AI Luddites & Uses; CEO Fear; Crazy Left; Broken Window; Ballroom; Reparations | Yaron Brook Show - Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
A lot of them, the mists of.

Speaker 2 (00:07):
La little minds and the individual lots. This is the show.
Oh right, everybody walk up to here one book show
on this Wednesday, October twenty second.

Speaker 1 (00:27):
A little early earlier than usual.

Speaker 2 (00:30):
But I have a flight to catch in a little while,
so figure better to do it early than not at all.
I mean, there's a lot of stuff going on out
there in the world. You know, the Americans in Israel
trying to trying to get the Nitinio government to compromise

(00:53):
over Gaza, the Egyptians. The Egyptians have been there. There
seems to be no agreement about international security forces. Is
Alos insisting the Turks not to send troops into Gaza.
The Egyptians want to send Palestinians that they trained into Gaza,
which would really report to the Palestinian authority, which is

(01:14):
all doesn't want. And uh Jad Evans is there and
with covers there and yeah, it's one big mess and
it will continue. So I figu I'm not going to
talk much about that. I'm not going to talk about
that at all except what I just said, because yeah,
nothing's going to be resolved today, no new information really,

(01:35):
there's still negotiating. There's really no consensus being built. It's
very hard to get a consensus. This is the much
tougher part of the negotiation now is kind of what
is going to.

Speaker 1 (01:45):
Be the future of Gaz and how to get there?

Speaker 2 (01:47):
How did this m Ramas doesn't want to dim how
to get this, How to prevent Ramas from playing a
role in the governance of Gaza going into the future.

Speaker 1 (01:56):
Tramas wants such a role.

Speaker 2 (01:58):
And you've got Qatar and you've got Tuki, who are
not honest players in this, who are clearly on the
side of Ramas, they're participating in it. So the whole
thing's a mess. It will continue to be a mess.
Nothing new is happening right now. I'd say the same
thing is going on Ukraine Russia. You know, negotiations. I

(02:20):
guess Ukraine is trying to figure out how to get
a cease fire.

Speaker 1 (02:24):
That's what Ukraine wants.

Speaker 2 (02:26):
It doesn't want to find a piece deal because it
knows it cannot get its territory back. It wants to
cease fire along the current lines. It wants just it
wants some time to breathe, and Russia doesn't want that.
Russia wants to find a solution that gives it a
chunk of Ukraine, and the Oppeans are backing as Zelenski

(02:49):
Trump some of the sign backs Putins some of the
time packs Zolenski and can't really decide who's who and
what's what. Again, nothing new is happening there. It's as
if we're we keep going back and forth, we keep
well keep circling into the same place. So we're not
going to talk about that today, all right, So what
we're gonna talk about, Well, for whatever reason, a bunch
of AI stories popped into my feed today and I

(03:11):
figured we talk about AI a little bit here. Uh
it's just the kind of the news aspect of AI
and and what's going on with AI and the new
the new products in AI and uh. Uh so we'll
talk about we'll talk about AI. Uh and then uh
you know, we'll we'll see where we go from there.

(03:31):
We've got I've got a crazy leftist video kind of
just to just to keep you anchored that it's not
just uh well it's not even primarily Tucker Coulson and
Candice so on. The left has worse and they're actually
in Congress. Uh. So we'll talk about we'll talk about uh,

(03:52):
you know Rashida teleb Is video. It's it's quite something.
And yeah, we'll see where we go from there.

Speaker 1 (04:02):
Right, we've got a We've got a whole program.

Speaker 2 (04:03):
We'll talk about Wikipedia and the broken window fallacy and
uh the new ballroom, and we'll talk about Trump's demand
for reparations. All right, AI, I mean AI is so cool.
I mean I have to say, I love technology. I
love these advancements. You know, it's it's not the be

(04:24):
all end all, but it is incredibly cool. I use
it to do I'm using it more and more to
do research, uh, to access information. If you ask it
the right questions, you can you can get out of
it kind of the information you want, uh and need.
You can actually even tell it which sources not to use.
I was, I was doing something the other day and

(04:46):
I said, don't use Wikipedia. It's too leftist biased. Don't
use Wikipedia. So it gave me because when you it
likes to use Wikipedia. So if you don't want it
to use Wikipedia, have to tell anyway, chet you pt.
It's just amazing. It really is amazing. And uh, you know,
if you're not using in whatever profession you are in

(05:08):
if you're not using Checchi put or.

Speaker 1 (05:11):
One or the other.

Speaker 2 (05:13):
One of the other AIS, then you're missing You're missing
the plot because the reality is that that is that
is the future, and you better know how to use it.

Speaker 1 (05:23):
You might be able to optimize it.

Speaker 2 (05:26):
Kind of to to make sure that you have a
job that you can whips what's going on here, that yeah,
that that you're up to speed with where the world
is heading. This is where it's heading. UH as an
incredible tool. I know programmers everywhere around the world are

(05:49):
using it. It can just write the code, but it
can write a lot of the code, and then a
good programmer can gain go and and and UH fix it,
adjust it again. A lot of the quality of the
code is going to depend on the quality of the prompts,
how you know what it's being asked to do, and
how clearly that is. But you know, a lot of

(06:11):
programming is gonna be done now by AI directly. It
can build a website. You can go in tell tell
the AI what kind of website you want, where the
content should come from, and it can build a website.
And then of course you can then edit it with
the help of AI to to adjust you can do.
And of course that's just the day to day stuff
it can. Of course, we know it can scan UH

(06:35):
scan X ray's and MRIs in. In some areas it's
far better than humans and other areas not so much.
But generally the collaboration between doctors and AI is dramatically
improving diagnosis UH in the field of radiology. But but

(06:58):
I think that that'll be true of figuring out blood
tests and UH cancer screens and a million other medical uses.
Even going into the doctor and just giving all the
symptoms and putting all the symptoms into an.

Speaker 1 (07:12):
AI UH in addition to the doctor will give.

Speaker 2 (07:16):
You just so much more insight into what is going on.
AI is also about to is UH. You know, I
just read the story where yeah, open AI is brought
in a group of finance guys, right, So it's brought

(07:37):
in a bunch of people who worked in banks and
it basically has asked them to train the AI on
what a junior banker does, you know, build basic financial models,
criteria for loans, criteria if you structuring companies, even for

(07:57):
i pos initial public offerings, and provide the open AI
with the tools to be able to do the basic
stuff for all of that. So it's basically gone out
there and hired former employees of JP Morgan Morgan Stanley,
Golden Sachs, and they're sitting there and they're basically writing

(08:19):
prompts and building financial models and training the AI to
replace themselves when they worked at the bank. But again,
this is gonna dramatically enhance productivity. The people who will
be very successful in their jobs of people who know
how will know how to use the AI to boost

(08:41):
their productivity dramatically. And this is an amazing net positive
economically for these people because they as productivity goes up,
wages go up. And so this is the kind of
stuff open ai is doing in the background, which you
can imagine and is where their profit is going to
come for the future. Because a lot of the talk

(09:03):
about AI as a bubble is okay, So we get AI,
we get the value, we get that it does all
these amazing things, but how do you make money. Well,
I mean, if you can lease your AI to Golden
Sacks to replace a bunch of workers for a tenth
of the price of each of the workers, that is

(09:26):
good inco of open AI and a massive saving for
Golden Sacks and imagine them doing this to profession after
profession after profession.

Speaker 1 (09:36):
Where I can apply.

Speaker 2 (09:39):
Open the Eye now has already reached a valuation of
close to five hundred billion dollars.

Speaker 1 (09:45):
It's the world's largest startup.

Speaker 2 (09:48):
It of course, has no profit, so the valuation is
one hundred percent based on expected profit from things like this,
From products like this, so super exciting. You know, AI
will be able to manipulate spreadsheets and work with Excel programs.
Open ai is working with Microsoft to to build a

(10:09):
potentially into into Excel.

Speaker 1 (10:12):
Uh and uh. You know you will see uh AI.

Speaker 2 (10:18):
Creating your pop porn presentations and then tweaking them based
on your inputs. These are the skills each one of
you in the workforce are going to have to gain
how to work with AI to do this stuff in
order to preserve your job and and and and get
a you know, get get promoted and get get high

(10:39):
higher pay.

Speaker 1 (10:43):
We will see that.

Speaker 2 (10:45):
Uh. What will happen is, you know, these junior bankers
will use AI to do all the things they don't
like to do, and that will give them the mental
and time to do the things where you need a
human to do.

Speaker 1 (10:59):
And and you know, increased productivity.

Speaker 2 (11:02):
Maybe also reduced the fact that you know, some of
these junior banking jobs, they work one hundred hours a week.
Maybe they'll be able to work sixty hours a week
and still do the same amount of work because the
AI AI will be supporting it and make the same
amount of money.

Speaker 1 (11:26):
All Right.

Speaker 2 (11:30):
You remember how, just not that long ago, we talked
about this on the show, Google was sued as a
monopoly because it had a monopolized It dominated the search,
the browser market, and because it dominates the bowser market,
dominates ad market, and it was accused I found guilty
of being a monopolist. And at the time I said, uh, uh,

(11:52):
I mean AI is going to completely replace Google. It's
going to replace Chrome. You know, the real competition is
going to come from me. It doesn't replace it, but
it's certainly going to compete with it. Well, I mean
AI Open Ai has launched a browser. It's it's launched
what it's called an Atlas browser, which is in direct

(12:14):
competition to Google Chrome. Uh and uh, it'll be it'll
be interesting to see and of course it'll try to
take ad revenue again, take that ad revenue from Google,
but also create a revenue stream for open AI through
through advertising.

Speaker 1 (12:33):
The Atlas.

Speaker 2 (12:34):
The Atlas browser integrates directly into chat GBT. Uh. It
had a sideboard, a side ball window people can use
to ask chatbut questions about the web pages they visit,
and it has an AI agent. They can click around
and complete tasks on your behalf. So this is the future.
I'm sure Chrome already features an a I Google's AI

(12:57):
at the top of the page for many of the
quay as you ask it. But it's gonna increase integration
of AI into into the browser itself in a in
a much more intense way. But it's great to see. Yeah,
I mean there is massive competition for these things. That

(13:17):
the whole the whole field of monopoly, the whole area
of antitrust. It's such a bogus area. It's such a
these are such bogus claims. Uh and uh so you
know this is a great example Google dominates browsers. Well

(13:39):
maybe not, we'll see what happens and new competition that
came out of noway, nobody two three years ago would
have expected this. Uh So, Yeah, Now I have read
here's my cautionary point. I have read that there are
some security issues with the new open Eye browser that

(14:04):
allows hackers to get into your computer, So beware, don't
rush to get in. But you know it's gonna improve.
You know they're gonna they're gonna plug those holes. The
beautiful thing about Silicon Valley is they're willing to put
out products out there that maybe are not yet perfected,
and perfect them on on the go. So uh uh,

(14:24):
beware of security issues with the new open a Eye browser,
but I'm sure those will be plugged and those will
be solved soon soon. Uh.

Speaker 1 (14:37):
One more. One more in terms of AI users, and
that's of course robots.

Speaker 2 (14:42):
Uh. Robots are amazing, and robots powered by AI are
going to be going to hance.

Speaker 1 (14:51):
Productivity in places like ports.

Speaker 2 (14:52):
I showed you that video of the port of Long Island,
Long Beach, Sorry in California, where everything's automated. The crane's automators,
the trucks are automated, everything runs independent of human interference,
and it's amazing. Again, increased productivity and enhances enhances human

(15:13):
well being and ultimately will drive up wages.

Speaker 1 (15:16):
Well.

Speaker 2 (15:16):
Amazon is now looking at basically bringing robots into it
two warehouses, and you know Amazon's workforce in the United
States alone, there's tripled since twenty eighteen and now stands
at one point two million people. Many of those people
work in warehouses. Well, Amazon's automation team, you know, expects

(15:42):
that they can avoid hiring an extra one hundred and
sixty thousand people, which is what they would need to
keep up with demand between now and twenty twenty seven,
and replace them with robots.

Speaker 1 (15:55):
Replace them with robots that you know, that.

Speaker 2 (16:00):
Stack the materials but also find them, take them, pack them,
and ship them. If you know, for every every robot
they put in, they they save a huge amount of money.
Robots can walk twenty four to seven, they don't take
bathroom breaks, they they're more efficient, they make few mistakes,

(16:21):
you know, they they get the job done.

Speaker 1 (16:23):
And they believe that if.

Speaker 2 (16:24):
They can they can replace their workforce in the warehouses
with robots. They could save thirty percent on each item, picking, packing, delivering,
and that that would be that would be huge And
of course those are the cost savings that over time

(16:45):
will be passed on to consumers. Competition will drive there.
So automation is coming. It's coming to bankers who are
going to be replaced. Some of them are going to
replaced by AI or their jobs enhanced by AI. And
it's definitely going to happen in warehouses where robots are

(17:07):
going to replace many of those warehouse jobs and those
workers are going to have to find other jobs. By
twenty thirty three, they believe that robots will basically replace
six hundred thousand people who Amazon will not have hired.

(17:29):
That is, from now until twenty thirty three. They're not
talking about laying people off yet, but this is just
instead of people, they're going to introduce robots. They would
hire six hundred thousand over the next eight years. Instead
of that, they're gonna put in robots, save the six
hundred thousand I mean. And the reality is people say, oh,

(17:50):
but what happens to those people?

Speaker 1 (17:52):
What would they do?

Speaker 2 (17:53):
The reality is that the added wealth that we all
have because our products in Amazon costs less, they added
wealth we all have because finance is more efficient, more effective,
added wealth that we all have because the world out
there is more efficient, more productive, productivity is increased. That
wealth drives employment because that you know, the capital that's

(18:16):
saved on all these expenditures goes into building other stuff,
It goes into creating new stuff. Right now, you know,
there's a huge amount of jobs in for the uh
server farms, for these massive complexes. They're going to have
to pouse all the servers to generate AI. So jobs

(18:44):
are going to change. Bet I bet anybody anything. Then
in ten years there are more jobs than there are today.
It just are going to be very different. And you're
going to have to be very alert to the shifting
nature of jobs, young, because you're gonna have to be
willing to shift with them. Uh So, Yeah, robots are coming,

(19:14):
lots of different types of robots. I know, if you've
seen I mean there's a warehouse like robots. So but
but I don't know if you've seen the per million China.
They have these the humanoid robots that we'll be able to,
uh do the housework and and and you know, clean
your place and uh do amazing you know, amazing stuff.

(19:36):
You know. Maybe be I don't think you need to
show for because're gonna have self to any cause. I mean,
life is going to become if technology is allowed to advance,
and we'll get to that in a minute. If technology
is allowed to advance, life is going to stop becoming
so much easier and better.

Speaker 1 (19:53):
And more prosperous and richer because of this new technology.
That is what is at stake. It's a real dramatic
increase in the quality and standard of living. But don't worry.

Speaker 2 (20:07):
There are people out there on both the left and
the right who are committed for that day.

Speaker 1 (20:14):
Never account. There is.

Speaker 2 (20:20):
A letter going around, I guess a statement going around
that a statement to prevent the creation of what they
call super intelligence. Now nobody exactly can define what super
intelligence is. They say it's more intelligent than most humans.

Speaker 1 (20:38):
What does that mean?

Speaker 3 (20:41):
You know?

Speaker 2 (20:42):
Intelligence defined? How there's something unique about human beings. Language
models are not thinking. Large language models don't exhibit intelligence.
What they're doing is manipulating symbols, and they're driven by

(21:04):
statistical algorithms, but they're not doing any thinking. They can't induce.
You can teach them deductive rules, but they can't come
up with new knowledge because they can't induce, and as
a consequence, that can't be creative. They have no creativity.

(21:28):
And then they're just not thinking. They're just manipulating stuff,
and we do not, as human beings manipulate stuff. They
have no free will, they have a no ability to
initiate the process. So what does superintelligence actually mean? Nobody
really knows. But what we do know is these people afraid.

(21:49):
They're very, very very afraid. I mean, this is a
superintelligence that's going to kill us all. We'd be told
that over and over again. And eight hundred people, including
AI scientists, politicians, celebrities, and release leaders, have signed this
statement basically asking governments all around the world to ban

(22:12):
AI advancement because we don't want AI to become more
intelligent than the way he is here. This is from
the statement. We call for a prohibition on the development
of super intelligence, not lifted before there is a broad
scientific consensus that it will be done safely and controllably

(22:35):
in strong public buy in, because we have to have
public bank because we know the public bought in to
every technological advance we've had. Otherwise, god, what would have happened.
I mean, I'm sure Thomas Edison polled people before the
electric light bulb and before electrifying cities and so on.

(22:56):
I'm sure that he went by the polls of this
include the godfathers of AI, Jeffrey Hinton and Joshua Benigo,
who are very afraid of what AI might bring. Former
Ireland President Mary Robinson and Prince Harry. Well, if Prince
Harry signed it, you know this is serious, because it's

(23:17):
not just Prince Harry signed Megan.

Speaker 1 (23:19):
Megan Markel also signed it. Now you're not serious.

Speaker 2 (23:23):
But you know you got people from the right Stephen Bannon.
Steve Bannon signed us. And you've got people on the left,
Stephen Frye signed it. You know, comedians, very funny comedians,
but comedians nonetheless.

Speaker 1 (23:39):
Are worried about all this.

Speaker 2 (23:43):
Of course, remember there was a statement way back. There
was even signed by a lone mosque in March of
twenty twenty three after chechipt first launch, you know, saying
we need a six month moratorium. Since then, un muskers
go all into x Ai and into the competition around

(24:05):
Ai and trying to develop the smartest Ai possible and
going full in. Uh. But yeah, even some Chinese scientists
have signed the statement, including Andrew Yao and Yack quin Zhong,
who is the former president of Baidu.

Speaker 1 (24:22):
We've got former government officials.

Speaker 2 (24:25):
From the BI from Obama administration and from the Bush administration.

Speaker 1 (24:31):
Uh and uh.

Speaker 2 (24:33):
Basically across the board, you've got people signing in we
want government to dictate the pace of innovation in AI,
instead of government looking at the ways in which AI
could violate property rights, could be a threat to human life,
and there's no reason to believe it can't be a threat.

Speaker 1 (24:54):
It can be, and then passing laws to resfixt.

Speaker 2 (24:59):
Its ability to be a threat to individual rights, be
a threat to human life and human property.

Speaker 1 (25:04):
That's what the government should do instead.

Speaker 2 (25:07):
What these Ludites, these modern Luddites, are both left and
right and center and every way.

Speaker 1 (25:12):
What they want you to do is.

Speaker 2 (25:17):
They want the government to shut it down at least
for a while, freeze it where it is, just like
the border between Ukraine and Russia. Freeze it where it is,
and then only when the governments, government experts agree that
it's safe to continue, because we trust coming experts so much,
because they're so reliable, they know what they're doing. Of course,

(25:41):
even in the United States agreed to do this. It's
China would I mean, we can almost guarantee that China wouldn't.
The whole thing is just absobed. It's a typically Luodite
fear based fear driven the computers will all wake up
and kill us all and uh, you know, and they

(26:03):
might kill us all because they betrayed by XAI, I
guess by Ellen musk to to to be Nazis and
they're going to take over the world and slaughter us. All.
I mean, that kind of fantasies all over the place. Now,
it's true, AI can't be dangerous. It would be bad
if if AI could be used to build biological weapons

(26:24):
or chemical weapons, or by non state actors, by anybody
out there, it would be it would be sad if
AI could be used to hack into the most into
computers and and uh where property could be destroyed and
so on. There's all kinds of stuff like that that
all bad outcomes from AI. That is where the government

(26:48):
should be focused on on on building protections from things
like that, you know, maybe banning even certain uh you know,
queries like how do I build a nuclear bomb, how
do build a chemical whatever? You know, somebody would have
to really think deeply about what those would be. But

(27:09):
the idea of stopping at all because I don't know,
because the economic danger, the the you know, the the
fact that it would wake up and kill us all.

Speaker 1 (27:23):
I mean, here's what they write about.

Speaker 2 (27:26):
This loss of control over the AI is something that
is viewed as a national security threat, both by the
West and in China. They will be against it for
their own self interest, so they don't need to trust
each other at all. So the idea is, let's get
China and the United States focused on this band.

Speaker 1 (27:49):
You know, but this, if this is a.

Speaker 2 (27:50):
Real issue that somehow AI can cause destruction at any level,
then deal with that.

Speaker 1 (28:00):
That's where the energy and the focus should be.

Speaker 2 (28:06):
The problem is that epistemology, a lot of the people
who think about this, a lot of people who debate
this and discuss this, don't really understand what AI actually does,
and give it way too much power and efficaciousness. They
give them, They give it life, they give it consciousness,
they give it choice. And that's where it becomes dangerous,

(28:29):
because they want to regulate something that they don't really understand.
Because they don't understand human consciousness, they don't understand life,
they don't understand the relationship between life, consciousness, and free will.
And because they don't understand this metaphysically and epistemologically, they
attribute stuff to AI that doesn't exist. All right, just

(28:57):
to lighten the mood, I guess, just to give you
a sense of how bad Rashida the lib Is. I mean,
I know you all know she she's she's awful. This
she's a congresswoman.

Speaker 1 (29:10):
So view this.

Speaker 2 (29:12):
I'm gonna show you this video first of all. This
this just this, this picture is worth a thousand words.
She's got the Kafia on. And this is the People's
Conference for Palestine. This issue of Palestine brings out the
worst in all of them. Uh and uh and and
just watch how crazy she is, how anti American, how

(29:35):
hateful she is.

Speaker 1 (29:37):
Uh and and and what her agenda is.

Speaker 2 (29:50):
Uh twenty forty six says, you are not sure if
it's because they don't understand what Ai he does. I mean,
it's a yeah. He says, it's because they don't understand consciousness.
If you think consciousness is computational.

Speaker 1 (30:03):
Yeah, I agree with that. That's basically what I said.

Speaker 2 (30:05):
I think I said, they don't understand the relationship between
life and consciousness and choice. They don't understand the epistemological
and metaphysical nature, and then they attribute as a consequence,
because they don't understand these things, they attribute to lamb
things they're incompatible with consciousness.

Speaker 1 (30:26):
And choice and so on.

Speaker 2 (30:28):
So I think we're saying the same thing anyway, This
is teleib a congresswoman and love of HARAMASU and hater
of America and hata of Western civilization. And you can
tell that just by watching her and listen to this.

Speaker 3 (30:51):
Look at this room's motherfuckers, we are going anywhere.

Speaker 2 (30:55):
I mean, just the language. I'm not a prude, but
she's a congresswoman and.

Speaker 1 (31:01):
That's the way you talk. Just pathetic and yeah, anyway,
that's the least about problems.

Speaker 3 (31:11):
Political structures that I have to work in that we
are surrounded by was built on slavery and genocide and
rape and oppression.

Speaker 2 (31:20):
So America is a country built on genocide, rape, oppression,
is built on slavery. Those were not aberrations from the
fact that it was built on the constitution of.

Speaker 1 (31:33):
Declaration dependence, the principle of individual rights.

Speaker 2 (31:35):
Those are the absence. According to lib that is the
core of what America is. That is the essence of
Western civilization, America being representative of it. There is no
America without rape and genocide and slavery. I mean, this
is the evil of sixteen nineteen. But you know they've

(31:56):
never given up in sixteen nineteen. But this is much
worse than just sixteen nineteen. This because this is uh,
you know, this is a dramatic extension of it with
with political model implications, but it's built on the same foundations.
America is built on sin. Western civilization is built on sin.

(32:16):
You know, the goodness, the value is outside of Western civilization,
outside of America. Again, she's a congresswoman. And this one
of the differents between the left and the right is
that the wacky, crazy, insane left it is now has
been for a long time now in Congress. Now the crazy, racist,

(32:44):
insane right is in the executive branch. Well, and it's
also in Congress. What am I talking about? It's not say,
in Congress, we've got Majie Taylor Green, We've got some
other of these. Yeah, they're all in Congress. But here
this is this is an example of the insanity of
the left. Real change, real change, does it.

Speaker 3 (33:02):
Come from the powers and poormongers in Congress.

Speaker 2 (33:06):
It comes from up the streets.

Speaker 3 (33:07):
It comes from all of us mobilizing and seizing the
power to resist and fight.

Speaker 2 (33:11):
Back, seizing the power, seizing the power, mobilizing and seizing
the power. So this is not about you know, working
through Congress, voting people in It's about seizing that.

Speaker 3 (33:24):
Is the compass in this country.

Speaker 2 (33:27):
Gaza is the compass. Gaza tells you who's the good
guys and who the bad guys. Now I agree, Actually,
I actually agree with the lip. Gaza is the compass.
Gaza is the compass. The people who are pro Gaza,
the people who Wikafia's, the people who defend Hamas, the
people who hate Israel, you know, are representative and are

(33:53):
spokesman for evil evil. Now she thinks this the other
way out. She thinks is exactly the other way around.
She thinks that Gaza is the standard. Those who support Gaza,
those of Ramas, those support great pellage genocide by Ramas
are the good guys, and those who support Israel evil.

(34:17):
And that includes other people in democratic establishment, the people
in obviously in the Trump administration, but everybody, including you know,
those evil, nasty, really really nasty and evil Zionists. That
is right. I mean, she literally said, Gaza is Gaza

(34:40):
is the compass. Now again I agree, It's just my
compass is exactly the reverse of hers, exactly the reverses.

Speaker 1 (34:46):
Who and.

Speaker 2 (34:50):
She is and would be a support of Ramas. Of course,
she wouldn't like what Haramas does to her, she wouldn't
like living under Hamas government, and just like she wouldn't
want to give up on all the wonders that Western
civilationszation has brought us in order to return to whatever

(35:10):
primitive utopia she believes exists out there. But this is
the idea that you know, civilization is rotten to the core.
This is this is what's his name, Hussau.

Speaker 1 (35:27):
Brought to life today. Civilization is rotten to the core.
What is good? What is virtuous? What is noble? What
is true? What is what is the assence of goodness?
Other barbarians?

Speaker 2 (35:42):
Gause, people who lived in America before America, people who
lived in Africa, they're the good guys. Western civilization because
of civilization, because of its virtues, because it's produced wealth,
because it's created great industry and and and improved human
life and created great wealth and eliminated poverty. Because of

(36:08):
those things, Western civilization must be condemned and must be denounced,
and all its achievements much we handed over.

Speaker 1 (36:17):
To the savages.

Speaker 2 (36:19):
And yes, I call the the uh Hamas and the
people who support them, which is a significant portion of
the Palestinians savages, barbarians, because that's exactly what they are
compass in this country.

Speaker 3 (36:39):
Not everybody's true in Congress and we're every corner of
the United States.

Speaker 2 (36:46):
Yeah, yeah, she makes a big deal of Now we're
in Congress and we're every corner and we're gonna take over.

Speaker 1 (36:52):
We're taking over. Be aware, watch us.

Speaker 2 (36:56):
And this is the this is the horror of modern
American politics. You know, evil to the left of me,
evil to the right of me, evil every way. I look,
where is their sanity? Where is there any goodness out there?
Because really, when you start going out into the left

(37:22):
and right, as we know, they are very similar. They're
very similar economically, They're very similar with regard to the
Middle East, They're very similar with regard to Western civilization.

Speaker 1 (37:32):
They want to go back to different things.

Speaker 2 (37:36):
You know, someone want to go back to the barbarism
and primitivism or primitivism of the maybe Native Americans. Other
want to go back to the Native to the barbarism
and primitivism of the Christian Middle Ages or Dark Ages.

Speaker 1 (37:51):
But they all want to go backwards. Just just horrific.

Speaker 2 (37:58):
The state of our politics today, the state of our
world today, it really is, it really is stunning. And
the voices who are better, are constantly being pushed to
accommodate the wackos because the wackos are where the passion is.
The wackos are where the bases are. The wackos are

(38:19):
the people who bring out the voters. They're the ones
who vote in the primaries. They're the ones who kind
of dictate the direction of the political party. And if
you don't think that techer Cars has political power, here's
a men's political power. He's still besties with eight Evans. It's,

(38:49):
you know, really really really horrible state about political culture. Sorry,
I just something called my eye on Twitter, but it's gone.

(39:15):
H here's a here's a good one from from kind
of the right. Uh anyway, all right, no, we'll skip that.
Let's see where we're going.

Speaker 1 (39:32):
Yeah, I mean, uh oh, I skipped I skipped this one.

Speaker 2 (39:40):
I skipped this one. So uh yeah, I mean this
is a headline in Fortune magazine and and uh online,
and it kind of symbolizes the kind of world that
we're moving into the world around us. It's it's it's
a little scary. Here's the here's the headline. Fear sweeps

(40:01):
the c suite companies pull millions into security as threats
against executives surge. So of course we all remember the
shocking murder of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson in December
of twenty twenty four, which was celebrated by many on
the left and by some.

Speaker 1 (40:24):
On the right. And since then, of course we've had
other violence.

Speaker 2 (40:31):
We've had the guy who went up and killed two
executives a Blackstone, even though he wasn't quite meaning to
kill them specifically, they still got killed. And then of
course you got the killing of Charlie Cooke. But there
was fear among CEOs and business leaders, primarily because of
the increasing and ongoing hostility towards business.

Speaker 1 (40:54):
I played your video yesterday of JD.

Speaker 2 (40:57):
Vans just laying into or basically accepting the fact that
the enemy is big business. So it's not just a
left anymore, saying that he sympathizes with Bernie Sanders and

(41:17):
Elizabeth warn So now again both left and right, you've
got both left and right antagonistic to business leaders, and
as a consequence, business is scared. And the response to
the killing of the United Health CEO to Bian Thompson's
and kind of the vitrio expressed by so many people,

(41:41):
including this administration against pharmaceutical companies and against big tech
and against other companies.

Speaker 1 (41:48):
Although the rhetoric about.

Speaker 2 (41:50):
Big tech is being moderated a little bit now they're
big tech has become as basically supported Trump. Now I
think they're more favorable towards me team, but they're still
suing them in anti trust. So now you've got companies
investing huge amounts of money in bodyguards, security, security cameras,

(42:10):
UH security during travel. Uh. They're making it mandatory for example,
I mean, this is tough for the CEO, but mandatory
for CEOs to travel on private jets because they can
control the they can control the UH security on private jets.

Speaker 1 (42:27):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (42:27):
But you know, basically you're gonna get business teams, security
teams traveling and and and being with CEOs and other
senior senior executives NonStop. And they're spending big bucks on this,
millions of dollars on this. I mean, uh, it's it's.

Speaker 1 (43:01):
It's so sad and so tragic that.

Speaker 2 (43:06):
The people who drive this economy, most productive people in
our economy, the people who really make America what it is,
they're the people who feel the most threatened right now.
They're the people who are spending the most on security.

(43:29):
I mean, America was the land of business, the land
of entrepreneurs, the land of businessmen, small businesses, medium sized businesses,
big businesses too. We admired CEOs, we respected them. And
now all we hear here is is hatred and vitrio
and no surprise that certain wackos, certain crazies, and look,

(43:53):
no normal person goes up in murders.

Speaker 1 (43:56):
A ceo.

Speaker 2 (43:59):
These people have been radicalized by the far left and
the far right, by their vitriol, by the hatred by
you know, by by the ideas and the language and
the emotion that drives the hatred of the best within us.

Speaker 1 (44:19):
The best among us.

Speaker 2 (44:23):
It's a really, really, really sad day for America when
it's CEOs have to have to worry about their security,
and after there's a question that they have to We
saw that with the killing of the United Health CEO.
I mean, I saw the cidy called in Bloomberg today

(44:46):
and it's like, I don't even know, I don't know
what to do, right, I mean Bloomberg, it's a financial publication.
You'd think they know something about economics, and the headline
of of the article is a disaster recovery is big business,
which is absolutely true. There you know, there's a lot

(45:06):
of money that goes into disaster recovery, rebuilding.

Speaker 1 (45:11):
Uh, that's always been the case.

Speaker 2 (45:13):
Uh and uh, but here's the thing. Disaster spending is
becoming a key driver of the economy. So disaster spending
is becoming a key driver of the economy.

Speaker 1 (45:28):
So when we go and we.

Speaker 2 (45:32):
Rebuild what already existed because it's being destroyed by a storm,
that is driving the economy, that is growing the economy.
There's some statistic about here about the percentage of GDP
that is now driven by uh, you know, by disaster recovery.

(45:59):
And and god Besty I wrote about this over will
over one hundred years ago. Here's the United States economy
has gone twenty trillion dollars since two thousand to twenty

(46:20):
nine trillion dollars last year. About seven point seven trillion
of that, or thirty six percent of all growth in
GDP is spending relating to recovering from or preparing for disasters.
Let's just focus on the recovering from, I mean the

(46:41):
fallacy there is called the broken window fallacy, the broken
window fellasy.

Speaker 1 (46:46):
And hey, this is amazing. If we can grow GDP.

Speaker 2 (46:51):
By because of disasters, then why don't we have more disasters.
We don't have to wait for the storms to knock
down the buildings. We can knock them down ourselves. We
don't have to wait for the storms, you know, for
flood recovery. We can pretend there was a flood and
just just go do the building ourselves. But this is insane,

(47:17):
by the way, The whole idea here is that this
is this is all caused by climate change and in
climate spending now, which is what this is called, which
is nonsense, right, this we've always had. This is a
huge percentage of GDP, and we should we should acknowledge that.

(47:40):
But what would have happened if we'd had no disasters
during the twenty years, during the twenty five years that
are covered from two thousand and on. What would have
happened to the US economy if we wouldn't have spent
seven point seven trillion on recovering from disasters? I mean,

(48:06):
think of a how many jobs were created by the
seven point seven trillion? Think of how many you know,
how much income was generated by it? So what would
have happened if we didn't spend it on recovery. And
this is the broken window fallacy. Broken window fallacy says

(48:27):
the way to create economic growth is to give children
a rock and tell them to go out there. Tell
them to go out there and break a bunch of windows.
Because once the windows are broken, people have to replace them.
To replace them, they have to hire glazier. The galizia
then has to buy all material to make the glass.

(48:48):
He might have to hire extra workers to make the
extra load of glass, and then he has to hire
an installer to go and install the glass. So by
breaking the windows, we've created massive economic activity. But as
Bastiat explained, and as has that explains that economics in

(49:12):
one lesson, which is a book you should all read,
that's ridiculous that assumes the money was not going to
be used for other purposes, because at the end of
the day, all you get after recovering is the same
as what you have before. Now maybe it's newer, maybe
it's a little bit better, maybe there's some added value,

(49:32):
but overall you're just recovering. You're just replacing what you
already had. What would have happened to the seven point
seven trillion dollars if they hadn't gone for this kind
of work. That seven point seven trillion dollars would have
been invested in new stuff, in better stuff, and expanding

(49:58):
in something that bore a return on investment, rather than
just giving us what we had before. So you know,
if you break the window of the baker and now
he has to spend money on the window, he can't
buy another oven to grow his capacity, or he can't

(50:18):
invest put the money in a bank, and then the
bank doesn't it doesn't have that money to lend it
out to some new small business that.

Speaker 1 (50:26):
Wants to start. So seven point seven trillion dollars without
the disasters would have been larger. So it doesn't add
to growth in GDP.

Speaker 2 (50:45):
Not if you understand you see problem is GDP is
calculated as consumption is what we spend money on. GDP
is not a very good number in that sense. It's
the best we have that's generally accessible, but it's not
a good number. So you know, spending is not a

(51:09):
sign of economic prosperity. If you're just spending to recoup
what you already had, then it's just you're back to
zero and the money you could have spent to invest
to grow something new to bring into the world, new wealth,

(51:33):
new technology, new products, new buildings, that is not wasted.

Speaker 1 (51:39):
I'm just getting us back to the same place we
will before.

Speaker 2 (51:46):
So I had to highlight that because it's such a
classic broken window fallacy thing. Disaster recovery does not enhance
economic growth. It just gets us the way we will
and that money much better spent on other things. So
disasters are not good economically, you know. It suggests that

(52:06):
somehow that is good economically, it's not at all. All right,
two quick stories on Trump. I think we've covered everything. Yeah,
two quick stories on Trump. So you know, the government
shut down. I don't know if you've noticed, but the
government has shut down, and a lot of workers are

(52:28):
being laid off, a lot of them are not getting paid,
they're followed.

Speaker 1 (52:32):
You know, there's a lot of.

Speaker 2 (52:35):
Programs that are shut down, a lot of money's not
going out. But a few things that are definitely happening,
and Trump passes priorities straight. And one of those things
that is definitely happening is the construction of a ballroom
on the White House grounds. And part of constructing the
ballroom is demolition a part of the east wing of

(52:57):
the White House.

Speaker 1 (53:00):
People are pissed off. They're pissed off at.

Speaker 2 (53:05):
Wait a minute, why are we spending two hundred and
fifty million dollars to build a ballroom when we're bankrupt
or should be bankrupt or we're losing a lot of money,
We're in a huge amount of debt. Why are we
building it, and why are we building it in spite

(53:26):
of the fact that the Governm's locked down?

Speaker 1 (53:27):
Why is this the priority now?

Speaker 2 (53:35):
Because people are not happy with this, The White House
has put out a memo saying as construction proceeds on
the White House grounds, employees should refrain from taking and
sharing photos of the grounds to include the East Wing
without prior approval.

Speaker 1 (53:52):
From the Office of Public Affairs.

Speaker 2 (53:56):
So they don'tant photos going out. They want to hide
the fact that they're demolishing a piece of the White
House and building this ballroom while the gunment shuts it down.
So a lot of people are not getting paid, a
lot of people are not getting what they promised, a
lot of people not getting their wages. But the ballroom
is going up because that's what Trump likes.

Speaker 1 (54:16):
He likes the ballroom.

Speaker 2 (54:17):
He thinks the ball move's cool. He thinks the ball
move is important. So that's what's going up, that's what
we're spending, that's what your tax money is being spent on. Anyway,
and they want to hide it somehow, they want to
hide it. The ballroom, by the way, will be at

(54:38):
least ninety thousand square feet. It has the capacity of
more than six hundred seats, whereas the current events space
in the White House, the largest only has two hundred seats.
So this will be more than three times larger. And yeah,

(55:02):
it's kind of crazy. It's kind of crazy. And you know,
Trump wrote for more than one hundred and fifty years,
every president is dreamt about having a ballroom at the
White House to accommodate people for grand parties, state visits,
et cetera. I am honored to be the first president
finally get this much needed project underway. I you know,

(55:25):
I don't recollect reading about Lincoln's dreams about the ballroom
or other presidents dreaming.

Speaker 1 (55:31):
About a ballroom.

Speaker 2 (55:33):
You know, I'm sure some of them wanted something bigger
so that they could expand their invitation list beyond two
hundred to six hundred and fifty. But this is just nuts,
just nuts, all right. And finally, talk about nuts, and

(55:54):
add corruption to nuts. In this one, it turns out
that Trump is demanding that the Justice Department, in other words,
you guys, anybody who pays taxes hand over to him
two hundred and thirty million dollars as compensation for all

(56:16):
the lawsuits that they filed against him during the Biden administration.

Speaker 1 (56:21):
Yep, yep.

Speaker 2 (56:23):
President Trump is demanding that the Justice Artoment pay him
about two hundred and thirty million in compensation for the
federal investigations into him.

Speaker 1 (56:34):
Now, this would be a settlement even though there's no lawsuit.
And who's going to prove this. Who is in the.

Speaker 2 (56:42):
Justice Department to approve whether they pay their boss to
two hundred thirty million dollars. Well, most of people in
those positions are actually his defense lawyers when he wasn't president,
are now in the Justice Department. So his own lawyers
are now going to approve that the government government doesn't

(57:04):
have any money. So you all of you guys pay
Donald Trump two hundred and thirty million dollars. And by
the way, cases that by all accounts had a real
shot at actually finding him guilty if they'd ever gone
to trial. Now this, you know, this goes back. I

(57:30):
guess to the investigation into the Russian election tampering and
also into the you know, Mobologo search. We had confidential
information and try to hide it classified documents and try
to hide them too.

Speaker 1 (57:50):
Is trying to Tampa with the election results and all
of that two hundred and thirty million dollars.

Speaker 2 (57:56):
I mean, he's already squeezed the media and continues to
try to squeeze them media. He squeezed law firms, they
all wrote checks to him. Now he's squeezing us, the taxpayers.
I mean, how do you How does anybody defend that?

(58:17):
How does anybody defend that?

Speaker 1 (58:21):
It really is? It really is nuts?

Speaker 2 (58:27):
All right, I'm going to end quickly with a positive
story and then we'll go to questions. Although god, this
is like the fewest questions I've gotten on a new
show maybe ever. So I don't know what's happening to
you guys, No questions anymore. I've answered all your questions.
We should get rid of super chats because you've asked
all the questions.

Speaker 1 (58:45):
They are in the world and.

Speaker 2 (58:47):
None exist anymore. I don't know, I don't know. This
is about nuclear power, so you know, the US is
trying to encourage the development of nuclear energy. And one
of the problems that the United States has in terms

(59:07):
of nuclear energy is that the uranium uranium, the fuel
that it gets, the fuel that it gets is basically
comes from Russia. See the United States is today importing
uranium from Russia and paying Russia a lot of money
for that uranium.

Speaker 1 (59:27):
So in order to.

Speaker 2 (59:29):
At least change that a little bit, the US is
now offering a nuclear energy in a sense, you know,
a new radioactive material.

Speaker 1 (59:42):
From war era warheads, Cold War era warheads.

Speaker 2 (59:46):
So plutonium that they've taken out of the warheads that
is makeing a nuclear waste. At this point, they are
now offering it to nuclear power companies who might be
able to use it in order to put u new
power instead of the uranium instead of buying the stuff
from China. The idea is to try to break the

(01:00:06):
Russian stranglehold over the uranium supply chain. Of course, these
uranium in the United States, we could mine it here,
We could refine it here, if if we got rid
of all those laws that ban mining, if we we
got rid of or loosen the environmental regulation to make
make building factories to refine it impossible the same thing

(01:00:28):
with the.

Speaker 1 (01:00:28):
Real earth material.

Speaker 2 (01:00:31):
So Energy Department said that it's being that it's selected
to receive the it's the Energy round said they're being
selected to receive the plutonium.

Speaker 1 (01:00:43):
This could help.

Speaker 2 (01:00:44):
This is plutonium. This could help companies secure fast approval
for Nuclear Regulatory Commission license.

Speaker 1 (01:00:50):
So if you sign up for.

Speaker 2 (01:00:52):
The plutonium program where you get the plutonium rather than uranium,
they will fast track. You're up location for a for
a nuclear facility, which is what this con bee needs.
We need lots of nuclear pop plants. At least two
companies are Klo, which is backed by open AI's Sam Altman,

(01:01:14):
and France's new Cleo Nucleo, are expected to apply to
access the government's plutonium stockpile. This is I'm reading from
the Financial Times. The move is the latest in the
trumpet deministrations attempt to boost the nuclear industry as electricity
demand grows for the first time in decades, and of

(01:01:34):
course because of the AI Power Centers Silver centers, while
util these scale nuclear pop plants in Michigan and Pennsylvania
said to start operation within the next two years, and
billions are being poured into the development of smaller nuclear reactors,
fuel bottomnecks remain a key constraint on the industry's growth SMRs.

Speaker 1 (01:01:57):
Those are small nuclear reactors which.

Speaker 2 (01:01:59):
Could put up to three hundred and mega what's a power,
typically require a high essay low enriched uranium fuel. So
what they're doing is the US has a bunch of plutonium.
They're trying to encourage people to shift to plutonium. Now,
experts of rates concerned about commercial use of plutonium and
the risk of the material falling into the wrong hands

(01:02:20):
because it's used to be part of a nuclear bomb.
But you gotta you know, these people know what they're doing,
right And anyway, Nucleo and Ocalo have a joint venture
where they're investing in this.

Speaker 1 (01:02:39):
And this is all good news.

Speaker 2 (01:02:40):
I mean anything that means growth in nuclear pop plants
and growth in nuclear energy and breaking the Russian bottleneck
is good news. This is the kind of stuff happening
at the Energy Department that we don't hear a lot about.
This is kind of the better side, the only so
on the few plus sites the Trump administration. He's got

(01:03:03):
a really good energy secretary is Alex Epstein, reminds us often,
and the Energy Secretary these are kind of things that
they're doing, you know, to loosen and in order to
make possible the development of a nuclear power industry in
the United States. These are long term things. Takes a
long time. But maybe this is the beginning. Nate, you

(01:03:28):
were learning wrong. All right, Let's see too much simp
you know, over simplification in the world in which we exist.
All right, so let's just pitt super chats. This is
a way to support the show. I have a hot
stop in about half an hour, but we'll try to

(01:03:50):
do as many.

Speaker 1 (01:03:51):
We'll do all the superchats.

Speaker 2 (01:03:53):
Please consider doing twenty dollars fifty dollars super chats to
get us to our target. We're about one hundred dollars
short of the first hour. We're ready into the second hour,
which the target to our show is five hundred dollars.
Really really need to get to the two hundred and
fifty dollars an hour from super chat and stickers.

Speaker 1 (01:04:14):
That is kind of the.

Speaker 2 (01:04:17):
Amount necessary to keep the show going at the level
that we are doing it, the frequency that we're doing it.
You're buying my time, my effort, the research I do,
so my time with that, and of course I really
really appreciate the support so you can make it possible
for me to do this that I enjoy and love

(01:04:39):
so much. You can also become a monthly supporter through
Patreon or through PayPal. Just check your on book show
on Patreon or PayPal and sign up a monthly contribution.
All right, let's check some of these questions. Let's start
with andrew a theory on Trump's attitude towards Putin. It
grows from the social hierarchy view secondhandedness. Trump views Putin

(01:05:02):
as superior, maybe because he's a dictator and thus feels
it's wrong to be adversarial thoughts.

Speaker 1 (01:05:09):
I mean, I certainly think that's part of it. I
think he admires Putsin.

Speaker 2 (01:05:13):
I don't. I don't think it's just that he views
Putin as superior. I think he admires him. I think
he respects him. Putin is strong and powerful and sticks
to his guns in a way that Trump can'ts and
never does.

Speaker 1 (01:05:27):
Putin is is. I think it.

Speaker 2 (01:05:33):
Exhibits the kind of masculinity that maga In Trump love,
and I don't think Trump really has. I mean, Putin
can ride about on a horse, you know, bit chested,
Putin unleashes his war machine on Ukraine, on Georgia. He
kills his opponents left and right with no qualms, that

(01:05:56):
kind of militaristic. I do whatever the hell I want.
I am in control, I dominate everybody. Trump loves that,
and in that sense, yeah, I think he thinks Putin
is superior at least has achieved a superior position, and
views him as as better than him, as more than him,

(01:06:20):
or at least there's something he wants, he aspires to,
he wishes he could do. He Look, it's not all psychology.
I mean, I know Trump is not exactly ideological, but
if you think about what Trump wants. Trump wants to
be an authoritarian. Putin is already there. Trump wants everybody

(01:06:42):
to get up when he walks into a room. Putin
already has that. Trump wants to be respected. Everybody respects
Trump Putin because they have no choice. They go to
jail if they don't. Trump wants what Putin has, and
of course Putin what the right loves. He has, you know,

(01:07:03):
the backing of religion, and he presents himself as a
religious leader. He has the Christian Orthodox, he has a
collectivistic vision, he has empire's goal. I think Trump doesn't
understand any of that, but admires it nonetheless because of
what feeds Putin's ability to be so unbending and uncompromising.

(01:07:24):
Is that is those ideas. I mean, Trump wants a ballroom.
He wants to build ugly stuff. And the ballroom is
going to be ugly by the way. I mean, by
my standards. It's going to be beautiful by the standards
of the eighteenth and nineteenth century and ugly by the
standards of the twenty first century. Our aesthetics should evolve,

(01:07:45):
they should change when it comes to things like architecture
and into your design, furniture and chandeliers, and you know,
what is beautiful changes with technology. It changes with what's
possible a big amazing You know, shandalier makes sense when

(01:08:11):
it's all.

Speaker 1 (01:08:13):
Candles, but when you have.

Speaker 2 (01:08:16):
Led light you or you have you know, electricity, Shandali's
don't make sense anymore anyway, you know, go, yeah, yes,
gold plated on the White House.

Speaker 1 (01:08:27):
Those are the things he cares about.

Speaker 2 (01:08:28):
It's the material manifestation, the external manifestations of glamor and
wealth that he thinks will cause people to admire and
respect him. And he thinks symbols a power. Thank you, Andrew.

(01:08:49):
Let me just thank some of the stickers. Mary Allen,
thank you, Enrick, thank you, Jonathan, thank you, Mary Aleen again,
and thank you Jacob.

Speaker 1 (01:09:02):
Thank you.

Speaker 2 (01:09:04):
Yeah, I mean today, for those of you who don't
regularly support the show, and we're listening in our live
and you know, today's a great day to support the
show and try to get us to our targets. Given
that we're so far behind today, your dollars count more.
So please consider doing a sticker. If you're watching live.

(01:09:24):
You know I'm going to be traveling the next few weeks,
so there's going to be fewer shows. But the shows
that we do have, we need to raise the right
amount of money. All right, let's see, Michael just came
in with fifty dollars. Thank you, Michael.

Speaker 1 (01:09:40):
Let's see.

Speaker 2 (01:09:40):
And a question you've viewsed around suicide are very refreshing.
When training in psychology, they emphasize always directing patients away
from suicide, as though it's intrinsically wrong or it would
be taking advantage of someone while in a vulnerable position. Yeah,
I mean, look, there's some truth to that. Let's not

(01:10:01):
completely reject that because it is true that some people
contemplate suicide when suicide is not their best option, when
they're very vulnerable, vulnerable emotionally, and you know, suicide is death.
Suicide is the end. Suicide is not where you want
to be. Suicide should always be an option when life

(01:10:26):
is unbearable for whatever reason, life is unbearable, Suicide should
be a legitimate option. But too many people, you know,
not jump to the conclusion of life is unbearable when
it might not be.

Speaker 1 (01:10:44):
See, you want to.

Speaker 2 (01:10:45):
Give life as many opportunities as possible, you want to
try as many things as possible to be able to
keep going. And then if you come to the conclusion, no,
it's unbearable and there's no way to mitigate the unbearability
of it, then suicide should be one hundred percent viable option.

Speaker 1 (01:11:04):
But it's it's a last option. It's not a first.

Speaker 2 (01:11:08):
I'm depressed, Okay, I'll kill myself. No, I mean the
first option is how do you get out of the depression?
How do you solve that? So suicide is the last
but it is definitely an option. It's definitely something that
needs to be on the table and it needs to
be considered, and it's wrong for mental health professionals not

(01:11:29):
to acknowledge that again, not to make it your first option,
but certainly.

Speaker 1 (01:11:36):
An option, all right, thank you, Michael.

Speaker 2 (01:11:40):
Michael also asks, while objectivism holds man's mind and potential
in high esteem, given the popularity and success of Trump
and that types and movies of movies and music that
are popular, is it fair to say most people today
are idiots? Well, in me, it depends what you mean

(01:12:01):
by an idiot. I mean, I think it's absolutely true
to say that most people today are are not using
the rational faculty consistently. They're not using the rational faculty
anyway close to the potential that they have. They're not

(01:12:22):
using their minds is fully full potential and that they
lack and that they really do lack self esteem. So
we can say people in the world today lack self
esteem and are not anywhere near being rational enough and
not applying rationality consistently in their lives and certain areas
in their life, notre applying grationality at all. And it's

(01:12:44):
because they don't apply the rationality that's why they don't
have the self esteem. Idiots is just I don't know
what that means. Does that means they're born without the capacity.
Does that mean they're not applying themselves? Does that mean
they're not being rational? That I mean they're just stupid.

Speaker 1 (01:13:01):
I mean.

Speaker 2 (01:13:03):
I don't like those terms stupid idiots. I prefer the
term of are you rational?

Speaker 1 (01:13:08):
Are you not?

Speaker 2 (01:13:10):
Are you using what you have, whatever your capacity, whatever
your ability is, are you using it and using it
by the principles of reason? Are you applying logic? And
most people are not, at least when they leave their work.

(01:13:35):
Silvano's thank you, Silvano's fifty dollars. Really appreciate that. Hi,
you Ron being busy. Would you agree there's a risk
of fatigue to support support Israel in the face of
constant struggle in Gaza? Do objectives face losing ground in
the continued defense of Israel? I agree completely. I do

(01:13:56):
think this fatigue and you know, and given that the
real passion is on the other side, they're going away
because to them, as to lib.

Speaker 1 (01:14:10):
Said, this is this is a lithmatist, this is a compass.
This is the issue.

Speaker 2 (01:14:16):
And they have symbols, They wear their kafeas, and they
have their chance, and they have their imagery, and they
march and they're active, and they're engaged.

Speaker 1 (01:14:26):
There's a lot more passion on that side.

Speaker 2 (01:14:29):
We're like all on the side of we're just defending
Western civilization, that's all we're doing. And you know, we're
to try to chase something down. They are out to
tear something down, to destroy, And for whatever reason, that
elicits a lot more passion and consistency than people just
saying no, we want to build, just leave us alone.

(01:14:55):
So you're going to have a lot fewer rallies, a
lot fewer demonstrations. And because there's not a lot of
energy in the cause, it's really easy to drift off
and live your life. Got other things to do, I
can I've got a job to do, I've got a
family to take care of. How much of this pro
Israel stuff can I do? And yeah, I devoted a

(01:15:15):
year of my life to it. Okay, now what's next now.
I will say that the more vicious the Left becomes
on this issue, the easier it is to maintain focus
and lose a Naza for fatigue in the support of Israel.

(01:15:36):
But I do think there's going to be fatigue. I
do think that there's a challenge. I mean, I was
thinking today, should I talk about Gaza. And my guess
is you guys are a little fatigued by Gaza. I mean,
what you do I really have to say. I could
do another rah rah thing about the evil of the
Hamas and how good Israel is in comparison and why

(01:15:57):
you used to support Israel. Okay, I've done that like
a thousand times. I need another one. Like so, I
think you guys are probably fatigued by the topic side.
It said, Okay, today I'm going to take a break
from Gaza because because there's nothing breaking and there's no
big deals, we'll take a break from it. But yeah,
I think there's definitely fatigue. And it's not just objectivists, right,

(01:16:19):
objectives are tiny voice within the pro Israel side. There's
there's a vast number of people defending is well, and
I think I think they are, but they're all people
who have lives versus the Kafia wearing people who are
you know, they have organization behind them. There's no organization

(01:16:39):
behind the pro Israel side.

Speaker 1 (01:16:43):
And of course.

Speaker 2 (01:16:45):
There's also no funding behind the poor Israel side, where
there's huge amount of funding. Kata Kata writes big checks
to public figures to be pro Palestinian pojamas.

Speaker 1 (01:16:59):
Thanks of honors. I appreciate the support, all right.

Speaker 2 (01:17:05):
I know you're busy, so I appreciate that, all right, Jacob.
For robots, initial CAPACX is usually higher and maintenance supposed
to a pit cost a higher than Dummer lines. The
financial math needs to be valid. Automation is not a

(01:17:27):
good in and of itself from my experience. I mean absolutely,
But do you have any doubt, Jacob, that the cost
the cap BAX is going to come down, the cost
of maintenance to come down, the robots are going to
get better, and all of that is just going to
improve over time. I have no doubt that that's the fact.
The future is robots. It might not be tomorrow because

(01:17:48):
they're not quite good enough yet, they're not quite cheap
enough yet, but they're gonna get cheaper, they're gonna get
more efficient, they're going to get more productive, and it
is the future. And if Amazon is investing now, I
assume hundreds of millions billions of dollars into robots. They're
not doing it because it's the cool thing. They're doing
it to save money.

Speaker 1 (01:18:09):
They're doing it.

Speaker 2 (01:18:09):
Because it's profitable. So you know, their robots up are
going to be better. So while it's true that robots
are not the end in itself, of course they're not.
We know how technology gets introduced. First it's too expensive.
Then only some people use it because you know, for

(01:18:33):
particular tasks where it can be somewhat productive. But then
it keeps getting cheaper and cheaper and more efficient and better,
and finally everybody uses it. And that's what's gonna happen
with robots. I mean, the same thing happened with computers. Initially,
it was like, what are we going to use this for.
It's like you're putting a computer on their desk for
what just as a typewriter. And if you look at

(01:18:57):
productivity numbers, productivity when computers were first introduced in the
late seventies and into the eighties, productivity did not increase.
Work of productivity in the United States did not increase.
Only in the nineties, But ten years after it was
introduced did people finally figure out and people start using

(01:19:17):
computers in ways that actually enhance productivity. Same thing will
happen with robots. The same thing will happen in AI. Jeremy,
the Microsoft Edge browser has its own AI fund end
called Copilot built in I think it uses shy Pete

(01:19:40):
at least partially interesting. So yeah, I mean that's the
direction they're all going to move. I haven't seen if
Safari has it, but I assume part of the Apple
intelligence that they're touting will be added to Safari. But yeah,
I mean, look, AI is going to dominate search. It's

(01:20:00):
built for that. It's going to be part of your browser.
It's going to be part of your experience interacting with
the knowledge that's out there. Thank you, Jeremy Roland. Ah,
Now I get Trump's genius five D chess strategy. He's
trying to cause an economic disaster in to stimulate the economy.

Speaker 1 (01:20:20):
Oh that's good.

Speaker 2 (01:20:22):
I like that, Roland.

Speaker 1 (01:20:23):
I hadn't thought of that.

Speaker 2 (01:20:24):
But yeah, maybe maybe is one big broken window. He's
trying to make the US one big broken window. That
is quite possible. Paul, thank you for the sticker. Let's
see who else did amid business Blend? Thank you for
the sticker. And Mary Elaine. I think I got Mary

(01:20:45):
Elaine before.

Speaker 1 (01:20:45):
Yeah, all right, Michael invests.

Speaker 2 (01:20:50):
Interesting you mentioned muscle mass and longevity in preventing deadly
falls when you're older. I recently found out Dennis Praga
is now a paraplege from a fall in his house.

Speaker 1 (01:21:01):
Yeah, I mean it doesn't you know.

Speaker 2 (01:21:03):
I didn't know that about Dennis, and that's sad.

Speaker 1 (01:21:06):
But look, falling is one of.

Speaker 2 (01:21:11):
The things that cause the most health problems among elder
elder elderly people. You know. It's not just the big
muscles that you lose, but you lose a lot of
the muscles you need for balancing. And that's why a
lot of physical therapists and a lot of exercise people
they do a lot of balance work with older adults.

(01:21:35):
But you should really be starting in your forties to
enhance the small muscles they're responsible for balancing. And then
there is strength. If you trip, Your ability to recover
and stand depends on a variety of different muscles. Depends
on your coat, on your glutes, on your leg muscles

(01:21:55):
and their ability to recover from a trip or something
like that, you know. And then of course, your bones
are more fragile when you're older. So if you fall
a fall that a baby would take and just get
up and walk away, you're not gonna be able to
get up. You're probably going to break a bone. And

(01:22:16):
now bones are actually strengthened by weight training. There the
more weights you lift, the more weight you carry around
with you, the stronger your bones will be. And of
course if you have strong muscles, then the muscles absorb

(01:22:38):
some of the you know, a shock of what happens,
rather than the bone absorbing it all and breaking. So,
you know, as you get older, one of the most
important things to do is to focus on strength. Balance,
you know, so you know, and a lot of strength stuff.

(01:23:01):
Not in terms of how much can I bench press?
I mean, who cares. It's you know, your ability to
use your core and your muscles to move things. Uh,
you know, they do things like farmer walks. Right, you
put a heavy weight in each arm and walk, just walk,
maybe even walk upstairs, and this will strength that all

(01:23:21):
the muscles that you will need one day to be
able to carry groceries up a couple of flights of stairs,
or carry a grandchild in your arms and and and
and up the stairs or anything like that. So a
lot of this is core and and and legs and
the smaller muscles that are stabilizing you.

Speaker 1 (01:23:43):
So there's a there's a whole bunch.

Speaker 2 (01:23:44):
Of of exercises that are you know, just focused on that,
on on on the muscles that you're going to need
in your day to day.

Speaker 1 (01:23:53):
Now.

Speaker 2 (01:23:53):
You know, having a good up upper body strength is
important to you, but you've got to have the whole back.
You've got to have the cohole package some of its
compound exercises, but doesn't have to be it. It just
means that you're you're doing a combination of things. And again,
hire a physical therapist, hire a trainer, and do it.

(01:24:14):
And everybody should start. Everybody should be starting. I'm really
bought into this repdata. Everybody should be starting on weight
training in their thirties. And then you should be doing
some form of high intensity interval training on a bicycle
or on a on a treadmill or something like that

(01:24:35):
to increase your view tu max, to increase your.

Speaker 1 (01:24:38):
Your lung capacity.

Speaker 2 (01:24:39):
And if you start in your thirties and you make
it a habit and you do it, it won't necessarily
make you live longer, but it certainly will make you
live better in those final years.

Speaker 1 (01:24:51):
So I think it's it's.

Speaker 2 (01:24:54):
Worthwhile investing in your thirties and forties and fifties and sixties,
investing the time to make your seventies and eighties, much more,
much better, much more pleasant, disease free and pain free
and so on. So I wish I had done it.
I wish I'd started working out on a regular basis.

(01:25:16):
I've always done something and always dabbled, but I wish
I'd done it on a more regular basis. I wish
i'd start in my thirties. It would be a lot
easier to do today, and and that'd be in much
better shape. All right, anyway, So yes, huge and falls,
big deal, I mean, and I did a host so

(01:25:37):
on PTA's book. Highly encourage reading Pata and subscribing to
his YouTube channel.

Speaker 1 (01:25:43):
He's very, very informative and.

Speaker 2 (01:25:44):
Not not a religionists, not a religionist when it comes
to diet and it comes to any particular you know thing.

Speaker 1 (01:25:54):
He's he's really makes a real effort, real effort to
be objective.

Speaker 2 (01:26:10):
So yeah, go out there, lift weights, and all kinds
of weights, and all kinds of programs and all kinds
of machines, all kinds of ways to do it. But
the heavier heavy weights, lift heavy weights, particularly when you're young,
lift very heavy weights, and.

Speaker 1 (01:26:28):
Uh, you know, and and and you know, the everybody
recommends this.

Speaker 2 (01:26:34):
I mean, you shold the problem, need problems, all of that,
All of that is solved by building up the muscles
around them.

Speaker 1 (01:26:41):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (01:26:42):
You, your tensons are going to function better if if,
if you're strong. It's the lack of exercise that usually
results in, uh, these kind of problems. I need problems
for a long time, really knee pain.

Speaker 1 (01:26:55):
And the more I the more I do, the more.

Speaker 2 (01:26:58):
I strengthen my leg muscles, the less I feel my knees.
I had back problems for decades, and now that I'm
exercising on a much more regular basis and lifting heavy
weights and strengthening my core dramatically, my back is the
best it's been in decades, in decades, So yeah, go

(01:27:26):
go exercise, Michael Will this be known as the era
of the troll. We have a president with the maturity
of a nihilist twelve year old in the White House.
As if Nick Fouantis is pulling the strings of the culture. Yeah,
I mean, I do think trolling is a big part
of the culture in which we live. A president trolls

(01:27:47):
people all the time. You should have seen the AI
videos you put out over the weekend. You know, Michael
Malice and a lot of a lot of the people
who have large followings online got those law following online
because the good at trolling and trolling is is a
big part of the culture in which we live, and

(01:28:07):
I think trolling is made for social media. So a
culture that is dominated by social media is also going
to have a lot of trolling. All right, Michael says,
what will be a soft dictator What will a soft
dictator ship look like? Well, I mean, look at Hungry,

(01:28:29):
look at Aubon, look at Russia. Ultimately, right, look at
the evolution of Russia. Now it's a it's more of
a hard dictatorship, but Putsin hardened it over time.

Speaker 1 (01:28:41):
But a soft dictatorship basically.

Speaker 2 (01:28:45):
Doesn't bother you in most of your day to day activity, uh,
you know, even free speech for the most part you
have as an individual. But the media is completely controlled.
The media is uh is run by the government in
one way or another. So the news that you're getting

(01:29:05):
is basically dominated by the messaging the government wants you
to get.

Speaker 1 (01:29:11):
A lot of the a lot of the u.

Speaker 2 (01:29:16):
The leading businessmen of Crony's so oligogs, the cronies, they're
in bed with the government. It's very difficult to make
a fortune without getting in bed with the government.

Speaker 1 (01:29:28):
So entrepreneurship is down.

Speaker 2 (01:29:29):
Particularly big business entrepreneurship, you know, like Open AI going
from nothing to five hundred billion. That's way down. But
a lot of people's day to day lives are not
that affected. Maybe they and maybe there's less crime, and
maybe it's a little quieter and and some people like it. Right,
they can't they can't fully express their abilities and they

(01:29:51):
and they they can't fully express uh, they can't fully
manifest abilities. They can't live a full life. But it
doesn't completely diminish the capacity to to uh to live.
And that's why you know, they tolerated like Russians tolerated.

(01:30:14):
Putin Americans, it would be harder because Americans are used to,
you know, uh being free and having a complete free
speech and all of that.

Speaker 1 (01:30:23):
But this is what Trump is doing, and this is
what will happen.

Speaker 2 (01:30:27):
It's slowly, slowly, you know, uh, you know, they condition us,
they condition us. So you know, look at look at
Russia over the last ten years, and look at look
at hungry Michael. Is the deregulation Trump's doing creating more

(01:30:48):
good in the economy than his talents are undermining the
economy how to tell? The economy is still growing, so
maybe the argument is yes, but the economy is going
before Trump.

Speaker 1 (01:31:00):
So I don't know. I don't know how you would
even calculate that.

Speaker 2 (01:31:07):
Jacob Any thought on HBO's The Gilded Age recently started
watching it. I think it's mixed in its sense of life,
but also shows a lot of the appreciation businessmen, even
if it tries not to. Yeah, I mean, it's certainly mixed.
It certainly mixed. It certainly does have respect for some
of these businessmen. It also undermines that by showing a

(01:31:28):
sleazy a side to almost all of them, even even
the ones that it is most sympathetic towards. And you know,
the wife of the businessman is a complete secondhander who
just wants social mobility at the cost and anything else,
including the happiness.

Speaker 1 (01:31:43):
Of her daughter.

Speaker 2 (01:31:45):
I mean, I like watching the show because I think
it's interesting and the characters are well developed. But it's
not a positive portrayal of the Gilded Age, and of
course the Gilded Age was not uniformly and equivocally positive.
Secondhanded behavior did exist there some of the business and
way indeed mixed. Uh, And it's it's so it's it's

(01:32:07):
in that sense, it's very naturalistic. Uh.

Speaker 1 (01:32:10):
It is not a romantic show.

Speaker 2 (01:32:12):
It's it's not presenting how things could be, and it's
not presenting the best. It's not presenting the best.

Speaker 1 (01:32:21):
So I enjoy it.

Speaker 2 (01:32:24):
I like watching it, but it's mixed. It's definitely mixed ideologically,
all right. Uh, Michael, how can it be that altruism
has gotten more popular since the publication about Atlas Shrugg. Well,
I don't know that altruism has gotten more popular. There's
no way to say that, and and and don't forget

(01:32:44):
that Altruism. It's not a question of autuism becoming more popular. Altruism,
for the last two thousand years is the only moral
code that's been taught, the only one. So I don't
think altruism is more popular today. What you're seeing is
the implications of altruism and less of an influence of

(01:33:06):
the Enlightenment have made altruism more I don't know, more
in in the public sphere and the political sphere than
ever before. But I don't think it's more popular. I
think it's it's always been super popular because it's the

(01:33:28):
It really is the only moral code that anybody has
ever been taught. Michael Trump is dominimo. He can only
do so much. The people around him are smart anymore
A dangerous combination. Yes, I've always told you people like JD.
Van's are much more dangerous than Trump because they're smart.

(01:33:51):
Business Bland. How you on, Great Senior in Scottsdale the
other month? I got an up ed in the heill recently.
Love your thoughts. Washington created the doctor shortage. That's how
to end it and how to end it. He does
how to end it by Matthew Blakeley. Great, I mean,
and absolutely right they did. Washington did create the doctor shortage.
So congratulations on the op ed. I'll check it out, Gail.

(01:34:16):
How is it Trump isn't bothered by dictators killing their
own people? Why should he be? I mean, he doesn't care.
I mean his response to Putin killing journalists when he
was confronted with this fact. You know, in twenty sixteen,
he said, everybody kills I mean, we kill a people too.

(01:34:38):
Ebie Gumman does that. He thinks that's what power means.
And look right now he's killing people in the Caribbean Sea.
Venezuelan's Colombians Ecuadorians. He's killing them, no due process, nothing,
just shooting them out of the sky and blowing them
up their ships.

Speaker 1 (01:34:54):
It's seriously unbelievable.

Speaker 2 (01:34:59):
Unbelievable that America is now just killing people in the
high seas with no accountability. So why should it be
bothered by dictators doing it? Load Dose says, you changed
my life. Love you, Thank you. Load Dose really appreciate that.

(01:35:19):
It's great to know having had an impact on some
of your guys' life. Adam Given two thousand and eight
and more recently tried Color's bankruptcy.

Speaker 1 (01:35:30):
Why are these rating agencies so.

Speaker 2 (01:35:32):
Terrible at their job? I mean they were terrible The
job wa before two thousand and eight. I mean Orange
County in California went bankrupt in I think it was
nineteen ninety four, and what a few weeks before bankruptcy
they still had a triple A rating. Look, rating credit

(01:35:52):
is hard. It's a hard job, and you need the
market to discipline you. So if you get it wrong
more than once, you used to go bankrupt and new
players enter the field with better tools, better capabilities, who
do a better job.

Speaker 1 (01:36:11):
So in order to make sure that the credit agencies
do a good job.

Speaker 2 (01:36:15):
They need to face real competition, and they need to
be what shroompted a called creative destruction. You need to
be able to bring in new tools and and and
replace existing in the incumbents and and have a dynamic industry.
And that doesn't exist in the credit rating agencies. I
mentioned this the other day. They are the credit agencies
are approved by the SEC. They get they get approved

(01:36:40):
by it from the SEC, and they get approved by
the SEC. And there's sudden institutional investors that have to
use the credit agencies. They have to use the ratings
the credit agencies produce only. So you basically created an

(01:37:03):
insular industry with a few players don't face competition and
it's all of us out the regulations. So the more
regulated in industry is, the more protected it is from
competition by the regulators, the more incompetent it becomes. And
that's why you've got incompetent eng agencies. It's very simple.
It's not capitalism, it's not markets. It's the antithesis of both.

(01:37:28):
All Right, thank you everybody. I appreciate it. Thanks thanks
for joining me. Thanks to all the super chatters and
the stickers. I will see you all maybe tomorrow. It
really depends on my travel. If not, we're probably looking
at Saturday. Saturday from London, all right, by everybody. Hopefully

(01:37:53):
I'll see some of you as I travel around, so
that would be great.

Speaker 1 (01:37:58):
Bye guys,

All Episodes

AI Luddites & Uses; CEO Fear; Crazy Left; Broken Window; Ballroom; Reparations | Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}AI Luddites & Uses; CEO Fear; Crazy Left; Broken Window; Ballroom; Reparations | Yaron Brook Show