Speaker 1: Though radical fundamental principles of freedom, national self interest, and
Speaker 1: individual rights. This is the Uran Brook Show. All right, everybody,
Speaker 1: welk up here on book show on this uh Friday
Speaker 1: and Sember twenty of the had a fantastic week and
Speaker 1: you're looking forward to a I don't know, relaxing weekend.
Speaker 1: Productive weekend, however you want to be the way. Both
Speaker 1: both are good. Relaxing is good if you've been super productive.
Speaker 1: Productive is good if you still need to get some
Speaker 1: productivity in. We will be doing a show I think
Speaker 1: tomorrow and a show in Hebrew on Sunday. So here
Speaker 1: in the Ivon Book Show we continue to plug along.
Speaker 1: There's no rest for the rest of the year. Jennifer's
Speaker 1: on vacation until the second. I'm moderately jealous. And yeah,
Speaker 1: So today we're going to talk about the government shutdown
Speaker 1: that might happen or might not happen. Who knows, right,
Speaker 1: I mean Twitter knows maybe Twitter nos, Twitter is insane
Speaker 1: and Twitter knows all. We're talking about motivates, motivates. You
Speaker 1: guys love talking about motivates. Why do they spike in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty? What caused the spike? Now, there's a study
Speaker 1: which looks at detail kind of weekly daily motivates and
Speaker 1: has I think interesting answers as to what caused the spike. Actually,
Speaker 1: what caused the spike is exactly what I said caused
Speaker 1: the spike way back in twenty twenty twenty one, so
Speaker 1: I'm not surprised. But it's not the typical story that
Speaker 1: you hear out there. Some good news. Life expectancy in
Speaker 1: the United States is going is improving slowly, not back
Speaker 1: to pre COVID levels, but improving slowly, shockingly. We'll talk
Speaker 1: about why a little bit, and then we'll talk a
Speaker 1: little bit about Ukraine. A bunch of news about Ukraine,
Speaker 1: trumpet Ukraine, and finally some good news on the nuclear
Speaker 1: power front. More good news on the Nuclear Power Fund.
Speaker 1: This seems to be good news coming constantly on the
Speaker 1: nuclear power front. All right, Michael is off the Hell
Speaker 1: of Us out asking questions, So this is great. You
Speaker 1: two can join Michael and asking questions. That's what the
Speaker 1: super Chat it's foot So please a feel fee to
Speaker 1: jump in ask questions. That way you get to shape
Speaker 1: the show. I get to answer your question. Instead of
Speaker 1: talking about what I want to talk about, I get
Speaker 1: to talk about what you want to talk about action.
Speaker 1: Jackson says, mumbo rap wasn't the cause. How do you
Speaker 1: know it wasn't the cause? Maybe it was. I haven't
Speaker 1: told you what the cause is. I don't even know
Speaker 1: what mumbo rap is. Is this such a thing as
Speaker 1: mumbo rap was? Action Jackson just making this shit up.
Speaker 1: I think he's making it up. So we kind of
Speaker 1: went through the whole evolution of this budget Continuing Resolution thing.
Speaker 1: We went through the whole thing yesterday. The drama just continues,
Speaker 1: as you know. I think it was breaking news during
Speaker 1: the show yesterday that the continued Resolution was not approved.
Speaker 1: It was voted down basically becau there only two Democrats
Speaker 1: voted for it and thirty something Republicans voted against it,
Speaker 1: including Chip Roy from the great tech state of Texas.
Speaker 1: And Roy basically, you know, gave a great reason why.
Speaker 1: He said, he's just not voting for anything that is
Speaker 1: going to increase the president's ability to run deficits and
Speaker 1: to increase spending. He is fine with raising the debt limit,
Speaker 1: raising the borrowing limit that the United States can get
Speaker 1: into if at the same time there's a real cut
Speaker 1: in spending, real cut in spending. Now it appears so
Speaker 1: that went down. If you remember, that was a continuing
Speaker 1: resolution plus the disaster relief, plus the farmers, but increasing
Speaker 1: the death ceiling basically by four trillion. Right, So today
Speaker 1: it appears the Speaker Johnson is going to ignore Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: I assume Donald Trump is agreed to this to him,
Speaker 1: ignoring him, and is going to try to pass what's
Speaker 1: called a clean continued resolution. Right, It's still going to
Speaker 1: not be really clean in the sense that it would
Speaker 1: still it's still going to have the disaster relief and
Speaker 1: the farmer's stuff, but it's not going to have the
Speaker 1: increase in four trillion of US borrowing. And we'll see
Speaker 1: if that passes. Just A Mash writes, the most of
Speaker 1: all remarkable thing is that a clean continuing resolution without
Speaker 1: a death ceiling suspension is the best bill they propose
Speaker 1: by far, yet it was the third option. Republican leaders
Speaker 1: are completely incompetent when it comes to strategy. And then
Speaker 1: he goes on to say, to be clear, I'd still
Speaker 1: vote no. I don't believe Congress should be spending at
Speaker 1: these levels under any circumstances. But this proposal does the
Speaker 1: least harm and puts Republicans in the strongest position. So
Speaker 1: this is this might pass. All day today, I've been
Speaker 1: hearing JD Vance and their lone Mosque basically say it's
Speaker 1: all Democrats fault. It's all Democrats fault. They could have
Speaker 1: voted for it yesterday, they didn't vote for it. We're
Speaker 1: gonna shut down the government and we're gonna blame it
Speaker 1: on Democrats. I don't think that worked. I don't think
Speaker 1: it resonated. So they went back and said, okay, Republican
Speaker 1: and give you your so called clean continued resolution. You
Speaker 1: can still spend money like there's no tomorrow. You're still
Speaker 1: not gonna cut gumt spending like Elon Musk and Vivic
Speaker 1: claim they want to do. But we're going to keep
Speaker 1: the gumment open because God forbid, we shut it down
Speaker 1: and the voters might blame us. And Donald Trump doesn't
Speaker 1: want to go into office with a shutdown government. Donald
Speaker 1: Trump doesn't actually want to go in spite of the
Speaker 1: fact that again overnight, Donald Trump was saying, I don't
Speaker 1: care shut down the government. It's on Biden. It's always
Speaker 1: the president who gets blamed for these things. Blame Biden,
Speaker 1: don't blame me, even though it is Donald Trump's fault
Speaker 1: because Republicans and Democrats whore going to vote for continued
Speaker 1: resolution bill on Wednesday, they would have not shut down
Speaker 1: the government anyway. This saga goes on and on, And
Speaker 1: here's what maybe Ellen Musk and Vivic and the rest
Speaker 1: of the DOGE can learn from this. Maybe they can
Speaker 1: learn from this. Well, they can't reopen it on January third,
Speaker 1: because they will have about the same majority in the
Speaker 1: House as they have now. And it's that lack of
Speaker 1: unanimity among Republicans in ours representatives that prevented them from
Speaker 1: passing the continuing resolution yesterday. Thirty eight Republicans refused to
Speaker 1: raise the debt limit, and they only have a majority
Speaker 1: of like I think, in the new Congress, five, so
Speaker 1: it doesn't help them. It's didn't even make it to
Speaker 1: the Senate, where the Democrats have a majority. It can't
Speaker 1: even make it out of the House because the Republicans
Speaker 1: don't agree. And you still have some Republicans, honest Republicans
Speaker 1: who actually care about government spending. A few, not many,
Speaker 1: a few, but enough to sink a bill that involves
Speaker 1: dramatically increasing gument spinning. So we will see, we will see.
Speaker 1: It's going to be really interesting dynamics because Trump is
Speaker 1: going to try to increase goverment spending, must scan to
Speaker 1: try to decrease gouverment spinning, but they have no power,
Speaker 1: and Republicans, some of them, are going to try to
Speaker 1: decrease and there's going to be push and pull and
Speaker 1: tug and pull and push. I think one reason you know,
Speaker 1: people like justin a mash a few and a few
Speaker 1: of them in Congress is because they can't have an
Speaker 1: impact because Donald Trump is a spender. He is not
Speaker 1: about cutting gum and spending. He's not about drinking gument
Speaker 1: and the chip Roys of the world in the House
Speaker 1: are going to have a really, really hard time with
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. Anyway. I don't know if the Continued Solution
Speaker 1: will pass today. There's a chance it will, right there's
Speaker 1: a chance it will. But one of the proposals being
Speaker 1: made right now is that they increase the one point
Speaker 1: five trillion the debt limit by one point five trillion,
Speaker 1: so the government can borrow one point five trillion additional dollars.
Speaker 1: I mean, notice, we've gone from billions to trillions, just
Speaker 1: like that, billions to trillions. Trump Us love that, and
Speaker 1: at the same time, Congress will commit to cutting spending
Speaker 1: over ten years, a two and a half trillion dollars,
Speaker 1: a promise that is worth exactly zilch nothing. It will
Speaker 1: never happen. So that's one of one of the negotiations
Speaker 1: that are going on. Note all the negotiations are going
Speaker 1: on between Republicans Democrats out so it's all between Republicans,
Speaker 1: and they can't they can't agree. They can't agree because
Speaker 1: Trump is in the middle of this. Trump doesn't want.
Speaker 1: Trump is insisting on an increase in the debt limit,
Speaker 1: and he's basically saying he's gonna he's gonna get people
Speaker 1: to you know, primary any representative who goes against his wishes.
Speaker 1: By the way, what happens if the government is shut down, Well,
Speaker 1: not much, not much, right, and the deal has to
Speaker 1: be struck by midnight tonight and passed in the House
Speaker 1: and the Senate and signed by Biden. So we're probably
Speaker 1: looking for a few days of shutdown. So first, what
Speaker 1: are called the essential workers, And pretty much almost all
Speaker 1: of the government is considered essential. I mean, if it
Speaker 1: wasn't essential, what's it doing in the government. So basically
Speaker 1: the government thinks everything it does is essential. So essential
Speaker 1: workers continue as normal. They work as normal, they just
Speaker 1: don't get paid. Talk about indeed indentured servitude. They get
Speaker 1: paid afterwards, they get it in arrears, so we don't
Speaker 1: save any money that way. Well, government employees that are
Speaker 1: deemed non essential are temporarily put on unpaid leave, but
Speaker 1: typically what happens when they go back is Congress signs
Speaker 1: a bill that pays them back leave, so they don't
Speaker 1: lose anything. She don't save any money when they going
Speaker 1: to shut down, which is kind of sad. I mean,
Speaker 1: it would be great if we could. If we could,
Speaker 1: I'd like essential workers to stay home. So things like
Speaker 1: food assistant programs, federally funded preschool and UH student loan issuance,
Speaker 1: food inspections, and national parks are closed. They're not essential.
Speaker 1: What is essential it's border protection. We don't want those
Speaker 1: immigrants taking advantage of Republicans shutting down the government. That
Speaker 1: would be bad. In hospital, medical care is essential, law enforcement,
Speaker 1: air traffic control is essential, so security, Medicaid checks are essential.
Speaker 1: They keep going out, but benefit verification and caught insurances stop.
Speaker 1: So you can see there's some random process by which
Speaker 1: I think government has decided. Well, here's the principle government
Speaker 1: activities that if they stop pissed off a lot of people.
Speaker 1: Those are essential government services have stopped. Eh, maybe if
Speaker 1: you poor people would notice, but nobody else would notice.
Speaker 1: They're good to go. They can be shut down. That
Speaker 1: I think is the criteria. I don't think there's anything
Speaker 1: beyond that. So it does look like the government will
Speaker 1: shut down at least for a while. If you remember,
Speaker 1: in twenty nineteen, the government will shut down for thirty
Speaker 1: six days. Indeed, when Trump was president, there were three
Speaker 1: government shutdowns and the one in January twenty nineteen was
Speaker 1: the longest, thirty six days, and you know, the world continued.
Speaker 1: We were told at the time, this is horrible, awful,
Speaker 1: that it will reduce GDP by huge amounts, that we
Speaker 1: will all lose money, that we will things will be awful,
Speaker 1: that economic activity will be reduced. And you know, Congressional
Speaker 1: Budget Office estimated that the long one, the thirty six
Speaker 1: day reduced economic output by eleven billion. That was regained,
Speaker 1: like eight of that was regained. They claimed three billion
Speaker 1: was lost. Three billion in an economy of fifteen trillion.
Speaker 1: Not a big deal, not a lot of money. And
Speaker 1: I don't believe the Congressional Budget Office has are very good.
Speaker 1: I mean, just think of all the business like restaurants
Speaker 1: are going to do because the food inspector is not
Speaker 1: going to be there. That is three billion just there.
Speaker 1: Probably all right, they have it, maybe while we speak.
Speaker 1: While we're talking, maybe the next hour or so House
Speaker 1: of Representatives will decide what it's doing and so on. Right,
Speaker 1: and Elizabeth Warner's already saying that the two point five
Speaker 1: trillion that Republicans want to cut over ten years is
Speaker 1: going to mean that benefits, healthcare benefits for veterans are
Speaker 1: going to be cut, that cut. So she is a
Speaker 1: master at this and basically immediately going for the jugular right,
Speaker 1: immediately going for what she knows the voters care about
Speaker 1: healthcare benefits to the old and veterans. That's what people
Speaker 1: care about. Yeah. I don't see anything else happening right now, yep,
Speaker 1: but you know things will change constantly. Constantly. Elan is
Speaker 1: fighting with their liftist because the leftist saying because of Milan,
Speaker 1: this amount of money was cut from the bill because
Speaker 1: of Ilan, and his response is Democrats are lying again
Speaker 1: in this case that actually not you know, he basically
Speaker 1: killed that bill that had all this funding in its
Speaker 1: true he should be proud of it. All right, let's
Speaker 1: see murderates and lockdowns. So in twenty twenty, moderates spiked
Speaker 1: by a lot, you know, and people blame a lot
Speaker 1: of different things, you know, basically, homicides In the average
Speaker 1: UIs city homicides went up by close to thirty percent.
Speaker 1: Thirty percent, that's a huge number. Across the nation, twenty
Speaker 1: four thousand people were killed compared about nineteen thousand the
Speaker 1: year before. That's a huge increase five thousand additional deaths.
Speaker 1: And the question has been what caused it. A lot
Speaker 1: of commentators said at the time, and sense of blame
Speaker 1: basically defund the police initiatives, that the rollback of police
Speaker 1: enforcement after the Floyd George Floyd's death, with the idea
Speaker 1: that police were afraid to go into the streets. Police
Speaker 1: departments basically told police to back off. There was generally
Speaker 1: less policing being done. And so the explanation for the
Speaker 1: increase has been to a loge extent lack of policing
Speaker 1: because of the you know, BLM riots and the George
Speaker 1: Floyd prosecution of the policeman. After the George George Floyd
Speaker 1: death and all of that.
Speaker 2: So so now there's an analysis that actually looks basically
Speaker 2: a day to day basis from January one all the
Speaker 2: way to December thirty first of twenty twenty to c.
Speaker 1: What exactly happened. And the reality is that the largest increase,
Speaker 1: the largest increase of in deaths in motor rates actually
Speaker 1: happened before George Floyd was killed. It happened between you know,
Speaker 1: it happened starting mid April and really continued at a
Speaker 1: high rate through the George Floyd BLM riots until late June.
Speaker 1: Then it declined a little bit and then stayed steady
Speaker 1: but high, steady but high through the rest of the year,
Speaker 1: and then of course by twenty twenty two and twenty
Speaker 1: twenty three and twenty twenty four from the data, we
Speaker 1: have declined from there pretty dramatically. So why did it
Speaker 1: increase before Floyd? Well, basically the reason is it's pretty
Speaker 1: clear that the increase was lockdowns. Lockdowns are what caused
Speaker 1: the increase in crime. People were held up at home,
Speaker 1: they didn't have work to go to, they couldn't you know,
Speaker 1: they couldn't go out and easily meet with friends and
Speaker 1: hang out, and the frustration, the angst, you know, the
Speaker 1: the unhappiness that this all caused, right, is what led
Speaker 1: to the murders. They basically go straight up starting with
Speaker 1: the major lockdowns in major cities around the United States.
Speaker 1: So there's no question the demodelizing and defunding the police
Speaker 1: probably sustain these rates. The fact that police were not
Speaker 1: out in the streets probably sustained those rates for the
Speaker 1: rest of the year. But the fundamental sin was the lockdowns.
Speaker 1: When you keep young men at home, or at least
Speaker 1: pretend to keep them at home, then if they're not busy,
Speaker 1: the not work, not at school, they get bored and
Speaker 1: they have to they their energy gets expressed in gang
Speaker 1: like activities. And then of course the riots and George
Speaker 1: Floyd kind of almost legitimized the violence. It was almost
Speaker 1: okay to go boom stuff down and to harass people
Speaker 1: and including to shoot them. So it was lockdowns. So
Speaker 1: add that to, uh, to the reasons many reasons why, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, lockdowns, except for very stimputer times in emergency situations,
Speaker 1: are always going to be a disaster. Yep, lockdowns explain it.
Speaker 1: And uh so you if you if you're interested in
Speaker 1: the data, if you're interested to see the relationship between
Speaker 1: different neighborhoods or different different cities and what happened and
Speaker 1: the increase in violence of different cities and when it
Speaker 1: started and how to relate to the lockdowns. There is
Speaker 1: the report that came out was issued by the Bookings Institute,
Speaker 1: and the Bookings Institute you can find you know, you
Speaker 1: can find this this kind of data data and they
Speaker 1: do a pretty thorough job. I mean they really analyze
Speaker 1: the data. They look at examples from before twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: so they look at other examples of murder spikes to
Speaker 1: see what actually what actually happened. So, for example, Baton
Speaker 1: Rouge saw significant spike and murders in two thousand and
Speaker 1: five as it absorbed thousands of displaced students from low
Speaker 1: performing schools in New Orleans. After how it came Katrina,
Speaker 1: and again young people not busy, not really doing anything,
Speaker 1: just hanging around unemployed, and what you get is increasing crime.
Speaker 1: And by the way that those motiv rates in bat
Speaker 1: moves stayed very high for a long time after that,
Speaker 1: as people stayed in bat moves and didn't go back
Speaker 1: to their homes. And then the same thing happened in
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen when a massive flood struck bad Moge in
Speaker 1: August of twenty sixteen, damaged fifty thousand homes, pushing large
Speaker 1: numbers of teens out of school. Thousands of families became homeless,
Speaker 1: and local schools closed. When he closed schools. When you
Speaker 1: close employment opportunities, crime spikes. Crime spikes, and they stay
Speaker 1: high for a while. Afterwards, they don't just spike can
Speaker 1: go back down. They go hop up and they stay
Speaker 1: up all right. So I encourage you if you're interested
Speaker 1: in these kind of stuff, the Bookings Institute. Just look
Speaker 1: up Lockdowns and Murder Bookings Institute and you can find
Speaker 1: a report. It's available online, really interesting and really really detailed.
Speaker 1: Up Just I'll add to this one. Well, now we've
Speaker 1: got to set a topic. Life expectancy on the good
Speaker 1: news side. Good news, life expectancy in the United States
Speaker 1: is actually going up, or you could say, your deaths
Speaker 1: are actually going down. The one cause of this, surprisingly,
Speaker 1: where is this? One cause of this is the fact
Speaker 1: that opioid deaths are going down quite a bit in
Speaker 1: quite dramatic fashion. You seeing fentanyl deaths and deaths from
Speaker 1: other drugs going down. Maybe people have gotten onto the
Speaker 1: fentanyl will kill you kind of stuff. But if you
Speaker 1: look at overdoses from other substances, even cocaine and heroin,
Speaker 1: which were never very high, but they have come down.
Speaker 1: But psychostimulants, which have high levels of death from overdose
Speaker 1: have come down, and of course fentanyl and synthetic opioids
Speaker 1: over those deaths have come down. So deaths generally from
Speaker 1: opioids have come down. Hot to know exactly why, hought
Speaker 1: to know exactly why again they spiked when they spiked.
Speaker 1: Really the spike starts in twenty twenty, so I don't know. Lockdowns.
Speaker 1: You get a huge spike in lockdowns, they stay up
Speaker 1: there through twenty twenty two into twenty twenty three, and
Speaker 1: then they start going down in twenty three and twenty four.
Speaker 1: So add to the cost of lockdowns not only motivates
Speaker 1: going up, crime rates generally going up, but also over
Speaker 1: those deaths going up significantly. COVID and the lockdowns that
Speaker 1: resulted from COVID were, as Andrews says, at depressing time.
Speaker 1: But I think the response to it and the doubled up,
Speaker 1: tripled up, quadrupled up, the level of depression was it
Speaker 1: was completely unnecessary. So good news. It's finally coming down.
Speaker 1: It's not down the levels it was in twenty eighteen,
Speaker 1: but it's it is coming down quite a bit from
Speaker 1: those levels. By the way, it could very well be
Speaker 1: that part of the general malay that people well during
Speaker 1: the Biden years has to do with these kind of
Speaker 1: phenomenas Motier rates up, you know, over those rates up,
Speaker 1: depression up, and all as a lagging consequence of lockdowns.
Speaker 1: They were started under Trump and continued forever under Biden.
Speaker 1: A lot of the turbulence politically that we have felt
Speaker 1: is very could very well be a consequence of COVID
Speaker 1: and the response to it. Even the BLM riots. You
Speaker 1: know what, do we have had riots like that? If
Speaker 1: we did, people were not locked up, if people were
Speaker 1: not already unbelievably frustrated by what was going on in
Speaker 1: the world around them. Some other reasons that that life
Speaker 1: expectancy is going up has to do with the fact
Speaker 1: that deaths from other causes is also you know, improving,
Speaker 1: or there are fewer deaths from other causes, for example,
Speaker 1: heart disease fewer deaths. Some heart disease had a list here,
Speaker 1: but the list is list is gone. Death Rates are
Speaker 1: declining across all racial and ethnic groups in both men
Speaker 1: and women twenty twenty four suggests, I mean, preliminary date
Speaker 1: from twenty twenty four suggests that the trend continues. That is,
Speaker 1: a life expectancy went up in twenty two three, will
Speaker 1: go up even more in twenty twenty four. It's still
Speaker 1: not returned to the pre COVID levels, but it's significantly
Speaker 1: higher than it was at the bottom of this. So
Speaker 1: death from COVID, obviously, deaths, some heart disease, and deaths
Speaker 1: from other main health related causes, including overdoses are all
Speaker 1: getting better. And that's all good news. Heart disease deaths
Speaker 1: dropped by about three percent of twenty twenty three and
Speaker 1: dropping a little bit more in twenty twenty four. And
Speaker 1: let's see what else do we want to see? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, I do want to say this. It's kind
Speaker 1: of shocking and really really surprising that life expectancy is
Speaker 1: increasing because I was told by authoritative people, authoritative voices,
Speaker 1: people with medical degrees and some with not medical degrees
Speaker 1: but PhDs nonetheless, that the COVID vaccine was going to
Speaker 1: kill us all over time, and that because of the
Speaker 1: COVID vaccine, because all of us took it. Cancer rags
Speaker 1: of going up, heart disease rates are going up, and
Speaker 1: everything else is going up. I don't know what's going on. Somebody,
Speaker 1: somebody has been spreading fake news. Don't know who it is.
Speaker 1: Don't know who it is, but somebody seems to be,
Speaker 1: you know, spreading fake news. So yeah, life expectancy is improving.
Speaker 1: It could be improving a lot faster, would be improving
Speaker 1: a lot faster if not for these anti science bureaucrats
Speaker 1: in the government. We now have an anti science bureaucrat
Speaker 1: who's going to be heading up the Health and Human Services.
Speaker 1: So maybe we'll see a reversal of this trend of
Speaker 1: increased life expectancy with the appointment of rfk Uh. So
Speaker 1: we'll see, we'll see what actually what happens. But there
Speaker 1: are opportunities to dramatically increase life expectancy in the United
Speaker 1: States summer. Some of what RFK is proposing is actually true.
Speaker 1: That is, people should be eating better, and they should
Speaker 1: be exercising, and they should be doing stuff like that,
Speaker 1: and life expectancy will probably increase dramatically if people do that.
Speaker 1: I mean, obesity is the main cause of death one
Speaker 1: way or the other. Which is not really captured and
Speaker 1: can be taken care of if just people took care
Speaker 1: of themselves. All right, Rick says, doesn't RFK have to
Speaker 1: be approved by Congress? Yeah, by the Senate, not by Congress,
Speaker 1: by the Senate. Yeah, and you think you won't be
Speaker 1: What makes you think that you just ask to get
Speaker 1: I mean, the Republicans will control the Senate and he
Speaker 1: just has to get all the Republicans to vote for him.
Speaker 1: And Donald Trump is going to tell them to vote
Speaker 1: for him. And why would they not do what Donald
Speaker 1: Trump tells them to do? You need about four Republicans
Speaker 1: to say, know to RFK. Who are those four Republicans
Speaker 1: going to be? Who are the brave four Republicans who
Speaker 1: actually turn RFK down? I mean, the guy is a
Speaker 1: complete and utter nutcase, and an evil nutcase at that, allying, evading,
Speaker 1: disgusting nutcase. Roy is a Congressman. So you know Roy
Speaker 1: from Texas is a Republican. He can't vote here. This
Speaker 1: is just this is just senators, Senators, you think Ted
Speaker 1: Cruz from Texas will vote against him? No? No, So
Speaker 1: this is the clowns show that I promised you we
Speaker 1: would have with Donald Trump. And we are having it,
Speaker 1: and it has some entertaining value, and it has some
Speaker 1: value for the Iron Book Show because I have a lot,
Speaker 1: I'm going to have a lot to talk about. But
Speaker 1: oh my god, RFK Health and Humans Services, Oh my god.
Speaker 1: David Sustan says, Ben Shapiro came out in favor of RFK,
Speaker 1: So now you know, I mean, now there's no doubt
Speaker 1: that Ben Shapiro's basically sold his soul to the devil.
Speaker 1: In this case, Donald Trump completely sold out. I mean,
Speaker 1: Ben is smarter than that, more knowledgeable than that. Then
Speaker 1: he doesn't believe the vaccines caused autism, He doesn't believe
Speaker 1: that polio vaccine causes cancer. What else did RFK say
Speaker 1: the other day? Polio causes cancer? Oh? The what is
Speaker 1: the one that prevents civical cancer HPV? The HPV vaccine
Speaker 1: causes civical cancer. And if you look at every graph
Speaker 1: HVV vaccine, bam, civical cancer has gone down. I mean,
Speaker 1: the best news on the cancer front, the best news
Speaker 1: on the cancer front has been in civical cancer because basically,
Speaker 1: if you get the HPV vaccine, you're not gonna get
Speaker 1: civical cancer. I mean, they're probably other causes for cancer
Speaker 1: other than this value is. But it's it's an overwhelming.
Speaker 3: Majority, overwhelming majority.
Speaker 1: So no, Ben just doesn't just say stuff to say stuff.
Speaker 1: He says stuff to gratiate himself on his audience. So
Speaker 1: Mark says Ben just says stuff to say stuff. No,
Speaker 1: he says stuff to make sure the audience sticks with him,
Speaker 1: that he has that good Christian audience in spite of
Speaker 1: him being a yamica waving you. I wonder how many
Speaker 1: people Ben Shapiro lost when he basically fired candae owned
Speaker 1: and she's only become more anti Semitic fire, so and
Speaker 1: could only imagine. I wonder how many people he lost
Speaker 1: as a consequence of that though. But that's what he's
Speaker 1: trying to prevent. He's trying to prevent people abandoning him
Speaker 1: by and he and he does that by basically becoming
Speaker 1: a mouthpiece for anything Trump proposes. All right, does look
Speaker 1: like there's been a terrorist attack in Germany at one
Speaker 1: of these Christmas markets. I don't know if you ever
Speaker 1: been a Christmas market in Germany, really really pretty lots
Speaker 1: of lights. They usually take a square. They put these
Speaker 1: like old like buildings that look like look like old
Speaker 1: German kind of little buildings and they sell food and
Speaker 1: and stuff, and it looks like, uh, you know, it's
Speaker 1: it's it's probably obviously to be a going to be
Speaker 1: a Muslim. It took a car a truck and drove
Speaker 1: right through the Christmas market, and it's several people are
Speaker 1: dead and injured. But we don't have a lot more
Speaker 1: information about that. Here's what Rodern, Republican representative says. I'm
Speaker 1: just looking at Twitter and this stuff comes up, and
Speaker 1: it's it's hilarious. This is what this is What this
Speaker 1: Republican congressman says, this is very He's obviously a constitutional scholar,
Speaker 1: knows exactly what the Constitution says about the role of Congress.
Speaker 1: He says, quote, Republicans need to get on board with
Speaker 1: President Trump. Our role is really to.
Speaker 4: Be more of a supportive board of directors. Wow, supportive
Speaker 4: board of directors. They goes, you know, constitutional government, they goes.
Speaker 4: The whole idea of separation of power is checks and balances.
Speaker 1: Remember checks and balances. Madison wrote about this. I think
Speaker 1: all the founders wrote about this. In the end, checks
Speaker 1: and balances out the window. Forget about chicks and balances.
Speaker 1: By the way, every time there's a tourist tech like
Speaker 1: this in Germany, the a f D, the far right group,
Speaker 1: the far right political group, uh gains in terms of
Speaker 1: popularity and increased UH and increased probability that they will
Speaker 1: that they will win or get significant presence in the
Speaker 1: next election. Yeah, there's actually video of this attack in Germany.
Speaker 1: It's pretty horrible. The cod just mows down people and
Speaker 1: just keeps going, Wow, that's horrible. Yeah, there must be
Speaker 1: a number of people who had dead there, you know,
Speaker 1: some people not getting off the ground. That is just horrible.
Speaker 1: And uh it says here killed at least eleven people,
Speaker 1: wounds more than sixty, you know. And by the way,
Speaker 1: uh Elon Musk endorsed the a f D, and you know,
Speaker 1: his tweet was only the AfD can save Germany. And
Speaker 1: that is that sentiment is going to grow dramatically, is
Speaker 1: going to grow. Only the far right, only the semi
Speaker 1: fascist right can save Germany. That is that is the
Speaker 1: new message. All right, where were we? Oh yeah, I'm
Speaker 1: still doing the news, right, We're still we have to
Speaker 1: go to Ukraine. Okay, Ukraine. So in Ukraine. So two
Speaker 1: aspects of this one. Trump it looks like has basically
Speaker 1: said that he will continue to support Ukraine militarily, that
Speaker 1: he will continue to provide aid to Ukraine. At the
Speaker 1: same time, he has said that he is going to
Speaker 1: demand that NATO members member countries increase the defense spending
Speaker 1: to five percent of GDP. It's supposedly right now two percent,
Speaker 1: and not all the countries meet that. He wants it
Speaker 1: to increase the five percent, but then supposedly in a
Speaker 1: side comment, he said he'l except three and a half percent,
Speaker 1: but he wants NATO to dramatically increase spending. But he
Speaker 1: is willing to continue to aid Ukraine. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is a big deal. I wonder how how many of
Speaker 1: his supporters would feel about this. So, as somebody writes
Speaker 1: in the chat, so he's really not going to end
Speaker 1: the warned twenty four hours. It turns out it's a
Speaker 1: little bit more complicated than that. And really the bottom
Speaker 1: line is what he realizes he can't just capitulate to Putin.
Speaker 1: I mean, capitulated to Putin will make it very difficult
Speaker 1: to deal with China, and also it will just be
Speaker 1: a sign of weakness. And as weak as Donald Trump is,
Speaker 1: I don't I think he realizes that he can't. He
Speaker 1: can't actually do that. Not a good look, not a
Speaker 1: good thing to do. Right. Also, he might also realize,
Speaker 1: and there's something we talked about the beginning of the
Speaker 1: Ukraine War where maybe if people don't remember, Ukraine is
Speaker 1: sitting on massive quantities of natural gas and minerals, something
Speaker 1: around twenty six trillion dollars worth of probably more. That's
Speaker 1: just one estimate of what they have up. They've got
Speaker 1: massive quantities of natural gas. And part of the explanation
Speaker 1: for White Putin invaded was always he wants to get
Speaker 1: his hands on these reserves. But it's not just natural gas.
Speaker 1: They are vast mineral deposits in Ukraine that have not
Speaker 1: been capitalized on because they haven't had the resources, the
Speaker 1: capital to do it. Things like iron, ore, titanium, manganese,
Speaker 1: but also rare earth materials like rare earth metals that
Speaker 1: you can only find in place like China. Ukraine has.
Speaker 1: They also have lithium, which is necessarily for batteries and graphite.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is huge. And to hand all that
Speaker 1: over hand that over to the Russians, I think even
Speaker 1: Trump gets that, maybe that's not a good idea. Maybe
Speaker 1: figuring out a way to at least make it possible
Speaker 1: for Ukraine to exploit these resources and then to trade
Speaker 1: them into the West is a better deal than handing
Speaker 1: them over to the Russia and increasing Russia's power. So
Speaker 1: it could very well be that there are people around
Speaker 1: Trump who are more rational than jd Vance, who is
Speaker 1: terrible on Ukraine. And so now there's certainly what's his name,
Speaker 1: the new Secretary of State Rubio has been fairly good
Speaker 1: on Russia, and hopefully there are others who are good
Speaker 1: on Russia. But there's this is going to be a
Speaker 1: constant battle within the by the Trump administration. Those who
Speaker 1: want to support Ukraine, want to provide them with weapons,
Speaker 1: want the war to keep going in order to give
Speaker 1: the upper hand ultimately Ukraine, and those who want to
Speaker 1: just capitulate to Putin and ultimately view Putin as the
Speaker 1: real ally not Western Europe. And so it's going to
Speaker 1: be really really interesting to see who within the Republican
Speaker 1: Party has the upper hand within the Trump administration. Within
Speaker 1: the Trump administration, Pz says, lithium for batteries is not rare.
Speaker 1: It's common misunderstanding. Okay, Well, even if it's not rare,
Speaker 1: having Ukraine habit is better than having Russia have its
Speaker 1: Russia is a lot of already. I think UKRAINEO says
Speaker 1: some uranium. Anyway, what Ukraine needs is get rid of
Speaker 1: the corruption, get rid of the war, get rid of
Speaker 1: the corruption, and then see a steady flow. I told
Speaker 1: the Ukrainian parliaments. I was in the Ukrainian parliament in
Speaker 1: twenty fifteen. I met with Ukrainian and Peace in twenty
Speaker 1: fifteen in the parliament building. I sat around a conference
Speaker 1: room and they asked me, you're on, how do we
Speaker 1: make Ukraine rich? And it's a funny question because I
Speaker 1: get asked out a lot and my answer is always
Speaker 1: the same, Well, just do what rich countries do. And
Speaker 1: they were like, what's that. I said, privatize everything, privatize
Speaker 1: everything and sell it to anyone. They were like shocked.
Speaker 1: I said, I know you guys. You guys believe that
Speaker 1: Ukrainian land and Ukrainian natural resources should be held by Ukraine.
Speaker 1: I said, that'll make you poor. You want Ukrainian resources
Speaker 1: and Ukrainian land to make you rich, sell them to
Speaker 1: anybody except the Russians. By then, of course Russia is
Speaker 1: the enemy, because twenty fourteen privatize, sell right, Well, I know,
Speaker 1: rule of law, set up a system of rule of law,
Speaker 1: as I said the other day, So that is that
Speaker 1: is the first thing. But the chaka for them was
Speaker 1: the idea that they would have to sell Ukrainian land.
Speaker 1: And the context here is natural resources. Sell the land,
Speaker 1: sell the resource, sell it all, don't keep it staate owned,
Speaker 1: bring in fund capital, phone expertise, fund companies, fond ownership
Speaker 1: to exploit all these resources. Uh So, anyway, that never happened,
Speaker 1: and Ukraine is still poor as a consequence. But that
Speaker 1: is still what they should be doing. Privatize, privatize correctly,
Speaker 1: not like what's his name, Jeffrey saxetd in Russia, privatized
Speaker 1: with the recognition of property rights. All right, So were
Speaker 1: we following Ukraine primarily this perspective, this new perspective of
Speaker 1: Donald Trump where he is actually now supporting Ukraine and
Speaker 1: going to keep supplying him with arms. That is a
Speaker 1: real breakthrough. We'll follow that. I'll see if he actually
Speaker 1: actually stands up, stands up to that. Right. Finally, on
Speaker 1: the nuclear front, some good news. Sam Altman has a
Speaker 1: Sam Altman who is the CEO founder of open AI,
Speaker 1: who's in this big battle with legal battle with Elin Musk.
Speaker 1: Sam Altman has a nuclear power company called Klo Uklo,
Speaker 1: and OClO has just signed a power agreement with a
Speaker 1: big data center operator called Switch. Basically, the idea is
Speaker 1: that OClO will develop nuclear reactors called Euroa powerhouses, total
Speaker 1: capacity of twelve gigabytes, and they will deploy these nuclear reactors,
Speaker 1: each with yeah a capacity of twelve to fifteen megawatts,
Speaker 1: will deploy them at these basically at these data centers.
Speaker 1: The contract is through twenty forty four, with them hoping
Speaker 1: to start deployment of these nuclear power reactors by twenty
Speaker 1: twenty seven. Now that strikes me as unbelievably ambitious to
Speaker 1: deploy by twenty twenty seven. But the one area in
Speaker 1: which we might see major, major positive changes within the
Speaker 1: Trump administration is energy. And one of the areas and
Speaker 1: energy that I think Chris Wright and others, some of
Speaker 1: the other good appointees that Trump has made one of
Speaker 1: the areas and energy that they want to really revolutionize
Speaker 1: and really shake things up in is nuclear. So we
Speaker 1: might see, you know, nuclear approvals for these power plants
Speaker 1: go quickly. I mean, we can hope and twenty twenty
Speaker 1: seven might be realistic. I wouldn't say it was realistic
Speaker 1: if if Biden had once. So this is the one area,
Speaker 1: generally energy and specifically nuclear where Trump winning is a
Speaker 1: huge plus, is a huge plus and could make a
Speaker 1: big difference. All right, let's see, uh one of the
Speaker 1: quick good news piece. So, autonomous taxis managed by Weimo.
Speaker 1: Weaimo the autonomous taxi company in San Francisco, and I
Speaker 1: think in Arizona. Autonomous taxis have now driven twenty five
Speaker 1: point three million miles twenty five point three million miles
Speaker 1: with no human being inside. Uh. You see a reduction
Speaker 1: of eighty eight percent in property damage claims and a
Speaker 1: ninety two percent reduction in bodily injury claims compared to
Speaker 1: human drivers per mile driven. So uh, I'll just read
Speaker 1: you from the study. To study compared Waymo's liability claims
Speaker 1: to human driver baselines, which are based on Swiss res
Speaker 1: data from over five hundred thousand claims and over two
Speaker 1: hundred billion miles of exposure. It found that Waymore driver
Speaker 1: demonstrated better safety performance when competed human driven vehicles within
Speaker 1: eighty eight percent reduction of property damage claims and the
Speaker 1: ninety two percent reduction of bodily injury claims in real
Speaker 1: numbers across twenty five point three million miles the waymore
Speaker 1: drivers was involved in just nine property damage claims and
Speaker 1: two bodily injury claims. Both bodily injury claims are still
Speaker 1: open and described in the paper. That is, it's not
Speaker 1: clear that the WEYMO was even responsible for them. For
Speaker 1: the same distance, human drivers would be expected to have
Speaker 1: seventy eight property claims in twenty six bodily injury claims.
Speaker 1: That is huge. That means this is about ninety percent safer.
Speaker 1: And maybe if the two bodily injury claims are now
Speaker 1: way Moos's fault, maybe it's one hundred percent safer for
Speaker 1: human beings. Maybe there's a scratch and a dent here
Speaker 1: in there, but for human beings, one hundred percent safer.
Speaker 1: Talk about life expectancy. One of the causes of death
Speaker 1: in the United States, and the United States is particularly
Speaker 1: higher on this relative to other countries is car accidents.
Speaker 1: Imagine if that goes away because of autonomous vehicles. I mean,
Speaker 1: that is super exciting, super exciting. So technology wins again,
Speaker 1: wins again. PZ says only TESTLA is a scalable safe
Speaker 1: self driving solution that is obviously bs. The reality is
Speaker 1: way Moore is not driving Teslas, so Weemo clearly is
Speaker 1: doing something right. You know, you get ignored the reality
Speaker 1: at your own cost. These are numbers from waymo, not
Speaker 1: from Tesla. They're using standardized taxis all over San Francisco.
Speaker 1: We will see if it's scalable. We will see. All right,
Speaker 1: let's see, Well, cities is where you expect taxis to be.
Speaker 1: You don't need, uh, you don't need taxis outside of cities,
Speaker 1: So cities is the primary place in which you're going
Speaker 1: to use taxis. Whether you know whether Tesla solution is
Speaker 1: the best solution. Actually, talking to people you know in
Speaker 1: the that I've talked to in the industry, there's a
Speaker 1: there's a company in Israel that does senses for self
Speaker 1: autonomous cause you know they they actually think that, uh,
Speaker 1: Tesla solution is is not going to be the best solution,
Speaker 1: is not going to be the best solution. That ultimately, yeah,
Speaker 1: ultimately that's mobile. The MOBILEI is a better solution and
Speaker 1: and and scales better than Tesla. So I have no opinion.
Speaker 1: We will see, But in terms of taxis, I'm hoping
Speaker 1: to see the entire taxi industry killed by self driving
Speaker 1: way more cause that would be that would be huge, huge.
Speaker 1: I mean it's already taxis are suffering because of uh Uber,
Speaker 1: but now I imagine it's self driving ubers. That would
Speaker 1: be That would be amazing, That would be amazing. Frank
Speaker 1: sky Net is coming. Yes, it is. Run for the hills.
Speaker 1: Build that nuclear bunker quickly.
Speaker 5: They're gonna machines are going to kill us, all kill
Speaker 5: us all, all right.
Speaker 1: I am going to be skeptical about Tesla's unbelievable success
Speaker 1: cusp of unbelieved success, so partially because how depends and
Speaker 1: Tesla is on China, so it's going to be interesting
Speaker 1: to see what happens with China. Michael, uh, yeah, we're
Speaker 1: going to superchat. Ein Ran said, Kant was the first hippie.
Speaker 1: I can see how hippie culture is contient. Does black
Speaker 1: ghetto thug culture also stem from Kant? Both seem animalistic
Speaker 1: and mindless in different ways? I mean it does in
Speaker 1: the end. It does in the end, right if you
Speaker 1: recognize that content is responsible for kind of the most
Speaker 1: subjectivism that makes black ghetto thug culture not just exist
Speaker 1: but five in the culture. So that kind of subjectivism,
Speaker 1: that kind of detachment from reality, from standards, from real
Speaker 1: values that Ran says conscient is responsible for. And in
Speaker 1: that sense, yeah, he is responsible for that as well.
Speaker 1: But there's a sense in which kndrs responsible for every
Speaker 1: aspect of bad culture and existence today because he is
Speaker 1: the major influence on modern philosophy and in most of
Speaker 1: its different variants, even the ones that reject Kant are
Speaker 1: content without knowing it. At least that's Rands and Lenipeacp's view.
Speaker 1: They have the philosophers. When you deny reason, you open
Speaker 1: up the world to any subjective, any crazy, any irrational idea. Andrew,
Speaker 1: It's interesting how Nathaniel Brandon went from writing The Psychology
Speaker 1: of Pleasure exalting pleasure's role in life according to objectivism,
Speaker 1: to claiming that objectivism represses people, leading to a set
Speaker 1: of thoughts. Yeah, I mean, Nathaniel Brandon phenomena is a
Speaker 1: complicated phenomenon because I would argue that a lot of
Speaker 1: the a lot of the repression that Nathaniel Brandon blames
Speaker 1: on objectivists was something that he promoted when he was
Speaker 1: kind of the leader second only time. Rand within objectivism.
Speaker 1: When you hear stories about objectives movement in those days,
Speaker 1: it was it did encourage repression. It was a movement
Speaker 1: scared of Nathaniel Brandon, scared of his judgment. And all
Speaker 1: of that comes across in his autobiography. That is, it's
Speaker 1: not that he heights this fact about himself and how
Speaker 1: he interacted with the objectivist movement and what he kind
Speaker 1: of demanded of the objectivist movement. He was a very
Speaker 1: very negative force within the movement, driving it towards this
Speaker 1: asceticism and repression. So then to criticize something that he
Speaker 1: was instrumental in creating, it's not inherent in objectivism, but
Speaker 1: it is inherent in I think Nathaniel Brandon's rationalistic or
Speaker 1: repressed approach to objectivism. And if you understand what happened
Speaker 1: to him, he basically was faking his objectivism, so of
Speaker 1: course it was repressed. He was repressing his true self.
Speaker 1: So Nathaniel is a complicated character. David, thank you. Fifty dollars.
Speaker 1: Thank you, David. And by the way, we're like still
Speaker 1: one hundred dollars short from our first hour and we
Speaker 1: just hit the first hour, So second day in a row,
Speaker 1: we're coming up show its David says, how does government
Speaker 1: spending at the GDP? There's no added value? Right? Well,
Speaker 1: I mean the proponents of government spending claim there is.
Speaker 1: I mean they're building infrastructure and it's creating economic stability
Speaker 1: and it's providing I don't know. They all claim it is.
Speaker 1: Much of it is not. Obviously it's not added value.
Speaker 1: But the reality is that just the way it's calculating GDP,
Speaker 1: the way you calculated it includes government expenditures one part
Speaker 1: of the GDP formula, and it's additive. So basically government spending.
Speaker 1: The high the government spending is, the higher the GDP.
Speaker 1: And a good example of this I've often talked about
Speaker 1: this is the GDP goes up during wartime, particularly something
Speaker 1: like World War Two. So USGDP go up a lot,
Speaker 1: and it went up a lot because gouverment spending went
Speaker 1: up a lot. But when government spinning went up a lot,
Speaker 1: instead of living went down because of taxes and debt,
Speaker 1: private investment went down, private entrepreneurship went down, but the
Speaker 1: government spending went up so much it overshadowed all that
Speaker 1: and GDP went up. GBDP was like up twelve percent.
Speaker 1: I think it was in nineteen forty two, the first
Speaker 1: two year of the war. That doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 1: The quality of life, stand up, living was down, you know,
Speaker 1: and half the male population will sent overseas to fight
Speaker 1: in a war, many of them killed, never coming back.
Speaker 1: How can GDP go up under those circumstances? How can
Speaker 1: you measure the measure of economic weal being go up?
Speaker 1: It doesn't make any sense, But we really don't have.
Speaker 1: Economists have not come up with, as far as I know,
Speaker 1: a better measure of real economic activity, a real economic
Speaker 1: well being, productivity, gains, income and wealth capita, things like that.
Speaker 1: But GDP is the proxy for all that Russia in
Speaker 1: the Ukraine war. GDP went up. It actually does add
Speaker 1: up mathematically, it all works. But because GDP doesn't take
Speaker 1: into account a lot of stuff, So the stuff that
Speaker 1: is depleted taken out of the economy during a war
Speaker 1: doesn't it's not counted, so it's not a negative. But
Speaker 1: the gumt spending does count, so it's added. So it
Speaker 1: doesn't make any sense in the sense of a descriptive
Speaker 1: good descriptive of economic activity. But it's all we got
Speaker 1: is just no better measure that is regularly reported, much
Speaker 1: better measure that's regularly reported than we have. Again, Russia
Speaker 1: is experiencing the same thing. GDP is going up during
Speaker 1: the war with Ukraine, even though quality of life stand
Speaker 1: up living, even the number of people is shrinking because
Speaker 1: people are leaving Russia and GDP is going up. Why
Speaker 1: because government spending on military, on paying soldiers, on building weapons,
Speaker 1: and that counts towards GDP. Government spending is all from
Speaker 1: taxes and debt, absolutely, or it could also be from
Speaker 1: putting money, from putting money, but it doesn't matter. That is,
Speaker 1: the taxes and debt are not reduced on the other
Speaker 1: side of GDP. That is, GDP is just an increase.
Speaker 1: GDP just measures gum and spending it, you know, and
Speaker 1: some other things. It doesn't get decreased because debt and
Speaker 1: taxes have gone up. And don't forget, they do print money.
Speaker 1: Russia is experiencing heightened inflation right now because it had
Speaker 1: to print money, you know, to fund its expenditures. Well,
Speaker 1: we can explain it. I'm not sure what the issue is.
Speaker 1: We can absolutely explain it. The math all works. There's
Speaker 1: no problem with the math and it makes complete sense.
Speaker 1: That is GDP is measuring not actual increased production in
Speaker 1: the economy or GDP is or wealth creation in ectomoty.
Speaker 1: GDP is measuring government spending and some aspects of private industry.
Speaker 1: That's it. That's what it's measuring. So as long as
Speaker 1: you know what it's measuring, it's measuring it right, and
Speaker 1: it's completely understandable. It's completely true. And if you believe,
Speaker 1: like most Kynesians believe and Neo Kynesians and state of
Speaker 1: left and right, that government expenditure is what generates economic activity,
Speaker 1: then it's a very flawed measure of wellb very flawed.
Speaker 1: To what extent James asked, to what extent is your
Speaker 1: audience made you more optimistic since she started the IBS show.
Speaker 1: M Yeah, I don't know. I think it's sometimes it
Speaker 1: makes me more optimistic and sometimes it makes me more pessimistic.
Speaker 1: When I see some of the stuff on the chat,
Speaker 1: it makes me more pessimistic. So it varies. Yeah, But
Speaker 1: overall I think that the growth and I steady growth,
Speaker 1: then I steady growth and income over the years, the
Speaker 1: general support that you guys provide, the passion you have
Speaker 1: for these ideas, Yeah, all of that a net increases
Speaker 1: my my optimism by the way Urduwan, president of TUKI recently,
Speaker 1: you know, I think today or yesterday, has claimed that
Speaker 1: Jerusalem is part of in a sense greater tokey hawking
Speaker 1: back hackning back to again the Ottoman Empire. All right,
Speaker 1: let's see, we're still about fifty We're still exactly fifty
Speaker 1: six dollars short, just to keep you updated in terms
Speaker 1: of where we are in terms of a goal. Fifty
Speaker 1: six dollars short. But that's only for the first hour.
Speaker 1: There's another two hundred and fifty for the second hour.
Speaker 1: All right, thank you. I saw John for the twenty
Speaker 1: dollars and Mary Ellen for the ten. Thank you for
Speaker 1: the stickers. Really really appreciated that you two can do
Speaker 1: a stick YouTube. Yeah, super chat is lackluster yesterday and today.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure what's going on. Maybe people are saving
Speaker 1: up at December thirty first, both questions and money. Hopefully
Speaker 1: it's not a bad omen for December thirty first, but
Speaker 1: maybe people saving up because on December thirty first, we're
Speaker 1: doing a big fundraiser. We'll start it on December thirty
Speaker 1: first at one pm Eastern time, and we'll just go
Speaker 1: until we raise at least fifteen thousand dollars. That's the goal,
Speaker 1: that's the goal. What else today? Yeah, so yeah, Also
Speaker 1: want to remind people if you want to support the
Speaker 1: show on a monthly basis, patreons a great way to
Speaker 1: do it. One of the things that if you do
Speaker 1: ten dollars on Patreon, if you do ten dollars month
Speaker 1: on Patreon, you can also then get the audio the
Speaker 1: podcast on any podcasting app you want, free of advertising.
Speaker 1: You get a special link to be able to get
Speaker 1: it fear of advertising for ten dollars, for ten dollars
Speaker 1: or more on Patreon. So Patreon again is supplying, is
Speaker 1: making that possible. A Patreon is probably the easiest platform
Speaker 1: to take contributions, and you can change you can change
Speaker 1: the level, you can go in and change your profile.
Speaker 1: Much more flexibility than PayPal, but still accepting contributions on
Speaker 1: PayPal as well. All right, we've got a few questions left,
Speaker 1: not many, not many, David, thank you, Thank you for
Speaker 1: that so slowly chipping away at the number. Michael says
Speaker 1: people are not ready for the type of world they
Speaker 1: they are advocating for. I think that's right. I think
Speaker 1: that's right. I think that'll be surprised on how bad
Speaker 1: it is. Michael also says justice as a virtue, what
Speaker 1: happens when injustice becomes accepted as an ideal, Well, you
Speaker 1: get kind of the horrors of Holocaust, you get the
Speaker 1: horrors of I don't know, woke, you get the horrors
Speaker 1: of dei DII is incredibly unjust, but it's considered the ideal.
Speaker 1: You get the hours of the far left. But again
Speaker 1: you get the hours of kind of fascism and anti
Speaker 1: Semitism as well. So yeah, I mean, when injustice becomes
Speaker 1: an ideal, really really really really bad stuff happens. Justice
Speaker 1: is an important virtue holds the world together. Simon, what
Speaker 1: are your thoughts on someone like Canniston saying Israel is
Speaker 1: conducting a holocaust on the Palestinians. She's also blaming Jews
Speaker 1: for the pornography industry in the United States. She's also
Speaker 1: blaming Jews for everything wrong in the world. She's just
Speaker 1: an anti semi who hates Jews, hates Israel. She doesn't
Speaker 1: know what a holocaust is, she doesn't know what's going
Speaker 1: on in Israel with the Palestinians. She is basically an evasive,
Speaker 1: ignorant hater, an awful, really disgusting human being. I think
Speaker 1: that's pretty clear what I think of Candice own, so
Speaker 1: she doesn't know what she's talking about. In other words, Fank,
Speaker 1: did Russia really make cancer vaccines or is it? BS?
Speaker 1: I mean, a lot of companies around the world are
Speaker 1: working on cancer vaccines. Some forms of cancer more than expected.
Speaker 1: Some forms of cancer are created by a virus, like
Speaker 1: cervical cancer. Other forms of cancer can be dealt with
Speaker 1: the vaccine that like an m and a vaccine that
Speaker 1: actually cause that actually cause the body itself to fight
Speaker 1: the cancer cells s. There's a lot of ways in
Speaker 1: which vaccines can be a real legitimate cancer treatment, and
Speaker 1: a lot of companies and a lot of places around
Speaker 1: the world they're workie on it. So I have no
Speaker 1: reason to think that the Russian version is completely BS.
Speaker 1: Edwards says, candace On is smart maybe, but she's evil.
Speaker 1: And really, if you're not willing to say she's evil,
Speaker 1: you really shouldn't be on this chat. She is evil.
Speaker 1: She is an evil, antisemitic, horrible human being. And anybody
Speaker 1: who defends candace On is not welcoming you on bookshow, right,
Speaker 1: So that is the reality. I don't care how smart
Speaker 1: people are. Hitler is smart, I care about whether they're
Speaker 1: all standing. Hitler was an evil bastard. Candice own is evil,
Speaker 1: her ideas are evil. She is an invader, and she
Speaker 1: is a collectivistic, racist, horrible human being. Other than that, yeah,
Speaker 1: an old consciras smart. I called him the most evil
Speaker 1: person in human history. So Smart has nothing to do
Speaker 1: with it. It's a question of whether you're willing to
Speaker 1: pass all judgment on her. Kirol, thank you for the
Speaker 1: five hundred check something something other. I hear quite often
Speaker 1: that rich people don't need liquid cash, as they can
Speaker 1: just borrow against their stock value and keep be borrowing
Speaker 1: and perpetually stay rich. Something along those lines. It's just silly.
Speaker 1: If yes, why well, I mean it's they only stay
Speaker 1: rich as long as their stock portfolio does well. It
Speaker 1: is true that they can borrow against the stock, just
Speaker 1: like they can borrow against their homes. They can borrow
Speaker 1: against the real estate. That might have so a lot
Speaker 1: of ways in which you can, if you have assets,
Speaker 1: and stocks are assets, gain liquidity through borrowing. But you
Speaker 1: have to pay back the borrowing at some point. You
Speaker 1: have to have cash flow coming in that pays for it,
Speaker 1: which will require you either to have income maybe from dividends,
Speaker 1: maybe from work you do, or sell the stock or
Speaker 1: the or the.
Speaker 3: Or the.
Speaker 1: Other assets. Other assets you might have real estate, So
Speaker 1: you got to pay interest on the loan. Hopefully your
Speaker 1: stock portfolio is doing better than what you're paying interest
Speaker 1: on the loans. So it's it's kind of a you know,
Speaker 1: there's a there's truth to what they're saying, but so
Speaker 1: what it doesn't mean anything. It doesn't say anything, and
Speaker 1: it's not a very sophisticated truth. That is, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of detail that goes into that, right, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of detail in terms of how much interest you're making,
Speaker 1: how are the stocks doing. If the stocks do badly,
Speaker 1: is the bank and a call back the loan and
Speaker 1: say you don't have a life collateral for the loan.
Speaker 1: You can't borrow the entire value of your stock, so
Speaker 1: you can only borrow a certain percentage of it. So
Speaker 1: it's not a perpetual motion machine because you just you
Speaker 1: keep you keep spending. Ultimately, the loan has to be
Speaker 1: paid off some point, whether after you die or whenever.
Speaker 1: It has to be paid off, and the way it
Speaker 1: gets paid off is by selling those stocks or by
Speaker 1: selling that realistic it's like, yeah, having a mortgage, and
Speaker 1: constantly you know you're paying your mortgage off, so your
Speaker 1: principle increases, but you keep taking second mortgages on the
Speaker 1: increased value principle. Well, it's still true that one day,
Speaker 1: maybe when you sell the house, you can have to
Speaker 1: pay the loan off and you have to make payments
Speaker 1: on a monthly basis, and you have to have some
Speaker 1: income coming from somewhere to pay that off. So there's
Speaker 1: no free money. It's not a perpetual wealth machine. There's
Speaker 1: no such thing. Baire Lens is. Happy holidays everyone, Thank
Speaker 1: you bailed in. By the way, we're eighteen dollars short
Speaker 1: of our first hour goal, even though we're well into
Speaker 1: our second hour autan Can dating apps have positive incentives
Speaker 1: when people remove them after finding one partner? Is polyamory
Speaker 1: in model? In your opinion or under objectives to ethics?
Speaker 1: Can dating apps have positive incentive when people remove them
Speaker 1: after finding one partner? I'm not sure I understand that.
Speaker 1: So you remove them, and then the incentive is to
Speaker 1: stay with a partner because you don't have the app anymore.
Speaker 1: You can upload the app back. It's not that much work.
Speaker 1: I don't know. And do you really need an incentive
Speaker 1: to stay with somebody you don't want to stay with otherwise,
Speaker 1: So no, I don't think I maybe maybe, And then
Speaker 1: is pelo amory immoral in your opinion? And the objectivism
Speaker 1: doesn't have a position of polyamory In my opinion, it's
Speaker 1: not per se imol, but it's probably, and I'm not
Speaker 1: saying for sure, probably impractical. And in that sense, im
Speaker 1: all that is you probably try it, discover it doesn't work,
Speaker 1: and have to abandon it. And if you do that
Speaker 1: and figure out it doesn't work and then keep doing it,
Speaker 1: then that becomes them all. But maybe people have to
Speaker 1: discover that for themselves. Maybe it's something you have to
Speaker 1: experiment with to discover that it doesn't work. So yeah,
Speaker 1: I think that polyamory experimenting with it is not immol
Speaker 1: once you come to the conclusion it doesn't work, continuing
Speaker 1: to do it is. David says it's a good idea
Speaker 1: to remove dating app once involved with someone. Okay, I
Speaker 1: you know, having not dated in an era of dating apps,
Speaker 1: that probably makes sense. It's a signal or at least
Speaker 1: a person, but it doesn't it's not a huge incentive
Speaker 1: because dating apps can easily be uploaded again, so downloaded again,
Speaker 1: whatever it is, right, you can re engage with the
Speaker 1: dating happen at any point, all right, Frank, Maggionia Thompson's
Speaker 1: story is reminding me of Knight of January sixteenth, Karen
Speaker 1: Andrey and beyond Faulkner cheering on the murder of the rich.
Speaker 1: Can you see that too a little bit? But the
Speaker 1: main point of January sixteenth is Karen Andrey's character. And
Speaker 1: there's nobody in this the Maggionia Thompson's story. That's Karen Andrey,
Speaker 1: and that's what the whole story it hinges on. Who sorry,
Speaker 1: And also the character beyond Faulkner folk is not like
Speaker 1: Thompson at all, So the characters are not the same.
Speaker 1: The only aspect that might be the same as the
Speaker 1: cheering on in the Murder of the Rich, But that's
Speaker 1: not what the essential part of Knight of January sixteenth,
Speaker 1: Iron RAN's play is about. So no, it's not what
Speaker 1: comes to my mind. Andrew reading anything good lately, I
Speaker 1: told you about Unit X, I still need to do
Speaker 1: a show about that. That was good. I'm reading a
Speaker 1: strange book right now, history book. I can't remember its name.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you more about it when I've read a
Speaker 1: little bit more of it. But it's a kind of
Speaker 1: a modern history book that's really interesting in many ways,
Speaker 1: but it objects the things that are wrong. But I
Speaker 1: want to get more into it before I talk more
Speaker 1: about it. Let's see Andrew says there are a lot
Speaker 1: of jokes in the business world who make their way
Speaker 1: through intimidation. Ultimately, they're usually miserable sobs, but they can
Speaker 1: be superficially successful. I think for a while, and again,
Speaker 1: I think a lot of that is because we live
Speaker 1: in a relatively irrational world. The more rational people are,
Speaker 1: the less people like that could be successful, the more
Speaker 1: they'll be easily identified and and and turned against, and
Speaker 1: people will turn against them. All right, guys, I mean
Speaker 1: that is That is all the super chat I have.
Speaker 1: I'm still here and we're still short, but that's all
Speaker 1: the superchat questions I have. I'll remind you that Alex
Speaker 1: Epstein is a is a sponsor of the show, and
Speaker 1: you can support Alex and should support Alex by going
Speaker 1: to Alex Epstein dot substack dot com, where you can
Speaker 1: engage with his talking points and talking points are his
Speaker 1: talking points are pretty amazing because they provide you with succinct,
Speaker 1: easily digestible, easily understood arguments about some of the hottest
Speaker 1: issues in the world today, from climate change to fossil fuels,
Speaker 1: the energy more broadly, to environmentalism more broadly. So you
Speaker 1: don't sign on. He's one of the most influential people
Speaker 1: right now in the world, saline the United States in
Speaker 1: the Trump administration and when it comes to energy, and
Speaker 1: it's good to know what he's thinking. Alex Epstein dot
Speaker 1: substack dot com. All right, Fank says, are Italian tomato
Speaker 1: farmers subsidized like US, like the US? I don't know,
Speaker 1: like USA corn It's quite possible. Italian farmers generally heavily subsidized.
Speaker 1: I don't know about tomato farmers, and generally European farmers
Speaker 1: massive subsidies across the board. On European farmers, it's one
Speaker 1: of the in Europe, it might be the most subsidized
Speaker 1: of all products is farming. And this is why they're real.
Speaker 1: There's real well, uh, real people are really upset by
Speaker 1: the by the fact that Europe looks like it's going
Speaker 1: to sign a free trade agreement with South America that
Speaker 1: includes farming products. Right, but but yes, farming generally heavily, heavily,
Speaker 1: heavily subsidized.
Speaker 6: All right, all right, I will call it a day.
Speaker 1: Let's see, I will. As I said, there'll probably be
Speaker 1: a show tomorrow on financial regulation, on financial deregulation, on
Speaker 1: getting rid of financial regulations in finance. That'll be two
Speaker 1: pm East Coast time, most likely. And there'll be a
Speaker 1: shown Hebrew on at eleven am Eastern time six pm
Speaker 1: Israel time on Sunday, and then we'll be back to normal,
Speaker 1: there is no normal, back to a semi normal schedule
Speaker 1: starting again on Monday. All right, guys, see you over
Speaker 1: the weekend. Have a great weekend, See you soon. Bye, everybody,