Speaker 1: So radical fundamental principles of freedom, rational self interest, and
Speaker 1: individual rights. This is the Ran Book Show. Oh right, everybody,
Speaker 1: welco up to your own book show on this Friday.
Speaker 2: May second. We will be covering the news.
Speaker 1: I hope everybody's having a great Uh had a great week,
Speaker 1: looking for the great weekend. We will be back on
Speaker 1: the Run Book Show tomorrow Saturday and probably Sunday as well.
Speaker 1: Probably do a show on Saturday and on Sunday. Topics
Speaker 1: to be determined. We will let I will let you
Speaker 1: you guys know, let's let's jump in. Unemployment numbers came
Speaker 1: out today. Uh, number of jobs created exceeded expectations, so
Speaker 1: it was higher than what was expected by several tens
Speaker 1: of thousands of jobs. So this was a good news.
Speaker 1: The market went up quite a bit today as a
Speaker 1: consequence of that, stocks did well and generally I think people,
Speaker 1: I guess the market is hopeful that maybe the the
Speaker 1: negative GDP number that came out the other day is
Speaker 1: is not real. Of course, the numbers, the employment numbers
Speaker 1: are really pre the impact of of of tariffs, pre
Speaker 1: impacted Liberation Day. Everything is pre in particular Liberation Day.
Speaker 1: So I'm not sure there's too much to celebrate. But
Speaker 1: you know, do you see enemy as always is resilient
Speaker 1: and you know, seem to be able to withstand even
Speaker 1: the dumbest or the the the most harmful of economic policies.
Speaker 1: So yeah, so we we do have we employment numbers
Speaker 1: were better than expected. Markets up hopefully for one K
Speaker 1: reflects that. And generally you know, the S and P
Speaker 1: five hundreds have been up for days now and uh,
Speaker 1: and we're seeing equity markets recover, I think partially also
Speaker 1: because the market at least into Trump is saying that
Speaker 1: he is going to reduce tabs in China and he's
Speaker 1: gonna compromise and he's going to be nice to Chinese
Speaker 1: and all of that. We still haven't seen anything specific,
Speaker 1: anything in action, but at least the market is pricing
Speaker 1: tariffs not to have a too big of an impact
Speaker 1: on the US and for the Trump administration actually significantly
Speaker 1: moderate its views on tariffs in the days and weeks
Speaker 1: to come. And again, the employment number, which is really
Speaker 1: much more important in a sense than GDP because it
Speaker 1: reflects the number of jobs available to people, and that
Speaker 1: is the basis on which a standup living quality of
Speaker 1: life is based. That is a good sign that it
Speaker 1: hasn't that it's that it's was better than expected. It's
Speaker 1: still positive growth. I don't know if that will last.
Speaker 2: We will see.
Speaker 1: I still think there's the potential for thousands, maybe even
Speaker 1: hundreds of thousands of small to medium sized businesses to
Speaker 1: shut down.
Speaker 2: Here because of tariffs.
Speaker 1: But you know, we'll say, maybe maybe Trump will reverse it,
Speaker 1: reverse the worst of the tariffs in the in the
Speaker 1: next few days and will avoid the worst impact of
Speaker 1: the tariffs on the American economy. Certainly, the market seems
Speaker 1: to believe that. Certainly the market seems to believe that,
Speaker 1: and markets, it's hard to argue with markets. People are
Speaker 1: putting their money where their mouth is. So we'll keep
Speaker 1: monitoring and keep seeing how things evolve and how things developed.
Speaker 1: By the way, yesterday we did an interview with Phil
Speaker 1: magnus and and really good on tariffs and trade, and
Speaker 1: you guys should watch it. He's he knows a lot
Speaker 1: about the history, and we talked a lot about the history.
Speaker 2: And since there's a lot of.
Speaker 1: False information out there about the history of Taos and
Speaker 1: trade in US history, I think you should you should
Speaker 1: watch the interview from yesterday to give you a good
Speaker 1: introduction to the history of US economy in at least
Speaker 1: from this perspective.
Speaker 2: So that was that unemployment number.
Speaker 1: There was one other story I wanted to cover before
Speaker 1: we got rolling with the stuff I had listed.
Speaker 2: But we're just going to jump in.
Speaker 1: Uh bou Kelly is a really interesting story in the
Speaker 1: New York Times a couple of days ago. Uh that
Speaker 1: about bu Keley and about you know, all these prisoners
Speaker 1: that the US has deported to the Al Salvadorian jail.
Speaker 1: Uh So the Times that was reporting about negotiations that
Speaker 1: Bookelly had with the United States.
Speaker 2: Now I remember who bu Kelly is.
Speaker 1: Bou Kelly is A is the president of Al Salvado.
Speaker 1: He came to power and really had pretty unremarkable first
Speaker 1: couple of years until he decided to basically do everything
Speaker 1: he could to clamp down on on violence. Initially, when
Speaker 1: he came into power, he negotiated deals with the gangs
Speaker 1: to reduce violence in Olsavado. When he realized that was
Speaker 1: not working, he basically indorsed the plant the base that
Speaker 1: that went out there, sent out the military and the
Speaker 1: police and arrested anybody who had drug related tattoos. Tens
Speaker 1: of thousands of people who were arrested. He also built
Speaker 1: massive prisons. Everybody is arrested, and then they had these
Speaker 1: mass trials to try to figure out who was and
Speaker 1: who wasn't. In the meantime, everybody was incarcerated.
Speaker 2: There was no innocent until proven guilty anything like that.
Speaker 1: He literally arrested huge numbers of elseo Adoian citizens and
Speaker 1: put them in jail. Uh, and and then kind of
Speaker 1: try to sort it out after the fact. And again,
Speaker 1: proof of membership in a gang was tattoos. Is that
Speaker 1: familiar to anybody? Familiar? Yeah, this is the policy that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is mimicking. In order to do this, he
Speaker 1: declared a state of emergency, put the put the troops
Speaker 1: out into the streets, and incarcerated again, tens of thousands
Speaker 1: of people, many of them innocent. And uh, you know,
Speaker 1: for what it seems like is going to be very
Speaker 1: long periods of time.
Speaker 2: Uh. The consequence of this is predictable.
Speaker 1: If you take the male population of any of any
Speaker 1: country and you incarcerate a significant proportion of them, you
Speaker 1: will see a decline in violent crime. Violent crime is
Speaker 1: a male phenomena. Women do not, you know, generally commit
Speaker 1: violent crimes. Violent crimes are primarily male committed by men.
Speaker 1: You know, I don't know what the percentage is, but
Speaker 1: it's it's large. So if you lock men up, violent
Speaker 1: crime goes down. Indeed, in El Salvado it went from
Speaker 1: the most the highest murder rate in the world to
Speaker 1: like a you know, a pretty bad US city, but
Speaker 1: just a US city, so not that bad, you know.
Speaker 1: As a consequence, Bukella became unbelievably popular. He then, in
Speaker 1: spite of the constitution limiting his term of president in
Speaker 1: Losovado to only one term, he then ran for a
Speaker 1: second term.
Speaker 2: Does that sound familiar.
Speaker 1: I've seen Trump is selling these Trump twenty and twenty
Speaker 1: eight hats already, so you know, Trump is learning from Bukela. Anyway,
Speaker 1: he ran anyone in a landslide because he had made
Speaker 1: Alsovado much safer. He is also, you know, out there
Speaker 1: blaming higher prices on grocery departments. He is in athirbitarian
Speaker 1: when it comes to the economy. He is a central planner.
Speaker 1: He is an a real athbitarian in Lsovado. The people
Speaker 1: so far love him because the reduction in crimeates, but
Speaker 1: he's also far, far far from being a capitalist. For
Speaker 1: a while, people raved about him because he embraced a
Speaker 1: bitcoin and made it legal tender in the country. But
Speaker 1: the reality is that the Alsavadoran economy is not doing well,
Speaker 1: has not done well even under his rule, and therefore
Speaker 1: they needed a large loan for a large loan in
Speaker 1: order to keep the country going. And in order to
Speaker 1: do that, the IMF required that he, you know, he
Speaker 1: basically was send legal tender status from bitcoin, which he
Speaker 1: did a.
Speaker 2: Couple of months ago.
Speaker 1: Anyway, Becaulay is a statist authoritarian whoa is nothing for
Speaker 1: individuals or individual rights, bet who has been able to
Speaker 1: achieve certain level of a reduction or significant level of
Speaker 1: reduction in crime in Alsavado, and he gets a lot
Speaker 1: of credit for that. Anyway, he has.
Speaker 2: Built these massive jails. They have some spare space.
Speaker 1: So the Trump the Trump administration went down to negotiate
Speaker 1: with Bukele in order to send depotees from the United
Speaker 1: States UH to Arsvado. What was interesting is that Bukele,
Speaker 1: when when the Trump advisors approached him, was was worried.
Speaker 1: You know, he he he, you know, he really wanted, uh,
Speaker 1: he really wanted to make sure that the people being
Speaker 1: sent down were actually criminals. Uh, that they were actually convicted,
Speaker 1: they were actually gang members. Surprisingly, he did not want
Speaker 1: to take Americans who or American illegal immigrants, you know,
Speaker 1: whose only crime was being in the United States illegally. Uh,
Speaker 1: he said, all jail convicted criminal, but not not just illegals.
Speaker 2: And part of that was a worry of how we
Speaker 2: would look at home.
Speaker 1: A lot of el Salvadors, Salvadorians have relatives who are
Speaker 1: illegal immigrants in the United States, and they don't want
Speaker 1: to see their relatives, and they don't view going to
Speaker 1: America illegally as a crime justifying being in a Salvadorian
Speaker 1: horrific high security jail. I guess only Americans think that
Speaker 1: being in illegal in America justify such treatment, as Salvadorians don't.
Speaker 1: So he couldn't really convince his own people that it
Speaker 1: was in their self interest for the United States to
Speaker 1: be dumping US deputees in his jails. So he told
Speaker 1: the Americans that he really wanted if he was willing
Speaker 1: to do it, but only if they should improve that
Speaker 1: these people were actually gang members and convicted a criminal.
Speaker 1: He wanted evidence. Of course, once they started deporting people
Speaker 1: into the jails, the use officials had problems gathering the evidence.
Speaker 1: For one, most of the people who were sent to
Speaker 1: Al Salvado, to the Al Salvadot jail were not not
Speaker 1: convicted criminals. So they came up with a scorecard that
Speaker 1: the Homeland Security Department created which assigned kind of points
Speaker 1: for different attributes. So you kind of if you have
Speaker 1: a lot of tattoos, you got four points. If if
Speaker 1: you had other you know, what do you call it,
Speaker 1: attributes that linked you somehow to gang membership, you got
Speaker 1: other points. If you scored more than four, more than
Speaker 1: eight points, more than any points the tattoos plus something
Speaker 1: else like somebody said or somebody who reported you as
Speaker 1: then you were considered.
Speaker 2: The gang member.
Speaker 1: That and then they promised him an invitation to the
Speaker 1: White House to have a visit with Trump, And those
Speaker 1: two things seemed to have convinced Bukeller to take on
Speaker 1: the deputies and to accept them in spite of the
Speaker 1: fact that they are not convicted criminals. He was willing
Speaker 1: because the US labeled them violent criminals. In this way,
Speaker 1: he could stay, you know, he could stay.
Speaker 2: Close to Trumps.
Speaker 1: Even though at the meeting with Trump in front of
Speaker 1: the reporters, Boo Keller took a very tough stance. He's
Speaker 1: not returning anybody, you know, He's happy to take the deputees.
Speaker 1: These are violent criminals, and so on and so forth.
Speaker 1: He himself had some real doubts about all of this. Now,
Speaker 1: I imagine a world in which a dictator of a
Speaker 1: small Central American country who has extra jail space has
Speaker 1: doubts about the people that the United States is imprisoning
Speaker 1: in his jails. But the United States, the American administration
Speaker 1: responsible for protection of the rights of people who reside
Speaker 1: in America, has no problem with it, has no problem
Speaker 1: with it. So yep, it's impractical to give twenty one
Speaker 1: million people a trial. So what, let's just shoot them?
Speaker 1: What the hell, let's just shoot them they are human beings,
Speaker 1: because we can't give them a trial. They're just overwhelming
Speaker 1: us with numbers. So we're going to send them to
Speaker 1: a now Salvadorian jail instead, you know, shooting them as
Speaker 1: a little brutal or Salvadorian jails. That's a much better
Speaker 1: environment for them, That's okay. It's just unbelievable the disregard
Speaker 1: so many Americans now have for the lives of individual people,
Speaker 1: for the lives of people who want to live in America,
Speaker 1: who risk their lives and much of their fortune to
Speaker 1: come and live in America.
Speaker 2: So what the hell they.
Speaker 1: Hear illeally, Oh my god, this is one of the
Speaker 1: biggest criminal activities one can engage in entering the United
Speaker 1: States without a visa.
Speaker 2: And therefore, you know, can't shoot them.
Speaker 1: We'd like to shoot them, can't shoot them, so we'll
Speaker 1: send them to a brutal in Salvadorian jail. It really
Speaker 1: is pretty pathetic that this is the state of America.
Speaker 1: I can understand, you know, Okay, they boke the law,
Speaker 1: just like everybody else breaks the law. You put him
Speaker 1: in front of a judge, and you tried them, and
Speaker 1: you know the penalties. The penalties are not that big.
Speaker 1: You know, you deport them, you don't put them in
Speaker 1: a jail. But we now, because of what's happened over
Speaker 1: the last two ten years, because over the last ten years,
Speaker 1: led by Trump, intellectuals on the right have basically dehumanized
Speaker 1: illegal immigrants. There now not fully human. They certainly have
Speaker 1: no individual rights, they have no rights. Now it's okay
Speaker 1: to just round them up, round them up and send
Speaker 1: them to jails or deport them to countries where where
Speaker 1: where they're going to be treated horrifically, or back in jail,
Speaker 1: send them back to place like Venezuela, which is which
Speaker 1: is a socialist hell hole. What the hell, they're not human,
Speaker 1: That's what kind of the Trump and the Rights new
Speaker 1: rhetoric basically suggests all of us so really horrific. It's
Speaker 1: it's just it's just disgusting, Uh, the way we are
Speaker 1: treating human beings and so on American so so so
Speaker 1: on Americans, so the opposite of what you would expect
Speaker 1: Americans to be. So they yeah, they've lost this status
Speaker 1: as individuals because they're illegal. We treat we treat criminals
Speaker 1: in America better than we do them, because criminals in
Speaker 1: America get a trial. Immigration is the topic.
Speaker 2: That, Yeah, it's it's it's so it's so upsetting because.
Speaker 1: Because we're talking about human beings, and we're talking about
Speaker 1: human beings. So if you're uicies and you have rights,
Speaker 1: and if you're not a US you don't have rights.
Speaker 1: If you ever read the Declaration of Independence, We'll get
Speaker 1: to Donald Trump's intoation of dectoration independence in a minute,
Speaker 1: but if you've ever ever read the Declaration of advantage.
Speaker 1: It says all men are created equal, all men. It
Speaker 1: doesn't say citizens. It says they're all endowed with inalienable rights,
Speaker 1: the right to life liberty in the pursuit of happiness.
Speaker 1: Know where there is a citizen, Know way there to
Speaker 1: say American, Know whay there to say any of that.
Speaker 1: It says all men are created equal, all of them.
Speaker 1: But to expect anybody to take the declaration in advantage seriously,
Speaker 1: it it is just bizarre. They're inside the United States.
Speaker 1: As soon as you step into the United States. The
Speaker 1: job of the US government, the only frigging job of
Speaker 1: the US government, is to protect your rights, whether you
Speaker 1: leg illegal otherwise. Now you can be then accused of
Speaker 1: violating laws and you know, brought in front of a
Speaker 1: court or whatever. But you don't lose your right to
Speaker 1: life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Speaker 2: Because you cross the border.
Speaker 1: You don't lose your right to life liberty in the
Speaker 1: pursuit of happiness because you're illegal.
Speaker 2: You're a human being.
Speaker 1: And if you'd actually look at some of these human beings,
Speaker 1: if you actually look at why they come to the
Speaker 1: United States, what they went through in order to get
Speaker 1: to the United States. You would be if you were
Speaker 1: if you were a human being, you would be ashamed
Speaker 1: of your attitude.
Speaker 2: Around illegal immigrants because.
Speaker 1: I mean, what would you do if you were born
Speaker 1: in an El Salvadorian hellhole?
Speaker 2: Would you not.
Speaker 1: Try to get into the United States? And given that
Speaker 1: it's impossible for you to get in legally, do not
Speaker 1: get in illegally? And what would your moral status be
Speaker 1: if you didn't try? Like it's almost like you could say,
Speaker 1: I could say, it's almost like it would be a
Speaker 1: model not to try to get into the United States
Speaker 1: I legally, because then you're not pursuing.
Speaker 2: Your life.
Speaker 1: But you who are the beneficiaries, some of you who
Speaker 1: are the beneficiaries of living in the United States by
Speaker 1: accident of birth, you can sit here and oh, very illegal.
Speaker 1: They should be sent to jail in Lsalvado. All right,
Speaker 1: the chat has gone crazy? God, what's going on?
Speaker 2: All right? Quickly? In Ukraine Russia?
Speaker 1: So you know, we talked yesterday about the mineral deal
Speaker 1: that was signed a couple of days ago, and today
Speaker 1: we got the announcement that the US is formally pulling
Speaker 1: out of attempting to coordinate a peace deal between Ukraine
Speaker 1: and Russia. So no more whitcough running around the world
Speaker 1: speaking to Putin and others and to try to get people,
Speaker 1: try to put pressure on Zelenski and so on. So
Speaker 1: the US Department, it used to State Department, announced that
Speaker 1: it will be withdrawing from and will no longer mediate
Speaker 1: peace between Ukraine and Russia after Russian President Putin refused
Speaker 1: to sign a set peace settlement ending his full scale
Speaker 1: illegal invasion of Ukraine. I don't know if they said
Speaker 1: illegal invasion of Ukraine. It's now up to, according to
Speaker 1: State Department, up to the two parties to present concrete
Speaker 1: ideas about how the conflict is going to end, and
Speaker 1: they should be directly to end the war. So it's
Speaker 1: going to be interesting to see what happens at this point.
Speaker 1: And it's it's going to be interesting to see if
Speaker 1: Trump changes it attitude towards Putin or towards Zelensky, whether
Speaker 1: the attitude changes. But this should go under the big heading.
Speaker 1: We should have a document ready and the title of
Speaker 1: the heading should be Trump fails and we should start
Speaker 1: listing all the Trump failures in this document. And certainly
Speaker 1: this was one that he promised, I mean he didn't
Speaker 1: just promise once.
Speaker 2: He repeated this many many times.
Speaker 1: During the campaign and a little bit during actually after
Speaker 1: he won the presidency that he would solve the Ukrainian
Speaker 1: Russian War within.
Speaker 2: Twenty four hours. Twenty four hours.
Speaker 1: Now maybe he exaggerated twenty four days, twenty four twenty
Speaker 1: four days. Now he's given up in twenty four months.
Speaker 1: So just listed as a Trump failure among the many
Speaker 1: that have already happened. I'd say most of his presidency
Speaker 1: so far has been a failure, and the failure is
Speaker 1: to come. But you know, as I as I've said
Speaker 1: in the past, Yeah, this is a massive Trump failure.
Speaker 1: You know I I've said, I guess that. You know,
Speaker 1: Trump is the worst as in American history, or we'll
Speaker 1: go down as the worst president in Meerican history. So
Speaker 1: I'm reading a little bit about American history and I'm
Speaker 1: going through kind of the period of Woodrow Wilson, And
Speaker 1: I got to tell you, Woodrow Wilson was probably in
Speaker 1: terms of violating the Constitution, violating individual rights, probably worse
Speaker 1: than Trump. It was worse than Trump in particularly given
Speaker 1: how much freedom still existed.
Speaker 2: Back then.
Speaker 1: Right in that part of that period of American history,
Speaker 1: so you know, nineteen thirteen to nineteen seventeen, so I
Speaker 1: mean the amount of violations the Woodwrow Wilson engaged in
Speaker 1: his four years as president. I mean, freedom of speech
Speaker 1: was really gone, massive interventions in the economy which were
Speaker 1: unprecedented before that, you know, just just violations of constitution
Speaker 1: left and right, partially in the name of entering. Of course,
Speaker 1: he entered World War One, which was an unmitigated disaster.
Speaker 1: Under Wilson, we got a FED, we got the income tax,
Speaker 1: and we got raising of the income taxes dramatically. Initially,
Speaker 1: I don't know if you know this, but initially the
Speaker 1: income tax was very low, I think eight percent, and
Speaker 1: only under very, very very wealthy. So most most overwhelming
Speaker 1: majority of Americas didn't pay income tax. And that's how
Speaker 1: it was sold to the American people. You won't ever
Speaker 1: pay it. It's just a wealthy will paid. And then
Speaker 1: the rates went way up and everybody started paying it.
Speaker 1: So within the Wilson administration, so Wilson, Yeah, Wilson was
Speaker 1: worse and was much more of an ideologue. That's the
Speaker 1: other difference. Wilson was an idea lugue. He was the
Speaker 1: first fully come admitted progressive and the one who really
Speaker 1: shifted progressivism to become a democratic thing. You know, where
Speaker 1: it had been progressivesm was really republican. It was it
Speaker 1: was Teddy Roosevelt who was a progressive, the progressive president again.
Speaker 1: But Teddy didn't get much done. Woodrow Wilson got a
Speaker 1: lot done. You read the history, it's it's actually quite
Speaker 1: shocking and surprising that America did as well as it
Speaker 1: did during that entire period. All right, just to remind
Speaker 1: you that the Democrats are still crazy.
Speaker 2: I found this story.
Speaker 1: It's it's kind of bouncing around, it's it's it's this
Speaker 1: is insane.
Speaker 2: But this is right at the.
Speaker 1: Heart of the Democratic Party. Are we not streaming? Are
Speaker 1: you not seeing this? You guys can see the video
Speaker 1: and audio right, everything's good. Yep, yep, still streaming. I
Speaker 1: So Democratic Party is trying to figure out what it
Speaker 1: stands for. And while I'm sure there's some moderate Democrats
Speaker 1: who are going to come to the forefront and and
Speaker 1: try to capture the party, ultimately, so far the party
Speaker 1: is pretty dominated by you know, the kind of nutty left.
Speaker 1: The nutty left is more motivated, it's more passionate, it's
Speaker 1: more organized.
Speaker 2: I mean, moderates don't organize.
Speaker 1: What do you organize under a ban of oh, we're
Speaker 1: all organized, we're all moderates.
Speaker 2: Let's get passionate about being a moderate. Let's get passionate about.
Speaker 1: Not being as woke as those people are. I mean,
Speaker 1: you don't get that the woke people really passionate. You're
Speaker 1: seeing AOC rallying large groups around with Bernie Sanders. And
Speaker 1: she is going to run I think for president. I
Speaker 1: don't know.
Speaker 2: I didn't know if she was old enough.
Speaker 1: To run, but people are talking about who running in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty eight. I thought she had to be older
Speaker 1: than that. But anyway, so she's going to run. Maybe
Speaker 1: I don't think she can win. I don't think the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party or the American people want AOC as president.
Speaker 1: But even in the actual Democratic Party, you know kind
Speaker 1: of organization, you're seeing the crazy left, you know, dominate
Speaker 1: the process.
Speaker 2: And you can see that.
Speaker 1: In in the election of what do you call it,
Speaker 1: the leadership elections to the d n C. So the
Speaker 1: vice chair is a guy named David Hogg who's pretty
Speaker 1: far left and and and known as a gun control advocate,
Speaker 1: but pretty far left on a lot of different issues,
Speaker 1: and he became vice chair of the Democratic Party. Anyway,
Speaker 1: he beat a woman called Kaylee Kaylin Free, a Native
Speaker 1: American attorney and a Democrat, you know, a Native American attorney,
Speaker 1: and he beat her. Now she is challenging her defeat.
Speaker 1: She's claiming the vote undermined minority candidates. I'm quoting by
Speaker 1: failing to distinguish between gender categories in a meaningful way.
Speaker 1: The DNC process violated its own charter and by laws,
Speaker 1: undermining both fairness and gender diversity.
Speaker 2: This is the complaint. Did she vote.
Speaker 1: So, you know she's a You know, I guess that
Speaker 1: the voting should have provided a different waiting.
Speaker 2: For people who are who are.
Speaker 1: Different, you know, I don't know diverse or whatever. I
Speaker 1: don't know exactly how they how she thinks this works.
Speaker 1: Maybe democracy really means that if you're.
Speaker 2: If you're in.
Speaker 1: The intersectionality hierarchy, if you're part of the exploited group,
Speaker 1: you get two votes or three votes or five votes.
Speaker 1: Maybe you get votes based on your intersectionality score. Uh So, anyway,
Speaker 1: this is crazy stuff. Uh and uh this is evidence
Speaker 1: kind of that the woke, crazy left has not gone away.
Speaker 1: They're still dominant. They're quiet because they were a little
Speaker 1: afraid of Trump. There's no question they were a little
Speaker 1: afraid of Trump and whops, what's going on here?
Speaker 2: And you know, even the.
Speaker 1: Even the people who are getting elected to senior positions
Speaker 1: within the Democratic Party are pretty far left. And you know,
Speaker 1: this is the challenge that the Democrats are going to
Speaker 1: have when they run even in twenty twenty six. Right now,
Speaker 1: Trump is very unpopular, and there is a lot of
Speaker 1: reason to believe that in twenty twenty six the Democrats
Speaker 1: are going to just crush Republicans in the House elections,
Speaker 1: in the election for the House of Representatives, as midterm
Speaker 1: elections usually go against the party in power, and then
Speaker 1: if the president is particularly you know, unpopular, you know,
Speaker 1: the midium elections can really be pretty questioning. They were
Speaker 1: for Trump in twenty eighteen. The challenge here is that
Speaker 1: if the Democratic Party remains kind of the party of
Speaker 1: the nutcases, of the crazies, of the woke, then it's
Speaker 1: not going to be successful. They're not going to be
Speaker 1: able to capture the votes. People will continue to reject
Speaker 1: the woke craziness. We will see if a more even
Speaker 1: if slightly more rational, Democratic Party is able to rise
Speaker 1: from the ashes of this latest election and win over
Speaker 1: the American people, because it's clear that America's rejected woke.
Speaker 1: It's clear that the America rejected the fall left when
Speaker 1: they elected Trump. I think they would reject Trump if
Speaker 1: they had an alternative. They'd reject MAGA if they had
Speaker 1: an alternative. But are they going to get an alternative?
Speaker 1: Is anybody going to provide an alternative? Not clear at all. Okay,
Speaker 1: everybody wants me to subscribe, subscribe, subscribe.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 1: We are now the House of Representatives of Senate in
Speaker 1: the process of actually now working through an actual budget
Speaker 1: bill actually figure out allocating money the departments and stuff.
Speaker 1: The Senate is doing the same thing. This is the great, big, beautiful,
Speaker 1: massive bill. The House is supposedly committed to cutting four
Speaker 1: hundred four trillion dollars over the next ten years. Now
Speaker 1: the way government does accounting. What that means is cut
Speaker 1: from the rate of growth that exists. Now that it's
Speaker 1: not a real cut. It's not an actual cut. It's
Speaker 1: grow less by ten trillion than we would have if
Speaker 1: a Democrat was in power. Something like that. The Senate
Speaker 1: was only willing to commit to cutting like a few
Speaker 1: billion dollars, and now they have to figure out what
Speaker 1: they're actually going to cut. If anything, the Trumpet administration
Speaker 1: is submitted and outlined for budget to Congress, like Trump's priorities,
Speaker 1: A part of that involves cutting one hundred and sixty
Speaker 1: three billion dollars from the twenty twenty six federal budget,
Speaker 1: from that part of the budget that is not defense
Speaker 1: and discretionary. Remember, unless you reform Medicare, Medicaid and SOID security,
Speaker 1: you can't cut them. They're a discretionary they are, you know,
Speaker 1: part of the thing. Now, some of what these cuts
Speaker 1: involve is a lot of actual good.
Speaker 2: Things that would be cut.
Speaker 1: So this is kind of right of Alex Epstein's advocacy.
Speaker 1: A lot of the cuts being proposed by the administration,
Speaker 1: again they have to get to Congress, and Congress actually
Speaker 1: used to vote on them. Dramatic cuts to alternative energy subsidies,
Speaker 1: all kinds of alternative energy things, all kinds of Interior
Speaker 1: Department programs that involve again setting aside funds and everything
Speaker 1: else for alternatives. They're cutting EPA stuff, and so a
Speaker 1: lot of this is coming from energy and environmentalism, those
Speaker 1: areas where mower stations being good about really cutting back
Speaker 1: on regulations and cutting back and government spending. The problem,
Speaker 1: of course is all it is is one hundred and
Speaker 1: sixty billion dollars.
Speaker 2: One hundred and sixty billion dollars.
Speaker 1: Is very minor, minor cuts. Now it's better than nothing,
Speaker 1: and it are the kind of cuts that will liberate
Speaker 1: certain parts of the economy, particularly again energy and maybe
Speaker 1: some infrastructure projects, given that it dramatically is going to
Speaker 1: weaken weaken the you know, the environmentalist movement and the
Speaker 1: environmental regulations. But that of course is just what the
Speaker 1: White House is sent to Congress. But now Congress governed
Speaker 1: Bible Republicans, and both the House and a Senate, and
Speaker 1: here for the budget, they only need a simple majority.
Speaker 1: Now they're going to have to work all the details out.
Speaker 1: So we have a bunch of committees. We have all
Speaker 1: the committees and subcommittees are now going to have to
Speaker 1: work through different pieces of the budget and.
Speaker 2: Put it all together.
Speaker 1: Now, all the special interest groups are going to come
Speaker 1: to Washington and lobby Congressman. And remember all you have
Speaker 1: to do is peel off a few Republicans. Republicans particularly
Speaker 1: in the House and Senate. They basically have to get unanimity.
Speaker 1: If they get people objecting to the bills, the bills
Speaker 1: will die. By the way, none of that, None of
Speaker 1: these cuts a Doge cuts. These are cuts that are
Speaker 1: being proposed to the White House, the budget office in
Speaker 1: the White House, to Congress, and our Congress has to
Speaker 1: prove them. The White House can't cut spending unilaterally. This
Speaker 1: is the fallacy about DOGE. You actually have to change
Speaker 1: it in the budget. And the budget is determined not
Speaker 1: by Doge. The budget is determined by Congress. So what
Speaker 1: Doge is is fire a bunch of people, but the
Speaker 1: money is still allocated those departments. Only Congress can end
Speaker 1: the budgetary allocations. Indeed, in spite of all the Doge
Speaker 1: cuts that have happened, government spending has increased every single
Speaker 1: month since Trump got into office, and is expected to
Speaker 1: increase every single month.
Speaker 2: For the rest of the fiscal year.
Speaker 1: So we're going to have now all these committees, all
Speaker 1: the lobbyists, get together and start meticulously going line by
Speaker 1: line over all the budget items for the American federal government,
Speaker 1: this massive, many trillion dollar budget. You can't cut Medicare
Speaker 1: and you can't catch those security So what are they
Speaker 1: going after? Well, in the House. They have said they're
Speaker 1: going to go after Medicaid. Medicaid is health care for
Speaker 1: poor people. Ninety five million Americans on Medicaid. So they're
Speaker 1: talking about shrinking the amount of money dedicated to Medicaid,
Speaker 1: But a lot of Republicans are from districts that are
Speaker 1: dominated by Medicaid recipients. Medicaid recipients, they're not gonna want
Speaker 1: to shrink it then or not. They're not gonna want
Speaker 1: to dramatically cut it or make a lot of people ineligible.
Speaker 1: So now they're saying, we're gonna spend less on Medicaid,
Speaker 1: but we're not gonna shrink eligibility. So we're still gonna
Speaker 1: have all these tens of millions of Americans on it,
Speaker 1: but we're somehow gonna provide it less money. How are
Speaker 1: they gonna do this? How they're gonna shrink Medicaid by
Speaker 1: hundreds of billions of dollars without getting the program? They
Speaker 1: probably can't. So this is the big battle now. The
Speaker 1: big battle right now is because you can't touch MEDICAI,
Speaker 1: you can't touch Medicare, you can't touch medica, and you
Speaker 1: can't touch the secure they are now trying to figure
Speaker 1: out how do they shrink Medicaid, which is a huge program. Again,
Speaker 1: somewhere between seventy to ninety five million Americans on this program.
Speaker 1: But they are going to try to do it now.
Speaker 1: Of course they'll say they're going to cut waste, faard
Speaker 1: and abuse. Waste, far and abuse are not going to
Speaker 1: get them the kind of numbers that they want. So
Speaker 1: this is a budget process that we're going to watch
Speaker 1: and going to see how to how.
Speaker 2: It all gets resolved.
Speaker 1: Well, one way to resolve this that Republicans Republicans are
Speaker 1: supporting is to adopt a program advocated for by Democrats. Right,
Speaker 1: and what did Democrats propose in terms of cutting the
Speaker 1: cost of spending on healthcare? Well, Democrats have long argued
Speaker 1: price controls on drugs, on pharmaceuticals, and indeed Biden imposed
Speaker 1: some price controls to executive voter on and I think
Speaker 1: there was a bill that passed Congress on the pharmaceutical companies.
Speaker 1: By the way, a law that Trump has not rescinded,
Speaker 1: has not argued against, does not try to undo. Indeed,
Speaker 1: quite the opposite, Republicans are now talking about placing price
Speaker 1: controls on drugs as a drug prices on pharmaceutical companies
Speaker 1: as a means of cutting government spending. So the government
Speaker 1: is now, you know, the government is now. The Republican
Speaker 1: government is now. Republicans are now adopting democratic talking points
Speaker 1: in order to get spending out of control, which is
Speaker 1: pretty pretty amazing. Another talking point is several people within
Speaker 1: the White House over the last couple of weeks have
Speaker 1: been started to talk about a one of Joe Biden's
Speaker 1: talking points Joe Biden Elizabeth Wong, and that is to
Speaker 1: put together a special millionaire tacks. This is now what's
Speaker 1: being called the Bernie Sanders wing of the GOP, the
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders wing of the GOP. Once price controls and
Speaker 1: drugs and a millionaire's attacks. This is what Republican politics
Speaker 1: is under Trump. It's almost as leftist as under any Democrat,
Speaker 1: and in some ways more leftist than any Democrat. And yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, why exactly the you've for Trump? What do
Speaker 1: you get from him that you know? Ohd I he's
Speaker 1: not woke and he hates the left, even though he
Speaker 1: is the left. He hates the left, and therefore he
Speaker 1: is a good guy.
Speaker 2: Pretty sad, pretty sad.
Speaker 1: There's a good article by Kim Strassel in the in
Speaker 1: the Wall Street Journal titled Republicans for Price Controls rather
Speaker 1: than reform welfare. Some of the GP want to fight
Speaker 1: farmer companies, So Kim Strassel can often.
Speaker 2: Be very very good. Let's see.
Speaker 1: One good news thing is that Trump signed an executive
Speaker 1: order related to spending, executive order basically pulling funding from
Speaker 1: np on PBS. Now, which I am one hundred percent
Speaker 1: forour the government should not be funding media, any kind
Speaker 1: of media, no matter what the actual views or the
Speaker 1: actual advocacy is. The problem with executive order is that
Speaker 1: that's probably unconstitutional. Now, again, our location of budgetary money
Speaker 1: is not the job of the president.
Speaker 2: It's Congress Congress.
Speaker 1: If you're going to defund the NP on PBS, Congress
Speaker 1: has to defund.
Speaker 2: NP on PBS.
Speaker 1: And you think that with Republican majorities in the House
Speaker 1: and the Senate, they would do that. Republicans have tried
Speaker 1: in the past and always failed to actually get it across.
Speaker 1: So to the extent that Trump is going to try
Speaker 1: to implement this cutting a funding to NPR PBS, I
Speaker 1: think it's gonna be He's gonna be sued. I think
Speaker 1: it'll go in front of the courts, and I don't
Speaker 1: think he has the grounds to do it. I think
Speaker 1: this will be something that goes that the Congress is
Speaker 1: going to have to do the gonna have to get
Speaker 1: the balls and actually actually defund it. Now, we will
Speaker 1: see when and if if that happens. I'll be surprised
Speaker 1: if finally they do this, right, if finally they do this.
Speaker 1: All right, let's see a quick one on housing. It's
Speaker 1: pretty funny that, you know, people are rediscovering, well, it's
Speaker 1: better to rediscover than not the laws.
Speaker 2: Of supplying demand. It's it's pretty stunning.
Speaker 1: So here's you know, So people are complaining, have been
Speaker 1: complaining for a couple of decades now about the cost
Speaker 1: of housing. Housing keeps going up in price and in
Speaker 1: not in every place in the country, but in some
Speaker 1: places in the country, particularly California and a lot of
Speaker 1: the major city is of seeing prices go up and
Speaker 1: rents as a consequence, rents going up and home price
Speaker 1: is going up, and many of us in the free
Speaker 1: market world, I mean saying, well, of course, it's a
Speaker 1: supply issue. We're not building enough homes. If you build
Speaker 1: enough homes, supply demand prices will come down, and like
Speaker 1: people are skeptical of this, like, no, it's and they've
Speaker 1: got a million other reasons why prices of homes are
Speaker 1: going up.
Speaker 2: No, it's a simple supply issue. It's not about monetary inflation.
Speaker 1: Usually it was in the two thousands, but since two
Speaker 1: thousand and eight, it's not being about monetary inflation. It's
Speaker 1: not being about anything but not enough supply. And there's
Speaker 1: a massive shortage of homes in the United States. You
Speaker 1: saw this, and of course you know there's the supply
Speaker 1: is constrained because of zoning and regulations and all kinds
Speaker 1: of land use laws. Well, surprisingly, on the left, over
Speaker 1: the last few years, there's been a movement called Yes
Speaker 1: in my Backyard that has been mobilized to try to
Speaker 1: influence left leaning cities because most cities are left leaning,
Speaker 1: to build more, build more housing. And again the skeptics
Speaker 1: are like, what'll that help. That won't do anything, And
Speaker 1: you have to build They say, you have to build
Speaker 1: low income housing. No, any housing will reduce the cost
Speaker 1: of all housing. Any housing will reduce the cost of
Speaker 1: all housing, particularly of cheaper housing. And people still skeptical.
Speaker 1: So here's a couple of headlines, and it's crazy that
Speaker 1: this is just not accepted, and that every city in
Speaker 1: the United States just doesn't embrace this simple, straightforward posse build, build, build,
Speaker 1: and prices will go down.
Speaker 2: So this is from Berkeley, This is from California.
Speaker 1: Many Berkeley rents are back to twenty eighteen prices.
Speaker 2: Is new housing. The reason.
Speaker 1: A question mark A question mark like e kind of
Speaker 1: one on one before you write a title like that.
Speaker 1: Rent prices of Berkeley's older housing stock have cooled significantly,
Speaker 1: even as inflation has swored. Yes, when you build housing,
Speaker 1: prices will come down because you've increased supply. Demand hasn't
Speaker 1: gone up, and therefore prices go down. Rent is determined
Speaker 1: by supply and demand, not by greedy landlords. The price
Speaker 1: supplying demand. But they still, even though it's happening before
Speaker 1: their rise, they still don't know it. Get rid of
Speaker 1: rent control and increasing the quantity of housing and prices
Speaker 1: rent prices will come down.
Speaker 2: Here's another one, another.
Speaker 1: Headline, apartments surge in Denver market delivers record decline in rents.
Speaker 1: Reagion added twenty thousand multifamily units last year, resulting in
Speaker 1: a three point six percent rent decline in Q four. Well,
Speaker 1: at least the guy who wrote the article in Denver
Speaker 1: knows about supplying demand and can make the cause of relationship,
Speaker 1: not just the correlation between the increase in rent, increase
Speaker 1: in quantity of houses and the decline in rents. So
Speaker 1: you know, we can complain, complain, complain about housing. The
Speaker 1: solution is right there, unequivocal, easy to identify, build more homes.
Speaker 1: And to do that you have to change the law,
Speaker 1: the zoning laws, and change the building restriction laws and
Speaker 1: all of that crap. All right, I want to show
Speaker 1: you a video talk about education. I want to show
Speaker 1: you a video which I think is pretty creepy. We'll
Speaker 1: see what you think.
Speaker 2: This is a.
Speaker 1: Video of of Miller, Steven Miller, of you know, Trump's advisor,
Speaker 1: senior advisor, talking about in a sense, his kind of
Speaker 1: vision for education.
Speaker 2: And I'm just going to play it. I hope this
Speaker 2: you find.
Speaker 1: This is creepy and is shocking and as warisome.
Speaker 2: As I do here, we go.
Speaker 3: Be taught to love America. Children will be taught to
Speaker 3: be patriots, children will be taught civic.
Speaker 1: Values, children will be taught to be patriots. They'll be
Speaker 1: taught to love this country. And if they don't, well,
Speaker 1: whip him. No, he didn't say that. I mean just
Speaker 1: the way he says it that is unbelievably creepy. And
Speaker 1: it's you know, he looks like a little I mean
Speaker 1: he looks upon He looks like a little fascist. Children
Speaker 1: will be taught what I tell them to be taught.
Speaker 1: Note that this is after they close the education department.
Speaker 1: They have no interest in letting go of education. They
Speaker 1: have no interest in getting the federal government out of education.
Speaker 1: Their goal is to a place leftist agenda in education
Speaker 1: with their right.
Speaker 2: Wing agenda education. Let me pay this again and some
Speaker 2: more to love America.
Speaker 3: Children will be taught to be patriots. Children will be
Speaker 3: taught civic values for schools that want federal taxpayer funding.
Speaker 1: So if you get federal taxpayer funding, which I thought
Speaker 1: when they shut down the Department of Education they wouldn't
Speaker 1: get anymore. But I guess they are going to get,
Speaker 1: but only only if you now advocate for the ideas
Speaker 1: that the federal government decides appropriate. Just like the left
Speaker 1: did it, the right will do the same.
Speaker 3: So as we close the Department of Education and we
Speaker 3: provide funding to states, we are going to make sure
Speaker 3: that these funds are not being used to promote communist ideology.
Speaker 1: In other words, we're going to make sure that these
Speaker 1: funds are used to promote oh fascist nationalist ideology.
Speaker 3: For any nation to be successful, it cannot teach its
Speaker 3: children to hate themselves and to hate their country.
Speaker 1: So these are a few of the areas.
Speaker 3: In which President Trump has fought the cancerous communist work
Speaker 3: culture that was destroying this country. Where were led to
Speaker 3: believe that men were women, that women were men, the
Speaker 3: racial discrimination was good, the merit was bad, and that
Speaker 3: safety and physical security matter less than the feelings of
Speaker 3: liberal be taught to love America. Children will be taught.
Speaker 1: You know, I find this stunning and scary. And children
Speaker 1: will be taught to love America. Children would be taught.
Speaker 1: You know. It's almost like a mantra. But this is
Speaker 1: again federal. This is why the federal government should have
Speaker 1: no involvement in education. It shouldn't give money to the states.
Speaker 1: It should just not give money at all.
Speaker 2: It should just shut itself down.
Speaker 1: This is why closing the part of education was not
Speaker 1: as big of a win as some of us might
Speaker 1: have thought it was, because as long as the federal
Speaker 1: government is still involved in education. When Stephen Miller is involved,
Speaker 1: they will be learned to love America. When AOC is
Speaker 1: in government, they will be taught to be good comrades
Speaker 1: in the communist you know whatever. Right, The point is
Speaker 1: that education needs to be separate from politics. How about
Speaker 1: teaching education to think? How about teaching children to think
Speaker 1: for themselves. How about teaching children the facts of history.
Speaker 1: If the facts of interesting don't align with loving your country,
Speaker 1: then maybe you shouldn't love your country. How about just
Speaker 1: teaching children math and English writing skills and reading skills
Speaker 1: and history and just reality. This is like right out
Speaker 1: of I don't know, the authoritarian uh, the Theiritarian Playbook
Speaker 1: of State, mandate, worship of the state.
Speaker 2: You shall love America.
Speaker 1: This is you know, the whole point of this is
Speaker 1: to get students to be obedient, to be servants of
Speaker 1: the state, to be quote patriotic. And you don't have
Speaker 1: to teach reality, just like the left doesn't teach reality.
Speaker 1: What you teach is that which will make them subservient
Speaker 1: to the state. So the fact that we close the
Speaker 1: department education, it's going to have very little impact on
Speaker 1: the perverse perversion that is state involvement in education. Just
Speaker 1: give you an example of this in Oklahoma, students are
Speaker 1: going to be required to learn about how the election
Speaker 1: was stolen from Trump in twenty twenty. See here's one
Speaker 1: of the assignments they're going to have to do in
Speaker 1: social studies, identified discrepancies in twenty twenty elections election results
Speaker 1: by looking at graphs and other information, including the sudden
Speaker 1: halting of ballot counting in select cities in key battleground states,
Speaker 1: the security risk of mail in ballots, sudden batch dumps,
Speaker 1: an unforeseen record number of voters, and the unprecedented contraction
Speaker 1: a Bellwether county trends. So Oklahoma is in the social
Speaker 1: sciences curriculum, going to require the brainwashing of its students,
Speaker 1: or the indocrination of its students. That's a better word,
Speaker 1: the indocrination of the students in the idea that Trump
Speaker 1: lost the twenty twenty election. This is so essential to
Speaker 1: the identity of Republicans now, it's so essential to the
Speaker 1: identity of MAGA, so essential to the identity of Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: that it is now going to enter the school curriculum.
Speaker 1: Even though all of this is bs, it is completely debunked,
Speaker 1: being debunked many many times. Lawsuits have been lost on
Speaker 1: this basis. Imagine what would happen. Imagine what would happen
Speaker 1: if students research this and they write a paper saying, actually,
Speaker 1: all this stuff has been debunked. Nothing happened. I mean,
Speaker 1: do you think they're going to get a good grade? Speechless?
Speaker 1: Talk about speechless?
Speaker 2: All right? This is under the category of.
Speaker 1: No, I can't, I don't anyway, It's not in any
Speaker 1: category other than this is your president. This is under
Speaker 1: the category of this is your president, and it's going
Speaker 1: to be, you know, in the president's words. So I'm
Speaker 1: not gonna put any words in his mouth, and then
Speaker 1: you decide about what you think of this president. I
Speaker 1: will explain why I think this is so awful. But
Speaker 1: this is the president. So the president did an interview
Speaker 1: with Time magazine, an extensive interview with Time magazine. You
Speaker 1: should watch this, you should read this. I'm going to
Speaker 1: give you two examples from these interviews. The interview makes
Speaker 1: clear that we've elected a man who.
Speaker 2: Is ignorant.
Speaker 1: And who is not smart to the White House. Now.
Speaker 1: I think a lot of us knew this already, but
Speaker 1: this interview is just so stark that it is really shocking.
Speaker 1: And this is why everybody should should read the interview,
Speaker 1: because watch the interview or read it if you can
Speaker 1: find a transcript, because it is so luckily, the American
Speaker 1: people are smarter than this guy, or not more knowledgeable
Speaker 1: than this guy. It's just unbelievable. Here's an example. So
Speaker 1: the interviewer says, so one hundred and forty five tavis
Speaker 1: in China, and that is basically an embargo, which is true,
Speaker 1: you know. Trump say, as that's good, they deserve it.
Speaker 1: Interviewer says it'll raised prices on everything from electronics to
Speaker 1: clothing to building its building homes houses. Trump says, you
Speaker 1: don't know that. You don't know whether or not China
Speaker 1: is going.
Speaker 2: To eat it.
Speaker 1: Now, notice a minute ago he admitted that it was
Speaker 1: basically an embargo. If it's an embargo, China's not eating it.
Speaker 1: The goods are just not arriving in America. So China
Speaker 1: can't eat it if the goods are not arriving in America.
Speaker 1: So that's the first contradiction. And then the interviewer says,
Speaker 1: that's mathematics, and Trump.
Speaker 2: Says, China probably would eat those taps.
Speaker 1: Now we've done the math before, but I want to
Speaker 1: emphasize the maths on the math on this, because I
Speaker 1: want to show you the sheer impossibility of what Trump
Speaker 1: is saying. Let's say, yeah, a good the China is
Speaker 1: selling for one hundred dollars in the United States. One
Speaker 1: hundred dollars, and let's say the profit margin on that.
Speaker 1: Let's say the Chinese are really this is good. They've
Speaker 1: got a they've cornered the market on, They've got a good,
Speaker 1: healthy profit margin. Let's say the profit margin is thirty percent,
Speaker 1: which is a very high profit margin on almost anything
Speaker 1: you buy from China. So it costs him seventy dollars
Speaker 1: to make and they're making thirty dollars and they're selling
Speaker 1: it for one hundred dollars in the United States. Now,
Speaker 1: let's say the tariff is one hundred and forty five percent,
Speaker 1: which is the example we've done here. One hundred and
Speaker 1: forty five percent makes makes it so that if the
Speaker 1: tariff was born by an American, then the price of
Speaker 1: the tariff, so that the tax paid by the importing
Speaker 1: company is now one hundred and forty four five percent
Speaker 1: of one hundred, which means one hundred and forty five dollars.
Speaker 1: So when I import this good, I have to pay
Speaker 1: the Chinese company one hundred dollars and then after pay
Speaker 1: the US government hundred and forty five dollars. Now, what
Speaker 1: would it mean for the Chinese company to eat the tariff?
Speaker 1: It would mean that not only would they have to
Speaker 1: be willing to give the product to the importer for
Speaker 1: nothing basically right, so it's one hundred and forty five
Speaker 1: percent taf So they would have to be willing to
Speaker 1: reduce the price of the good so low that one
Speaker 1: hundred and forty four tariff brought it up to one hundred.
Speaker 1: So they would have to sell it for less than
Speaker 1: forty bucks about forty bucks, So forty dollars one hundred
Speaker 1: and forty five percent is about sixty bucks, and that
Speaker 1: gets it back to one hundred dollars, so they would
Speaker 1: have to That means they eat it all up right
Speaker 1: at forty bucks? What is their profit? Mind, they're losing
Speaker 1: thirty dollars on every item they sell.
Speaker 2: How are the Chinese gonna eat.
Speaker 1: Losing thirty dollars for every item they sell because they're
Speaker 1: selling it at forty dollars. It's just a mathematical impossibility.
Speaker 1: They would lose so much they'd be wiped out very quickly.
Speaker 1: This is just one item, and I'm assuming thirty percent
Speaker 1: profit margin, which is just not true. Most Chinese goods
Speaker 1: have profit margins. What below ten percent? You just can't
Speaker 1: do it. And again, this is not difficult mathematics. This
Speaker 1: is not calculus. This is arithmetic. And we have a
Speaker 1: president of the United States who can't do the arithmetic
Speaker 1: and who's advisors are too afraid to tell him what
Speaker 1: the arithmetic actually means because that's model of So that's
Speaker 1: one example of this interview, of of of what he
Speaker 1: said in interview. The other one was, you know, he's
Speaker 1: got a copy of the Declaration of the Dependence hanging
Speaker 1: in his office, and the interviewer asks him about the
Speaker 1: Declaration of Independence, about about what it is and what
Speaker 1: it what it you know, what it represents.
Speaker 2: Right, And.
Speaker 1: I mean, you got to watch the video of this
Speaker 1: because you've got to see the interviewer's facial response to
Speaker 1: to what Trump says. I this is Donald Try, I mean,
Speaker 1: this is this is him, right, I'm not making this up.
Speaker 1: I'm being objective. Yeah, I could not highlight this, but
Speaker 1: this is the President of the United States, and this
Speaker 1: is this is a major interview he did with Time
Speaker 1: magazine and it's all over the web right here it is.
Speaker 1: So he's asked about what it means, what this is,
Speaker 1: and so this is what he says, quote, well, it
Speaker 1: means exactly what it says. It's a declaration, a declaration
Speaker 1: of unity and love and respect, and it means a lot,
Speaker 1: and it's something very special to our country. The Declaration
Speaker 1: of Independence the most important political document in all of
Speaker 1: human history. The Declaration of Dean is the clearest articulation
Speaker 1: of the declaration of the rights of man. The man
Speaker 1: has rights. It's a declaration of unity. What unity around?
Speaker 1: What of love? Love? Is love mentioned in the Declaration
Speaker 1: of Independence. I don't remember the word love in the
Speaker 1: Decreation of Independence. I'm sure I don't remember unity, but
Speaker 1: certainly no love and respect, respect from whom it's a
Speaker 1: declaration independence. It's a massive, disrespectful document, disrespecting the authoritarian
Speaker 1: king in America. You gotta what and then you watch
Speaker 1: it in the interview is like looking at him like
Speaker 1: are you crazy? Are you insane? Are you the president
Speaker 1: of the United States? And you don't know what this
Speaker 1: document is about? Who are you?
Speaker 2: Well, it means exactly what it says.
Speaker 1: It's a declaration, a declaration of unity and love and respect,
Speaker 1: and it means a lot, and it's something very special
Speaker 1: to our country, the.
Speaker 2: President of the United States.
Speaker 1: Ladies and gentlemen, you know, I think it's important for
Speaker 1: all of us to have an objective understanding, an objective
Speaker 1: understanding of who we are actually dealing with. And that's
Speaker 1: who we're dealing with. All right, thank you. That is
Speaker 1: the news for Friday. May second. Uh, let's jump into
Speaker 1: our questions, our super check questions. We are way behind it.
Speaker 1: I don't know what's gotten into you, guys. You think
Speaker 1: a new month has started and you can anyway. We're
Speaker 1: sort of targets, so I'd appreciate it would be great
Speaker 1: if if some of you jumped in with some stickers
Speaker 1: and and and questions.
Speaker 2: We've got we've got some time for questions. We've got
Speaker 2: some stickers.
Speaker 1: Mary Elaine, Robert, Bonnie Allen, anonymous user, Jeremy Steven and
Speaker 1: I saw there was there was one, Fedd Harpa and Benjamin.
Speaker 1: Thank you all for the stickers. Really really appreciate it,
Speaker 1: so please please consider doing more stickers. Got a lot
Speaker 1: of people watching. This is the way you support the show.
Speaker 1: Which is only made possible through contributions from people like you.
Speaker 2: Listeners like you.
Speaker 1: I want to remind you that a great way to
Speaker 1: support the show is through Patreon. You can become a
Speaker 1: monthly supporter. Not worry about it. Most of you are
Speaker 1: listening to the show and watching the show are not live,
Speaker 1: so some of you can do it on YouTube. You
Speaker 1: can still applaud and support the show that way. But
Speaker 1: the rest of you, the best way to do it
Speaker 1: is just go to Patreon, sign up, make a monthly contribution.
Speaker 1: Anything but two dollars to five hundred dollars or one
Speaker 1: thousand dollars. I think there's an option for a thousand
Speaker 1: dollars a month, and that's it, and then you don't
Speaker 1: have to think about it again. And we are trading.
Speaker 1: You are providing me with a value. I'm proviting you
Speaker 1: with a value. Obviously you're listening. That means it's a
Speaker 1: value to you. So please support the show so we
Speaker 1: can keep it going. Michael says, I don't think Reagan
Speaker 1: was successful because he brought the Maral majority.
Speaker 2: He was popular because.
Speaker 1: Of his more liberty oriented and optimistic policies. Ran may
Speaker 1: have viewed him differently if she lived long enough to
Speaker 1: see his entire term. He became popular because of that,
Speaker 1: but he won. He didn't win by a big margin
Speaker 1: the first time. He won because the country was rejecting
Speaker 1: Jimmy Carter was a very unpopular president, and because the evangelicals.
Speaker 2: Voted for him.
Speaker 1: He would not have won without the evangelical vote and
Speaker 1: evangelical vote that had voted for Jimmy Carter the previous
Speaker 1: election in nineteen seventy six. Jimmy Carter won because he
Speaker 1: got the evangelicals. They all shifted to and came into
Speaker 1: the Republican Party and became part of the Republican Party
Speaker 1: with the nineteen eighty election. Now, by the time you
Speaker 1: get to nineteen eighty four, Reagan is unbelievably popular, and
Speaker 1: he wins in a landslide, a true landslide, not a
Speaker 1: pseudo landslide like.
Speaker 2: Donald Trump's victory.
Speaker 1: And that is because the economy is doing really well,
Speaker 1: and he does change the vibe in America.
Speaker 2: He changed it to a more.
Speaker 1: Optimistic, positive orientation, so he benefits from.
Speaker 2: And a thriving economy.
Speaker 1: A lot of that is more caused by people like
Speaker 1: Paul Voca, and actually the deregulation under Jimmy Carter, and
Speaker 1: the kind of the financial activity going on Wall Street,
Speaker 1: which is generating a structuring of American business, leads to
Speaker 1: a thriving economy. So he's benefited from thriving economy. He's
Speaker 1: lower taxes, Inflation is coming down because of Voca, interest
Speaker 1: rates are coming down, and he rings an optimistic note
Speaker 1: that resonates with Americans, and he wins. So Ironran didn't
Speaker 1: say that he won because he brought the Ma majordy
Speaker 1: into the Republican Party. Ironran said she would never vote
Speaker 1: for him and that she thinks he was a failed
Speaker 1: president if you think about the long term, because he
Speaker 1: brought the majority into the Republican Party.
Speaker 2: And she was absolutely right.
Speaker 1: He did bring them into Mam Majarady into the Republican Party,
Speaker 1: even if they weren't the only cause of his victory,
Speaker 1: and he did ruin the Republican Party forever. We're seeing
Speaker 1: the consequence of that with Donald Trump. It's because the evangelicals,
Speaker 1: the emotionalist religionists associated with the Republican Party that we
Speaker 1: have Trump's party. That is Trump's party, it's it is
Speaker 1: Ronald Reagan's party. It's what the mam majority is morphed into.
Speaker 1: Andrew Rand was asked what we could do so that
Speaker 1: our children are not ashamed of success. She said, in part,
Speaker 1: do not teach him to be humble. Do you think
Speaker 1: there's a cultural repression on pride that leads the blatant
Speaker 1: baggers like Trump. Yes, I mean it's the same. It's
Speaker 1: it's my point about how altruism leads to nihilism and pragmatism.
Speaker 1: Nobody wants to be an altruist, and there's a certain
Speaker 1: element in which we reject pride in the context of
Speaker 1: religion and in the context of altruism, and people rebel
Speaker 1: against that when they were belt against altruism, and they
Speaker 1: rebel against the religion. But they don't adopt as an
Speaker 1: alternative rational egoism. They don't adopt as an alternative the
Speaker 1: proper virtue of pride. What they adopt in you know,
Speaker 1: in opposed to it to stick it in people's faces,
Speaker 1: is a form of hedonism, a form of pragmatism, a
Speaker 1: form of of of uh, you know, psychologically, a form
Speaker 1: of narcissism which embraces being a braggard, embraces you know,
Speaker 1: the Trump kind of behavior, and that is a direct
Speaker 1: consequence of this rejection and not having an alternative, but
Speaker 1: also not being not looking for an alternative, that is
Speaker 1: being orient it towards emotionalism, being orient it towards uh,
Speaker 1: the the narcissism of But I think a culture that
Speaker 1: isn't that is altruistic but it's still semi free, is
Speaker 1: gonna The people who rebel against the altruism are going
Speaker 1: to land up. Many of them are going to land
Speaker 1: up as narcissists or pragmatists.
Speaker 2: Chasbod.
Speaker 1: I have a theory that Trump is actually Guilderoy Lockhart,
Speaker 1: the incompetent wizard who managed to convince everyone that he
Speaker 1: was a hero. I don't know who Guilleroy Lockhart was,
Speaker 1: but I find out how to believe that Trump is
Speaker 1: a wizard, even an incompetent one that seems way too
Speaker 1: attributing to him abilities that I don't.
Speaker 2: Think he has.
Speaker 1: Michael is the right to unintellectual to embrace objectivism. I've
Speaker 1: interacted with a few Maga rallies. These people are real
Speaker 1: knuckle draggers. Yeah, I think that's right, Or to put
Speaker 1: another way, they have been so corrupted epistemologically by religion,
Speaker 1: and by the cult behavior and by their worship of
Speaker 1: Trump that they are beyond hope. They are not who
Speaker 1: we should be looking for to find recruits. In that sense,
Speaker 1: I think the left has always been a better hunting
Speaker 1: ground all old style of Republicans. The more intellectual conservatives
Speaker 1: are better place to find converts to objectivism.
Speaker 2: I do not think Mega is a is.
Speaker 1: A complete and utter waste of time.
Speaker 3: It is.
Speaker 1: An anti reason political movement, an anti mind political movement.
Speaker 1: Leam Weiss Trump fast with the tariffs and slow with deregulation.
Speaker 1: Can't he claim some emergency power to deregulate certain industries.
Speaker 2: I'm sure he can.
Speaker 1: But deregulation is boring, it's boring, uninteresting, and there are
Speaker 1: a lot of people, and I'm sure a lot of
Speaker 1: people surrounding him don't want him to regulate because regulation
Speaker 1: is a power and when you do you regulate, you
Speaker 1: lose power. So there's a lot of people who want
Speaker 1: to use regulations. I mean, this is again Jdvans. JD
Speaker 1: Vance is inspired by people like Patrick Denin who think
Speaker 1: that regulations are good, they just need to be used
Speaker 1: to inculcate right wing ideas. It's the same as we
Speaker 1: don't need to dismantle the Department of Education because we
Speaker 1: want the Department education so we can inculcate students with
Speaker 1: our ideas. Now they're disbanding the Department of Education and
Speaker 1: inculcating their ideas, so they found a way to do both.
Speaker 1: But that's why tariffs are easier. And look, let me
Speaker 1: another way to say it. Trump is passionate about tariffs.
Speaker 1: TEFs are just not one other policy issues. This is
Speaker 1: the one thing that Trump is believed in and advocated
Speaker 1: for since the nineteen eighties. This is something he actually
Speaker 1: believes in. Deregulation he doesn't really believe in. It's just
Speaker 1: a yeah, that would be nice, not you have your joagorithm.
Speaker 1: Isn't it infuriating that in a few hundred years the
Speaker 1: world will be perfect and none of us will be
Speaker 1: able to see it. You can't think that way. You
Speaker 1: can only think about what is in your life, what
Speaker 1: is possible for you. You don't know in a few
Speaker 1: hundred years the world might have disappeared nuclearmageddon and will
Speaker 1: be dead. It's irrelevant. All you have is your life.
Speaker 1: All you can do is focus and focus on making
Speaker 1: it the best stop worrying about what happens. There's no
Speaker 1: point in even considering it. Michael, will we lay be
Speaker 1: able to abolish the Central Bank of Argentina or will
Speaker 1: other world powers not let him? Could relate to an
Speaker 1: Argentina into first world economy, you know, I don't know.
Speaker 1: It's going to be hard to abolish the central Bank
Speaker 1: of Argentina, but other countries in Latin America have done it.
Speaker 1: Ecuador has basically no central bank. The economy is a
Speaker 1: dollar economy. Panama's economy is a dollar economy. El Salvado
Speaker 1: has no central bank. They have a dollar economy. So
Speaker 1: it's it's certainly possible, And the question is does he
Speaker 1: want it? Are his allies on board with it, because
Speaker 1: a lot of his allies are kind of nationalistic conservatives
Speaker 1: who want an Argentinian currency. It's part of the nationalism
Speaker 1: to have their own currency and not use those dollars
Speaker 1: from another country. I don't think the world powers will
Speaker 1: get in the way. Maybe the IMF, but I don't
Speaker 1: think if they dollarize, I don't think the IMF would
Speaker 1: get in the way.
Speaker 2: They didn't in other cases.
Speaker 1: Could relate turn Argentina into first world economy. Certainly he
Speaker 1: could if he allowed to do it, If the Argentinian
Speaker 1: people back him up, they elect the right people to
Speaker 1: Parliament in the elections coming up in the fall, then yeah,
Speaker 1: he could definitely turn the economy into first world He
Speaker 1: certainly has the plan to do it, the ability to
Speaker 1: do it, and then the question is does he have
Speaker 1: the political support to do it not? You have a algorithm.
Speaker 1: Narcissism and selfishness are going to be conflated in the
Speaker 1: next fifty years, at least.
Speaker 2: Least at least it's slowing the movement down.
Speaker 1: I think yeah. I mean, look, narcissism, pragmatism, hedonism, even
Speaker 1: nihilism have often been.
Speaker 2: Conflated with selfishness.
Speaker 1: The altruists have every incentive to take every negative characteristic
Speaker 1: out there that appears somehow to be in somebody's self
Speaker 1: interest and conflated with selfishness. It's always been odd, it
Speaker 1: will continue to be hard. There's nothing new here. It's
Speaker 1: just a I think narcissism is always been viewed as selfish.
Speaker 1: Kiki ban BYU cause because a possible kill switch, or maybe.
Speaker 2: Leave that to customers to decide.
Speaker 1: Maybe have inspectors inspect the cause and make sure there
Speaker 1: isn't a kill spitch.
Speaker 2: B y D you mean not b y U b
Speaker 2: y D. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I you know, I wouldn't ban cause I would let
Speaker 1: consumers decide whether they want to buy the call or not,
Speaker 1: maybe encourage them not to buy them. But I don't
Speaker 1: think the state should get involved and make decisions for
Speaker 1: you what you call not I don't think BYD cause
Speaker 1: a national security threat, but maybe we need inspection and
Speaker 1: to make sure that they don't they don't have a
Speaker 1: kill switch, and maybe that they're you know, they're not
Speaker 1: listening into conversations that are happening inside the car. It
Speaker 1: not that I care what the Chinese know about my
Speaker 1: conversations when I drive a car. But yeah, the more
Speaker 1: power we give the government to decide which products are
Speaker 1: okay for us to use and which are not, the
Speaker 1: less freedom we have. Dan Nolton my first super Chat
Speaker 1: just to test thanks to the shows, yeh, Superchat is
Speaker 1: working matters. I'm officially being a member for one year.
Speaker 1: Thank you for all you've taught me in the last
Speaker 1: twelve months. Any plans to come back to SOO forth
Speaker 1: soon haven't been invited, So talk to talk to what's
Speaker 1: his name, Regene about inviting me back? Gene Epstein. Mary
Speaker 1: Aline says, AOC is thirty five, so I guess she's
Speaker 1: old enough. All right, AOC is going to run for president.
Speaker 1: It'll be fun as a trek economy. Hey, Ron, would
Speaker 1: you ever move to a private charter city if they
Speaker 1: become common? Does the US need more new cities? We
Speaker 1: have a lot of land to use, Yeah, we absolutely.
Speaker 1: We need no more immigrants. We need more people. We
Speaker 1: need more cities. We need more population, more production, more creation,
Speaker 1: more building, more, Yeah, all of that stuff. Would I
Speaker 1: move to charter city? Maybe under the right circumstances. I'm
Speaker 1: skeptical because I think that the government's granting them the
Speaker 1: charter will ultimately take it away. They'll ultimately step in
Speaker 1: and take the charter away. All right, guys, we only have,
Speaker 1: you know, about ten minutes. We're sixty dollars short of
Speaker 1: our one hour goal, and we're going on two hours
Speaker 1: or an hour and a half. So yeah, please consider
Speaker 1: supporting the show. Stickers of large denominated stickers would be great.
Speaker 1: Large denominated questions would be great, or just stickers of
Speaker 1: any denomination would be amazing as well.
Speaker 2: Harper Campbell.
Speaker 1: Let's be honest, we're collapsing into Nazi Germany and there's
Speaker 1: nothing we could do about to stop it. I don't
Speaker 1: think any of that is true. I don't think we're
Speaker 1: collapsing into Nazi Germany. We're not rounding people up. And
Speaker 1: you know, Trump is not Hitler, He's not ideological enough.
Speaker 1: And if he was ideological, then making people would have
Speaker 1: never voted for him. We are not not not in
Speaker 1: Nazi Germany. We're not heading to Nazi Germany. Relax, calm down.
Speaker 1: Stuff is bad enough without blowing it out of proportion. Adam,
Speaker 1: it's all a variation of the same argument. Less tariffs,
Speaker 1: more supply of goods, more choice, lower prices, more houses,
Speaker 1: more choice, lower prices.
Speaker 2: And and note that you know.
Speaker 1: Taisa just taxes, so lower taxes, more supply of goods,
Speaker 1: more choices, more freedom, uh, more pursuit of happiness, more
Speaker 1: respect for the individual's life, and lower prices. Of course,
Speaker 1: so yes, yes, yes, absolutely no, but it's all the
Speaker 1: same theme. You're absolutely right, all right to last two questions.
Speaker 1: If you want to ask something, jump in quickly here,
Speaker 1: hi on, just finish the Leonardo series. Leonardo series, and
Speaker 1: really enjoyed it thanks to the accommodation. To me, do
Speaker 1: you know other series in that style? Huh No. I
Speaker 1: mean there's a lot of series on artists, but I
Speaker 1: don't know anything in that style. Now you know, there's
Speaker 1: there's something un Rafael, there's something on Michelangelo, all enjoyable.
Speaker 1: But I'm not sure if that style is I'm not
Speaker 1: sure if it's the same thing, Mary Ellen.
Speaker 2: This is the last question.
Speaker 1: How does Trump believe in tariffs with such passionate intensity
Speaker 1: when he doesn't understand.
Speaker 2: How they work?
Speaker 1: Is it batchet crazy? He understands that they reduce well,
Speaker 1: I don't know what he understands. I don't know he's
Speaker 1: batchet crazy. There's a question about that.
Speaker 2: Though.
Speaker 1: I'm not supposed to say that. He's not very smart.
Speaker 1: He's not very smart, and he can't really hold what
Speaker 1: they actually do. But what he really hates is trade deficits,
Speaker 1: and he believes wrongly. And his first term shows that
Speaker 1: that if you have tavish, you you get rid of
Speaker 1: the deficit. And that's really all he cares about is
Speaker 1: getting rid of the deficit. But you don't do that.
Speaker 1: First of all, there's nothing wrong with the deficit. Zero
Speaker 1: Resiltch not a second taris, don't get rid of trade deficits.
Speaker 1: You didn't update on Doge. Why aren't you using super
Speaker 1: chat like everybody else?
Speaker 2: Bo was.
Speaker 1: No no updates and Dose because there's nothing the update,
Speaker 1: nothing particularly, nothing special is happening. As I said, Dog
Speaker 1: wants access to SI security, but for what just to
Speaker 1: root out fraud and that, which is meaningless and doesn't.
Speaker 1: It's just there's just nothing interesting going on with Dose
Speaker 1: right now. They're not cutting anyone near as much money
Speaker 1: as they said they would, certainly not two trillion or
Speaker 1: one trillion. Now they're down to one hundred and fifty,
Speaker 1: and of one hundred and fifty, we're probably looking at
Speaker 1: fifty maybe fifty. So it's just it's it's less interesting
Speaker 1: and nothing, you know, nothing much is happening. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: news flash. On Monday, probably at around ten thirty, I
Speaker 1: will be joining Destiny's podcast YouTube channel what does he do?
Speaker 1: Does he even do YouTube? I think he's going to
Speaker 1: send me a zoom link. So I'm going to be
Speaker 1: on Destiny's show for a couple of hours. So I don't,
Speaker 1: you know, I don't know what the format looks like.
Speaker 1: I don't know how he does it. I don't know
Speaker 1: if it's a debate, I don't know what it is.
Speaker 1: But basically, I'll be on a stream. I'll Beyond Destiny
Speaker 1: stream starting ten thirty in the morning on Monday. So
Speaker 1: Destiny is this big, huge celebrity. Would you call him
Speaker 1: a leftist, a centrist or something like that. So we
Speaker 1: will see where the conversation takes us. We will see
Speaker 1: what we're talking about. But it sounds like we're just
Speaker 1: going to be chatting. And it's great because he has
Speaker 1: a massive audience, which is mostly a new audience for me.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I don't hate him. I've seen a little
Speaker 1: bit of him. I mean, he's wrong in a lot
Speaker 1: of stuff, but I certainly don't hate him. Okay, Simon says.
Speaker 1: Simon is stuck in a question, how do you articulate
Speaker 1: to someone that values objective even in the real even
Speaker 1: in the realm of economics, and values can't be subjective
Speaker 1: because they are tied to reality. Well, I mean it
Speaker 1: doesn't matter what realm they are the objective to the
Speaker 1: extent that they enhance your life, that.
Speaker 2: You are value.
Speaker 1: Now, some values are you know, they can be subjective.
Speaker 1: The point is that there are such things as objective values,
Speaker 1: and the standard of objectivity is reality and their contribution
Speaker 1: to your life. So the extent that the value adds
Speaker 1: to your life is enhancing your life, leads to your flourishing,
Speaker 1: supports your well being, and it really does. So that's
Speaker 1: the base on reality. Then it's an objective value. Objective
Speaker 1: is not independent of valuer. Quite the opposite. Objective is
Speaker 1: by the standard of the valuer. You have to have
Speaker 1: a standard. Only the valuer can give them standards. So
Speaker 1: the valuer is what makes it objective. There is no
Speaker 1: such thing as objective, as objective in epistemology outside of
Speaker 1: for somebody, there has to be a consciousness that is
Speaker 1: being objective. There's no such thing as a disinterested something
Speaker 1: out there.
Speaker 2: Values are not intrinsic. They're not in and.
Speaker 1: Of themselves good. They're good for whom and for what,
Speaker 1: and that is what makes them objective. All right, guys,
Speaker 1: I will see you all tomorrow, not to exactly what time,
Speaker 1: but we will have a show tomorrow.
Speaker 2: Thank you all the super chatters.
Speaker 1: I really really appreciate it, and I guess I will
Speaker 1: talk to you soon.
Speaker 2: Bye. Everybody,