Chinese company. It is a Chinese company, where there are lots of reasons
to believe, lots of reasons to believe it's a Chinese company with strong ties
and links to the Chinese government. There's also evidence to suggest that Huawei,
when it installs telecommunication equipment all over the world, and it does all over
the world, provides back to access to those that telecommunication equipment to the Chinese
government, and Waiwei today is banned. American companies are banned from from doing
business with Huawei, and there are various restrictions in Huawei installing telecommunication equipment in
the United States and in much of Western Europe because it was discovered and because
you know, it was found out that they were doing exactly that they were
using this equipment in order to provide back channels to Chinese agents, and in
that sense, they were facilitating spying directly on Americans, not through some app
we download that we know the Chinese own, like TikTok and maybe they get
some information about the cat videos that I watch. No, this is telecommunication
equipment, this is the switches, this is the this is the backbone of
the telecommunication infrastructure in the United States through which a lot of sensitive, top
secret information travels. Now, Chinese could just wait until twenty one year olds
publish a lot of the secret information online as they downloaded from from from secure
service. But what the Chinese would really like is direct access to all that
information throughout telecommunication network. And it turns out that way Wei was providing them
exactly that. The various examples of situations, for example, the why we
provided the African Union with all their telecommunication equipment in their headquarters in I think
it was like a baba in Ethiopia, And it turned out that at five
pm every day they would download to a server in Beijing every piece of communication
that it traveled through their equipment during the day. Now, they probably couldn't
do something that explicit with the US. But from what I understand from Wireless
Was, and I'm going to read more about this because I want to be
sure that this is true. For one end, Standford wire was it's very
very difficult to figure out if a piece of equipment, if a piece of
telecommunication equipment has a backdoor, if a piece of telecommunication equipment can be easily
accessed and can be easily hacked. That is that there very few people in
the world who have the capacity and capabilities are being able to actually guarantee that
a piece of equipment. And of course even if you buy one panel or
one box and it's free of any bugs and free of any back those,
do you know that every box that you buy, you know. One of
the reasons that Whyway was trying to in the mid twenty teens trying to sell
Spent on its telecommunication equipment, which at the time was the best in the
world and the cheapest in the world, and Spent turned them down to a
logic tent because they couldn't guarantee the network security. They couldn't guarantee that these
boxes that they were going to buy, this eipment they were going to buy
from Haiwei was not going to be used by the Chinese to spy on Americans.
So there is there is good reason to ban a company that you suspect
and you have evidence of. So it's not an arbitrary suspicion. It's not
just because they're Chinese, but you have actual concrete reasons to believe is providing
information and providing access to telecommunication networks around the world to the Chinese governments and
the US the DAD under Trump, they banned Huawei and then they convinced many
of the US allies in Western Europe to do the same within networks. Remember
Whaiwei has the best five G equipment in the world and the cheapest five G
equipment in the world. And to a large extent, that is a consequence
of American company is getting lazy, American companies not in investing, American companies
making bad decisions, Western companies more broadly, but American companies included. It
is also a consequence of UH such a consequence of bad management, bad investment
um and and that's that is going to happen. It's it's a very similar
story to what happened in the microchipped environment to Intel. Where is lucned.
I don't know if you guys remember Lucin, but Lucent was Ball Labs.
Beall Labs was one of the most innovative private laboratory systems in the world.
They were brilliant and at some point when ATT was broken up, Bell Labs
were spun off as loocned. Uh Loocinned then built and designed the world's leading
telecommunication equipment for many, many years and ultimately loosened, uh faded, it
became non competitive. It's uh, it became it. Management made bad decisions
and and Lucent got sold I think to the French company Alcatel, and today
really on the West, the companies that make telecommunication equipment Eriksson and Nokia basically
and I think Alcatel. But that's it. But Lucent is gone. A
great tragedy, I believe, given how valuable Bill absod. But that's what
happens in competitive businesses and which you sold. During the two thousands is the
rise of Chinese companies, primarily Huawei, to dominate the telecommunication equipment space to
the point where Western companies just couldn't compete. Now, part of that was
quality, part of that was government subsidies, but whatever, they couldn't compete.
Now, the problem here is the national security threat that this opposes the
fact that these networks, if you buy them from Huawei again provide access to
Chinese government. So the question is what do you do? What do you
do? How do you deal with this? How do you deal on the
one hand, how do you deal with China with Chinese companies? And another
hand, how do you spur the United States to be able to compete with
China. Now why Way is a very innovative company, as have been Ali
Baba and we Chat and other Chinese companies. Not I think we have less
the fear from China in terms of innovation because of in terms of fast innovation
and dramatic big leaps in innovation, because the more authority in China becomes,
the less innovative it will become. But the challenge we face is that the
West has become non innovative, particularly in telecommunications, and as a consequence,
just to satis Quo makes the Chinese way ahead, puts the Chinese way ahead
of that. Now, telecommunications have a huge implications war. Telecommunications are used
in war, of course to communicate, it's used for intelligence gathering. The
fact that China has a better five G than the United States suggests that in
a war, China can communicate with its own people, with its own forces,
within its own military, far more effectively than the United States can.
And of course to the extent that they can hack into our networks and we
can't hack into theirs, they have an enormous intelligence advantage over the United States.
So again all all reasons why we should care. But what do we
do? I mean, the instinctual response of Democrats and many Republicans is to
say, well, we need a mimic what China has done. What we
need to do is subsidize our businesses. What we need to do is allow
have some a few five year plans in the telecommunication space, in the chip
space. I mean, this is the logic behind the Chips Act. The
Chips Actual was passed by Congress bipartisan, with a lot of Republicans voting for
it, which set aside fifty billion dollars to subsidize chip manufacturing. It's the
logic behind bidens. What is it something Inflation Act which provides massive subsidies for
I don't know, battery technology and other technologies and and EV and all this
other stuff which is not national security related, but even on the National Security
Fund? What should be done? What should be done with things like telecommunication?
What should be done with things like chips that have clear national securities issues?
And here I think we have to understand why it is that America,
what makes this country special? Why is it that the United State States has
historically had such a massive lead over the rest of the world, in particularly
authoritarian states like China, when it comes to technology innovation, and indeed,
even in the last twenty years, almost all the innovations, both in biotech
but in technology have come to the United States a significant number. Way this
proportion and even to the sizes of American GDP. Indeed, America has been
and the question is cann continue the land of innovation. China has been good
at copying, It's been good at making these better. It's had some innovators,
particularly during the period where it left it's tech companies alone free, which
happened arguably from the mid nineties into about the early twenty teens into Cheese presidency,
but no longer exists. How does the American compete with China throwing tens
hundreds of billions of dollars on technologies? How do we keep up? How
do we how do we get sixty How do we get the United States to
developed much better technology? How do we get the United States to become the
leader in the world in sixty seven G A G. I don't know,
technologies way ahead of the Chinese. How do we get the United States to
be in a position to design, manufacture, and create the best chips in
the world, semiconductors in the world. By the way, semi conductor dosn't
need it for five G telecommunications, you can And is that do we get
that from the from the from chips, bills, chips acts, UM and
UH and other type of other type of government intervention, government peakings, winners
and losers. And the answer is, of course no. And I like
Wireless Wars. It's not as good as the book as Chip War, partially
just because it's not as well written. The stories that it tells are not
quite as stimulating and interesting, and it skips over a lot of stuff,
and it's just not as good as good a book. But it has a
conclusion section which is quite good. I've just gotten to it now and basically
the author comes to the same conclusion I came to. And that is What
American needs to do is liberate it's innovators. What American needs to do is
tap in to its entrepreneurial, innovative culture. What American needs to do is
be America. Our private companies could beat Chinese state run companies any day.
Our private companies can beat Chinese private companies guided by the state and subsidized by
the state any day. What we need today is to get is the government
the regulators, and in telecom there are lots of regulators. To get out
of the way. Hey, what we need is to return to what economists
have called, or commentators are called a permissionless society, a permissionless innovation.
We need to encourage entrepreneurs to go out and break the rules and do new
stuff. One thing the US could do is sell its entire wireless spectrum to
private companies. Just get rid of the entire wireless spectrum all at once.
Let private companies figure it out, let them do whatever the hell they want
to do with it. Don't sell Okay, this section is for TV,
and this section is for wireless, and this section is for that and that
section. No sell it all and let the private market figure out how to
use the wireless spectrum. Get rid of government mandates to dictate standards and standardization.
Get rid of you know, government dictates that you have to use something
that the industry is standardized. Encourage entrepreneurs to think outside of the standards.
Encourage entrepreneurs to do the new, something completely new, to really think outside
of the box. And I'd say, don't provide funding. Don't give subsidies.
Subsidies and funding stifle in industry, the regiment in industry. The industry
then plays to the government. Regulators plays to the government people who approve the
grants, and you can guarantee that if the government is involved, the grants
will be given to the companies that are boring, that are doing the same
old thing, and the revolutionaries, the crazies, the people who you know.
The cell phone was invented very early on, and it was everybody thought
it was crazy. It was a crazy idea. It was invented in nineteen
seventies. I think the first trial of it at AT and T was done
in nineteen seventies and people thought it was crazy Indian who would want to do
that? And it wasn't until the nineteen eighties until somebody established a network.
I think mcgrass cellulo is the first one, but to others and into the
nineties when it really became effective that anybody believed in it and invested the kind
of capital necessary. Let the markets work it out, Let the markets figure
out what the best technology is. God forbid government. You know the sides
between VHS and beta, that's the old guys among you who remember what VHS
and BEATA is. I mean, I don't know if you know, but
the European Union is not dictated that all cables for all electronic devices have to
have This is the standard USBC. If something better than this comes around,
tough because the government has decided what the optimal standards. And Apple actually has
to change from this connector to this connect the next year because otherwise it can't
sell products in Europe. So what we need is to liberate the entrepreneur What
we need is to get rid of regimented standards. What we need is to
get rid of the rules and the regulations and the constraints on innovation, on
entrepreneurial creation, on ingenuity we need. We need ingenuity. We need people
to take ideas and turn them into products, and take wacky ideas and try
to turn them into wacky products. And we need to liberate liberated venture capital
community and that that is investing in these kind of things. And my guess
is that within ten years the taller communication industry would look completely different than it
looks today, and we'd be dominated by American companies, companies that doing things
that we couldn't even imagine today. We need innovation, and we know how
to get innovation lead people alone. But there's one other aspect to this.
There's one other aspect to this. Do you know why one of the reasons
Huawei has such a big lead in five G telecommunications, it's because five G
the original I guess you know, algorithms or idea around five G was was
first invented or created by a graduate students in a graduate student in the United
States. I think he was Chinese, maybe not, maybe it was European,
I can't remember. Anyway, he was a feign graduate student in the
US university and he developed the first idea around five g's the first solution for
five G tailers communication. Yet he couldn't get hired in the United States because
he couldn't get a visa. Ultimately, he landed up working for Huawei and
they got access to this technology before anybody else. So one of the things
you know that half of the I think the fortune five hundred companies in the
US right now were founded by immigrants or son's old daughters, children of immigrants.
What the United States needs to do is to liberate the innovators, to
free up the entrepreneurial spirits to eliminate regulation, to create a permissionless environment,
and at the same time bring to this country the visionaries, bring to this
country the entrepreneurs. And it sounds like you have to pay them to come.
All you have to do is say come, here's the US, or
stay if you're in school here, and they will want to stay wide because
they'll get to participate in this exciting innovative push. What we need is to
completely restructure our immigration policy. I mean it's it's to his credit a Biden
looks like he's gonna increase immigration significantly to the United States. But most of
the immigrants Biden is inviting into the United States or allowing to stay in the
United States are refugees, immigrants that are coming here under some kind of asylum
laws. Get rid of that. We don't need asylum seekers. What we
need a people who work. Change the immigration law to a brook based system.
If you can get a job, then you get a visa. If
somebody offers your job, you get a visa. Again. I don't care,
and we shouldn't say in telecommunication because we don't know what the next greed
innovation. The change is telecommunication is going to come from. We want the
best and the brightest in this country. We'll get the best and the brightest
by making it easy for them to come here. You have capital. Somebody's
willing to invest in your idea. Here's a visa. You got a grand
your degree in a STEM in the United States, here's a visa. Actually
for what it's what. You got a STEM degree anywhere in the world.
Here's a visa. Please come to the United States and start your businesses.
Yet, please come to the United States. We won't tell you what business
is. To start, start your business, raise the capital, find the
team, and put it together. If America returns to its entrepreneurial essence,
if America returns to the idea of freedom and free markets. For America returns
the idea of a permissionless innovation, permissionless business, i e. With no
regulations and constraints and limitations. There was no limit to what we can do.
We beat the Chinese hands down, We create more wealth, we grow
the economy faster, and national security becomes a non issue. We have the
best chips in the world, we have the best telecommunication companies in the world,
and the Chinese become irrelevant. Now in the same time, we should
bar equipment that is used for chief for spine. We should bar giving them
chips that they use in military technologies. We should be absolutely, unequivocally self
interested in place America first in a meaningful way, not in the kind of
slow gneering, nonsensical way that Donald Trump used it, but to indicate that
we will pursue America's interest and America's interest from a national security perspective, not
from a mystical collectivist perspective. And from a national security perspective, we should
not be selling weapons to our enemies Sardi Arabia comes to mind, but certainly
not advanced chips that can use the those weapons to China. And we should
not be allowing equipment can be used to spy on us to be installed in
our own country. So, you know, let's continue trading with China,
Let's continue to get their subsidized goods, Let's continue to watch videos from TikTok,
Let's continue to buy Oh you know, I think, well, ultimately,
if, if, if the gods in Washington allow, if we ever
do have a electric vehicle revolution, we will be driving Chinese cause all good,
because none of that has national security implications. When it comes to national
security, Let's cut them off. Let's draw a clear right line of what
is allowed and what is not allowed. And then, much more importantly,
let's fuel innovation on entrepreneurship in the United States. On the military front,
America is and must be a naval superpower. It is a country with a
long coast, both on the east and on the west. It is a
country dedicated to economic growth, economic prosperity, and therefore to free trade.
It is a country, therefore that should commit it its military to protecting the
sea lanes of the world. We should rebuild our navy, and we should
make it the best in the world, not by a little bit, but
by so much that no other country would even dare to compete with us.
We should frogily, and I think we can the Chinese in terms of innovation
and in terms of the kind of navy that we can build, and we
should command disease. We have no real need for a massive land army.
There is no imminent war in the United States. Nobody's invading the United States
with tanks. There is no need for US to send our troops to Europe.
The Europeans are rich enough to be able to field a ground military by
themselves to deal with whatever threat they faced. The primary threat I think is
Russia, but that is also true of the Middle East. I don't see
circumstances in which the United States will once to engage in a land war in
Asia. Taiwan is too small to engage a big tank battles on Taiwan.
Taiwan will ultimately be determined in the sea, well ultimately determined in the ocean,
will ultimately determined in the straits of Taiwan. It will not primarily be
a ground ward not a ground ward that the United States participates in. Taiwan
should invest in ground troops for their own self defense. But the United States
should dominate the oceans. The United States should dominate the sea lanes. The
United States should dominate the trade routes. Doesn't require using that force. That's
the beauty of having a navy. Nobody else can compete with. Put it
out there, nobody's going to challenge you. And what you do is secure
American prosperity, not only by internally allowing innovation, allowing technology, allowing ingenuity,
but then securing the ability of Americans to trade with the rest of the
world, to buy goods from other countries and to have other countries buy goods
from the US. And even when it comes to telecommunication infrastructure chips, it's
not necessary to build the chips in the US. It's not necessary to have
a fab in the US. You can have the fab in Taiwan and South
Korea as long as you have a navy that protects the ability to get the
chips to the US. Maybe have a fab in Europe, Maybe have a
fab in Mexico wherever it's economic to build those wherever it's economic, which means
wherever they are skilled engineers and the ability to build such manufacturing plants and then
to produce the stuff. Do it anywhere in the world that we as Americans
can secure passage to US. We don't have to do here. We don't
have to have manufacturing plants in the United States. When it's sense sea of
national security. Make sure that the manufacturing plants and countries that are friendly.
Make sure that it manufacturing plants and countries the we can defend. And maybe
a certain amount of supply. Like some of the very sophisticated chips in the
world, maybe some of those should be produced in the United States for used
in the military just in case Taiwan gets wiped out. Now we still have
today, by far the best navy in the world. Nobody comes close,
but the Chinese a gaining ground and the United States has not invested as much
as it could, as much as it should in preserving it's military. It's
it's lead in navy technology. Troy, thank you. Troy just came in
with five hundred Australian dollars. Thank you. You've got us much much closer
to our goals. So we're now only two hundred dollars away from our six
and fifty goal for today and hopefully we can make it. And trying to
make up for all the shows I didn't do in earlier in the month,
trying to make up by doing a lot of shows now. But that also
creates kind of a lot of pressure financially and raising the money quickly, and
I know that puts strain on some of you guys, So thank you Troy
for making it easier easier. By the way, Australia is a key player
when it comes to China because Australia obviously feels threatened by China. Australia is
within reach of China Australia is an island. Again, for Australia, it
is essential and necessary to have a navy. It's why Australia joint forces with
you, with the United Kingdom and the United States to form an alliance around
submarines and around naval capacity. I mean, in my view, the United
States should lead an effort to combine the force of the United States, South
Korea, Japan, and Australia, maybe New Zealand in a naval alliance,
and combine the forces of those countries to defend free trade and to defend all
of those specific countries an alliance from any kind of Chinese or North Korean aggression.
I think that would be a game changer. I think it would be
a game change in the Pacific Ocean. And with combined resource, Japan probably
has the second or third best navy in the world. And again, Japan
has also committed to doubling their defense spending over the next five years. So
Japan is going to be a significant force in the Pacific. We want to
make sure they're on outside. We want to make sure we have an alliance.
The Philippines could be part of it, although Philippine governments in the past,
I mean so wacky and crazy that it's harder alliance on the Philippines.
But we do have now four new bases in the Philippines for the US Navy,
So the Philippines could certainly be a part of this. And ultimately you
could imagine Indonesia and Malaysia joining in, and oh, I forgot Taiwan.
Taiwan would be a key to this. Right, So you have South Korea,
Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand.
You basically have China surrounded without firing a bullet. The Chinese threat goes
to zero. But it's all doable. That is all doable, building the
navy, creating that alliance, encouraging our alliance to build their own navies and
their own military forces, making sure we have the anti ship laser technology to
shoot down their missiles, the Chinese missiles that are targeting our ships. There's
a bunch of stuff that can be done. We've talked about much of it
on the show, but there's a bunch of stuff that can be done,
should be done, and China stops being a threat because they can't compete with
us. The reality is China is a relatively on a pickapita GDP basis,
a relatively poor country, and the more resource that allocates the military, the
more resources that it has to take from its own citizens, the poorer its
own citizens becomes become. The reality is that a free America, that a
deregulated America, an innovative America, an entrepreneurial America, cannot be matched by
any country in the world. And it's not that difficult to do. Even
if you only want to restrict the permission of society, just the technology,
just the crucial technologies for national defense. I mean, this would also create
and you could also use this to create real competition within defense contractors. Today,
the three four or five defense contractors dominate everything. Well, let's move
that around. Let's make the US Navy, YOMY, Air Force far more
technologically savvy and therefore far more interested in high quality technology for which you don't
need to have massive, big companies building stuff for you, and you can
have smaller entrepreneurial companies. So again, the solution to China is more freedom
for America. The solution to China is American strength, is American capacity to
defend itself. Unequivocally an American innovation. An American innovation comes from American liberty,
American freedom, American government getting out of the way, American government leaving
entrepreneurs free of regulations and controls and subsidies and preferences, and central planning.
To make great products, to build great products, and then to trade with
the world, keep the sea lanes open. Massive free trade should be our
mission. We should lower tariffs to zero, and then we should allow American
entrepreneurs to compete with the world. And if American entrepreneurs are allowed to compete
with the world without restrictions, without subsidies, without governing interference one way or
the other, American wins. China becomes irrelevant. All right, That is
my answer or what to do about China. Hopefully, hopefully that was a
value. All right, Um, we have a lot of we have a
few super check questions. I would really like to be able to to get
us to the target today. It's it's I think pretty important before I leave
that we kind of do well, do well financially and put the show on
good financial terms. So we are one hundred and sixty nine dollars short.
Please do twenty dollars questions. We've got a lot of ten dollars questions here,
with one option from Michael, twenty dollars we did get. Troy came
in with five hundred Stralian dollars, and let's see, Mike came in with
fifty American dollars, and together they've really pushed us. Steven Stephen contributed and
others have contributed. So please, if everybody wants you right now, does
five dollars? Well, no, two dollars. We're done. And if
a few of you ask twenty dollars questions and a few of you do some
stickers for ten, twenty fifty, one hundred dollars, will be over the
six hundred and fifty mark very very quickly. All right, So let's let's
move on to the super chat question. Let me start with questions about China,
and Liam liam says, I don't think China is a threat to anyone.
It will have a bumpy road to shake off it's authoritarianism, but China
will ultimately keep getting richer until it becomes first world. In Weston, so
I hope you're right. I always thought that and always hoped that that was
true, because I love China. I've visited China many times. I find
in an exciting, thrilling place, and the Chinese people very engaging and very
entrepreneurial and very motivated. And I'd like but over the last ten years,
she has slow slowly, slowly, not slowly slowly, and systematically move China
and authoritarian direction. And I'm hopeful that the Chinese people will ultimately rebel against
them, that the Chinese people will ultimately want to liberate themselves and throw off
the shackles of authoritarianism. And I agree with you completely that a free China
is not a threat to anybody. But what scares me is that it's becoming
less fee now. As it becomes less free, it will also grow less
fast. As it becomes less free, it will also it will also be
much less of a threat to the United States or to anybody else's. So
I'd like it to become more free. So it's a robust, amazing trading
partner. It would be amazing if America can benefit from the entrepreneurial spirit that
all of us as individuals on America can benefit from. The entrepreneurs spirit would
be unleashed if China freed up its citizens I mean, Chinese amazing entrepreneurs and
they have the capacity to really change the world if they are free from the
constraints placed on them by the government. Thank you, Liam Right, Richard
says, I look forward to the day China is free. I will see
it in my lifetime, and I believe it will happen in the next twenty
years. Chinese people yearn for freedom, but there was no moral leadership by
US. One president with a mall backbone could end CCP rule. I think
that might be true, but you need that one American president, and unfortunately,
even that one American president, I don't know where he is. And
uh, you know, it's not so much that we need to see in
my lifetime of free China. What we really need to see in our lifetime
as a free America. Maybe not as free as my ideal, maybe not
as capitalist as complete separation of state from economics, but freer than it is
today, free as it used to be. If America can become free again,
if America can can can turn on and it can liberate it's such an
entrepreneur, it's can liberate its innovators. There's no It's very difficult to stop
the United States, and if America can open up its borders, that's super
important. I mean, I don't think people realize how big of a headwind
we face, because over the last five or so years we've more than that.
You know, since the twenty sixteen seventeen we have restricted immigration, and
primarily we've restricted the best from coming to America. I mean, why are
we not issuing visas to Russian engineers? Why are we not issuing visas to
Chinese engineers who want to leave their countries. Imagine if we told the Chinese
entrepreneurial class, yeah, you probably can't get done stuff done in China right
now because it's so regulated and controlled and your government is sowthalitarian. Come to
the United States is a visa. Can you imagine the flow of people,
talent, brain power, and capital. They bring their money with them too.
All right, let's see quickly other China questions. Michael says, the
future economy growth from China maybe what keeps the West alive long enough objectives to
ideas to really get out there. I don't think so, because, as
I said, as China becomes more authoritarian, China's economy will grow slower,
will grow slower. Right. What American needs, what China needs, what
any country in the world needs in order to grow, to become wealthy is
capitalism. And and uh, if you negate capitalism, you negate economic growth.
You you you destroy the capacity to grow free markets or drive economics.
Uh. You know, government attempts to regulate control, socialist attempts to regulating
control always always, and in disaster an economic failure. All right, Um,
wow, West, thank you. West just came in with one hundred
dollars, got us over the limit. Thank you guys, really really appreciate
it. This is super helpful. You can keep asking twenty dollars questions.
Um, all right, let's Richard h less China. Okay, let's let's
take Owen. First of all, great show today you're on. Thanks,
oh, and really appreciate the support those twenty dollars. Michael asks, you
say, objective answers are not obvious, but a cons explanation and answers any
more obvious. D can's answer make people more comfortable while people create discomfort,
So impetus to evade his great No. I mean, look, I don't
think you quite get it right. So Conscian says are not easy, but
consconsas are compatible with the dominant way of people were thinking that as Christianity content
Christianity are bedfellows. They lived together really really well. Indeed, part of
why Kant was motivated to provide those answers was because he wanted to save Christianity.
He found the Enlightenment. So Kan didn't come across as as much of
a revolutionary as objectivism is. Objectivism is an upheaval of their ideas. And
then, of course when Khan came out with his ideas, many of the
intellectuals around him were impressed, supported those ideas and embraced them and then started
teaching them all modified them to suit their needs. Hagel didn't teach Kant,
but Hegel's philosophy is imbued with Kant. And once you get a Hagel,
then you get a Mark Suit takes Hago's ideas and abuse them with another dimension,
turned it into Marxism. So ideas built, and ideas built, and
ideas all off of this Kanti in base, and those ideas were picked up
by intellectuals and spread and taught and integrated into people's lives. They don't know
its Kant, They've never heard of Amanuel kant they don't know exists that it
doesn't matter what they get are the final ideas, the final outcomes of those
kantient ideas presented two hundred plus years ago, but then integrated by intellectual left
intellectual left intellectual and reshaped and changed into a million different things. Now,
objectivism doesn't have that. We don't have the multitude of intellectuals. We won't
picked by the culture and by its intellectual elite, and that makes it far
more difficult. We have to create an intellectual elite. We have to replace
the existing intellectual elite, and that is a lot more difficult. So it's
our answers are not obvious, and they're not embraced by the intellectuals. They're
not embraced by the people who then perpetuate ideas out there into the culture.
Richard, underneath the US freedom not in my backyard rules banning cell towers are
so effing annoying, so many dropped calls, so much bad reception and lost
activity because of this, not to mention immigration restriction open boats. Now,
yes, no, I mean not in my backyard. You know, cell
towers are just a beginning. What about all the industry that can't be built,
the refining capacity that's shrinking because you can't build new refineries, and on
and on and on you go, the non in by backyard, the housing
that is not being increase, massive challenges and massive problems, massive challenges and
massive problems for growth, for economic success, for economic prospality. Theme Aster
says, what can be done to help improve the epistemology of American people?
Well, I think one it's the model good epistemology. It's that makes arguments
using good epistemology. I think you'll have less success in teaching epistemology explicitly.
What you want is to model it, to show people how to present arguments,
how to deal with reality, how to deal with facts, what does
reason look like in terms of its application. That's one. The second is,
of course, you've got to improve the epistemology of the intellectual leadership of
the country. You've got to make the intellectual leaders be people who model this
good epistemology and who write books based on the epistemology, and then find ways
to simplify it and to teach it in schools, to teach a proper way
of thinking, a proper way of engaging with the world. Two children too.
High school is primarily and to college students, that's the revolution. So
you need again, you need hundreds of intellectuals translating all of these abstract ideas
both into the way they communicate, so modeling it, and into actual tools
that people can use without having to understand the deep source of every epistemological principle
Shasba. Do you think that the first Moon colony would be more capitalist in
the US? Would you move there? If it was? It would be
easier on your back at least. Um, I don't know if the first
Moon colony it would be more capitalist in the United States. I mean,
it's it's it's really hard to tell. Um what kind of principles would guide
it. It would probably be a kind of a corporate structure. It could
very well be top down. Um, it's hard to tell. I mean,
I wish it was, like I don't know if you guys have read
The Moon as a Harsh Mistress by Robert Handlin, a where he describes a
revolution on the Moon that establishes a free political political system on the Moon,
but then even it deteriorates, so the hero is then often a spaceship to
the next colony. Um, I don't know. It really depends on who
establishes it is at the US, is it China? Is it a corporation?
Is it is it? Is it alone musk So I don't know.
Would I move there? Probably not. It strikes me it's quite claustrophour weeks
after where the space suit all the time. I kind of like Earth.
I like gravity. Um, it would be easy on my back. But
I'm hoping that once we can build colonies in the moon, we can also
replace my back or or reinvigorate it with uh, with stem cells, or
maybe we can have the nano nano particles that you put into the back and
they they fix everything. You know, who knows what technology is going to
bring to cure problems like my back problems. I truly believe it's going to
happen. I mean, the last surgery I had was cleaning up and stem
cells and it's it's it's been amazing, and that was done. That was
done um, kind of in the stealth because it's it's not completely officially permitted
by the FDA. Say, imagine once these things are permitted and or we
go to permissionless society and you don't have to ask permission. You can ask
for forgiveness afterwards. Yeah, I have titanium in my spines, so um,
you know it would be nice if I don't think I could ever get
rid of the titanium in my spine. But it hasn't living to be too
much, the titanium in the spine. I'm still in pretty good shape.
Um. But yeah, I mean I'm excited about medical innovation anyway, So
I'm not. No, I'm not that curious about living on the moon.
Let me let me stay on Earth. I mean, imagine, imagine the
latency and and the internet connection problems I would have on the moon. I
mean I have them in Puerto Rico. Imagine on the moon. You're on
the terminator. I literally have titanium in my back. I mean big screws
and you know, whole structure. It's a pity cool bionic You're on,
all right, Richard says. Israeli friends of mine have spent time in China.
They say Chinese idealized Jews and books like how do you invest like a
Jew? Did you encounter these sorts of positive depictions of Jewish stereotypes in your
visits? Yes, Primari Israeli stereotypes more than Jewish stereotypes. They love Israel.
They think Israel is amazing. They they they adore the innovation, the
entrepreneurship, um, the the technology that comes out of Israel. I think
a lot of technology. The China has. Unfortunately a lot of technology that
I think probably China uses in the military comes from Israel. But but they
really do adore Israel. They think Israel is amazing and um, and there
is something about um. There is a certain really deep respect for people who
describe themselves as Jews over there. So I have noticed that I have encountered
that many times in my travels in China. Uh that as a phenomenon.
All right, let's see Richard says we're losing ground to China on stem cell
research, one of the most obvious problems caused by by Christian Christian stick worship,
um, stick shoving leutism might must end. Yes, I mean,
look, no question, Um, we're losing. I mean, luckily Europe
is not quite as obsessed as America is with Christianity, so there's a lot
of stem cell innovation going on in Europe. You know, it was the
cloning of the sheep you remember the cloning of the sheep that happened in the
UK because the UK did not have restrictions and cloning, which the United States
did. There's a lot of stem cell innovation going on in Europe that is
not going on in the US. A lot of research going on in Europe
over over stem cells and some treatments in places like Switzerland. Um in in
in the America as you see, um, you're starting to see real medical
tourism. I know people who are going to Panama, to Mexico, to
Colombia to get stem cell treatments. But would mean would it be amazing for
unleashed the innovative, the American innovative innovatives, the American entrepreneurs on stem cells
and and American labs on stem cells and provided them with the incentives to go
full blown on stem cells and the incentives of COURSA to be able to make
money off of it. With the FDA supporting stem cells, you know,
doing a way with the FDA, wouldn't that be amazing? So yes,
we're definitely losing ground to the rest of the world. In China is innovating
like crazy and biotech they realize biotech is an important feature of technology in the
future. But again, a lot of those Chinese we could get to move
to the US. We could get them to come here and do their research
over here, if only we had the right visa structure, if we only
had the right immigration policy. The only thing keeping them over there is one
some belief that they have which is based on some reality that Americans are anti
Chinese and anti you know, in a racist way. They're racist against Chinese.
And the second is just an absolute, unbelievable difficulty of getting an immigrant
an immigration visa to the US. It's one of the biggest political issues out
there. We need to have more immigrants. All right. A bunch of
you were asking me about Tacker, Carson and Lemon, who is fired from
CNN. I saw that this morning. I actually talked about it quite a
bit on my morning show, so you can go back. It's called Taka
Carson and then some other things. I talked about it back then. But
let's quickly go over these questions. Michael Laite says Lemon and Carson have been
let go from the media networks at roughly at the same time. Thoughts do
you think there will be replaced by people better was, so I think that'll
be replaced by people who are better. I think CNN has engaged over the
last few months in a real effort to try to move the network to the
center. I think the new CEO is trying to trying to base. He
changed the perception of CNN from best end of the left to what it was
when it first came out, kind of a news network for everybody, twenty
four to seven news, and and and and and centrist balanced. So I
do think they'll get somebody better than Lemon at Fox. UM. I think
Carson was a problem. It was a problem with dominion. He was a
problem with the other lawsuits that Fox is still facing. He was a problem
in terms of his attitude, but he was also a problem in the sense
that he was feeding the worst elements on the right. I think what they
will get is somebody again better. How much better, I don't know,
but somebody who is more UM, I don't know, a easy to control,
probably from the corporate perspective, but also UM. Somebody who maybe UM
is more to the sent that may be more balanced, but not too anti
Trump because they can't afford to piss off his audience. So It'll be interesting
to see where they replace him with. But but but they but they they
can't afford to just cata to the worst conspiracy theory elements on the right,
which is what Tucker Carson did. Um Tyler says, can you believe the
news about Tucker Carson? I was, I'm ecstatic. I'm really happy.
Couldn't happen to a nicer person. Um, I'm glad to see Tucker Carson
go. He was a bad influence on America, a bad influence on I
think the rights, or a bad influence on the on the on the people
who watched Fox News. I think he was a really, really, really
corrupting influence on America. So I'm glad to see him go. I hope
he's marginalized somewhere and we don't see much of him in the future. I
don't think that will happen. I said, that was my hope. Uh,
let me see. There was some other Hopper Campbell asks, will Tucker
Carson fade into obscurity like Stephen Stephan Mall and you after he was canceled.
Um, I don't know. All I can say is I hope so,
But I really don't know. I mean Techocoston was obviously a lot bigger than
Stephan Malling you and had a much stronger base. It's hard to know where
those two point two million people who watched every one of his episodes go,
and it's obviously more than three point two because it's not the same three point
two every night, So I don't know where he goes, all right.
Some unrelated questions, this one from yesterday by Michael I had a professor tell
me Affrica is poor because of capitalism and imperialism. What economic system do African
countries actually operate under? Well, they operate under autocratic, authoritarian, corrupt
economic system where the government basically the authoritarian charge basically sucks all the wealth out
of the economy and puts it into a Swiss bank accounts where you know,
Wagner Group exploits much of those resources by enslaving in a sense of slaving or
exploiting Africans to mine products that then they sell on the open market. It
is a It is basically a economic system based on violence, and based on
authoritarianism and based on central planning. The few countries in Africa that have a
semblance of private property and and and free markets. Other it's just other ones
that are growing the fastest, like somewhat Rwanda, Botswana, UM and Botswana
and um. It was one of the country that I can't remember right now.
Africa needs capitalism, it needs property rights. When property rights implemented,
Africa will be rich. Michael asks why did White Rose and other anti Nazi
movements in the nineteen thirty Germany proved completely impotent. It shows morality and good
ideas can't overpower evil intellectuals who control academia. Um. It's not clear that
the Nazis controlled academia early on, but because the White Rose didn't and they
have other anti Nazi movements didn't have a moral and real ideological um argument against
Nazism. They were also contient and they were also influenced by German philosophy.
They didn't have a philosophical argument against them. They they they were like conservatives
today, They who can't argue with the left because they can't they can't challenge
their altruism. So ultimately the left has to win in in that context,
either through the right winning and just implementing the left policies, or the left
winning in the short run. So that's why the Nazis won the Nazi one
because they faced no real intellectual philosophical position. There was no principal opposition to
them. There was just practical, pragmatic opposition and maybe socialist communist opposition,
which which obviously is not going to effective. You can't fight fascism with communism
or communism with fascism, which is what the right is trying to do today
in America. Richard said it gave a presentation to Department of Justice officials today
about the supply chains. I was pleasantly surprised by how receptive they were to
my argument to deregulation and immigration reform essential financial security thoughts. I mean,
that's great. I do think there are better people out there. I do
think there are people even in government who understand these ideas. I think a
problem is the American people and politicians we elect. I think once we have
better people, we can Once we have better politicians, it won't be that
difficult to turn things around. But we need to have better politicians. We
need to have better Americans, better people to elect better politicians. So I
think it's fantastic, and I think the more people like you present to them,
the more they hear this. The more they hear that it's important,
the more likely it is that they resist the stuff coming from Washington. The
more likely it is that they propose better and better policies. We elected these
politicians. Robert says, Amy and Owre just back from a ten day trip
to Japan. Cool Tokyo and Kyoto and I had a yen to hear the
un Brook show for your information. Ayumi and Yoshi of the Iron Man Center
Japan send their greetings. Oh aren't they wonderful? I mean, both of
Ui and Yoshi just amazing people. I love those guys and it's great.
It's great to do stuff with them. I've had some fantastic dinners with them
and had some fantastic events that we've scheduled together. So it really inspiring to
see object everywhere includes Japan and actively engage in appticativity involved. So yes,
glad you got to meet them, Robert. All right, last question for
the night. James says, you've got to be consistent with your shows even
while traveling or super Chat, revenue and viewership will keep suffering. Consistency is
key. Problem is consistency is impossible. I can do shows at two am.
On the road. When I have to do stuff at eight am on
the road, it's just undoable. So you're just gonna have to suffer through
my inconsistency, and I realize that revenue will suffer. That's just part of
the deal. Luckily, most of the time when I travel, I'm also
making money by giving talks and things like that. This trip not so much
because this trip is mostly vacation. Although I am going to give talks in
Israel. I'm going to do quite a few things in Israel. I think
I'm going to be debating a somebody from the government from these raided government on
the judicial reforms. So I think we're gonna have a minister from the government
and I'm going to debate him on the proposed due to siover films. We'll
see if that happens, but I think that's part of the plan. Daniel
says, I'm writing an article on industrial base in regards to military China.
You once said it takes four and a half years to build a factory because
of the Clean Air Act. Do you have a source? Please? No
luck finding this so far? Oh god, Um, I mean I would
look for Cato. I don't know if I said four and a half years,
that sounds that sounds short. Uh, you know, but look at
Cato. Look at that economist I really like at Cato. Lindsey Com.
Lindseycom has a lot of information like that, and I think I probably got
it from one of his articles. I would definitely check out Scott Lindsey Coomb.
I think it's Scott for information like that at the Cato Institute. He
has also his own sub stack where you can find all his articles. All
right, everybody, it's a really late at night. Thank you for joining
me for the second show. Thank you for getting us way over the target.
You know, this helps keeps everything going and it compensate for the fact
that we got almost nothing yesterday. So it all balances out in the end,
and you guys are great. Richard has one final question. I have
sources an answer to the question. Google environmental impact studies take an average of
four and a half years. You'll find plenty. Just google that sentence,
hopefully, Daniel hood that just google environmental impact studies take an average of four
and a half years. Thank you, Richard, and Fenn Harpa has another
question. I mentioned to you doctor Stone before while Live on AMA New Development
and the show they introduced The Greediest Man Alive. It's a good way.
It's a good in a good it's in a good way. Though he wants
everyone to raise so he can trade with them, win win. Character.
That's great and we need all of that. It's reminds you of that Patrick
Ben Davide Bait David that I did yesterday about selfishness. I mean, there's
an element that's good in there and in the way he uses selfishness. We
just need to clean it up dramatically, but clean it up all right,
everybody, Thank you. I really appreciate the support. We've done phenomenally well
today and I will see you all tomorrow. I'm gonna plan to do a
show I think at noon that will be a new show. What won't be
a noon? What am I talking about? Way to say noon, I've
got I've got a meeting at noon, so I think it'll be have to
be at um, yeah, tomorrow at one o'clock, one o'clock. I
might have to push it to two maybe two o'clock. Anyway, sometime tomorrow
afternoon one or two o'clock. Well, we'll have a show and I will
see you all then buy everybody and thanks again for all the super Chattis.
You are great today. Thank you Troy from Australia for the five hundred stillion dollars M