Speaker 1: A lot of them, fots of interest and an individual lots.
Speaker 1: This is the show, all right, everybody, welcome to every
Speaker 1: one book show and this uh Monday me fifth. Hope
Speaker 1: everybody had a fantastic weekend. I managed to get sick
Speaker 1: during the weekend, but here I am in spite of that,
Speaker 1: so here I am. Also. Yeah, we'll talk about destiny
Speaker 1: in a minute. All right, let's jump in. We we
Speaker 1: We've got a lot of talk about. But I think
Speaker 1: the big story from the weekend really was one Buffet uh.
Speaker 1: One buffet, the CEO A Books of Halloway uh is built.
Speaker 1: This is a business with today more than one point
Speaker 1: one six trillion dollars. It's only it's the only non
Speaker 1: tech business that is worth over trillion dollars. I guess
Speaker 1: there's one other one, which is like the Saudi Oa company.
Speaker 1: But other than that, this is it the only non
Speaker 1: tech trillion dollar company anyway. One Buffett has every year
Speaker 1: his annual shareholder meeting, and during that meeting he has
Speaker 1: thousands of people show up. I think the eighteen thousand
Speaker 1: people over the weekend, investors from all over the world,
Speaker 1: institutional investors, individual investors. CEO off Apple was there and
Speaker 1: he takes questions and they just do a lengthy ask
Speaker 1: me anything and questions about anything. He's been doing this
Speaker 1: for many, many years. He used to do this with
Speaker 1: Charlie Mange's partner, and Charlie died was last year, I think,
Speaker 1: at the age of ninety nine. One Buffett is ninety four.
Speaker 1: And he answered question followers right and done this every year,
Speaker 1: and in this time with eighteen thousand people there. Just
Speaker 1: as this was winding down, he announced that this was
Speaker 1: actually his last annual shareholder meeting. He was retiring. He
Speaker 1: was leaving a CEO. He had chosen his replacement, greg Abel,
Speaker 1: who didn't know that Wan Buffer was going to announce
Speaker 1: this over the weekend, and and he bets it. He's
Speaker 1: he's walking away at age ninety four. I wam above
Speaker 1: has had just a stunning career, a stunning career. And
Speaker 1: you know he started in nineteen sixty five. He was
Speaker 1: running at the time a small hedge fund. And you know,
Speaker 1: somebody at Berkshire. Berkshire was a small textile business in decline,
Speaker 1: like most textile businesses, I guess somebody he had bought
Speaker 1: a small stake in Bookshire and the owner had reneged
Speaker 1: on a deal and was pitched one Buffet off and
Speaker 1: he bought the company. He basically bought the company, and
Speaker 1: from there he has turned Brookshire Had the Way into
Speaker 1: what can only be called the conglomerate. It owns multiple
Speaker 1: businesses in multiple business industries. It owns one hundred percent
Speaker 1: of these businesses. There's a lot of insurance companies. He
Speaker 1: purchased the first insurance company nationally Demnity nineteen sixty seven.
Speaker 1: Today it owns sixty different subsidiary businesses, all kinds of sizes,
Speaker 1: all kinds of industries. You know, you probably know the
Speaker 1: Beg insurance company that it owns his Geico. But they
Speaker 1: own just a ton of businesses outright, and then these
Speaker 1: businesses are profitable, so they throw cash right out and
Speaker 1: then want Buffett uses that cash to make investments, not
Speaker 1: buying out outright companies, but making investment. He's a big
Speaker 1: investor in American Express, in Coca Cola. He was a
Speaker 1: big investor at some point in JP Morgan Chase. I
Speaker 1: think it was a city bank, one of the one
Speaker 1: of the big banks. And then of course more recently
Speaker 1: we'll get to this invested in Apple and has sold
Speaker 1: much of his investment in Apple before the decline in
Speaker 1: Apple stock. Amazingly, Uh, when.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: When one Buffett bought Books you Hathaway, he bought it
Speaker 1: for about, you know, eleven fifty a share. Today, Booksher
Speaker 1: Hathaway trades for eight hundred thousand dollars a share. Eight
Speaker 1: hundred thousand dollars a share. If you had bought in
Speaker 1: to bookshit, you couldn't. But if you'd bought into Books,
Speaker 1: you had Away at eleven fifty. Just think of the
Speaker 1: return you would have on that Booksha Hathaway has made millionaires,
Speaker 1: centy millionaires. People who invested in the stock and held
Speaker 1: it over many years have made a literally a fortune
Speaker 1: off of the stock. It's closing in on you know,
Speaker 1: it's eight hundred thousand. One day, it'll be in a million.
Speaker 1: It never it never has stock splits, although it does
Speaker 1: have another class of shares with smaller voting rights that
Speaker 1: you can buy for smaller denomination. They've never they paid
Speaker 1: one dividend in nineteen sixty seven. They do not pay dividends,
Speaker 1: which is interesting in and of itself, And of the
Speaker 1: last sixty years, the stock has only declined in eleven
Speaker 1: of the last sixty and I think it outperforms. It
Speaker 1: performs pretty much any index you look up. It's just done,
Speaker 1: you know, phenomenally well. And it it And for a
Speaker 1: company that's so well diversified, very very very very unusual,
Speaker 1: one Buffet himself is worth one hundred and fifty billion
Speaker 1: dollars for many years, for many years, it seems like.
Speaker 2: It.
Speaker 1: For many years, one Buffalo was the richest man in
Speaker 1: the world. He's been overtaken by by Bill Gates and
Speaker 1: uh and Jeff Bezos and others.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: Anyway, it's just a just a This guy is a genius.
Speaker 1: He is a you know, unique, the greatest investor in
Speaker 1: American history. Uh, he is. I think his real strength
Speaker 1: is investing and in companies and then holding that stock
Speaker 1: for a very long time, buying companies with great management.
Speaker 1: He's not one of these guys who buys companies and
Speaker 1: replaces their management makes them better. Now. He buy his
Speaker 1: companies with great management who is convinced can grow and
Speaker 1: be successful that are very profitable, but he believes can
Speaker 1: be become even more profitable, and he holds them and
Speaker 1: his record is astounding. He likes brand names companies that
Speaker 1: have proven to be successful over the long term. That's
Speaker 1: why he's an owner, big owner of American Express in
Speaker 1: Coca Cola, both of which he's held for over two decades.
Speaker 1: By the way, Coca Cola, he bought a big steak
Speaker 1: in Coca Cola. When do you remember, Well, most of
Speaker 1: you don't remember because you're too young. But Coca Cola
Speaker 1: in the eighties changed the formula and with new coke,
Speaker 1: and then there was a huge backlash. It stocked plummeted,
Speaker 1: and then it reverted back to the old coke and
Speaker 1: the old formula. Supposedly, although it changes his formula all
Speaker 1: the time. I hear well, it went down a lot
Speaker 1: when the new coke came out. WM Buffett bought a
Speaker 1: big chunk of it and made a lot of money
Speaker 1: even in the early days. American Express is a business
Speaker 1: that's done phenomenally well. But then those are companies, those investments,
Speaker 1: other companies where he's bought outright, companies like Seize Candy,
Speaker 1: which he he bought for twenty five million dollars in
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy two. Today they generate two billion dollars in profits.
Speaker 1: Two billion dollars in profits. He bought net Jets, the
Speaker 1: private Jet, fractional ownership company and leasing company Forest River,
Speaker 1: which manufactures with creational vehicles. He owns Dairy Queen, he
Speaker 1: owns Nebraska Furniture, mort helps It, Brooks Diamonds, Benjamin and more,
Speaker 1: Brooks Running Shoes. Actually, I think my Running Shoes A
Speaker 1: Brooks Running Shoes, and Dousell Batteries, and then many, many,
Speaker 1: many more companies. The interesting thing is that in finance,
Speaker 1: you know, if you look at the theory the corporation,
Speaker 1: if you look at help businesses should be run. I'm
Speaker 1: actually gonna be talking about this in my course for
Speaker 1: the Peterson Academy. Conglomates don't make sense. It's impossible for
Speaker 1: one CEO to be good at managing sixty different businesses
Speaker 1: in different areas, in different fields. What makes Books and
Speaker 1: How the Way run so well? What explains its success
Speaker 1: is one Buffet's ability to identify great managers and then
Speaker 1: step back and leave them alone and not try to
Speaker 1: manage them. He treats it as almost a passive investment.
Speaker 1: He does all the work of fund, does all the
Speaker 1: homework affront, and then makes the investment. He's missed some
Speaker 1: great opportunities. He had an opportunity to invest in Microsoft
Speaker 1: in the nineties. He had an opportunity to invest in
Speaker 1: Amazon in the nineties and he didn't. Microsoft is a
Speaker 1: little surprising because he's really good friends with Bill Gates.
Speaker 1: They used to play Bridge online together and then they
Speaker 1: played in person as well. The only tech stock they
Speaker 1: ever bought was in twenty sixteen, they bought Apple. At
Speaker 1: the time, Apple was a huge company, and yet what
Speaker 1: warm Buffet identified was the customer loyalty, the potential for growth,
Speaker 1: and the fact that on a you know, they weren't
Speaker 1: that expensive when you considered the opportunities for growth. He
Speaker 1: invested twelve billion dollars in Apple in twenty sixteen for
Speaker 1: six percent of the company, and that investment has yielded
Speaker 1: one hundred and fifty billion dollars in capital gains, So
Speaker 1: he more than ten Exter's investment in Apple, one of
Speaker 1: the biggest companies in the world at the time. He
Speaker 1: sold much of the Apple steak before the latest decline
Speaker 1: in tech stock that has happened. I mean, much of
Speaker 1: what one Buffett has done is not what one would
Speaker 1: suggest to investors to do. He concentrates investments, he buys
Speaker 1: whole companies, He's diversified he's super diversified, and he's yielded
Speaker 1: amazing return. If I own books you had Away, I
Speaker 1: would sell, I would sell the probability that anybody as
Speaker 1: smart and able and good as I'm sure the guy
Speaker 1: who's going to replace him, is the probability that somebody
Speaker 1: could replicate what One Buffet has done. You know, I
Speaker 1: just think is too small to justify the investment. I
Speaker 1: find it hard to believe that given the conglomerate, you know,
Speaker 1: lots of businesses, different businesses, Nature Bookshire had Away, that
Speaker 1: it can continue to perform in the market over the
Speaker 1: long run without One Buffet and Charlie Munger at the Helm.
Speaker 1: One Buffet always said Charlie Munger was the strategist. He
Speaker 1: was the guy who executed. You know, I think they
Speaker 1: were both pretty brilliant individuals. One of the great things
Speaker 1: about One Buffet is he was always, you know, a
Speaker 1: straight shooter. He was optimistic, he was a real believer
Speaker 1: in America, real believe in American success, and he put
Speaker 1: his money where his mouth is. When during the financial crisis,
Speaker 1: when I can't remember which one of the banks was
Speaker 1: a Chase of City was, maybe it was. Both were
Speaker 1: in trouble and the stock price had plummeted. Uh you
Speaker 1: know one Buffet bought a huge chunk, but buying a
Speaker 1: huge chunk express confidence in the banks, which ultimately generated
Speaker 1: I think a kind of others to buy the stock
Speaker 1: and to stabilize, to stabilize the market. So you know,
Speaker 1: Buffett has been an amazing force for good. Now. He
Speaker 1: is sadly not a Leslie capitalist. He is very much
Speaker 1: a mixed economist, a mixed mixed economy. But he and Charlie.
Speaker 2: Monga were just smart, uh, you know, rational in most cases,
Speaker 2: straight shooters, and you can't you can't argue with this success,
Speaker 2: unequivocally brilliant investors.
Speaker 1: Buffett does not give to charity. I mean what he
Speaker 1: has given, he's given to the Gates Foundation. But you
Speaker 1: won't find any buildings named after him. You won't find
Speaker 1: any you know, scholarship funds. He just doesn't give to
Speaker 1: charity other than the Gates Foundation. And I don't know
Speaker 1: what percentage ultimately his wealth you will give to the
Speaker 1: Gates Foundation. The one thing I don't like about him,
Speaker 1: and this is something everybody else does like, but it's
Speaker 1: just me. He lives in the same house he's lived
Speaker 1: to the sixties. He drives the same car. He drives
Speaker 1: a beaten up car. He doesn't he doesn't use his
Speaker 1: wealth to enjoy material benefits, material values, which I think
Speaker 1: is unfortunate and sad. I think he's got a certain
Speaker 1: guilt associated with the wealth. He certainly believes. He's almost
Speaker 1: like he's read John Walls that his wealth is a
Speaker 1: product of luck. I don't have quote in front of me,
Speaker 1: but he has a whole talk that he gives where
Speaker 1: he says, you know, I was born in the right century,
Speaker 1: I was born with the right genes, I was born
Speaker 1: to the right parents. I did nothing. It's my genes, basically.
Speaker 1: And you can see that if he doesn't believe that
Speaker 1: he earned it in a sense of it's him, he
Speaker 1: doesn't like to spend it because in a sense it's
Speaker 1: not his. So that's I think sad. I think the
Speaker 1: guilt part is sad. That not associated with himself is sad.
Speaker 1: This is the evil of philosophy. But hey, all of
Speaker 1: that I put aside and just salute the guy for
Speaker 1: just an amazing track record as an investor, and an
Speaker 1: amazing philosophy as an investor, and the ability to stick
Speaker 1: to it and not to change, and not to go
Speaker 1: what's sexy and what's hot, and too willing to underperform
Speaker 1: certain years in order not to deviate from your strategy.
Speaker 1: So Charlie Manger died last year. Want Buffett retires this year.
Speaker 1: To giants of American business, particularly of American finance, they will,
Speaker 1: I think forever be remembered as some of the greatest
Speaker 1: investors ever. All right, from that to another success story.
Speaker 1: But that is being tempered. You know, Google was found
Speaker 1: in the anti just case, found guilty of being a
Speaker 1: being a monopolist, even though it exhibits none of the
Speaker 1: behavior of a monopolist, and the judge admits that. But
Speaker 1: any case, we've covered that before. Any case. Now, the
Speaker 1: Justice Department under Republicans under Donald Trump has has demanded
Speaker 1: that the company be broken up. And they're in front
Speaker 1: of a judge now and actually as we speak or
Speaker 1: or over this period, they are discussing. You know, there's
Speaker 1: a you have to the testimony before judge and then
Speaker 1: the judge makes the decision of whether to break the
Speaker 1: company up or not. Google can still appeal it, but
Speaker 1: it's a big deal if the judge side decides to
Speaker 1: break it up. It's just a it's just a you know,
Speaker 1: just a horrible hobble example of the use of anti trust. Sadly,
Speaker 1: it's something that Trumpet administration is completely committed to. They're
Speaker 1: very opposed to big tech. They are strong believers in
Speaker 1: an aggressive antitrust regime. Uh, not just with regard to tech,
Speaker 1: but with regard to other companies as well. I think
Speaker 1: Trump views anti trust, like almost everything else, as a means,
Speaker 1: but as leverage against companies, as leverage against CEOs, as
Speaker 1: a reason for companies to come and be nice to him.
Speaker 1: There's a big case right now with Capital One and
Speaker 1: Discover wanting to merge, and stories are Donald Trump is
Speaker 1: kind of holding this above Capital One, which I think
Speaker 1: debanked him at some point, and Trump issuing them, and
Speaker 1: he's trying to get a settlement out of them. And
Speaker 1: part of what he's dangling in front of them is
Speaker 1: if you give me the settlement, I'll get the Justice
Speaker 1: Department to approve your merger. So Trump is as bad,
Speaker 1: if not worse than any other president when it comes
Speaker 1: to anti trust. The worst part is that he uses it.
Speaker 1: He uses it to blackmail companies, just like he uses
Speaker 1: tariffs just like he uses his power more broadly to
Speaker 1: blackmail people. And uh, this is not me being negative
Speaker 1: and Trump, this is me being factual. Just just want
Speaker 1: to clarify, I mean, check it out. You can see
Speaker 1: story after story after story. Anyway, last week, the CEO
Speaker 1: of Alphabet uh Sunda be Chy uh testified, uh that
Speaker 1: you know, testified to the fact that the breakup of
Speaker 1: Google's Internet search search uh you know, would devastate the
Speaker 1: company's business model. It would hamper its ability to invest
Speaker 1: in new technology. Uh and uh you know he he he,
Speaker 1: He said that the proposed remedies are extraordinary and unjustified
Speaker 1: and and and just wrong. He said that they would
Speaker 1: leave a company that's worth today one point ninety five
Speaker 1: trillion dollars with intellectual property that has no value because
Speaker 1: it will separate its businesses out the advertising from the
Speaker 1: search engine. It is the combination of what Google has,
Speaker 1: which is where the value comes from. You start breaking
Speaker 1: it up, it's not going to be more valuable as
Speaker 1: pieces than the original company. The original company is as
Speaker 1: valuable as it is because of the intergration of these
Speaker 1: various features. As he said, and I quote him, a
Speaker 1: combination of all the remedies, makes it unviable to invest
Speaker 1: in research and development. So, I mean, this is a
Speaker 1: case that's been closely watched because, as we know, the
Speaker 1: governor's trying to break up Facebook. Next up, they're going
Speaker 1: to try and go after Apple and you know, so
Speaker 1: they're definitely going up after the big tech companies and
Speaker 1: wanting to bake them up. And even though Google lost
Speaker 1: the case, the hope is that the judge, realizing that
Speaker 1: it lost the case a pretty frivolous, pretty minor basis,
Speaker 1: that the judge is ultimately going to turn around and
Speaker 1: decide not to break them up, just as a judge
Speaker 1: in the Microsoft case in the nineteen nineties ultimately decided
Speaker 1: not to break Microsoft up and that saved the company.
Speaker 1: It's still stagnated for about ten years because it was
Speaker 1: put under what do you call it, under supervision of
Speaker 1: a government bureaucrat for ten years, but it survived. I'm
Speaker 1: not sure Google can survive the breakup. And it's just
Speaker 1: such an injustice given how great the company is, everything
Speaker 1: that is achieved, all the benefits we receive from it,
Speaker 1: the employees, the shareholders, and anti trust is just theft.
Speaker 1: It's just outright middle of the day, not even in
Speaker 1: a dark alley, you know, destruction for the sake of destruction.
Speaker 1: It's not even theft. So we will see what remedies
Speaker 1: the judge ultimately chooses. We will know that, I guess
Speaker 1: the next couple of months will probably know what is
Speaker 1: going on, all right, h So a few updates on
Speaker 1: Trump tariffs. It just gets worse. It just gets some
Speaker 1: bad to worse the worse, to awful, to hopable to
Speaker 1: to worse, to really really bad. So you know, so
Speaker 1: just to give you a few highlights. Over the weekend,
Speaker 1: the Churchy secretary how Lutnik said that he was ending
Speaker 1: the minimus the deminimus loophole in tariffs. The dominimus loophole.
Speaker 1: Said that in the past, US customers could import eight
Speaker 1: hundred dollars worth of goods per day free of tariffs
Speaker 1: and any administrative fees. Right, and there's the first fuel
Speaker 1: the direct to customer trade, Like what do you call
Speaker 1: those Chinese? These companies that sell you stuff and will
Speaker 1: you get it directly? And you get the stuff direct
Speaker 1: from them and you don't pay any any customs, any tariffs,
Speaker 1: any transact, any administrative fees like TAMU or even on Amazon.
Speaker 1: If there is a Chinese vendor on Amazon and you're
Speaker 1: buying from them, and it comes directly from China and
Speaker 1: it's worth less than nine hundred dollars, then you can
Speaker 1: just buy it. Tamu and Shane these are two of
Speaker 1: the big Chinese companies that have done very well in
Speaker 1: the United States selling US chief stuff with no tariffs. Well,
Speaker 1: the loophole is being closed, so you know, I think
Speaker 1: starting immediately, you will have to pay the full tariff
Speaker 1: and everything that you buy, even if you buy something
Speaker 1: with ten bucks, you will then some way along the line.
Speaker 1: It's not clear where the tariff will be charged of you,
Speaker 1: because usually it's the importer that pays the tariffs. But
Speaker 1: I guess you are the importer, so you would have
Speaker 1: to pay it. I'm not sure how you would pay it,
Speaker 1: where you would pay it, and the traumatization has not
Speaker 1: provided much guidance here, so uh, you know this this
Speaker 1: actually you know, it's not clear how it's going to
Speaker 1: involve customer and votive, you know, the customs agency. It
Speaker 1: looks like the shippers ups, FedEx, DHL, those guys will
Speaker 1: somehow have to collect the tiff from you and pay
Speaker 1: it to the Customs agency. It means stuff is going
Speaker 1: to be stuck in customs for longer. It'll be harder
Speaker 1: to clear customs uh. And this is going to be
Speaker 1: just making our lives a little bit harder, in particular,
Speaker 1: significant tax on Americans, on poor Americans. It's a bigger
Speaker 1: fraction of their earnings. And it's gonna just make international
Speaker 1: shipping of anything, anything you want to ship internationally is
Speaker 1: now going to be a big hassle. You're gonna have
Speaker 1: to use a broker. They are gonna charge your fee.
Speaker 1: You're gonna have to pay the customs tax. You will
Speaker 1: have to pay it directly, either through the BOCA directly,
Speaker 1: the broco directly. You might even have to go down
Speaker 1: to the Customs office or the or the BOCO will
Speaker 1: have to do it. I mean, this is how a
Speaker 1: lot of countries function. This is our status countries do it.
Speaker 1: Status countries who want to penalize their people for buying
Speaker 1: stuff overseas. This is part of the beauty of free trade.
Speaker 1: You can buy from anybody anything you want, pay for
Speaker 1: the shipping, pay for the product, and that's it, and
Speaker 1: you're free to go. This is such an intrusion on
Speaker 1: our economic rights. It's such an intrusion on our choices.
Speaker 1: It's you know, truly horrific. M hm. So you know again,
Speaker 1: taosa just the dumbest economic policy possible. And Trump is
Speaker 1: not letting up. He's not letting up. So this morning
Speaker 1: it broke that Trump, I guess decided overnight he had
Speaker 1: he had a two social tweet on this. You know,
Speaker 1: let's see if you can find this because I didn't
Speaker 1: copy paste it, and it's it's worth reading to you
Speaker 1: because it's, I mean, this guy's nuts and say, you know,
Speaker 1: I know I'm hurting some of your feelings, but he is.
Speaker 1: He is nuts. Here it is. So here's Donald Trump
Speaker 1: this morning. The movie industry in the America is dying
Speaker 1: a very fast death, dying all capitalized. Other countries are
Speaker 1: offering all sorts of incentives to draw filmmakers and studios
Speaker 1: away from the United States. Hollywood and many other areas
Speaker 1: in the United States are being devastated. While he cares
Speaker 1: about Hollywood, that bastion of leftists. This is a concerted
Speaker 1: effort by other nations and therefore a national security threat.
Speaker 1: I mean, what do you do with that? What do
Speaker 1: you do with that? It is an addition to everything else,
Speaker 1: messaging and propaganda. Therefore, I'm authorizing the Department of Commerce
Speaker 1: and the United States Trade Representative to immediately begin the
Speaker 1: process of instituting one hundred percent tariff on any and
Speaker 1: all movies coming into our country that are produced in
Speaker 1: foreign lands, which is many, if not most, Hollywood movies.
Speaker 1: We want movies made in America again, all capital. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is just ridiculous, infantile. Sorry I'm calling Trump names again,
Speaker 1: but it is tariffs on movies. And what is you know,
Speaker 1: Netflix brings in lots of foreign shows. Are they're gonna
Speaker 1: have to pay double now the one hundred percent tariff
Speaker 1: they're gonna pay attacks is my Netflix monthly? If you're
Speaker 1: gonna go up dramatically or all those fawn shows just
Speaker 1: gonna disappear from Netflix and I'll be stuck just with
Speaker 1: American shows. What about you know, I'm missing Impossible, which
Speaker 1: is a very successful franchise, American film, very successful franchise,
Speaker 1: but a lot of the filming and producing is done
Speaker 1: overseas because part of the sets overseas they use you know,
Speaker 1: they jump off of real towers and some of those
Speaker 1: towers and not in America. What about the fact, yeah,
Speaker 1: the fact that because of the unions in Hollywood, it's very,
Speaker 1: very expensive to shooting in Hollywood. So a lot of movies,
Speaker 1: a lot of movies are shot outside of the United
Speaker 1: States by American production companies, not because just the incentives
Speaker 1: that they're provided by foreign countries, but because laby unions
Speaker 1: in the United States have made it impossible to work
Speaker 1: in the US. What about the fact that California is
Speaker 1: really really expensive, makes shooting in California really expensive? I mean,
Speaker 1: I you know, you could vaguely understand, you could sympathize,
Speaker 1: and this would be a lot less economically damaging. If
Speaker 1: Trump says I want to make American films again, I
Speaker 1: am going to subsidize. I am going to the government
Speaker 1: will write a check to every movie that is produced
Speaker 1: in the United States to compensate them for the high
Speaker 1: costs of making a movie in America. I mean, that
Speaker 1: would be awful, horrible, stupid government policy. But this is
Speaker 1: a thousand times worse and and hugely complex. What counts
Speaker 1: is a movie being produced overseas. How many of the
Speaker 1: minutes have to be shot overseas to be counter produced overseas?
Speaker 1: It's and what happens if I mean Hollywood makes more
Speaker 1: money on its blockbusters when it sells those movies outside
Speaker 1: of the country, Like it might make five at a
Speaker 1: million in the US and there's seven hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: million outside of the country. What happens if other countries
Speaker 1: put on tariffs on American movies? Where do we go
Speaker 1: from there? Trade war over movies? And note there's a
Speaker 1: massive and really incredibly potentially destructive precedent here. Historically we
Speaker 1: have only tariffed, taxed, We've only taxed physical inputs. But
Speaker 1: do we now want to get into a tariff war
Speaker 1: on services? Now? In services, the United States runs a
Speaker 1: massive subplus. It exports a lot more than it inputs. Indeed,
Speaker 1: in movies, I've got I've got the numbers here. In
Speaker 1: movies we export twenty two point six billion of movies
Speaker 1: and this is movies on television, and we import seven
Speaker 1: point two So have a massive subplus in movies. And
Speaker 1: yet we're still gonna tariff the inputs. How does that
Speaker 1: make any sense? And now what about other services? And
Speaker 1: are we now going to incentivize other countries to teariff
Speaker 1: our services? You know, the US provides way too much
Speaker 1: of the chip design for computer companies around the world.
Speaker 1: Maybe Taiwan and Europe should you know tariff our chip design.
Speaker 1: We do a lot of consulting around the world. We do,
Speaker 1: I mean we American companies do a lot of financial
Speaker 1: work around the world. Maybe we should tear iff that
Speaker 1: it really is stunning, and it would really is stunning.
Speaker 1: Here is It's like every day there's a new low.
Speaker 1: You think it can't get worse than this, It just can't,
Speaker 1: and then it does. You know, here's another one. And
Speaker 1: you know, I'm sorry to be devoting so much time
Speaker 1: to Trump, but this is the news, and Trump is
Speaker 1: the news, and tariff are the biggest economic issue facing
Speaker 1: America in decades, since the financial crisis, probably or since
Speaker 1: COVID suddenly and then since a financial crisis. Here's Donald
Speaker 1: Trump on What is It NBC or ms NBC this weekend,
Speaker 1: again saying, quote, we were losing hundreds of billions of
Speaker 1: dollars with China, losing losing hundreds of billions of dollars.
Speaker 1: Now we're essentially not doing business with China, all right,
Speaker 1: We're not embargo, which is true. Therefore, with saving hundreds
Speaker 1: of billions of dollars, it's very simple. I don't know,
Speaker 1: just I'm gonna say it. The level of stupidity here
Speaker 1: is mind boggling. It's mind boggling. Uh, this is the
Speaker 1: this is this is You cannot get dumber than this
Speaker 1: when it comes to analyzing trade. Right, when an American consumer,
Speaker 1: when you go to Walmart and you buy a TV
Speaker 1: made in China, you've lost money. And by not buying
Speaker 1: the TV, you're now saving money. But you don't have
Speaker 1: a TV. What's the purpose of money if not to
Speaker 1: enhance your quality of life by buying things like TVs.
Speaker 1: Money's not an end in itself. And you are better
Speaker 1: off for owning the TV then having the dollars. And
Speaker 1: we know that because that's the choice you made about
Speaker 1: how to spend your money. But no, our central planner
Speaker 1: in chief doesn't want us to buy TVs, or if
Speaker 1: he does, he wants us to buy more expensive TVs
Speaker 1: made in I don't know, Korea or Japan, which also
Speaker 1: gonna be tariff but not quite as much as the
Speaker 1: ones in China. We've been losing hundreds of billions of
Speaker 1: dollars with China. Now we're essentially not doing business in China. Therefore,
Speaker 1: we're saving hundreds of billions of dollars. It's very simple.
Speaker 1: There is no way to frame that argument in a
Speaker 1: even moderately rational, moderately reasonable, moderately makes sense. Whay. You know,
Speaker 1: as I said, there's just isn't there's just there just isn't.
Speaker 1: It's it's just you know, it just shows ignorance and stupidity,
Speaker 1: nothing more than that, there's no there there, There's nothing more.
Speaker 1: You want to be objective about that statement, the objective
Speaker 1: objectivity demands. I want to say, that's like a really, really,
Speaker 1: really dumb statement. Remember boil this down to you buying
Speaker 1: a TV from China and then makes sense of that.
Speaker 1: H So over the weekend, continuing on tariffs, over the weekend,
Speaker 1: UH Bessett, who is probably the sanest of Trump's advisors
Speaker 1: on trade, wrote a not bad in the Wall Street Journal,
Speaker 1: Uh trying to justify trying to justify the the the
Speaker 1: tariffs I mean and and he says, quote President Trump
Speaker 1: intends to usher in the most prosperous decade in American history,
Speaker 1: but not at the coast, at the cost of the
Speaker 1: spiritual degradation of the working class. Now again, what does
Speaker 1: that mean factually? In reality, what does it mean? But
Speaker 1: not at the cost of the spiritual degradation of the
Speaker 1: working class. Who says that kind of stuff, that's aoc,
Speaker 1: that's Elizabeth Waughan. That's called Marx. That's mao. That's straight
Speaker 1: out of Carl Marx. The the alienation of the working class,
Speaker 1: the degradation of the working class. This is the kind
Speaker 1: of terminology. This is circutat bessett uh M. It's it
Speaker 1: truly is I mean, just that use of language. It
Speaker 1: is stunning, stunning because of the how Marxist it actually is.
Speaker 1: Now here's the thing. In the op ed he says,
Speaker 1: you know we're gonna make We're gonna do this. We're
Speaker 1: gonna usher in this great period. Three things right. First,
Speaker 1: we're gonna use tariffs to negotiate deals to reduce trade
Speaker 1: barriers in other countries. But we know this is not
Speaker 1: indeed happening. When other countries have come to the United
Speaker 1: States and said, okay, we'll go zero taffs. Will you
Speaker 1: go zero taps with us? The answer is be no.
Speaker 1: There is no deal on the table with anybody that
Speaker 1: actually reduces tariffs. Because Trump said the floor is ten percent,
Speaker 1: and ten percent is significantly higher than it used to be.
Speaker 1: We've got retaliation all over the place, and there's nothing.
Speaker 1: So this idea that when negotiating it seems at this
Speaker 1: point to be completely bogus. Now we'll see, maybe maybe
Speaker 1: in the next few weeks, we'll get some really cool
Speaker 1: deals and you'll tell me, oh no. Now, by the way,
Speaker 1: when Trump first initiated the tariffs, when he first started
Speaker 1: talking about it, I think there was a real opportunity
Speaker 1: to cut deals. But that's not what he wants, and
Speaker 1: he didn't cut any deals. And now, oh, he has
Speaker 1: alienated and pissed off so many people, so many other countries.
Speaker 1: They're not going to be any deals. And partially they're
Speaker 1: not going to be any deals because here's the second claim,
Speaker 1: the best it makes about tariffs. Now this isn't Wall
Speaker 1: Street John over the Weekend. So this is the latest
Speaker 1: greatest arguments after these arguments are been debunked over and
Speaker 1: over and over again. So here's the second claim that
Speaker 1: tarifs are needed for national security because of reshoring and
Speaker 1: raising substantial revenue. Now I've gone through the math with
Speaker 1: you that raising substantial revenue cannot and will not happen.
Speaker 1: Isn't enough trade to bring in substantial revenue. And if
Speaker 1: you raise tariffs to China level one forty five, it
Speaker 1: basically has Trump admitted over the weekend, it's basically like
Speaker 1: an embargo. There's no trade. Trade goes to zero. If
Speaker 1: trade goes to zero, how much revenue do you generate
Speaker 1: from the tariffs? Zero? Zero times any number is zero,
Speaker 1: So actually revenue goes down. And a ten percent tariffs
Speaker 1: if the inputs just stay exactly the same as they
Speaker 1: used to be, which were very high according to Trump,
Speaker 1: you get no substantial revenue. And the reality is that
Speaker 1: on showing doesn't happen. Terraffs did not create on showing.
Speaker 1: Quite the contrary. Because of tariffs, A lot of the
Speaker 1: parts that I need to know to assemble this thing
Speaker 1: that I sell all around the world is everything is
Speaker 1: not more expensive. I can go to Mexico where I
Speaker 1: get that same part it's significantly cheaper, and export from there.
Speaker 1: And yeah, my American market will suffer a little bit
Speaker 1: because I'll have some exports to America, but I'm not
Speaker 1: staying in America. The idea of on showing is going
Speaker 1: to happen. The idea that if we had, if we
Speaker 1: take this economy into recession. We're gonna unsure companies is
Speaker 1: just bogus. And by the way, and here's the most
Speaker 1: important one. This is the opposite of we're gonna get
Speaker 1: great trade agreements. Because if you're gonna get great trade agreements,
Speaker 1: then that means that companies will continue to build overseas
Speaker 1: and sell to America, and now tarras are gonna be
Speaker 1: a lot lower and all. And what we will do
Speaker 1: is export more to these other countries. But revenue is
Speaker 1: gonna go down because we've got a trade deal, and
Speaker 1: unshowing is not gonna happen because we'll continue to import it.
Speaker 1: Let's say we got to deal with Vietnam tomorrow, zero
Speaker 1: terrists both directions, Well, Vietnam might export import most stuff
Speaker 1: from America, but we'll continue to input from as much
Speaker 1: as we do now maybe even more. No reshowing happens.
Speaker 1: So the goal of deal making and the goal of reshoring,
Speaker 1: and the goal of increased revenue all contradict each other.
Speaker 1: So if it's needed for national security, then why would
Speaker 1: you get deals. You want to keep the tarists high.
Speaker 1: So all these industries come back to the United States
Speaker 1: because because because it's national security. Next best. It claims
Speaker 1: that the tasks can be viewed in oscillation. Rather, they're
Speaker 1: interlocking parts of a three piece engine, including deregulation and
Speaker 1: tax cuts. But again there's a problem we've made. There's
Speaker 1: no tax cuts yet seen anyway. Congress is still bugged
Speaker 1: down with a budget, and the tax cuts offered in
Speaker 1: Congress are basically just a continuation of tex cuts that
Speaker 1: were achieved in twenty eighteen. There's no new tax cuts.
Speaker 1: I mean, they were a little bit like a tips
Speaker 1: and a Social Security but those haven't passed yet because
Speaker 1: Congress doesn't know where to find the money for those
Speaker 1: tax cuts. It doesn't know it can't decide what to cut,
Speaker 1: so very little on tax cuts. Deregulation is piece me
Speaker 1: a little best. And so we've only got a tariffs,
Speaker 1: which are tax increased huge And how do they interlocke,
Speaker 1: how do they work together? How did they reinforce one another?
Speaker 1: They just don't. You could do tax cuts and deregulation
Speaker 1: without tariffs, and just those two would be super good,
Speaker 1: so much better then if you add tariffs to the mix.
Speaker 1: That is, tariffs suppress whatever success you could get from
Speaker 1: deregulation and tax cuts. Of course, cutting taxes without kind
Speaker 1: of spending is a waste of time. But there they go. Anyway,
Speaker 1: we now have tariffs and the deals on no materializing.
Speaker 1: We'll see they promise us a deal this week. We'll
Speaker 1: see what it looks like. I wouldn't be super excited
Speaker 1: about it. And meanwhile, you know, Trump is becoming less
Speaker 1: or less popular because of this tax cut and as
Speaker 1: good stud disappearances shelves in about a week or two,
Speaker 1: and as prices start going up they already are, but
Speaker 1: they're going to do more of that, and he can't
Speaker 1: get the tax cuts. Then what happens Then Americans are
Speaker 1: just paying a lot more on everything, a lot more
Speaker 1: taxes and everything else. So I mean, this is about
Speaker 1: a poorly constructed a strategy as one has ever seen.
Speaker 1: You know, this is really unique. Now, Trump hass said
Speaker 1: that he's willing to lower tariffs on China at some point,
Speaker 1: because he says the levels now are so high that
Speaker 1: there's just no trade between America and China. True, your fault,
Speaker 1: nobody else's. So you know, when is he going to
Speaker 1: say this? Every time he says he's going to cut tarist,
Speaker 1: the markets go up. But he says, quote at some point,
Speaker 1: I'm going to lower them because otherwise you could never
Speaker 1: do business with them, and they wanted to do business
Speaker 1: very much. Yeah, so do Americans want to do business
Speaker 1: with the Chinese. But this is kind of the arbitrariness
Speaker 1: of everything and the randomness. At some point, I'll do it.
Speaker 1: You guys in the meantime, small businesses who are waiting
Speaker 1: to find out what's going to happen, whose lives depend
Speaker 1: on this, you can wait. We'll let you know. But
Speaker 1: in the meantime, I'll decide completely arbitrary, completely to be
Speaker 1: asked of one guy, one person. And you know, on
Speaker 1: top of that, he says, in terms of the negotiated
Speaker 1: deals that they say are coming, he says, we're negotiating
Speaker 1: with many countries. But at the end of this, I'll
Speaker 1: set my own deals because I set the deal, they
Speaker 1: don't set the deal. You keep asking the same question,
Speaker 1: what will you agree, I'm not gonna you know, it's
Speaker 1: basically saying I'm not gonna agree. I'm gonna dictate. It's
Speaker 1: up to me, it's not up to them. That's a
Speaker 1: great way to enter negotiation. I'm going to demand things
Speaker 1: and to hold with them. I mean, this is his words.
Speaker 1: I was on Destiny's show today. I was on Destiny
Speaker 1: Show and we talked for I don't know about now
Speaker 1: and a half and we talked about Trump, and we
Speaker 1: basically agree about Trump. And you know, one of the
Speaker 1: things I said was, you know, Trump makes it easy
Speaker 1: because you don't have to interpret actions, you don't have
Speaker 1: to find reasons. You know, he just tells you. He
Speaker 1: tells you exactly what he believes, he tells exactly what
Speaker 1: he thinks, he tells you exactly what his intention is.
Speaker 1: It's just he you know, he's plain spoken and direct,
Speaker 1: and you just understand right right here it is it's
Speaker 1: up to me, it's not up to them. Now, imagine
Speaker 1: other countries. I mean, this is why Japan supposedly walked
Speaker 1: away from the negotiations. It's like they don't negotiate with us,
Speaker 1: and it's not clear what they want from us. It's
Speaker 1: gonna be interesting. The deals they come up with are
Speaker 1: gonna be interesting, all right. Finally, as I said yesterday,
Speaker 1: there will be ways to get around these tariffs. So
Speaker 1: Chinese exporters, for example, already stepping up efforts efforts to
Speaker 1: avoid tariffs by shipping their goods via third country to
Speaker 1: conceal their true origin. Now they'll still have to pay
Speaker 1: the ten percent, not one hundred and forty five. Chinese
Speaker 1: social media platforms are washed with adverts offering place of
Speaker 1: origin washing, while an inflow of goods from China has
Speaker 1: raised alarm in neighboring countries of becoming staging posts for
Speaker 1: trade actually destined for the United States. So you know,
Speaker 1: go to Vietnam, change the label. Now it's made in Vietnam.
Speaker 1: Now you only paid the ten percent tariff. Although we'll
Speaker 1: see what happens with the reciprocal taffs later on, and
Speaker 1: you can get away around the thing. That's all true,
Speaker 1: that's all true. But for those of you who defend tariffs,
Speaker 1: isn't this kind of stupid that we have to go
Speaker 1: through all of this? Doesn't again this make the goods
Speaker 1: more expensive? And why why is any of this necessary?
Speaker 1: What's the purpose? Why are we doing this? What is
Speaker 1: the goal? Where are we heading? There was no answer
Speaker 1: because this is just pure irrationality, just pure irrationality. Anyway,
Speaker 1: I'm looking forward to one hundred percent teriff on foreign
Speaker 1: made movies. I'm gonna get my consumption of farn made
Speaker 1: TV shows and movies done with as quickly as possible.
Speaker 1: Watching a show on Apple TV about the first celebrity
Speaker 1: chef who was also a spy during the Napoleonic era
Speaker 1: in France. So yeah, get it's in French, So get
Speaker 1: that viewing done before prices go up one hundred percent.
Speaker 1: Why would they go up one hundred percent to save
Speaker 1: American movie making? Oh and by the way, yeah, we'll
Speaker 1: wait with that all right, let's see. Yeah, government employment,
Speaker 1: this is kind of interesting. You know, we've gone through
Speaker 1: Doge and from everything I've read, like Dog fired people
Speaker 1: left and right, and hundreds of people, thousands of people
Speaker 1: have lost their jobs and have left. Now the numbers
Speaker 1: aren't going to give you might be just an issue
Speaker 1: of timing, and maybe if we do this in a
Speaker 1: month or two or three or four, this will look different.
Speaker 1: And certainly those employees that I guess are only going
Speaker 1: to be off payroll at the end of the year
Speaker 1: but left their jobs now something like that, we'll only
Speaker 1: be counted at the end of the year. So we'll
Speaker 1: look at these numbers again at the end of the year.
Speaker 1: But right now, as of the Friday's jobs report, it
Speaker 1: reported that there were two million, three hundred and eighty
Speaker 1: nine thousand, four hundred employees government employees federal employees at
Speaker 1: the end of April twenty twenty five. If you look
Speaker 1: at the end of April twenty twenty four, this is
Speaker 1: Joe Biden, it was two million, three hundred and eighty
Speaker 1: eight thousand, eighthundred. So if you do the math on this,
Speaker 1: it looks like we have had an additional six hundred
Speaker 1: employees in the federal government over the last year, when
Speaker 1: I thought we were cutting thousands and thousands and thousands
Speaker 1: of them. It's truly astounding and truly astounding where those
Speaker 1: jobs have gone. I'm curious it would be it would
Speaker 1: be great to see an accounting of the actual jobs lost.
Speaker 1: There's actually right now one hundred and ninety three thousand
Speaker 1: more federal civilian employees than on Obama. As I told you,
Speaker 1: government spending is not down on a month to month basis.
Speaker 1: It's still going up relative to last month and relative
Speaker 1: to last year. So I'm not sure where these cuts
Speaker 1: that dog is talking about actually are in terms of
Speaker 1: employees and in terms of budget. Maybe they'll manifest themselves
Speaker 1: later in the year. I'll keep track of it. If
Speaker 1: I was wrong, or if they actually will get significant cuts.
Speaker 1: I will let you know. But here's a kind of
Speaker 1: an interesting story. Right, So Atrominary Station is planning on
Speaker 1: significant personnel cuts at the CIA, another major US spy units.
Speaker 1: It wants to downsize the National security agencies. It intends
Speaker 1: to reduce the CIA workforced by by twelve hundred personnel
Speaker 1: over several years, and cut thousands more from other parts
Speaker 1: of the US intelligence community, including the NSA. Okay, this
Speaker 1: is the priority. Don't touch the security, don't touch Medicare, Medicare.
Speaker 1: But okay, let's cut the CIA. Let's catch you NSA.
Speaker 1: Just as we're declaring that China is a threat to
Speaker 1: the United States, well, of China's threat to the United States,
Speaker 1: wouldn't we increase surveillance, wouldn't we increase spying? I mean,
Speaker 1: the reality is that rush that China has a bigger
Speaker 1: hacking program than every other major nation combined. In fact,
Speaker 1: if you took every single one of the FBI's cyber
Speaker 1: agents and intelligence analysts and focus them exclusively on China's threat,
Speaker 1: China has fifty times more hackers, fifty times more hackers
Speaker 1: than the FBI has in defending US. But we have
Speaker 1: too many people in our intelligence services. We have to
Speaker 1: cut them back. This administration's priorities of bamboozling just it's
Speaker 1: hard to understand it. It's hard to figure out what
Speaker 1: they're thinking, why they're doing what they're doing. And they
Speaker 1: keep talking about national security and cutting national security, talking
Speaker 1: about national security and then eliminating national security rated jobs.
Speaker 1: It's just it really is. Bewildering is the word, you know,
Speaker 1: if if you don't want to come to you know,
Speaker 1: more outrageous conclusions about this administration. It's it's maybe maybe
Speaker 1: they have some grand strategy that I'm not aware of,
Speaker 1: by which, yeah, I don't know by which what, I
Speaker 1: don't know how that happens, all right, I'm looking for something,
Speaker 1: all right. So I just wanted to mention that we're
Speaker 1: now opening up Alcatraz. So Trump is rebuilding open Alcatraz.
Speaker 1: For too long, America's been plagued by vicious, violent, repeat
Speaker 1: criminal offenders, the dregs of society who will never contribute
Speaker 1: to anything than other misery and suffering. When we were
Speaker 1: most serious nation in past times, we did not hesitate
Speaker 1: to lock up the most dangerous criminals. I think we
Speaker 1: still do, just not an Alcatraz because it was not
Speaker 1: an efficient place to do it. I am directing a
Speaker 1: Bureau of Prisons, together with the Barn of Justice, FBI,
Speaker 1: and Homeland Security, to reopen a substantially enlarged and rebuilt Alcatraz,
Speaker 1: the house America's most ruthless and violent offenders. We will
Speaker 1: no longer be held tostage to criminals. Are we being
Speaker 1: held hostage to criminals? The reopening of Arcatraz will serve
Speaker 1: as a symbol of law, order and justice. It suddenly
Speaker 1: will serve as a symbol of something. Reopen Alcatraz make
Speaker 1: America great again by taking I guess some of the
Speaker 1: most beautiful and valuable real estate maybe in the world. Right.
Speaker 1: The views in Alcatraz are amazing. Imagine building condos and Alcatraz.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you've ever been to Alcatraz, but
Speaker 1: it has this amazing view of the Bay, of the
Speaker 1: Golden Gate Bridge of downtown San Francisco, but the entire
Speaker 1: bay and the boat both, you know, the number of bridges.
Speaker 1: It's just stunning. And of course, what you really would
Speaker 1: want to do there is build luxury condos, which would
Speaker 1: help lower the cost of living in San Francisco, because
Speaker 1: you'd increase the availability of housing, and instead we're gonna
Speaker 1: take this amazing piece of real estate and remake it
Speaker 1: into a jail. Yeah, makes no sense. All right. Finally
Speaker 1: some good news. We are going to have driverless trucks
Speaker 1: on our highways. We already have it on one US highway.
Speaker 1: We have an autonomous trucking company Aura. It is now
Speaker 1: operating along a stretch of Texas Highway between Dallas and Houston.
Speaker 1: It plans to expand the driverless trucks to ten trucks
Speaker 1: by the end of this year. Other startups bought Otto
Speaker 1: and Wabi Wabbi Innovations. They're both saying that they're aiming
Speaker 1: to launch driverless trucks later this year. Several other companies
Speaker 1: have targeted launch dates over the next two years. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is significant news. Now. I hope that it makes
Speaker 1: sense to do it that it you know, I fear
Speaker 1: that it's over a segment of the highway, so they
Speaker 1: have to unload the truck or switch or driver steps
Speaker 1: in after they reach a certain point. Whatever the case is.
Speaker 1: The fact is that this is a step in the
Speaker 1: right direction. It is going to make our highways a
Speaker 1: lot safer. It's going to make the delivery of goods cheaper.
Speaker 1: It's going to make things, I think generally, things a
Speaker 1: lot better. And this is the beginning of the driverless revolution,
Speaker 1: which I think is is very cool and very positive
Speaker 1: and has the potential to remake, you know, the way
Speaker 1: Americans you know, are transported, and it has the real
Speaker 1: potential of saving thousands, tens of thousands of lives on
Speaker 1: the roads because driver less cause far, far, far safer than, uh,
Speaker 1: than these trucks. We already have driverless cause in a
Speaker 1: bunch of cities in the United States because of Waymo.
Speaker 1: Tesla is saying that they will launch driver less taxis
Speaker 1: in Austin, Texas in June. I think there are other
Speaker 1: companies that are going to launch driverless taxis in other
Speaker 1: cities around the country. Uh. Trucks is huge because when
Speaker 1: trucks get into accidents, people die. So if we can
Speaker 1: make trucks safer, we make out, you know, our lives
Speaker 1: for all of us significantly safer. Oh right, Uh, that
Speaker 1: is the news for May fifth, Monday, May fifth. I
Speaker 1: didn't talk about dolls and uh and pencils. You know.
Speaker 1: Now the government is gonna you know, dictate how many
Speaker 1: dolls and pencils we have or what's acceptable or what's
Speaker 1: a okay? You can't have too many dolls, like three
Speaker 1: is like enough? And pencils only five. You don't have
Speaker 1: to twoun and fifteen pencils, according to Donald Trump. So
Speaker 1: this is again from his interview over the weekend. I mean,
Speaker 1: every one of these interviews becomes a classic gem. I
Speaker 1: don't know if you saw the interview. I think I
Speaker 1: talked about this way. He described the Declaration Dependence as
Speaker 1: a document about love and unity, and he had some
Speaker 1: other zingers, some other amazing quotes from that interview. So
Speaker 1: every time they go out and interview Trump on these
Speaker 1: lengthy interviews get you get a look deeper and deeper
Speaker 1: into into what into that empty skull? Oh right? And
Speaker 1: you know, I think that there's some better people around him,
Speaker 1: not many, but if you trying to somehow move this
Speaker 1: in a positive direction. But they're not getting anywhere so far,
Speaker 1: and I don't see it going out. Yesterday I was optimistic.
Speaker 1: Today I'm back to my more normal because it's just
Speaker 1: I just don't see how it turns positive unless he capitulates,
Speaker 1: which you could. It's quite possible. It just capitulates on
Speaker 1: all these things and just says, whoops, I always meant
Speaker 1: to capitulate, So don't worry. Make America great again and
Speaker 1: everybody wire loving for it, so that is the best
Speaker 1: outcome we can expect. And then he will shift his
Speaker 1: focus to something else. And that's scary because anything he
Speaker 1: shifts his focus to it can't be good because there's
Speaker 1: there's no there there. There's there's no good goodness there,
Speaker 1: there's no good ideas there, there's just nothing. All right,
Speaker 1: let's see, I'm curious, did you guys see the destiny thing?
Speaker 1: Is it up already? Matt's asking me a question about it.
Speaker 1: I didn't think it was up yet, So is the
Speaker 1: Destiny thing up? So we didn't. It was interesting, we
Speaker 1: didn't go deep. There were opportunities for that, and he
Speaker 1: kept walking away from them. It seemed like he didn't
Speaker 1: want to argue. He didn't want to challenge me on anything.
Speaker 1: Every time I said something where I disagreed with him
Speaker 1: and went into it, he kind of said, uh, okay,
Speaker 1: and no pushback. Oh, you watched the stream live? Where
Speaker 1: did its stream live? So how do you how can
Speaker 1: you see it live? Because it wasn't a YouTube live?
Speaker 1: So oh, he said he was tired today. I took
Speaker 1: a nap directly after. I mean, I think the best
Speaker 1: thing about it was it introduces me to his audience,
Speaker 1: and it opens it up for me to contact him
Speaker 1: when there's something interesting going on in the world and
Speaker 1: we can and it's worth talking about. So it was
Speaker 1: live on his YouTube channel, and then he takes it
Speaker 1: off when he's done, not like me, who leaves it up.
Speaker 1: And I guess that does, puts the thumbnail and everything
Speaker 1: again and then releases it again. Because I noticed that
Speaker 1: there's no he doesn't have live videos on it, so
Speaker 1: that that was interesting. Anyway, I was on the show.
Speaker 1: We mostly we agreed. When we disagreed, he didn't want
Speaker 1: to push back at all. I'm curious did he say
Speaker 1: anything afterwards? Did he like it? Did he comment on it?
Speaker 1: Did he say no, that was stupid? Did he what
Speaker 1: did he say at the end of the at the
Speaker 1: end after I left. But you know, i'd like to
Speaker 1: you know, even when I say something about rational egoism,
Speaker 1: he says, yeah, in my personal life, I'm kind of
Speaker 1: an enlightened you know, enlightened self interest. I believe in that.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm self interested it was like he wouldn't let me,
Speaker 1: he wouldn't agree to disagree. So on on Israel Palestinians.
Speaker 1: We kind of disagreed on some of the stuff, but
Speaker 1: he wouldn't push back on the stuff. I said, like,
Speaker 1: I had to go. He said, oh, I disagree with that,
Speaker 1: and I had to go, what is it? What do
Speaker 1: you disagree about? It was very He was very passive
Speaker 1: in that way. It seemed to seemed it was very strange.
Speaker 1: So Matt says, he said there were policy things he
Speaker 1: disagreed with that he could have gone deeper on but
Speaker 1: was too tired. Too. Well, that's that's not great. Well,
Speaker 1: I think that leaves an opening too for me to
Speaker 1: go back to him on a particular issue, right on
Speaker 1: a particular issue and policy, and then try to broaden
Speaker 1: it from that to a more deeper discussion, hopefully when
Speaker 1: he's not tired. Hopefully when he's not tired. Right, all right,
Speaker 1: let me remind everybody that this show is sponsored by
Speaker 1: it's made possible by you, by the listeners and the
Speaker 1: views of the show. There is no other, you know,
Speaker 1: revenue mechanism for the show. The revenue is you, your support,
Speaker 1: those of you alive on YouTube can support the show
Speaker 1: using super chat, which is which is a great way
Speaker 1: to show value for value and to you know, reciprocate
Speaker 1: for the values that you're getting from the show itself,
Speaker 1: which I assume a positive. Otherwise you wouldn't listen. But
Speaker 1: even more importantly than that, you can go to Patreon
Speaker 1: patreon dot com and become a monthly support. Many of
Speaker 1: you have already. I really really appreciate it. We've increased
Speaker 1: our Patreon numbers nicely over the nest over the last
Speaker 1: few over the last couple of months, but we're still
Speaker 1: you know, it would be nice to get more of
Speaker 1: you guys supporting the show on a monthly basis, on
Speaker 1: a regular basis, at any level you want, I particularly,
Speaker 1: you know, it would be really really helpful if those
Speaker 1: of you can afford to do one hundred to fifty five.
Speaker 1: Hundred would do at those levels, but anyway from two
Speaker 1: to twenty five to fifty all of those are great.
Speaker 1: So please And for ten dollars you get the podcast
Speaker 1: like podcast audio only with no advertising. You get a
Speaker 1: feed from Patreon, and you get the podcast with no advertising.
Speaker 1: I think that's worth just that, it is worth the
Speaker 1: ten dollars that you provide on a monthly basis, So
Speaker 1: please consider doing that. What else did I want to say? Yes,
Speaker 1: Alex Epstein is a sponsor of the show of all
Speaker 1: our shows. Alex is the best person out there in
Speaker 1: the world on issues of US our fuels, an issue
Speaker 1: of environmentalism and of energy the grid. And you should
Speaker 1: subscribe to Alex epstain to subsidt dot com. And the
Speaker 1: reason you should subscribe is you'll learn a lot and
Speaker 1: it'll make you a much better communicator of those ideas
Speaker 1: because he provides you with talking points, concretes and principles
Speaker 1: that you can use when you're debating, arguing. But I'll say,
Speaker 1: in your own mind when you're thinking about these issues.
Speaker 1: That institute is also a sponsor and they are looking
Speaker 1: now for scholarships. People to apply for scholarships for the
Speaker 1: coming ocon in Boston July first fifth, which is a
Speaker 1: great event, great talks, great social events, poker. Of course,
Speaker 1: we can hang out and you know you can get us.
Speaker 1: You can get a scholarship from the Unman Institute that
Speaker 1: all pay for much of the expenses. So go to
Speaker 1: iinran dot org slash start here if you're a student
Speaker 1: of objectivism. If you study objectivism seriously, if you're interested
Speaker 1: in the ideas in a serious way, apply for scholarship
Speaker 1: at Einman dot og slash dot here. So, yeah, Matt says,
Speaker 1: I wanted you guys to go deep into the whole
Speaker 1: idea of Kelly Civilians. I baited him on it. I said,
Speaker 1: you have to defeat the Palestinians, have to bring them
Speaker 1: to their knees. And it's like he didn't take the bait.
Speaker 1: I kept baiting him on stuff loz if, capitalism, war stuff,
Speaker 1: you know, what do you call it? Enlightenment reason A
Speaker 1: baited him on rational egoism, and he just wouldn't take
Speaker 1: the bait. And I'm not going to force a debate.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to force disagreement. And then again on economics,
Speaker 1: I kept pushing, no, that's just not true. In a
Speaker 1: free market would solve that. And even in his companies
Speaker 1: are too big. I pushed back, but he didn't want
Speaker 1: to get into it. So anyway, view this as an
Speaker 1: introduction to his audience, not to you for his audience.
Speaker 1: And he left it or open for me to contact
Speaker 1: him if I ever wanted to talk about something. So
Speaker 1: next big issue, next big thing that comes up, or
Speaker 1: if you guys have something specific you think it would
Speaker 1: be great if I comment on his show, then let
Speaker 1: me know and I will go on Destiny again. It's
Speaker 1: he left me an open invitation to come back again,
Speaker 1: so we'll do that. We'll do that. All right. We
Speaker 1: have basically made our first hour's goal. But we're in
Speaker 1: the second hour already, so there's another two hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty dollars to do. So coming over, ask questions, do
Speaker 1: stickers do the stuff you do to to pay to
Speaker 1: pay value for value for the show that we're getting,
Speaker 1: all right, and Patreon, don't forget Patreon. Patreon important. And
Speaker 1: if you're not a subscriber, subscribe, and anyway you should
Speaker 1: like the show, like the show before you leave. All right,
Speaker 1: all right, let's see, let's see. We've got some questions,
Speaker 1: not a lot, and the ones that we do have
Speaker 1: mostly five and ten dollars ones. All right, but Chasbad
Speaker 1: did fifty dollars, Thank you, Chasbad. The situation with Trump
Speaker 1: reminds me of an episode of Star Trek the Next Generation.
Speaker 1: Some aliens kidnapped Captain Picard and replaced him with a
Speaker 1: doupled ganger who then orders the ship to collide with
Speaker 1: the star just to see if the Cup would do it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and somebody's pulling a real joke on us because I
Speaker 1: think the crew would do it. I mean, Trump's Cup
Speaker 1: will do whatever he says. They don't speak back to him.
Speaker 1: It's you know, he is pretending he is the dictator
Speaker 1: of North Korea. Well, the people are not that subseivient
Speaker 1: and that obedient, but the people who surrounded himself are
Speaker 1: the North Korean type people. And it's pretty scary stuff.
Speaker 1: Pretty scary stuff. Yeah, okay, John, If life and property
Speaker 1: rights are the standard, is it moral to deny IP
Speaker 1: protection for life saving procedures so doctors can use them
Speaker 1: without consent? I think the IP laws for creative techniques
Speaker 1: should be enforced. Do you agree. Yeah. I mean, you cannot,
Speaker 1: in the name of protecting life deny somebody their property.
Speaker 1: That is, you cannot violate somebody's right to property in
Speaker 1: order to protect somebody else's right to life. Rights don't conflict.
Speaker 1: So the person who needs the medical procedure does not
Speaker 1: have a right to other people's stuff. He does not
Speaker 1: have a right to receive a treatment in violation of
Speaker 1: somebody else's property rights. So absolutely, IP is crucial. Now,
Speaker 1: I'm not an expert on whether the IP should be
Speaker 1: about technique, so about I don't know. I don't have
Speaker 1: an opinion about, you know, the specifical here. That's a
Speaker 1: good question for Adam Ostaff. But the idea of violating
Speaker 1: IP because somebody's life is a stake not acceptable. You don't.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's always somebody starving someway and you could
Speaker 1: take my money and feed them, and you have no
Speaker 1: right to my money. Need, as Adam says in the chat,
Speaker 1: is not a claim you can trade. The fact that
Speaker 1: you need it does not give you a claim to
Speaker 1: somebody else's stuff, to somebody else's effort, to somebody else's
Speaker 1: brain power, ip hop A Campbell. Do large companies like
Speaker 1: Walmart and Amazon actually like food stamps, medicaid, housing assistants,
Speaker 1: and other public programs because it allows them to keep
Speaker 1: their labor costs lower as taxpayers subsidize the difference. No,
Speaker 1: absolutely not. The reality is that if there wasn't any
Speaker 1: food stamps, housing assistance, and public programs, then the cost
Speaker 1: of everything would be dramatically lower and people could afford
Speaker 1: with the same labor costs could afford their living. That is,
Speaker 1: it's all these programs that the government engages in which
Speaker 1: drives cost up. And you know you can just selectively
Speaker 1: choose those. It's housing regulations and the million other things
Speaker 1: the government does. So it's I mean, and the reality
Speaker 1: is that what government does, the redistribution of wealth, the regulations,
Speaker 1: the controls, all all have an effect of lowering a
Speaker 1: standard of living, which means raising cost and reducing productivity,
Speaker 1: so reducing wages and increasing costs. So no, I don't
Speaker 1: think that Walmart and Amazon like this. Although I don't
Speaker 1: know what Walmart and Amazon are thinking, but they shouldn't
Speaker 1: like it. It wouldn't be rational for them to like it.
Speaker 1: It's not in their self interest. Imagine a world in
Speaker 1: which we didn't have where we had Lasafia capitalism. People
Speaker 1: would be so much richer. Amazon would have so much
Speaker 1: more business, not less business. Michael, You notice some depressed
Speaker 1: people shut down and give up, and other depressed people
Speaker 1: are hyper productive. I think dictators are the second, always
Speaker 1: working to attain more and more power to evade an
Speaker 1: unvariable mental state. Yeah, but I don't know if that
Speaker 1: mental state is depression, right, I think they want to
Speaker 1: accumulate more and more power because, yes, there's some void
Speaker 1: that they have that this is trying to fill. I
Speaker 1: don't think it's depression necessarily, but it's something. It's something
Speaker 1: empty inside of them that they're constantly fighting to get
Speaker 1: on top of and they can't. It doesn't go away
Speaker 1: because power doesn't give you what they're missing, which is
Speaker 1: self esteem, And it can't give you self esteem. It
Speaker 1: gives you pseudo self esteem, which only then encourages you
Speaker 1: to do more and more and more, which reduces your
Speaker 1: ability to have self esteem more and more and more.
Speaker 1: So Yeah, anyway, that's uh, that is that is psychologically
Speaker 1: part of what motivates them. I'm sure there are many
Speaker 1: other things. Some dictators have severe piers of depression, but
Speaker 1: others don't, you know. I don't know if Trump ever
Speaker 1: gets depressed. Not that he's a dictator, but he would
Speaker 1: like to be. But so I don't know if other
Speaker 1: dictators were depressed. I don't know. I don't know enough
Speaker 1: about the psychology of dictators. All right, Michael, Every Angentinian
Speaker 1: I speak with absolutely loves me. Lay, why doesn't the
Speaker 1: right get it? Radical freedom agenda will be popular if
Speaker 1: you have a candidate who acts on principle the populist
Speaker 1: fascist thug. He is losing strategy. Yeah, but it depends
Speaker 1: what your goal is. If your goal is power, then
Speaker 1: I mean Milaya is divesting power. If your goal is
Speaker 1: inculcating all young kids with Christian values, again, a shrinking
Speaker 1: government will not facilitate that. If your goal is to
Speaker 1: win the culture war and to help with the economy,
Speaker 1: then Malaya's strategy doesn't really change that. So you assume
Speaker 1: that the right goal is aid to be popular and
Speaker 1: be to you know, increase economic success. But it's not
Speaker 1: clear that those are the goals at all. The goal
Speaker 1: isn't culcated into America a certain philosophy, a certain point
Speaker 1: of view, morality, and they believe they can only do
Speaker 1: that by capturing the is a power, and it's also
Speaker 1: about power. And it's also by the way, about I
Speaker 1: hate deficits, I don't like trade deficits, and I want
Speaker 1: to balance the trade. I won't balance trade. It's about
Speaker 1: the fantasies of the people running the Republican Party. So
Speaker 1: why don't they get it because it's not the it
Speaker 1: that they're looking for. It's not the it that they're
Speaker 1: interested in, and they will rationalize that. They say, well,
Speaker 1: America is not Argentina. You know, we don't face as
Speaker 1: a bat of a situation. We don't need to be
Speaker 1: as radical. They'll say, you know, we have a working class,
Speaker 1: we've all had industry. Argentina is just a dump. Who cares.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's lots of things they can say. Argentina
Speaker 1: and America very different, and they will emphasize those differences
Speaker 1: to justify not treating them the same. Guys, I have
Speaker 1: a ton of time today. We could actually go on
Speaker 1: into the third hour if you ask questions, particularly twenty
Speaker 1: dollars and above questions, if you ask questions. But I'm
Speaker 1: gonna be done soon in spite of fact that I
Speaker 1: have time. That'd be a shame, John. We're born blank
Speaker 1: slates conceptually, but physiologically we are partly shaped by ancestral
Speaker 1: choices like diet, environment, over time. I mean we're basically physiologically,
Speaker 1: we are, you know, determined by our genes, and those
Speaker 1: genes are shaped to some extent by diet, by environment.
Speaker 1: Our genes also shaped by a natural selection. And therefore, yeah,
Speaker 1: we're all different physically, and that is being determined by
Speaker 1: how natural selection is played out among our ancestors. Of course,
Speaker 1: the most sophisticated human beings are become the less the less.
Speaker 1: Evolution affects us in a sense, right, So if we
Speaker 1: have a gene that makes us susceptible to certain disease,
Speaker 1: we can edit it out and then not pass it
Speaker 1: on to our children. You know, in the past, what
Speaker 1: food we eat determined how tall and how strong we were.
Speaker 1: But now we can all eat good diets everybody, and
Speaker 1: therefore that becomes you know, in a truly less if
Speaker 1: a capitalist world, everybody has enough food everybody can choose,
Speaker 1: and you know, so food nutrition doesn't become an issue anymore.
Speaker 1: So a lot of the force that environment plays on us,
Speaker 1: we shield ourselves from it by you know, living in
Speaker 1: some places might be too hot for you, I don't know,
Speaker 1: giving your skin color, you're really white, and every time
Speaker 1: you go into the sun you burn easily. Well, we
Speaker 1: have sunscreen and we have air conditioning, and you know,
Speaker 1: so we have all these things that shield us on
Speaker 1: our environment and shield us from even from our jeans,
Speaker 1: and won'tly gonna get better at that? Liam? Can you
Speaker 1: post the link to your talk with Destiny this morning,
Speaker 1: couldn't find it. Yeah, I don't have it. So you know,
Speaker 1: at some point he will post it on his channel,
Speaker 1: and so I always just look at his YouTube channel,
Speaker 1: and you know, I don't think it's there yet, or
Speaker 1: maybe it is. I don't know. But supposedly he takes one,
Speaker 1: he does them live, and he streams them and then
Speaker 1: he takes it off, he cleans it up, and then
Speaker 1: he puts it up again. So if you go to
Speaker 1: this channel, there's no live tab like my channel has
Speaker 1: life tab. Well, my life shows up. He doesn't have
Speaker 1: that right because he doesn't keep the live shows. He
Speaker 1: republishes them. And maybe that's what I should do. Maybe
Speaker 1: that's a better strategy. Once the thumbnail is there, republished them.
Speaker 1: I'll talk to my talk to Christian about that. Maybe
Speaker 1: that's maybe that's the right strategy. I'm looking to see.
Speaker 1: I don't see him posting. I don't see him having
Speaker 1: posted it yet. I mean, do you see do any
Speaker 1: of you guys see it? Millslap posted it in the chat,
Speaker 1: But how did how did Millsta post it? Is it
Speaker 1: to a private link? I don't know where mills Love
Speaker 1: got the link from mills Love Whe's mills Love. Oh
Speaker 1: there it is. Yeah, there it is, chatting with you
Speaker 1: on book chilling. So it's just a chilling episode. And
Speaker 1: now in forty eight minutes. Yeah, I'll post it again
Speaker 1: just in case. Yeah, I mean, uh, I think it
Speaker 1: was good as a as an intro. But and I
Speaker 1: guess it's still unlisted, but it still has to the
Speaker 1: thousand and six and eighty four views. I didn't notice
Speaker 1: that the number of followers on Twitter went up a
Speaker 1: little bit, so some of those people followed me on Twitter.
Speaker 1: It would be nice if YouTube subscriptions went up a
Speaker 1: lot once he publishes this, But I have I have
Speaker 1: no idea. I have no idea if that will happen
Speaker 1: or not. That would be nice, all right. James Alex
Speaker 1: Epstein seems to have really influenced Richard Hannania and Peter
Speaker 1: til Even though they haven't been thoroughly convinced of objectivism truth,
Speaker 1: they take it seriously. Now, well that's not exactly accurate.
Speaker 1: And Peter TiO took objectivism seriously as taking objectivism seriously
Speaker 1: at least for fifteen sixteen years. That's way before Alex
Speaker 1: was introduced to him. I met Peter Tiel in two
Speaker 1: thousand and nine, I think eight seven, somewhere around that period,
Speaker 1: maybe maybe ten. Anyway, just after the financial crisis, I
Speaker 1: met Peter til A beat his house several times. We
Speaker 1: discussed objectivism several times. I think I told you this story.
Speaker 1: So Peter two used to have these events at his house,
Speaker 1: dinner parties in a sense. At his house we'd invite
Speaker 1: a major intellectual and bring his pet palm off your
Speaker 1: friends and have a discussion. And he invited me, and
Speaker 1: this is a month after they had Milton Friedman, So
Speaker 1: that was that was a pretty impressive And I had
Speaker 1: him and a bunch of the PayPal guys, uh and
Speaker 1: and we went at it for like three hours, and
Speaker 1: he was very interested. And later on he he contributed
Speaker 1: to Dineman Institute. And so no, Peter Teel's me taking
Speaker 1: objectivesm seriously a long time. Richard, Yeah, no question. Alex
Speaker 1: has had a real impact on Richard Haran and that's good,
Speaker 1: but as you said, they haven't taken it completely. And
Speaker 1: uh yeah, Richard Harnania has become he's certainly very very
Speaker 1: good on Trump, and he's very very good on a
Speaker 1: number of issues. We'll see over time if he can
Speaker 1: stick with it without because he changes. He has moved
Speaker 1: quite a bit. Kenny, stick to it without an standing
Speaker 1: objectives of mortality. So I'll give Alex credit for it. Hanania,
Speaker 1: I think he only gets partial credit for Peter Teel Again,
Speaker 1: Peter Tell read at La Shrugged in the nineteen eighties
Speaker 1: and has been engaged with the Institute. He had a long,
Speaker 1: three four hour meeting with talts Fani a few years ago,
Speaker 1: So you know again, So on enough, Clark, It's not
Speaker 1: like the Republicans won. Both parties lost. Trump won. Well,
Speaker 1: the Republican Party is Trump's party. Republican Party is Trump.
Speaker 1: You can't separate them anymore. Maybe you could once, can't
Speaker 1: separate them anymore, Clark, The Hitler cult eventually broke a part,
Speaker 1: so will the Trump cult. Failure makes evil movements dissipate.
Speaker 1: In our case, it won't take a world war. I
Speaker 1: think that's right. I think that's right. But this is
Speaker 1: the challenge. Would what will replace it? Given the state
Speaker 1: of the culture, a culture willing to engage in a
Speaker 1: Trump cult, what is going to replace a Trump cult?
Speaker 1: And are we going to swing way to the left.
Speaker 1: Are we going to get some kind of moderate centrist
Speaker 1: Are we going to swing way to the Christian nationalist
Speaker 1: right or or is this going to discredit jd Vance
Speaker 1: and Josh Hawley and the Integralists and the National Conservatives
Speaker 1: so much that that is finished? Or are we going
Speaker 1: to be Yeah, you know, this is the question. I
Speaker 1: agree Trump will be over. Trump is going to fail.
Speaker 1: And the question is then what and how do we
Speaker 1: prevent this from getting worse? And I think the number
Speaker 1: one way to prevent it from getting worse is to
Speaker 1: trash Trump and everything he stands for as much as possible,
Speaker 1: and to link him as much as possible to the
Speaker 1: National Conservatives and religious conservatives. This is a horrific movement
Speaker 1: and if the right can come up with something better,
Speaker 1: great that we should not support any movement of the
Speaker 1: right that embraces any of these ideas. And but it's
Speaker 1: it's how it evolves. I don't know, it's going to
Speaker 1: be interesting. Would you consider an interview on Don Junior's show? Sure,
Speaker 1: but he'll never have me on. There's no way he
Speaker 1: would have me on. I mean he had Alex on,
Speaker 1: and Alex did a good job of diplomatically in a
Speaker 1: non confrontational way, really criticize the tariffs and don let
Speaker 1: him do it. He didn't stop it from doing it.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think going on a show would I
Speaker 1: would not be diplomatic, and I would not be I
Speaker 1: would be a lot more forthright, and it would be
Speaker 1: interesting if you would let me on. You know, I
Speaker 1: don't think he'd take me, given my hostility to Trump
Speaker 1: and Maga. Why would he? Why would he? Why would
Speaker 1: he have me on the show. There's no value for
Speaker 1: him to have me on the show. So I would
Speaker 1: do it if he invited me. Do you think Trump
Speaker 1: gave Israel the green light to do COVID operations incide
Speaker 1: Iran just to uh to to would it bonneed outright,
Speaker 1: burn it outright? I doubt it. I doubt that Israel asked.
Speaker 1: I think they probably didn't ask. They would be afraid
Speaker 1: that he would say no. Generally, everything I'm reading from
Speaker 1: Israel suggests that the government is very unhappy with Trump,
Speaker 1: and and UH worried about Trump's relationship with Israel. Uh
Speaker 1: And I think they wouldn't ask. They asked about Iran
Speaker 1: because they had to and they needed US assistance. If
Speaker 1: they are burning down Iran now, they're doing it without
Speaker 1: US assistance and I don't think they would ask not
Speaker 1: your average algorithm. Could the Great Depression have happened without
Speaker 1: Smooth Holly tariffs? Did the Federals of alone create the
Speaker 1: sustained collapse? Yeah, basically it could have happened without Smooth Holly.
Speaker 1: Wouldn't have been as deep, wouldn't have been as bad.
Speaker 1: But the reality is that Hoover also raised income taxes,
Speaker 1: so he did more than just smooth Holly. Hoover generally
Speaker 1: was very, very bad. He created a banking crisis, and
Speaker 1: then the banking crisis got worse because speculation was that
Speaker 1: FDR would take us off the gold standard, which he did,
Speaker 1: and then if the odd did a bunch of things
Speaker 1: that were not helpful to get us out of the
Speaker 1: Great Depression and in some ways deepened it. So we
Speaker 1: still would have had it some kind of depression, but
Speaker 1: a lot less a lot, and it wouldn't have been
Speaker 1: global to the same extent. One of the things that
Speaker 1: Smooth Holly did is it exported the Great Depression. It
Speaker 1: spreaded around the world. Thoughts on Robert Breedlove I don't
Speaker 1: like giving thoughts on other people. I mean, he's an anarchist,
Speaker 1: you know what I think of anarchism. I think he's
Speaker 1: obsessed with bitcoin. I'm not a huge fan of bitcoin.
Speaker 1: But he's been right so far. He's made a lot
Speaker 1: of money. Can't argue with putting your money where your
Speaker 1: mouth is and making a lot of money at it.
Speaker 1: So he has some positive views of iron Ran. He
Speaker 1: doesn't quite understand Ironran, but he has some positive views
Speaker 1: of Iran. But his anarchism leads him to be anti
Speaker 1: Israel and have a hobble phone policy. Yeah, and anarchists
Speaker 1: I just bad thinkers. They're just not very good thinkers,
Speaker 1: and it corrupts one's ability to think straight about these
Speaker 1: kind of about issues. But he's treated me well, and
Speaker 1: I've been on to show him a few times, and
Speaker 1: we've talked about Ironman's ethics in particular, and that's all
Speaker 1: been good. And he did a reading I guess of
Speaker 1: the money speech, which is quite good. So, you know,
Speaker 1: and to say it's Trump's Justice department doesn't give doesn't
Speaker 1: that give credence to Trump's claim that Biden's Justice department
Speaker 1: used law fair on him? Are the independent? Well, the
Speaker 1: Justice departament is supposed to be independent, and the most
Speaker 1: presidents they have the pretense of independence. Whether it's completely
Speaker 1: independent or not is debatable, but they at least pretend
Speaker 1: or at least make the argument that they're independent. That
Speaker 1: has been the case, and that certainly was the case
Speaker 1: with Biden. That Justice Varmer was supposed to be independent. Actually,
Speaker 1: the Justice Bardment appointed a a what do you call it,
Speaker 1: an independent whatever to go after Biden's son, And so
Speaker 1: it was the Justice von Roof any other president that
Speaker 1: I know of, including Richard Nixon, was considered independent of
Speaker 1: the presidency in the sense that he could investigate him.
Speaker 1: The difference is that Trump doesn't even pretend. Trump just says,
Speaker 1: these are my lawyers. They'll do what I say. They'll
Speaker 1: investigate who I want them to, and they won't investigate
Speaker 1: what I don't want them to. So he takes all
Speaker 1: the pretense out of it. And plus he's made it
Speaker 1: a thousand times worse. That is, I think that most
Speaker 1: Justice departments, even the one under Trump the first time around,
Speaker 1: the head of the Justice Department tries to be independent.
Speaker 1: This is why, if you remember, the first secretary under
Speaker 1: Trump in twenty seventeen was a former senator who who
Speaker 1: But it's not just pretending, it's reality. So and Trump
Speaker 1: fired many of his Justice secretary because they wouldn't do
Speaker 1: exactly what he told him to do. So it's not pretend,
Speaker 1: it's you know, it's it's real. There is an element
Speaker 1: of influence, it has to be he, you know, the
Speaker 1: president is their boss. But for the most part, they're independent,
Speaker 1: and they've investigated their own bosses, and they've investigated things
Speaker 1: the boss didn't like. And you can go back to Watergate,
Speaker 1: you can see that. But you can even go to
Speaker 1: the first Trump administration where he basically told his Justice
Speaker 1: Department to investigate all the fraud in the election, and
Speaker 1: they came back and said there was no fraud in
Speaker 1: the election, and he got pissed off at them. Now,
Speaker 1: Bondi would not come back to him and say there's
Speaker 1: no fault in the election. At most, she would say
Speaker 1: we're still investigating, but she would invent fraud if she
Speaker 1: needed to. So right now, the Justice Department is a
Speaker 1: brain branch of the Trump propaganda machine. It's a branch
Speaker 1: of the Trump advocacy machine. And that we have never
Speaker 1: seen in American history. Has never been a Justice apartment
Speaker 1: that has that has been so unindependent as this one.
Speaker 1: When I said, pretend I meant in the past they've
Speaker 1: tried to be independent and slipped into dependency. This time,
Speaker 1: they're just all in on whatever Trump wants. They'll do
Speaker 1: whatever Trump wants, They'll go after wherever he wants. And
Speaker 1: that's never been the case. Now. Was their law fair
Speaker 1: against Trump? There was in the state of New York,
Speaker 1: that one case in particular where they accused him of.
Speaker 1: I mean, it was something that you wouldn't be tried for.
Speaker 1: It was emol it was bad business, it was unjust,
Speaker 1: and it was even illegal. But it's not something you
Speaker 1: prosecute somebody not criminally for miss uh miswriting the you know,
Speaker 1: in your loan applications, misstating the value of your properties.
Speaker 1: Nobody's ever been prosecuted criminally for that. That was law fair.
Speaker 1: But the stuff the bite injustice upon will win after Trump.
Speaker 1: Every single one of those things were justified, and they
Speaker 1: should have prosecuted him. And the great tragedy is they
Speaker 1: didn't have the opportunity to fully prosecute him. Did he
Speaker 1: withhold classified information and try to hide it, you know,
Speaker 1: and violate clear, unequivocal violation of the law. Absolutely, there's
Speaker 1: no question he did. Did he move boxes around not
Speaker 1: to prevent the FBI from finding them. Yes, he did,
Speaker 1: so that was prosecutable. Did he incite January sixth? Absolutely?
Speaker 1: Should there have been an investigation on January sixth? Absolutely so.
Speaker 1: The you know, did he try to uh to manipulate
Speaker 1: the elections in Georgia on that famous phone call and
Speaker 1: on other occasions where he told him to find additional votes. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: that should have gone to court in Georgia. So New
Speaker 1: York is law fair what the Justice Varnma did. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: they should have gone after him. They should have gone
Speaker 1: after him sooner. They should have. They should have taken
Speaker 1: it to court faster. Now, he did everything to delay,
Speaker 1: and he was successful, but he should have He should
Speaker 1: have been prosecuted and found guilty for those and denied
Speaker 1: the ability to run for president as a consequence. He
Speaker 1: behaved like a criminal with regard to trying to falsify
Speaker 1: the elections, trying to steal an election, and encouraging the
Speaker 1: vice president other people. Yes, I think that was independent.
Speaker 1: I think that was independent. They went after him, not
Speaker 1: because I don't believe they went after him exclusively because
Speaker 1: he was a Republican. I don't think they believed he
Speaker 1: would win. I don't think they believed he would run again.
Speaker 1: I think they went after him because he was president
Speaker 1: of the United States to violate the law. I mean literally,
Speaker 1: they asked, I mean the Archives asked for the material
Speaker 1: that he took home to be sent to the Archives.
Speaker 1: And he said, I don't have any more. And they said, no, no,
Speaker 1: you do, we know you do. And he said no,
Speaker 1: I don't have any more. And they so they rated
Speaker 1: his property. Not because somebody in the jested the Thrond,
Speaker 1: but I decided to go after Trump because somebody in
Speaker 1: the Archives said, no, I know this material that hasn't
Speaker 1: been returned to the Archives, that by law, you have
Speaker 1: to return to the Archives. And then they went to
Speaker 1: the FBI and said he's holding out on this material.
Speaker 1: That's not selectic prosecution, that's necessary prosecution. So no, I
Speaker 1: think the Justice wanderder Biden was relatively independent. The fact
Speaker 1: that they went after Biden's son is an example of that.
Speaker 1: And and so you know, again, as I said, relatively
Speaker 1: do I think there's influences. Sure, do I think there's
Speaker 1: there's a lack of one hundred percent independence, sure, But
Speaker 1: what but what this Trump is doing is a change
Speaker 1: in kind. What Trump is doing is zero independence? Do
Speaker 1: I think for example, I mean, take another example, do
Speaker 1: I think the Federal Reserve is independent from the from
Speaker 1: from government? No, I think the Federal Reserve is very
Speaker 1: influenced by what presidents want, but what the president wants,
Speaker 1: And but that is not the same as doing exactly
Speaker 1: what he wants when he wants. They're influenced. It does
Speaker 1: an impact on them, but it doesn't mean they yes, sir,
Speaker 1: which is what Trump wants instilled at the Federals of
Speaker 1: somebody who will yes, sir him and do exactly what
Speaker 1: he wants when he wants it. Yeah, I mean, is
Speaker 1: there is there was there corruption around the Biden laptop. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: but that's normal corruption. Trump has taken it to a
Speaker 1: completely new level, a completely new level. And and by
Speaker 1: the way, again, as I've said in the past, there
Speaker 1: are prosecutions that Justice Monument didn't engage in. For example,
Speaker 1: what about influenced peddling of Jared Kushner who got two
Speaker 1: billion dollars from the Saudis for his private equity fund
Speaker 1: in spite of never having any experience in private equity.
Speaker 1: Why would they give him two billion dollars? You think
Speaker 1: it had anything to do with him schmoozing with the
Speaker 1: Saudis for four years. Was there no shady dealings there?
Speaker 1: Of course they were. I mean he's no more qualified
Speaker 1: to want two billion dollars for the Saudist than is
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden to sit on the board of whatever company
Speaker 1: in So. I mean, they're all corrupt, and some of
Speaker 1: us gets through and some of it doesn't. Sadly, I
Speaker 1: wish they'd go after all of it. But going after Trump, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that that made complete sense. Is there a tariff on
Speaker 1: super Chat yet? Do I have to pay it for you?
Speaker 1: Or do you have to pay it for me? There
Speaker 1: is a tariff, it's it's a YouTube tariff, so it's
Speaker 1: a it's a private tariff. It's a it's a fee
Speaker 1: for use, so it's not a tax. So it's not
Speaker 1: a tariff. It's it's a fee for use. No tariffs yet.
Speaker 1: Maybe if you're since you're in Switzerland and paying Swiss Fanks,
Speaker 1: maybe we'll have a tariff soon. I don't know that
Speaker 1: that's a good question. Now, this is the services I'm providing,
Speaker 1: a service, not a good move. These are the only
Speaker 1: services that Trump has threatened to tariff. We'll see, maybe
Speaker 1: super chat next. That'll be interesting. And I think I
Speaker 1: will have to pay for it. There's no either. I
Speaker 1: owe you too will have to pay fo it because
Speaker 1: there's no way for you to do it as a
Speaker 1: turch economy. Hey, you're on each week things get worse.
Speaker 1: Do you have any red lines that will lead you
Speaker 1: to seek citizenship elsewhere? My mom is starting to want
Speaker 1: to move. Now, where are you gonna go? H and
Speaker 1: what what are you gonna What are you gonna do?
Speaker 1: I mean, I have citizenship in Israel. I don't want
Speaker 1: to go to Israel. You know, if I had European
Speaker 1: citizen wal, I don't want to live in it in Europe.
Speaker 1: So no, I don't think it's time to leave the
Speaker 1: United States. And remember that when the United States goes,
Speaker 1: so will the rest of the world. It's gonna be
Speaker 1: it's gonna be disaster for everybody. But yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: there are lots of red lions that were watching. I'll
Speaker 1: let you know when I think things are beyond repair,
Speaker 1: so bad that you got to seek seek living somewhere else,
Speaker 1: that'll be pretty bleak. When I say that, Matt would
Speaker 1: love more content with destiny going deep into rands metaphysics
Speaker 1: aristomology and ethics to explore the causes of your political differences. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I agree, but I prodded him and he really didn't
Speaker 1: want to go there. He really you know, he didn't
Speaker 1: want to go to will. But yeah, we'll try to
Speaker 1: do more content with him in the future. So definitely
Speaker 1: ping him and definitely ping me if you think there's
Speaker 1: a topic that would be good to debate him that
Speaker 1: would bring out some of these issues. Whytt Apple is
Speaker 1: moving most of the iPhone production out of China? Isn't
Speaker 1: it possible Trump is doing this to get us untangled
Speaker 1: from China's influence. If he is, it's the dumbest thing.
Speaker 1: It's it's it's a stupid I mean, why do we
Speaker 1: care if we buy T shirts from China? And b
Speaker 1: he gave Apple an exclusion on the tariff, so in
Speaker 1: electronics general lease, Apple doesn't have to move production. And
Speaker 1: you know, for what, what about all the small businesses
Speaker 1: Apple will survive, Apple will move business. What about the
Speaker 1: small and medium sized businesses that are going to go bust?
Speaker 1: And that he didn't prepare them for it, that he
Speaker 1: didn't didn't have any kind of period in which you
Speaker 1: phase it in. If this is the goal. It's a
Speaker 1: stupid goal. But even if it even if it was
Speaker 1: a reasonable goal, this is the dumbest way to go
Speaker 1: about doing it. This is not the way to do it.
Speaker 1: This is a way that penalizes your own people, that
Speaker 1: penalizes small and media side businesses in the United States.
Speaker 1: It also penalizes the Chinese. It's lose lose, and there's
Speaker 1: nothing to be gained from this. Apple was moving operations,
Speaker 1: a lot of it's manufacturing to India anyway, It's been
Speaker 1: in the process of moving them there for over ten
Speaker 1: for about ten years. It's doing so because they're afraid
Speaker 1: of Chinese tabs like this from the first Trump administration,
Speaker 1: and then they saw what happened during COVID with supply chains.
Speaker 1: A lot of companies have diversified their supply chains because
Speaker 1: of what they sold during COVID. This is how markets work.
Speaker 1: Let markets work. Markets actually do work. Apple is smart.
Speaker 1: Apple will figure out that they need to diversify out
Speaker 1: of China. They don't need sent for planning with Chief
Speaker 1: Donald Trump to tell them what they where they should
Speaker 1: and shouldn't produce stuff. And if American os the world
Speaker 1: with China, then Apple will suffer the consequences of not
Speaker 1: planning in advance. But Apple is a smart company and
Speaker 1: they are planning in events. They don't need Trump to
Speaker 1: tell them to do it out of fear. But you know,
Speaker 1: you guys are gonna look for a good excuse anyway.
Speaker 1: And if that's true. By the way, let's say that's true.
Speaker 1: What about the tafts on Canada and Mexico? They're not
Speaker 1: an enemy? Why would we want to unentangle ourselves from
Speaker 1: Canada and Mexico? What about the threat of sixty percent
Speaker 1: tabs on Vietnam, thirty or forty percent tas on India
Speaker 1: that he threatened On't those the alternatives to China as
Speaker 1: we entangle? What about tais on the European Union? That
Speaker 1: is not a that's not We're not at risk with
Speaker 1: the there's no risk with the European Union of why
Speaker 1: do we need entangle from them? Exactly? Stop finding excuses
Speaker 1: for him, They really, really, really aren't any excuses. Ten
Speaker 1: percent tariff on everybody is not untangling for China. There's
Speaker 1: no intelligence report that he has that explains his behavior.
Speaker 1: Just accept the fact that you've voted for an unhinged,
Speaker 1: irresponsible and not smart human being who is obsessed with
Speaker 1: trade deficits and loves tariffs. Are we got one hundred
Speaker 1: percent tariff on movies made abroad for national security reasons.
Speaker 1: Really you buy that? You think that's real. You're gonna
Speaker 1: justify even that because it's it's not camar Ledge Trump.
Speaker 1: And if Trump does it, he's playing three D chess.
Speaker 1: Have you not learned anything over the last ten years.
Speaker 1: It's astounding to me. Right, I thought that the last
Speaker 1: three months would wake people up, but just still making
Speaker 1: excuses for him unbelievable. I mean, if a president has
Speaker 1: ever showed you how irresponsible and dumb he is, this
Speaker 1: president has done it, and you won't. You just don't
Speaker 1: recognize it. You won't admit it. You'll find excuse after excuse,
Speaker 1: if excuse because you can't handle the cognitive dissonance stuff.
Speaker 1: I voted for this guy, or you know, maybe there's
Speaker 1: a bit of alternative wes. I don't know why people
Speaker 1: try to come up with reasons for Trump's actions. Yeah, exactly,
Speaker 1: he just doesn't like trade. His idea is driving all
Speaker 1: of his actions. Yes, this idea is driving all of
Speaker 1: his actions, absolutely, And he hasn't liked trade since the
Speaker 1: nineteen eighties. He wanted to tell if the hell out
Speaker 1: of Japan. Back then, Japan wasn't a national security threat
Speaker 1: to the United States. Apple, What is the point of
Speaker 1: trying to justify it when it's staring you right in
Speaker 1: the face. And it's being staring you right in the
Speaker 1: face for eight nine years. So I get it that
Speaker 1: you ignoit, ignoted. In the first term. Wasn't that bad,
Speaker 1: So that's fine, okay, but the last three months. Really
Speaker 1: get a grip, people, There's nothing to defend here. This
Speaker 1: is what he's about, this is what he cares for,
Speaker 1: this is what he likes, this is what he values.
Speaker 1: Accept it. You can still say, yeah, but he's still
Speaker 1: better than come all up, fine, but don't excuse his
Speaker 1: unbelievable irrationality. Don't excuse his economic ignorance. It's beneath you,
Speaker 1: no one why. Back in Reagan era, Holly Davidson got
Speaker 1: heavy tariffs on recycles from Japan. The end result was
Speaker 1: that Japanese kept innovating while Holly Davidson stagnated. Tabs everywhere
Speaker 1: are terrifying to me, Yeah, exactly, way back in the
Speaker 1: regular area. Yeah, I mean, Reagan unfortunately caved on a
Speaker 1: bunch of these different things, and Holly Davidson was one
Speaker 1: of those made in America's an American motorcycle company. And yeah,
Speaker 1: and the Japanese overtook Holly Davidson and did much better.
Speaker 1: And the same thing happened with automobiles. Japanese cause continue,
Speaker 1: you know, we're better than the American costs, continue to
Speaker 1: be better than American costs. And instead of saying, okay,
Speaker 1: I want to really I want to help the American
Speaker 1: car industry, you could do away with fuel efficiency requirements,
Speaker 1: do away with the requirement that American companies auto companies
Speaker 1: make small cars. I mean, if you truly had comparative
Speaker 1: advantage in the world right now, if there was free trade,
Speaker 1: but more than free trade, if they want subsidies and
Speaker 1: regulations and controls and govern intervention, then the Japanese and
Speaker 1: Koreans would make small to medium sized cause maybe some SUVs,
Speaker 1: and American auto companies would not make any of those.
Speaker 1: They would make pickup trucks, SUVs, maybe minivans. They have
Speaker 1: a comparative advantage at that. That's it. They wouldn't make
Speaker 1: luxury cars. They can't beat the Germans and luxury cause
Speaker 1: they would stop making electric cars. They're not going to
Speaker 1: beat the Chinese at electric cars. Of course, one way
Speaker 1: to make sure that they are not beaten by the
Speaker 1: Chinese is to not allow Chinese electric cars to be
Speaker 1: sold in the United States, which we don't, and that
Speaker 1: way we'll never experience what it's like to buy our
Speaker 1: fifteen thousand dollars high end luxury electric suv. Was stuck
Speaker 1: with what Tesla and what GM providers. But who's stand
Speaker 1: of living is dropping because of that? Houses caught. Prices
Speaker 1: should be plummeting right now because of competition from China,
Speaker 1: and they're not because we're protecting our order industry. Esoteric dichotomy.
Speaker 1: Shoplifting is a bit rampant here in Seattle and weekly
Speaker 1: homicide in the news. Stores have lots behind glass makeup
Speaker 1: work pants. Yeah, I mean, shoplifting has become ridiculous, particularly
Speaker 1: on the West Coast. California just changed the law. It
Speaker 1: used to be the belowest certain threshold, it wasn't a
Speaker 1: crime to shoplift, and basically that legalized shoplifting and they
Speaker 1: just had a what do you call it, a statewide
Speaker 1: vote and Californians voted to eliminate that. It's now a
Speaker 1: crime to shoplift. I'm hoping that it has an impact
Speaker 1: in the police will follow through and prosecute shoplifting. I
Speaker 1: think Seattle is the same thing Seattle is they don't
Speaker 1: prosecute shoplifters. So guess what happens, You get shoplifters. So
Speaker 1: you got to take the rule of law seriously, which
Speaker 1: means prosecuting criminals. And if we don't, we lose. And
Speaker 1: that the big thing about the left is, you know,
Speaker 1: they want to get rid of the police, and they
Speaker 1: want to get rid of shoplifting laws. And you know,
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, nobody's going to vote
Speaker 1: for that unless you live in Seattle, right, most people
Speaker 1: don't want that. Most people want laws to protect property
Speaker 1: and protect life. They want the police. Raphael how Ron,
Speaker 1: can you shed advice on best practices to manage your
Speaker 1: team and to how to be more certain and assertive
Speaker 1: indecisions and in what you say with clients? Sometimes I'll
Speaker 1: lack confidence. I mean, that's it's a huge topic. But
Speaker 1: you know, I don't know what best practice is to
Speaker 1: manage teams. They're much better kind of professional managers out
Speaker 1: there that would give you better advice than I could.
Speaker 1: I mean, you have to lead the team. You have
Speaker 1: to be assertive, you have to be confident. But part
Speaker 1: of that as social and confidence has to be listening
Speaker 1: to the team. But then you have to be able
Speaker 1: to assign people tasks to their strengths. You have to
Speaker 1: be able to criticize people. You have to be able
Speaker 1: to tell people know, which is one of the toughest
Speaker 1: things to do in management. You have to say no,
Speaker 1: you have to be a leader, and that's the best
Speaker 1: way to manage the team. But let but a leader
Speaker 1: who lets the team express itself. Let's the team function
Speaker 1: brings out the best and the team members the best
Speaker 1: ideas that the you know, the best actions. I don't
Speaker 1: know if that's helpful. How do you gain more confidence?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean, you'd have to think about
Speaker 1: why you're not confident. So you just have to be
Speaker 1: much more suative and see that when you are, good
Speaker 1: things happen. And if you know the stuff, then just
Speaker 1: say it. Stop hedging, stop you know, being soft owned,
Speaker 1: just gopher it and you know, I don't know, I
Speaker 1: mean the psychological advice. I don't have any psychological self
Speaker 1: help tips on how to gain confidence. A lot of
Speaker 1: it comes from practice, practice confidence. See that it results
Speaker 1: in good things. See that you actually know the answers,
Speaker 1: and that'll give you more confidence. Hunter. I give that
Speaker 1: full copies of Hazlet to full of Hazlet's Economic and
Speaker 1: one lesson I assume to full people and got one
Speaker 1: to read the section on tariffs on the basis that
Speaker 1: it's only a few pages and would take only a
Speaker 1: few minutes to read. He changed his position. Twenty five
Speaker 1: percent convert rate not bad, not bad at all. Hazlet
Speaker 1: is brilliant. I encourage you to use I Hunt, it's great.
Speaker 1: Use Haslet's economic in one lesson. If you haven't read it,
Speaker 1: read it. Read that chapter on tariffs and you'll see
Speaker 1: I'm not exaggerating and saying that it's it's like the
Speaker 1: dumbest policy almost ever. Raphael says, since you have time,
Speaker 1: how could consciousness be formed? I have time if you'll
Speaker 1: pay me for the time. But you guys are not
Speaker 1: paying me for the time. We're in a third hour.
Speaker 1: We haven't made I'll target for the second hour. So look,
Speaker 1: I have no idea how consciousness was formed. It's a
Speaker 1: product probably of a sophisticated biological structure. I was just
Speaker 1: reading a book where he claims to understand how evolution
Speaker 1: formed consciousness. So I read an article about a book.
Speaker 1: I need to get the book because it sounds really interesting.
Speaker 1: Ulsa has a biological explanation for free will, which sounds,
Speaker 1: at least from the little I read, it sounds right.
Speaker 1: It sounds consistent with objectivism, but I don't know the
Speaker 1: details of how consciousness was pimed. It must provide us
Speaker 1: with a huge survival advantage. Alejandu any thoughts on the
Speaker 1: field a teck in UK by Iranians. I was going
Speaker 1: to talk about this, I forgot. Yeah, it's really interesting
Speaker 1: because you wouldn't think that Iron would want to be
Speaker 1: doing stuff like this right now, given that they're negotiating
Speaker 1: with Trump. You know, it really would be interesting to
Speaker 1: find out. And I don't know what's behind it. Who's
Speaker 1: behind it? Is this kind of really an official government
Speaker 1: of you won kind of thing. They've been promoting terrorism
Speaker 1: for decades, so this isn't surprising in that sense. The
Speaker 1: timing is surprising. The timing is surprising given they're trying
Speaker 1: to present themselves as good guys so that the sanctions
Speaker 1: are lifted. This would have been devastating for that effort
Speaker 1: if it had gone through, should be devastating anyway for
Speaker 1: that effort. So I'm curious to get more information about
Speaker 1: what actually happened there. I wonder if this is some
Speaker 1: splinter group or somebody, Yeah, or more radical elements within
Speaker 1: the regime they don't want to deal with the United States.
Speaker 1: Maybe that's it. But yeah, I mean, it's not surprising
Speaker 1: in the sense that you Wan has been funding and
Speaker 1: encouraging terrorism for since seventy nine. Soup Cask Destiny isn't
Speaker 1: a good guy blackmailed his former partners with their explicit content.
Speaker 1: He shouldn't be sanctioned. I don't know anything about any
Speaker 1: of that. You know, I can look into it if
Speaker 1: you think it's a big deal, and if you think
Speaker 1: objective information about it can really be achieved. Fendhop about
Speaker 1: how do I correct the trade deficit I have with you?
Speaker 1: I demand you buy something from me. I have pictures
Speaker 1: of my cats that you know I have to buy
Speaker 1: from that you know you have to buy for me.
Speaker 1: It's a national security imperative. Yeah, I mean, how do
Speaker 1: I correct the trade deficit with my grossy store with
Speaker 1: the restaurants? God, I mean those chefs need to start
Speaker 1: doing super chats. It's not right that they don't consume
Speaker 1: any of my content. They should buy my books. I
Speaker 1: have one chef who's bought my books one, but I
Speaker 1: know a lot of chefs that I go to the
Speaker 1: restaurants regularly and they don't buy my books. It's not right.
Speaker 1: Proper Destiny has said that he keeps first con conversations
Speaker 1: less confrontational because he has had trouble getting any guests
Speaker 1: when he pushed back too much in the past. All right,
Speaker 1: that makes sense, so we'll see. Well, well, well we'll
Speaker 1: keep at it. Uh, Subkaski. Trump is not better than Kamala.
Speaker 1: She was a status coo politician. Trump is a destructionist
Speaker 1: in the worst way possible. He destroys Harris Wood preserved.
Speaker 1: I mean she would have been destructive, but slower in
Speaker 1: a more normal, regular kind of way. Let me just
Speaker 1: thank a few people for their stickers. Mary Ellen, thank you,
Speaker 1: and Tyler, thank you, Ali w thank you, and a
Speaker 1: y'all thank you, and who else did a sticker? You
Speaker 1: two can do a sticker while I'm doing this, or
Speaker 1: even thank you, because there's only one more question. Mary Allen,
Speaker 1: thank thank you, and let's see what else do we
Speaker 1: have we have let's skip forward. I think that I
Speaker 1: think I got everybody. I think I got everybody, all right,
Speaker 1: So last question is Matts. But in the meantime, you
Speaker 1: can just stick us a buck ninety nine, five bucks,
Speaker 1: ninety nine, whatever you want. What is that? All right?
Speaker 1: The intellectuals who should know batter are just sellouts. But
Speaker 1: many people actually relate to and revere Trump. They share
Speaker 1: his emotional worldview. I think that's right. I think they
Speaker 1: share the zero sum mentality. I think they I think
Speaker 1: he induces in them the fear and anger that is
Speaker 1: under the surface, and he provides them an outlet for
Speaker 1: that fear and anger. It's not that they share worldview,
Speaker 1: because he has no wild view. It's a they share
Speaker 1: a certain emotional state, an emotional condition. But he I
Speaker 1: don't think Trump is afraid and angry in the same
Speaker 1: sense they are. I think he brings out and he
Speaker 1: knows he's he knows how to do that, and he
Speaker 1: does it on purpose. He knows he can manipulate people
Speaker 1: that way, and he's very successful at her. He is
Speaker 1: a great manipulator. David, thank you for the sticker. Really appreciated.
Speaker 1: All right, guys, thank you all the super chadas, thank
Speaker 1: you all the stickers. Really appreciate it. I will be
Speaker 1: back tomorrow with another show, you know. And if I
Speaker 1: get a lot worse with this cold, I might have
Speaker 1: to skip a day. But otherwise we're going to try
Speaker 1: to do a show every day this week and maybe
Speaker 1: even the weekend because then I start traveling on Monday
Speaker 1: for two weeks. So thanks guys, and have a great
Speaker 1: rest of your week. Oh, Cassie came in watched end
Speaker 1: of season one. Amazing show shows the virtue of rebellion
Speaker 1: against brutal oppression. Yes, and I think Ando is the
Speaker 1: best of the Star Wars anything because it's slow and
Speaker 1: it really gets into character. It actually develops the characters,
Speaker 1: it actually has an interesting story. It's and so I'm
Speaker 1: I'm a fan of Ando season one. I just started
Speaker 1: the first episode of season two and I'm excited to
Speaker 1: watch the second season hopefully continues to be focused on
Speaker 1: character rather than on just action sequences. All right, Thanks Subkeski,
Speaker 1: supask Thank you all, and I will see you tomorrow. Bye, everybody.