AMA & Hangout with Contributors (Dec 2025) | 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 fundamental principles of edom, national self interest
and an individual lots.

Speaker 2 (00:15):
This is the show, oh right, everybody, welcome to your
one book show on this Saturday, December twenty seventh, and
today is our monthly AMA show.

Speaker 1 (00:30):
So you can ask those of you who are on
the panel live. We'll go through a couple a few
rounds with them asking questions. We'll also be taking super
chat questions. So the super chat is on. It's a
feel free to use it. And let's see. Do I

(00:51):
have anything to say before we get started. Remind no
show tomorrow. Nicos Nicos is I'm going to be interviewing
Nicos on Monday. Socialist of the Right is the topic.
But of course you guys will ask questions and you
can ask me, of course whatever you want and what else.

(01:15):
And of course January thirty first, which I think is Wednesday,
one pm Eastern time, we'll start the show and we'll
go four plus hours and that'll be our final show
of the year. We'll do a summary of the year,
looking for the twenty twenty six and we'll raise a
lot of money hopefully, so we'll complain all that. All right,

(01:36):
So let us get started with a panel. Let's start
with John questions.

Speaker 3 (01:46):
Yeah, yeah, we're on great to see registered for the
Iron Rand birthday in the end of the January.

Speaker 1 (01:56):
Down and four in Florida.

Speaker 3 (01:58):
Yeah yeah, looking forward to that and good Uh first
time for that.

Speaker 1 (02:04):
Uh.

Speaker 3 (02:06):
I you know, I don't have any question that comes
to mind. I'm going to go back a little bit
on college I Rand groups asked the question, you know,
don't know why the you know that the number of
campus clubs decline, you know, has changed, Uh what.

Speaker 4 (02:33):
You know?

Speaker 3 (02:33):
I'm trying to think of what the meaning on that
is that campus club organizations.

Speaker 1 (02:41):
I don't know is.

Speaker 3 (02:42):
There has anybody been able to give what are the
thoughts that have come to pass on the decline of
campus clubs.

Speaker 1 (02:53):
I mean, I think the answer is the Internet. But
campus clubs basically started dying more than ten years ago,
and by ten years ago they were already dead. Ten eight,
ten years ago, camps clubs died, even clubs that like
University of Michigan and some others where there was on

(03:14):
a club there forever and didn't get renewed. So I
think so one camps clubs always relied on one person
energy enthusiasm to lead them and to get them all together,
and to put it together, and to get people into

(03:35):
the group and to organize activity. It was always a
challenge when that one person left to create a succession
succession plan, and a lot of clubs failed failed to
do that. But I also think that getting together in
person became less valuable. The quantity of available objectivist information

(03:58):
online it was huge. The ability to create groups, whether
it's on I don't know, Reddit or whatever, the different
platforms for people to create chat groups out there. The
ability to do that increased dramatically. And there are lots

(04:19):
and lots of objectivists kind of places where people chat
about objectivism online, right There are a bunch of those
there were. There was just a lot more opportunities for
people to engage in people. And I think the culture

(04:39):
generally went online, so there was a lot less value
to face to face interaction and and everything kind of
went online. That's the only explanation I have, because it's
not that the numbers have dropped generally. It's not a
readership has dropped. It's not that interest in imand has
dropped at least a week in measure based on the
things that we have. It's campus clubs just died, you know,

(05:04):
and it's and it's across the board across the country.
Once in a while somebody will try to resurrect the
campus club. There was, you know, one guy was enthusiastic
in Texas and they organized the campus club in Texas.
And Texas is ideal to have a campus club because
you've got a lot of objectives already living in Austin.
You've got Greg and Terror and Ben and a bunch

(05:24):
of intellectuals living in Austin. And yet once this one
person left, nobody continued and the club died. So it's
just yeah, I mean, I don't have more of an
explanation than that.

Speaker 5 (05:39):
Okay, great, thanks very much.

Speaker 1 (05:40):
People. Going online is my only explanation for it. All right,
let's see you guys have all got your video off,
which is making it much more difficult for me. So
those of you who can and don't mind, turn your
videos on. M's more fun to see you anyway, all right, Steve.

Speaker 6 (06:02):
So I've been thinking a lot about like how principles
and pragmatism apply at work, like specifically in engineering, because
while we would say here like someone's being pragmatic as
like an insult and that say you talk a lot
about John F. Kennedy be having like a pragmatic foreign policy,

(06:24):
You're not meaning that in a complimentary way. Like in engineering,
Like there's a super popular blog called the Pragmatic Engineer.
You'll say, Oh, that engineer, he's really pragmatic and thinking
about this. I don't think the words aren't talking about

(06:44):
the same thing. Like one of my observations is that
a pragmatic engineer will consider a lot more than just
like the engineering, Like in software, we can think about
like the business context or what other trade offs might be.

Speaker 7 (07:00):
And I was reading a book on.

Speaker 6 (07:02):
SR seventy one Blackbird, and they were talking about, you know,
in one engineer being like super pragmatic when they're coming
up with it's kind of like esoteric lubricants, so they're
going to use that can deal with like this temperature
range of you know, plus a thousand degrees down to
your room temperature. I was wondering if you have any
thoughts on that, because like it seems like we talk

(07:24):
about like engineering principles or engineering pragmatism I just might
extend to like other parts of work life, Like we're
not talking about the same thing as like a moral principle.

Speaker 1 (07:35):
No, And I don't think anybody's ever said about JFK
in a positive way that he had a pragmatic phone post.
I think it was a negative way. But so people
misuse the term pragmatic when they apply to engineering and
other things. What they really mean is practical that is
attuned to reality. You know, can get stuff done, and

(07:59):
it isn't you know, it takes context into account, isn't
bogged down by I don't know, some platonic form of perfectionism.
And I think that what they mean is practical pragmatism
is the rejection of principle. And I don't think you
can do engineering if you reject principles. I mean implicitly,

(08:21):
all engineers abide by certain principles, whether they know it
explicitly or not. They have to. You know, if you
do liquid mechanics, there's certain principles that by which liquids travel,
and you take that into account when you do the math,
and you just can't avoid that. And you can find
practical ways to get around obstacles and to get around

(08:42):
certain issues, but you're not You're not by doing that
negating the principle whereas pragmatism as a philosophical concept as
a negation of principle and the negation of long term,
long term thinking, which is what negating principle really means.
So when we talk about pragmatic engineers, what really mean
is practical engineering, practical people people who could get stuff done,

(09:05):
or practical But in but particularly and I don't know
how this is used in Europe, but in in the US,
those concepts are being mixed up and confused. Pragmatism is
viewed as just and and and there's a sense of which,
just get stuff done, just just get it done, just
get it done now, whatever it takes, ignoring kind of

(09:29):
the philosophical roots of what they actually mean by it.
So pragmatism is really in a pistemological concept more than
it is a moral concept. It's basically saying principles are
not just Madel principles. Any principles it just don't apply.
There is there are no such things. You can't generalize.

(09:49):
You know, the sun, the sun might not rise tomorrow.
You know you have to take that into account. You
can't generalize. You can't come to real truths. There are
no universal or than truths to what.

Speaker 6 (10:04):
So I think if I said to someone like, oh,
this politician is pragmatic, I said it to an engineer, they're.

Speaker 1 (10:10):
Going to be like, oh, yeah, that's good.

Speaker 7 (10:12):
It sounds like that's like what I do.

Speaker 1 (10:14):
Yeah.

Speaker 8 (10:15):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (10:15):
So they're misusing the concept. So the concept comes it's
not an objectivist interpretation of the concept. Right, So pragmatism
is a philosophy articulated by John Dewey and God his
name escapes to me. But you know late nineteenth century
American philosophers William James, William James is the other guy, right,

(10:37):
So they actually articulate what they mean by pragmatism. The
way the engineer is using the term is inconsistent with
the way the term was defined in the nineteenth century.
Now you can say, the hell with that, this is
the new way to describe it. But that creates confusion.
It creates a certain confusion because the term comes from
as far as I know, the term comes from the philosophy,

(11:01):
not the other way around. Maybe I'm wrong, Maybe the
term existed before the philosophy and it's the philosophy is
that perverted it. But one way another, we're not talking
about the same thing. When we're talking about it, and
I think a lot of people use pragmatic pragmatic pragmatism
as meaning practical rather than its meaning unprincipled.

Speaker 7 (11:22):
Do you think it's worth pushing back on?

Speaker 1 (11:24):
Not really, I mean there's certain concepts that it's really
worth fighting for. Now. It's worth pushing back in a
sense on all concepts because it's important we get them
accurate so we know we're all talking about But in
the cultural battle, if you will, no, I mean, selfishness
is hard enough, capitalism is hard enough, and those I
think important ones individualism, there are a few other There

(11:48):
are few that are really important. Pragmatism is probably just
not I don't think that's important enough to push back on. Thanks,
maybe later in the battle, like at a later stage,
it will elevate that we've got we've got low hay
food to fight over before we get there, all right,

(12:09):
Thanks Steve Adam.

Speaker 9 (12:13):
Yes, I'm concerned, and I'll just follow up on what
Steve said. Generally, when people say pragmatic, they mean contextual.
Principles apply in the context in which they are known,

(12:40):
and someone who does not try to apply principles outside
their proper context is popularly called pragmatic, but I think
that we objectivists really should insist an accurate language, and

(13:03):
we should say he is a contextual thinker rather than
a pragmatic thinker. Now I have other words that I
think are frequently misused, for example, saying public schools instead
of government schools, saying illegal immigrant instead of unauthorized immigrant.

(13:32):
And I think the really big one is the market.
Many people are not just objectivists.

Speaker 1 (13:42):
But.

Speaker 9 (13:44):
And the liberal right generally speak of the market in
the same way that socialists speak of society. So instead
of saying individuals will make their choices, we say the
market will take care of it. And I think that

(14:08):
is so liable to be misinterpreted as meaning, you know,
the market is some kind of magic collective force. Why
don't we just say individuals will make their decisions.

Speaker 1 (14:29):
Because because that doesn't really explain what's actually going on.
Individuals will make their decisions in a particular context where
the decisions get aggregated, and there's a certain market phenomena.
You know, the price of stock is determined by individuals
making decisions, But that doesn't tell you anything about the

(14:52):
fact that, you know, these individual decisions get aggregated into
a picular price, and that's the function of the market.
The market is supplying demand. Supplying demand is individuals making
decisions aggregated in a particular place, at a particular time,
in a particular way, and that we call the markets.

(15:14):
I think using the marketers is legitimate. You know, we
need to understand what we're talking about, and we should
convey that to people. But I don't think it's helpful
to say individuals making decisions. So also think illegal immigrants
is legit. They're illegal, right, There's there's law. The law
says it's illegal to immigrate into the United States without authorization,

(15:35):
without permission of the state, you know, And and in
that sense they're violating the law. And I don't see
illegal as offensive. I agree with the other ones you mentioned. Pragmatism.
I mean, if you look at pragmatism, let's see solving

(15:55):
this is just this is the Cambridge Dictionary for whatever.
They're all about the same, solving problems and sensible way
that suits the conditions. That's consexual. It really exists now
rather than of being fixed theories, ideas or wolves, which
is principles. But but they're creating this false economy between
contextual and the principle. So it's uh, you know, so

(16:20):
a uh, But that is exactly what the pragmatic philosophers did.
They divorced pragmatism. They divorced, divorced context from principle.

Speaker 5 (16:32):
But I think that.

Speaker 9 (16:34):
By using proper language we can change the way people
think about it.

Speaker 1 (16:41):
I agree, agree completely, we should use proper language. The
question is what fights should we have with the culture.
That is, should you go around with your co workers
telling them they're misusing the term pragmatist? I just I
think that there are there are other hills to fight on.

Speaker 9 (16:57):
Rather, yeah, I think I think there are other hills
to fight on. But as an individual, I can say
contextual rather than pragmatists, and that will cause my interlocutor
to think again about what they mean.

Speaker 1 (17:19):
Sure, you should speak accurately. The question is what should
you argue with your fellow You know, if somebody uses
selfishness wrong, I'm going to go up and correct them
just because it's it's a it's a term that's I
really want to inject into the culture. To use pragmatism wrong.
I might not, you know, interject and correct them.

Speaker 9 (17:41):
But in the case of immigrants saying unauthorized brings in
the idea that there is an arbitrariness on the part
of the state authorizing some people, now authorizing some people

(18:02):
making the decisions about who you can deal with instead
of leaving those decisions for you, and all that is
encapsulate in the world. Unauthorized you say illegal, and people

(18:23):
generally understand that to be criminals you should go to
prison and so on.

Speaker 1 (18:28):
Yeah, I mean, I like to say I'm an illegal
driver because I speed, just to make it, to make
it clear that illegal doesn't mean criminal. But the reality
is that I think you're you're loading unauthorized with way
too much meaning. That is, you could be authorized to
come into my building or not authorized to come into
my building. You can be authorized to come into my

(18:49):
country and not authorized to come into country. I don't think.
I don't think if somebody outside of objectivism thinks it's, oh,
that's arbitrary, and that one's okay because it's private property,
and that one's not okay. Indeed, they conflate the state
with private property all the time. There's so many issues
that I don't I don't think with regard to immigration,
the semantics matter that much. Whereas again, there's some terms

(19:11):
that I think deserve to be fought over. There are
others where I just don't think it's worth the effort.

Speaker 9 (19:16):
Saying government schools rather than.

Speaker 1 (19:19):
I agree with that one. I try to correct myself
whenever I say public schools to government schools, because I
think I think government school is much more effective. Public
public is conflated with public corporations, which are not government corporations.
So it's public is a is a is too loose
of a term. Government is much clearer and mobbious. I agree,
I agree completely on that one. Thank you, Adam. Uh

(19:41):
let's see Randy.

Speaker 4 (19:45):
Thank you, Sorry you're on. Before Randy goes, can I
just hit a quick follow up on that and ask
you would you would you correct the person in a
political discussion, because I will say that I I think
it's a very important term pragmatic to identify the phenomena

(20:07):
that we see politically in reality.

Speaker 1 (20:11):
It depends. I mean, when you're doing a debate with
somebody in a political context or whatever context, they're throwing
out so many concepts that are misused, that are being
misused and abused, and the biggest frustration in a debate
is they've just spoken for five minutes. As you know
from my videos where I analyze other people's videos, I

(20:34):
could pause them every twenty seconds and comment on what
they just said. So I have to retain five you know,
that's three times every minute. That's fifteen. I would have
to have fifteen points to a contradict them on. I
couldn't do that. See, you have to prioritize what you're
going to do. Certainly there's a context in which a

(20:54):
correcting they use the pragmatism would be appropriate. It depends
on what the debate is all on. It depends on
what else is being said. It depends on a lot
of things. It's contextual. Randy.

Speaker 10 (21:11):
Yeah, I want to ask you a little bit about
this m r n A vaccine. Yeah, you know a
lot about that, and there's some things I'm missing about that.
I understand that there's some work and towards cancer with that.
I also understand that JFK has stopped funding some of
the m r n A and I want to what

(21:32):
you know about that.

Speaker 1 (21:33):
Yeah, I mean M and E technology is an incredibly
valuable technology that that I think during COVID proved incredibly efficacious. Uh,
if you understand what the goal was of the vaccine
and since then and before that, m O and A
was developed primarily for cancer. So both Modona and Biointech,

(21:57):
the two mr and A companies that developed mRNA vaccine
for COVID, we're both working on cancer vaccines. Before COVID
hit and since then, there's been a lot of promise
with regard to mRNA vaccines for cancer and also m
and A vaccines for potentially other contagious diseases, but at

(22:22):
least in terms of contagious diseases. RFK stopped all the
funding for it. There's a lot of fear that he's
going to stop the funding for cancer as well. A
lot of the mRNA researchers moving outside the United States
because they're worried that they won't be able to get
FDA approval and they won't get funding in the US,
so it's moving to China. China's very you know, China

(22:46):
was very behind when COVID hit on mRNA. They couldn't
develop their own mRNA vaccine, so they are really trying
to accelerate development of mr and A technology right now.
A leading Chinese scientist who was working in the US
at a tenure trek position ten position in the US

(23:07):
at a research lab at a major university. Uh is
just moving back to China. Uh. I know Europe is
investing quite a bit in m and Evoccines because they
see the United States not doing it. Yeah, it's it's
tragic and sad, but but it that is the reality.
It's it's a it's it's another biotech technology that could
have huge ratifications for for our health that the government

(23:32):
is sabotaging. Very good, thank you? Sure? Uh okay, Daniel.

Speaker 11 (23:41):
Wrong.

Speaker 5 (23:44):
Politics is such a mess?

Speaker 12 (23:46):
Is it now time for someone objective as not me
to get back into politics?

Speaker 1 (23:54):
I mean sure, it has to be somebody who likes it,
who enjoys it, who who is going to understand that
he'd probably lose quite a bit and willing to willing
to live with that. I understand. Rob Trasinski is running

(24:14):
for office, so he's running for Congress.

Speaker 4 (24:16):
So you need to be a little bit of a
wing knot. Don't you a little bit of what a wingnot?

Speaker 1 (24:21):
I don't know what that means.

Speaker 4 (24:23):
Like, you know, I mean if you're an objectivist and
you know you're going to lose.

Speaker 1 (24:27):
Yeah, but you have to view it as an opportunity
to talk to audiences, participate in debates, get the wood
out there. So you have to have the mentality of
you know, I'm out there. I mean, if it was
easy to do, I would do it. I would have
fun doing it right, It would be it would be fun.
I mean, I told I was serious. At some point

(24:49):
I was approached by somebody about running, some big shot
in the Republican Party to run for governor of California,
and I said, you know, if you can, if you
can raise the first fifty million dollars for me, because
it'll cost one hundred million, and I'm not going to
raise the first fifteek and I don't believe I can
raise the first fifty I think that's impossible. Nobody will
give me that kind of money. If you could bring
me a check for fifty million dollars, I will raise

(25:11):
the second fifty and I will do it. And I
was serious. I would have done it. It would have
been fun. So I you know, so I think I
think it has to be. You have to take the
perspective this is this is gonna be fun. No matter
what I'm probably gonna lose, I'm going to create a
lot of you know, shake, shake, shake things out. I'm
gonna create a lot of cognitive you know, dissonance and

(25:33):
uh and upset a lot of people and you know cool. Yeah,
I mean I don't see why not. I think Tasinski's
running as a Democrat if I remember, right, which is
probably right to do in Virginia. You get you're not
gonna get anywhere with Republicans in Virginia. It's too religious,
you know, there's it's it's too anchored in Trump and

(25:56):
in kind of the now heritage Americans. So in Democrats,
maybe you've got some kind of angle you can go after.
It's interesting, it's an interesting tactic. We'll see how it goes. Yeah,
I I do not I think it could be interesting.
I'm not promoting it, but if there's somebody out there,
but I'm not against it. Again, I think it's it

(26:17):
has to has to be consistent with your values and go.

Speaker 12 (26:21):
I've got to say the governor of Puerto Rico has
got to be a lot cheaper than of California.

Speaker 1 (26:27):
Yeah, but you know, if I spoke Spanish fluently, I'd
actually consider it.

Speaker 4 (26:32):
You know, what about the aspect of it of kissing
babies and shaking hands.

Speaker 1 (26:37):
I don't mind that, and to travel too, but yes,
I won't travel, so I mean that's fine. It would
be fun, right, But it was such a blast. And
kissing babies, I mean, there's worse things in life than
kissing babies. And uh yeah, I guess shake hands. I
can put on the act of doing that for a while.
It's it's an act. I'm an actor. That's what you
do when you lecture, and you know, the audiences would

(26:59):
be larger. And yeah, I mean if I spoke fluent Spanish,
I would consider doing it in Puerto Rico. But you know,
when I first came to Puerto Rico, I think I
was three months after I'd arrived here. I was invited
to speak at some conference. I think it was a
crypto conference, and I said, okay, I'll speak on how
to turn Puerto Rico into the Hong Kong of the Caribbean.

(27:20):
And I gave a talk on how to turn Puerto
wec Go into the Hong Kong the Caribbean, basically do
what Hong Kong did, and it's easy, and people were enthused,
they were excited. They all told me, the governor will
call me, there will the people there from politics, and
they said, the governor will call you. You should be on
some committee, some advisory board. I said, I'm happy to
I I'd love to do that. I never got a call.
So that's what happens with politics, is you know, they

(27:43):
all they promised, they talked, they get excited, they hear
something new, but then they think about it and they say, oh, no,
that's radical, that's crazy. Nobody will do that. But yeah
I could. I could see myself doing that. My wife
would probably kill me. But other than that, I she
does not want to be first one.

Speaker 4 (28:01):
If you want, yeah, like, don't you think you would
do it because you know that it's a short term
thing because your greater value is really doing what you're doing.
I think as an intellectual right. I don't know.

Speaker 1 (28:15):
I mean, look at Melai. Look at how many people
are paying attention to free markets because of Mela. So
imagine if I won governor Puerto Rico and uh and
I could get away with doing stuff like like Malay
has gotten away.

Speaker 4 (28:27):
That's true.

Speaker 1 (28:28):
And imagine if Puerto Rico went from being the posts
pseudo state in the Union to somewhere in the middle
pack because of within you know, within four years because
of policies I put in place, and people started to
move from Orlando to Puerto Rico instead of Puerto Rico
to Orlando. That as Puerto rican started coming back to

(28:48):
the island because there were so many economic opportunities here.
I mean, think about what that would do to whatever
career is a podcast I would have after that, right
I could? I could, I could right mount check for
as a podcaster afterwards in terms of the you know,
the influence and the and the reach I could have.
So no, I mean, don't dismiss politics. It's it's a

(29:11):
great marketing ploy again, it's uh. And if you get
into power and you can do as much as you
can do. Uh. Now, the problem is if you can't
do anything, then it's a waste, right, if you really
can't do anything. But you know, governors and presidents have
a lot of power. Look look at how much Corumpany
is doing in spite of the fact that he's not

(29:32):
going to Congress, he's not acting in Congress or anything.
Now's the time to get elected president. You can you
can be an imperial president in the name of liberty.
Uh and uh, you know, and and and reboot the
whole American system. So yeah, I'm getting excited now. I'm
I'm uh, you know, you know, I'm just looking for
that check. What's up?

Speaker 4 (29:53):
You wouldn't win. You couldn't win.

Speaker 1 (29:55):
I couldn't win. I couldn't win.

Speaker 5 (29:57):
What's that I'll put in the first five dollars?

Speaker 1 (30:02):
I mean, just just just think about how much money
would be if I was on the stage in one
of the presidential debates. Yeah, I mean, it would be.
It would It would completely change dynamics. I mean, Rand
Paul is there. You think, Okay, Rand at least's proprey markets.
But he's quiet, and he's dull, and he never says
anything interesting and never says anything exciting, and he doesn't.

Speaker 4 (30:25):
Those debates when he was running for president.

Speaker 1 (30:27):
Yeah, anyway, so we can fantasize that's I think that's
as far as it can go at this point with me,
at least, if.

Speaker 5 (30:36):
You reconsider all all, I'm willing to up my bed.

Speaker 1 (30:39):
Okay, sounds good, thanks Daniel. All right, Lincoln, you're still muted.

(31:01):
Still muted? Right, let me come back to you, Lincoln,
figure out how to unmute. Let's see maybe they can
do that, asked. I mean, I'm not sure what's going on.
All right, let's see Ryan. The fact that you guys
are not on video makes it more difficult for me
to keep track on who's asked and who isn't. But
Ryan is here. Ryan. Do we have more than one Ryan?

(31:23):
We have more than one Ryan, So let's do Ryan boobak.

Speaker 13 (31:26):
Okay, Hey, hey, thank you for taking my question on
a previous show. I have a Samana question too. On
a previous show, you were reviewing the Matt Walsh video
and you were talking about like legitimate sources of pride,
and this was sort of a side comment, but you said.

Speaker 9 (31:45):
How.

Speaker 13 (31:47):
You know, in reality, like a parent can't even take
pride in what their children do or something along those lines.

Speaker 1 (31:55):
Yeah, I mean it's you don't want to overstate it,
but yes, I mean, yeah, it's it. Achievements are their achievements,
not yours.

Speaker 13 (32:07):
Well, okay, So, so I'm gonna take this to kind
of brag about one of my kids. I'd love to
brag about both of them, but I'll just brag about
one of them. So, my oldest is a senior in
high school, and he's about halfway through earning his private
pilot license and about a month ago he had his

(32:27):
first solo flight, and my wife and I went to
watch it, and you know, you know, forget my language,
but you know, watching him fly, you know, he basically
took off, flew around the airport, landed, you know what
they're called touching goes. He did about five or six
of those. And but you know, watching him doing that flight,
you know, there's like this feeling of like, hell, yeah,

(32:48):
you know, that's my kid up there flying. And you know,
if it's not, if the word isn't pride for that, like,
what is the word?

Speaker 4 (32:56):
I was?

Speaker 13 (32:56):
I was querying chat ept and looking at the fsaars
and stuff, and the closest I came to is like admiration.
But that didn't seem strong enough. And maybe it's just love.

Speaker 1 (33:08):
Certainly love its love is applied to a particular concept.
You know, I don't think it's I don't know that
it is that is. I don't know that pride is
what captures it because because it's I mean, there's a
sense that you made the kid right, but there's a

(33:29):
sense in which he made himself. And it particularly if
he's a senior, you influence the kid, You influence him,
but he has to choose to be influenced.

Speaker 4 (33:40):
Absolutely and his achievement ultimately.

Speaker 1 (33:43):
Yeah, so sure there's an element of pride and I
raised him well, that's great, But is there direct link
between I raised him well and he's he's doing this
great flying Maybe maybe not. It's it's a reach that
there's some very positive feeling that you get. It's love,

(34:03):
it's admiration, it's a combination of those. It's just that
you want us, you please because he has made himself
into this phenomenal human being. And I don't know what

(34:23):
the wood is, what the right term would be for that.
Pride implies that you made him into this phenomenal human being,
and I'm just warning against that. Right, Yes, you had
an impact, you raised him well, that's great. But at
the end of the day, it's his achievement. And so

(34:45):
you should feel incredibly positive at your children's achievement, absolutely,
and depressed when they don't when they fail, right, because
you love them, so you're tied to them emotionally in
that way. It's it's it's not like they feel your
fault and this success is a your fault.

Speaker 4 (35:06):
You could put it negatively if you were to decide,
don't be delusional and think it's your achievement. You're not,
like he's not you. But but I do think that
unhappy about his achievement.

Speaker 1 (35:20):
Yes, absolutely, absolutely should be happy about his achievement.

Speaker 13 (35:24):
Yeah, like you know, couching it in terms of like,
you know, this is your achievement when I'm and I've
been conscious of that even before the episode that I've
been very conscious of, like you know, when I talk
about it to him, you know, like this is your
hard work, this is your achievement. But there's still that Yeah,
And I don't know another word for it besides pride,

(35:45):
but you know it's sometimes.

Speaker 1 (35:50):
Yeah, I mean there might be a use of pride
that go that is separate from kind of the way
we use pride as a moral as I'm all principle
and objectivism and and maybe we just don't have a
tomb that captures that, so we need to use probably
because it's all we got. You know that that might

(36:10):
be the case. So I mean a point of me
doing that is the emphasis on they need to be
proud of themselves and and the recognition is the achievement
that that was the emphasis trying to make, not that
you shouldn't feel good when your kids do well. You
absolutely should.

Speaker 13 (36:29):
Yeah, and I understand that, but I just, you know,
I was trying to work out, you know, if there's
a different word than tried, but it's it's sort of
hard to think it's.

Speaker 1 (36:38):
Something I I you know, I don't have an answer
for that one for a change. Thanks, Ryan. All right,
let's go to the other way.

Speaker 13 (36:52):
And.

Speaker 1 (36:54):
Can you hear me? Yep? Okay.

Speaker 14 (36:55):
So I've been working at this philosophy for six years now,
watching you for a long time.

Speaker 8 (37:04):
Two and a half years ago, I quit my job.

Speaker 14 (37:07):
I ran a business for a year as a consultant.
On January third, I'm driving to Missouri to leave Canada
and live in the United States for two years and work,
which is one of my dreams and one of my goals.
Sorry Missouri, Kansas City, Kansas City. Yeah, so it could

(37:28):
lead to a GREENEE card, it could not. I don't know.
I got to leave my family behind for two years.
I'm going to be back to visit them, and it
made me think about every couple of months, somebody on
the show asks why there aren't more demonstrations or public
action by objectivists or by the groups, And I started

(37:50):
to think. You know, your response is generally it's not effective,
and you know iron Ran didn't support it, and it's
not practical. I've come to have a different reason, a
personal reason, which is, unless someone has really committed to
making big changes in their lives and to taking these

(38:10):
ideas seriously, I think it would be a waste of time.
You've got better things to do, you've got better places
to be, you need to focus on your life. And
I almost drew the conclusion that it's almost secondhanded to
want to go out and demonstrate with the group. It's
almost anti individualistic. And I want to get your thoughts
on that.

Speaker 1 (38:29):
Yeah, I mean, I don't think it's that. I think
sometimes sometimes things happen that piss you off so much
that you want to find a way to express the
fact that this is, that this is wrong, that it's
an injustice, that that you know. And I think I
think for some of you guys, the way you express

(38:50):
it is coming to you on book show and listen
to me vent and I do it for you in
a sense, or you support dynamin inst you do you
do something like that. But I think I think sometimes
there's a lot of satisfaction in going out and and
and and and expressing this publicly. This is this is this,
this is a bad deal, this is wrong. Stop doing this.

(39:15):
I don't think it's particularly effective. I don't think it's
I I don't think that it is that it is
achieved much other than to make you feel a little
better after the fact. But yeah, that assumes that you
already are, you know, doing the things that you need

(39:38):
to do to make your life within the scope of
your control better. But I can imagine. I don't imagine
if tomorrow, I don't know, Trump nationalizes CNN, I don't know,
something like that, right, Yeah, I can see. Really, I mean,
this is free speech we're talking about. This is the

(40:00):
it's the important thing. I can imagine, you know, more
people at a rally, more people protesting, more people camping
outside the White House might have an impact, you know,
and and and people want to act on it, and
they see their whole future contingent on the success of
this action, you would do it. You might also imagine

(40:21):
a situation where the old alternative we had was revolution, right,
risking your life, literally risking your life. Well, if things
got bad enough, you can imagine a context in which
that would you would do that? You would you would say, yeah,
I get all that, but right now, if I don't
do this, my future is gone anyway, right, I just

(40:42):
won't have a future. So it depends on the circumstances.

Speaker 14 (40:46):
I think that people individually, though you know, aren't doing enough.
And I agree, you know you don't. You don't need uh,
you don't need the whole system of rights to fall
apart for you to get up and change your life
and do something drastic.

Speaker 1 (41:03):
I know that. I think people need to do a
lot more in terms of improving their lives and making
sure they're making the most of the life that they
have before they get involved in uh in uh superficial
political activism.

Speaker 4 (41:19):
A lot more personal values creation.

Speaker 14 (41:22):
Yeah, as an example to people around you.

Speaker 1 (41:24):
Yeah, I think that's right. I think at the end
of the day, you have a lot more impact than
just living a great life than you do in in
going to a protest. Thanks, right, who have I not
Jacob to go back to Lincoln the check go ahead.

Speaker 11 (41:44):
Jacob driving back from Okay, driving back from Kansas City
to Saint Louis.

Speaker 8 (41:50):
So I know it's a little bit about Kansas City.

Speaker 1 (41:52):
Right, And you've got you've got somebody from Kansas City already.
There you go.

Speaker 11 (41:55):
Well, now now I'm in Saint Louis, okay, But I
was driving back. I was listening to a podcast on
pattern and correctly if I'm wrong, but you said FDR's
only redeeming feature or basically only one, was how he
handled the war and guided it.

Speaker 8 (42:10):
That roughly true.

Speaker 1 (42:12):
I don't know if it's his only redeeming feature. You know,
don't take everything I say. Yeah, it's certainly it's certainly
a redeeming feature of his presidency, given how much bad
he did.

Speaker 11 (42:24):
But then, so the podcast I was listening to was
on patent and the Yalta conference and how FDR basically
gave up most of Eastern Europe yep. And then that
led to forty plus years of the USSR signing off
wealth and continuing their funding.

Speaker 1 (42:40):
Yep.

Speaker 11 (42:40):
And would you say that the gates or what I
got from a podcast, Now, I'll have to do more research.
That necdates a lot of his positive traits in leading
the war is he didn't know how to end it.
Then it lasted forty plus years in the future and
the Aliens was suffering.

Speaker 1 (42:57):
And then I mean, I mean the fact he wasn't. Yeah,
I mean absolutely, he was terrible vis a vis the Soviets.
He was terrible because he appointed Eisenhower to lead the
Sultan Europe. Eisenhower is a political a politician, not a
real general. So he was terrible in a lot of things.

(43:18):
But you get a lot of credit for me by
saying unconditional surrender. We will do any you know, everything
and anything to win this war. And it's it really
is unconditional surrender. You know. That's the credit I give
him for. And I say that in spite of all
the mistakes that were made in World War Two. And

(43:39):
the more you read about World War Two, the more
you realize how political it was, and how you'll get
you'll get just the more you read about World War Two,
they're angry. You'll get at at eisen at Eisenhower and
FDR and all of them, that Bradley and all the
generals there and all pathetic.

Speaker 8 (43:58):
And on that it was talking about how.

Speaker 1 (44:01):
But it's even worse like if you read about the
Civil War, right, if you read about the Civil War
and the generals of the North, oh my god, until
they got Grant, and really Grant was bailed out by
Schuman until you got Schuman and you unleashed Schuman. The
Civil War is just dragging, and it just was tough,
and it's very rare to have great generals and have
the great attitude over entered around victory. It's very unusual.

Speaker 8 (44:25):
All thored up the modes.

Speaker 11 (44:26):
But on that so Paton was hearing reports of what
was happening in Eastern Europe, and that he said, or
the podcast was saying, that was his primary drive for
wanting to invade is to liberate Eastern Europe. But that
for me, that sounded a little self sacrificial or secondhanded
of him, rather than considering the position of US troops

(44:48):
and US interests. I don't think I couldn't make an
argument that hey, by sacrificing now or by engaging the war,
then you would save lives in the future and the
trillion dollars spent. That sounded or that felt almost like
a justification for it, rather than like me posts history
justifying it, rather than having a concrete truth of why

(45:09):
it was an American interest when they see yourselves there.

Speaker 1 (45:13):
Doesn't sound right to me, Patton, you know, Patten, wasn't
I mean the Soviets hadn't reached Eastern Europe before D Day.
Patten wasn't involved in D Day. He came with his
army after D Day had already passed. He was used
as a decoy, which just tells you everything you need

(45:35):
to know about how stupidly the Woar was fought. We
used Patent as a decoy, and you have the incompetent
generals actually invading Europe.

Speaker 11 (45:44):
Pattin argument was Paton presented a report to Opper leadership
that hey, in six weeks week, six weeks, we could
go into Prague, going and mop up most of eastern Europe.

Speaker 1 (45:56):
Yeah, I mean he was. He was on the vortive
checkers of the Czechoslovakie. He was on the board of Czechoslovakia.
This is way into the war, towards the end of
the war, and he telegraphed Bradley and Eisenhower. He telegraphed
Eisenhower and he basically said, I could be in Prague
in twenty four hours and I can take eastern Europe.
And he didn't hear anything, and he telegraphed again, and

(46:20):
finally Bradley got back to him. Not even Eisenhower. It's
too much of a coward. Bradley got back to him,
and Bradley said, we promised Czechoslovakia to the Soviets. Standout,
but he should have done it. You're in the middle
of a war. You're in the middle of a war. Anyway,

(46:41):
liberating those countries from the Nazis as part of the
war and preventing the Soviets from taking over was completely contingent,
consistent with American interests at that point in time, and
would have saved a lot of heartache later when he
was stationed in Berlin as head of the Allied forces
in Western Europe, he wanted to start a war with Russia.

(47:03):
He wanted to kick the Soviet Union out of Germany,
and he was he was he was obnoxious to the
Soviets and was trying to start a war, and Eisenhower
and Truman had to basically fire him or you know,
change his command and pull him out of Berlin. And

(47:24):
it was on his way out of Berlin, and I
think it was in I can't sure where it was,
maybe it was Paris, but he was on his way
out of that command when there was a traffic accident
and he got killed. And if you want to believe
in any conspiracy theory. You know, it's not a bad
conspiracy theory to think that they had him killed to
get to get an anti communist out of the way

(47:46):
so they could engage in whatever negotiations they wanted to
do with the Soviet Union. Now I don't believe that,
but it's a much more, much more reasonable conspiracy theory.
Then I don't know the Mossad killed JFK or something
like that.

Speaker 8 (48:01):
Well, thanks, I have another question that I'll leave up
for the future.

Speaker 1 (48:04):
Sure, all right, Lincoln, let's se if you can unmute.

Speaker 15 (48:11):
That is really bad.

Speaker 1 (48:14):
Real noise coming through so your mic is not plugged in,
right or something like that. Right, let me go to Andrew. Well,
Lincoln chose to figure that out.

Speaker 4 (48:25):
I could follow up on every question that you answered,
because I think the answers are so interesting. But like
the one I'll follow up on is did you notice
the Kantianism or the Christianity in the definition that you
read of pragmatism It said obey you either do the

(48:48):
sensory knowledge or you obey principles.

Speaker 1 (48:52):
Yeah, I mean that's pragmatism, that's the concient nature of pragmatism.

Speaker 4 (48:56):
Yes, you obey, you know, like the notion of obeying
principles is interesting.

Speaker 1 (49:03):
I think you know, to duty to act on principle. Yeah.

Speaker 4 (49:08):
And the other thing I'll fall up on is I
think that a logical inference that you're making about the
issue of pride and children and your own children is
like there's a child rearing tip in there that I
think is implied by what you say, which is, tell
your child, inculcate in your child that his achievement is

(49:31):
his achievement, and that end that he should feel proud
of it.

Speaker 1 (49:37):
Yeah. Absolutely, that's the emphasis I want to I want to.

Speaker 4 (49:41):
Emphasize because because I think that parents are not doing
it that way. I think, and the majority what they're
doing is they're saying, we feel proud of you, we
feel proud of you, over and over again, exactly, and
it's like it's a bad premise, you know, I think. So,
you know, I think that, you know, I think it's important. Actually,

(50:07):
But anyway, let me ask you my question, which is
a history question. What led to What do you think
of the essential causes that led to the Dark Ages.

Speaker 1 (50:24):
God?

Speaker 4 (50:26):
Either historically or philosophically or I.

Speaker 13 (50:28):
Mean, I mean.

Speaker 1 (50:31):
A combination of the complete fragmentation of the Roman Empire
due to due to kind of the various they had
conquered lands which had a tribal allegiance. There were tribes

(50:53):
on there were barbaric tribes on the periphery. There was
just too much mayhem. It led to the breakdown of
the empire, which ultimately led to anarchy, uh, which is
anti civilizational inherently. And you know, you could argue about

(51:14):
why they got so weak as to fragment like that,
and I would I would say that that is that
is partially philosophical, partially uh, geopolitical.

Speaker 4 (51:26):
But there was one increase in statism.

Speaker 1 (51:29):
Yeah, but there was an increasing statism as partially. I mean, look,
it was an empire, so it was always status, but
there was there was a there was a philosophically, the
empire became the philosophy of the empire, you know was
was it was dominated by either Christianity or various forms

(51:50):
of stoicism or cynicism, basically a divorce from reality, a
a search for meaning outside of reality and outside of self. Uh.
That led to hedonism and uh and and particularly in
the upper classes, hedonism and and uh and and uh
and and to some extent nihilism, the enjoyment of gladiators

(52:13):
whipping each other to shreds, and and lions eating Christians,
which was very a very short period of time when
the lions ate the Christians. Uh, but the persecution of
Christians didn't last very long in other words. But so
I think it's the it's the philosophy of of of
the bad philosophy that they got from the Greeks, which

(52:34):
was cynicism and and ultimately led to hedonism and nihilism,
and and the combination with that of Christianity as being
the only positive, together with real geopolitical upheavals militarily as
their own armies got weaker and weaker, uh, and and
a complete fragmentation of the empire. Fragmentation. You know, the

(52:57):
empire was rich pasture because you know, it facilitated trade. Uh,
it had one system of law over vast periods of land.
And once that fragmented trade disappeared, production disappeared. You know,
money disappears from from Western Europe once wone falls.

Speaker 3 (53:21):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (53:22):
Sophisticated pottery, any any kind of industry, any kind of artisanship,
the sophisticated disappears because it becomes one big violent hellhole,
because all that's left is is uh is violenced the
arbitrary disputes. The empire held back the violence, you know,
and once it collapsed, Yeah, you got it, you gotta

(53:47):
dark ages. And it took a long time for Europe
to coalesce around a new set of ideas that could
lead it to be peaceful again and and to be
some extent united and to see production and uh, you know,
start up again. And that doesn't happen until I mean,

(54:10):
the Renaissance is the beginning of it, but it don't
really happen until the Enlightenment in the nineteenth century.

Speaker 4 (54:14):
So you you put cynicism first, would you put skepticism
before cynicism?

Speaker 1 (54:20):
Yeah, skepticism leads to cynicism. Skepticism is the fundamental Okay, yep,
thank you. Sure. All right, let's see if Lincoln has
his mic problems fixed, right, say something? You know, all

(54:42):
I get is noise? Sorry, right, all right, let's uh,
I'm gonna do. I got everybody I think. Uh, let
me let me do some super chats and then we'll
come back to the panel. James, does anxiety often amount

(55:07):
to the undertaking of amount to the undertaking of creating
scenarios that will only ever exist in your head, that
are adverse to the outcome you want. We suffer more
in imagination than ever in reality. Well, I don't know.
I mean, I don't know that anxiety has to be

(55:30):
perceived in You know, you're anxious because you're not sure
about an outcome. You're anxious, you know when you're not,
when you're you know, I'm not Your anxiety is. Anxiety
is like fear, But I think it's often exacerbated by

(55:58):
our imagination. But I think you know, if if if
you're watching take your kids, right if if you know
they're in a race and you want your kids to win,
and it's really really close, and you feel you feel
anxiety about whether they'll win or not. No, I mean
that's real. You're anxious, you're not sure, you're not you
have an outcome and and you and you're little, you know,

(56:20):
it's it expresses you're worry about that the outcome being
not in your favor, and that might not just be
in your imagination, it might be real. So I don't
think anxiety is necessarily an imaginary thing. Again, I don't
think anxiety or anything like that as a negative. It's
it's a it's a signal to you about something of concern,
and then you have to evaluate, you know, what am

(56:43):
I going to do about it? What? What?

Speaker 10 (56:44):
What?

Speaker 1 (56:45):
How do I? How do I deal with the situation.
So it's true that we can make it a lot worse.
And in that sense, I agree with you that we
suffer more in imagination than every reality. Often a super
anxious about at about a conversation with your boss about
and then when you actually have it, it goes incredibly

(57:06):
It goes much better than you expected, or it goes
worse than you expected. It could go either way, right,
But the worrying about it in advance, the thinking about it,
the worrying the imagination doesn't really usually doesn't often help
the outcome, although it could lead you to strategies about
how to deal with it in a better way. So
anxiety is just to signal that there's something that you're

(57:31):
worried about, that you're fearful about, that needs addressing. All right, Thanks,
thanks James. Let's see, Michael, when did Francisco then Connam mean,
what did he mean when he said your manners have
never been glued to you to Let's say your manners

(57:52):
have never been glued to you too solidly. You lose
them in an emergency, and that's the time when one
needs them most. I mean, it's a good question, what
does he What did you mean by it? I've never
thought of that. Uh, that's the time when you need

(58:13):
them most. I think it's really that in an emergency,
you you need to aid to stay rational. But part
of staying rational is not to lose your respect for
the people around you, not to lose, you know, the

(58:33):
things that make you civilized, the things that make you
a good human being. You know, people use emergencies, use
panic situations to excuse a descent into kind of a barbarism,
or descent away from the civilized, away from from from manners.

(58:55):
And and he is saying, no, you always need to
remember or a human being, and and and and the
value of civilization and the value that other people might
represent to you. So you know, I don't have a

(59:16):
better explanation than that. I have to read the whole
scene and remind myself it's been a while since I
Atlas Shock that I should probably reread it soon. Clark,
Thank you, Michael. Your attitude is very flippant and nonchalant
about cutting off immediate family members like parents or siblings.
What's the point of having children if you won't have

(59:37):
a relationship with them when they're adults. I mean, my
ANSI's not flippant about it, but it's it's you have
to be. You have to be rational about it, you
have to be realistic about it. So, of course, the
whole purpose of raising children, the whole purpose you have,
your long term purpose with have is to have a relationship.

Speaker 4 (59:57):
But that is not why this guy isn't honest in
this question, because.

Speaker 1 (01:00:03):
He be honest and dishonesty.

Speaker 4 (01:00:07):
No, no, I'll give you my evidence. I'll give you
my evidence. He said that you are for cutting off family,
you never.

Speaker 1 (01:00:16):
Done non conchalant about it.

Speaker 4 (01:00:18):
Not that i'm you are not nonchalant about it.

Speaker 1 (01:00:20):
I am. I am in the relative to the cultural
attitude about the sanctity of it. So I get what
he's I get what he's saying. I don't I don't
attribute it to dishonesty. I don't.

Speaker 4 (01:00:34):
I think there's something to it.

Speaker 1 (01:00:37):
I don't think so. I I think I think relative
to the way the culture views it. So, yes, it's
absolutely your long term goal. But if that goal is
not being achieved. You have to be realistic and you
have to act accordingly, and you can't you can't be
deluded about it. And you have to be selfish. You
have to you have to figure out. You know, the

(01:00:59):
past is the past asked. You might invest it in
a relationship a lot, in a marriage and a friendship
and in a sibling, in whatever, a huge amount. But
you know, I'm a finance guy. I believe in some costs,
the past is over, the past doesn't exist, the past
is finished. What matters is the present in the future.

(01:01:21):
And you have to make an evaluation today about the
prospects of the future and determine the nature of a
relationship based on that. And I wouldn't be flipping about it.
You know. I don't think you should do that lightly.
I don't think you should do that easily in any relationship.
I think you should do it rationally, taking into account

(01:01:41):
the real objective prospects moving into the future. But you know,
the reason I come across flippant is I'm trying. It's
like my point about pride. I'm trying to undo a
cultural bias. There's two big of a cultural bias in
favor of sustaining relationships of blood, blood is thicker than water,

(01:02:06):
all kinds of stuff like that, and and elevating that
to some kind of supernatural, you know, mystical thing. And
I'm trying to say, no, it's a relationship, and you
have to view it as is it in my interest
or isn't it in my interest long term? You know,

(01:02:27):
given all the facts as I know them.

Speaker 4 (01:02:30):
But people are taking you literally, I think some people,
And it's okay. I will just say that rand Rand
had a very positive like for rand parents. If you
know about her history her as a person, she was
very respectful of the parent child relationship. In practice, she

(01:02:51):
did not think that somebody should detach from their parents
and cut them off easily.

Speaker 1 (01:02:58):
I don't think anybody should do it easy. But again
I think that I think there are a much more
prevalent problem. The much, much much more prevalent problem is
the people who latch on and hang on to relationships
when those relationships bring them no value. That is the
bigger problem. So I'd be much more concerned about that

(01:03:19):
than the other way around. All Right, Multon Moulton's Fladers said,
I just sent you two interesting links to articles, one
about Michelangelo as an architecture for fortresses, and the others
about a vermea on exhibit in w Palm Beach, a

(01:03:40):
short drive from Fort Myers and West pom Beach. Well,
westbom Beach is not a short drive from Fort Myers.
I know enough to know that that's what a three
hour drive something like that. So but I appreciate that. Uh,
there's a Vermia at the w Hotel. God, can you

(01:04:01):
imagine the insurance, the cost of insurance of having that
painting at a hotel and it's super humid there. Yeah,
I'm a little upset. I mean, they should send that
Vermia back. I don't know. That's great, it's I'm gonna
look it up because I'm curious what vimia that is

(01:04:23):
and where they got it from. Thank you for both articles.
I'll check them out. Molten splendid. I've searched and cannot
find your recent podcast where you show Megan Kelly ranting
and providing details of a specific torture that she believes
should be applied. Can you call the podcast? God, I

(01:04:49):
have a vague recollection of talking about something like that.
I can't sure what it is. Anybody remember what I said.

Speaker 4 (01:04:55):
I kind of remember. I think what they're referring to,
which is like you covered her saying that she wishes
that the boat.

Speaker 1 (01:05:03):
Oh yeah, that's right.

Speaker 4 (01:05:05):
Suffer, you know, like to the last breath, that kind
of thing.

Speaker 1 (01:05:08):
That's right. The question is what podcast did I say
that in?

Speaker 4 (01:05:12):
That would be I'd be super impressed if you remember that.

Speaker 1 (01:05:15):
Well, no, I don't remember what I did yesterday. I
want you to remember that. But I'm gonna look at
my live shows. Let's see if you can figure it
out from the titles. Individuals Amvaniscota's Greenland, new Weapons. I
don't think it's that. That's not it. That's not a
Bundy Hue murder, Those trade stagnations not that. Yeah, I

(01:05:43):
I god, what would it be? What would have?

Speaker 4 (01:05:47):
What would have the problem is your own You've talked
about Megan Kelly a lot lately.

Speaker 1 (01:05:51):
Yeah, but this one was a main story, so I
should have I would have titled it with something. Okay, I'll, i'll,
I'll ask Angela because Angela secretly has a secret project
that she's doing where all my latest shows are being
transcribed and and there's an you know, we're doing something

(01:06:12):
with AI with it all and this stuff on. So
she could probably deal with keyword search a text search
on making Kelly, and I'll get back to you. Molten's
Fillinda on that, so I'll tell you which one it was.
But yes, that was them making Kelly saying not only

(01:06:35):
should they kill them all, she hopes they kill them
slowly and that they bleed out in the ocean slowly,
and in playing in pain, you know, yelling and complaining.
I mean it was brutal.

Speaker 4 (01:06:49):
Talk about bloodlust.

Speaker 1 (01:06:50):
She was really expressing significant blood lust day. Yes, you know,
I would not want to be friend making Kelly. She
scares me. Uh, let's see, but that's the you know
to be Uh, that's Fox, right, that's Fox. I'm looking
at my at the list of people on here, and

(01:07:11):
I think this is true every time. But you notice
that there's not a single woman on on the on
the path.

Speaker 4 (01:07:17):
I was wondering what happened to Deborah.

Speaker 1 (01:07:19):
Deba's kind of faded out, and and and Jennifer's. She
was a very good Deba hasn't showed up in a while.
She's still supports to show and everything, but she hasn't
shown up for one of these. She got married, so
she's not uh as active.

Speaker 4 (01:07:35):
But I thought because the last time, maybe she and
she and you and Jason Ryan gotten a little dust
up about like about yeah male female.

Speaker 1 (01:07:47):
Yeah, yeah. I don't think she's I don't think she's
not coming because of that, but maybe who knows. I'll
ask her next time I see her.

Speaker 13 (01:07:52):
I hope.

Speaker 1 (01:07:55):
I saw this summer. Jennifer said she was late today,
that's why. But yeah, there's no women. I mean, what's
I have? You know YouTube is supposed to be a
platform that's male dominated. All right, Uh, let's do Lincoln
and then I just saw that somebody joined. Robie joined,
So we'll do Lincoln and rob it and then we'll

(01:08:16):
go back to our list. Lincoln. Does it work?

Speaker 10 (01:08:18):
Now?

Speaker 1 (01:08:20):
I can't hear you. God, something's going on there. All right,
let me go to Robit Robit. I assume you joined
because you have something urgent. You wanted to.

Speaker 15 (01:08:38):
Sort of. I just wanted to say, well, let me
let me throw this at you. Now, my camera's messing
up here, we go, so as long as the audio works, Yep.
There are there are there are people who've got it
harder in life. Obvious example of this is is poor people.

(01:09:01):
Kid works two jobs to work his way through college,
gets his college degree. Graduates, I've run into objectivists and
friends of mine who don't who kind of shudder, who
are uneasy with the idea that poor kid who had
to work so much harder to get his degree deserves

(01:09:23):
more credit than the wealthy students who did all the
same work in college work just you know, and he
deserves all the credit of the degree he got. But
they don't want to acknowledge that that poor kid deserves
a certain amount of admiration for the extra things he
had to do to get where he got. And they

(01:09:43):
seem to feel like if we do that, then suggesting that,
well then something should be done, or we should sacrifice
for him, or the government should do something. And I'm
not none of that has to be assumed just because
you're willing to say somebody who had to work twice
as hard to get some thing deserves twice as much
moral credit or just admiration forget moral credit. I don't

(01:10:04):
want to make it that serious. Does that sound right
to you? And is that kind of related to some
of these other conversations about what we're trying to make
a point here, And we can't get distracted with that
other stuff.

Speaker 8 (01:10:16):
Does it?

Speaker 15 (01:10:17):
Does it? Does that kind of resonate or make any sense?

Speaker 1 (01:10:19):
I don't. I don't see the connection.

Speaker 5 (01:10:20):
But I don't see the connection.

Speaker 1 (01:10:23):
I'm getting, ann you have a mic on.

Speaker 15 (01:10:26):
Yeah, let me commute myself while you're talking.

Speaker 1 (01:10:29):
So No, absolutely, that child deserves, you know, extra admiration.
That is, you know, absolutely, the fact that he had
a hard to go at it is a much greater
reflection on character than the kid who who had it easy. Yes,
they both achieved the same thing, but one one exhibits

(01:10:51):
a certain level of character that It's not that the
other is a negative. It's just hasn't had the opportunity
to exhibit that character, and the poor kid did. And
if he gets moral credit, but he also and he
gets admiration. Absolutely, So I have no problem with assigning
moral credit. You know, there's no question that there are

(01:11:12):
circumstances under which it's harder to shape your soul in
a positive way, and there are other circums that's what's
easier to shape your soul in a positive way, and
overcoming adversity is admirable. It's that word, you know what
I mean. It's something to admire and it's heroic, which

(01:11:34):
you would You wouldn't say a hero is somebody who
who overcomes adversity and achieves something. Somebody overcomes the same adversity.
It's somebody who achieves the same thing but does not
overcome adversity. Great, but it's not a hero, right. The
heroism comes from overcoming adversity. So absolutely, I mean, if
I if those two applicants applied for a job with me,

(01:11:59):
I towards the poor kid who hustled to get there
because it reflects something that I don't know about the
let's call him the rich kid. I just don't know
how he will face deal with adversity. I know this
kid will deal with adversity well, so all else the same. Right.

(01:12:21):
The fact that one had to overcome more to achieve
something says something about his character that I find admirable
that it would encourage media make a decision in his favor.
So I'm going even further than MU did. You're muted now,
sorry about that.

Speaker 15 (01:12:39):
The connection is is nature and nurture, and people wanting
to say, well, we're objectivists. We don't care about nature,
we don't care about nurture, we don't care how someone
was brought up. We don't care what their background was.
They've got free will, but that's ridiculous. I mean, nature
has an impact to have an impact if he will
is not not it's not in a vacuum. And when

(01:13:01):
you have free will, you will.

Speaker 1 (01:13:03):
You might want to mate because going when we have
free will, when you apply your mind, some people when
they apply their mind, have a plethora of choices, lots
of opportunities, lots of different things they could do and
it's just waiting there to be picked up. And other people,
you know, when they when they apply their mind and

(01:13:26):
apply their free will, have very limited choices. You know.
They could join a gang, or they could go up
against everybody in the little community and go to school
in spite of that and be harassed by everybody. It's
not the same. It's just not the same. And h
so you can't you can't igno what somebody has to

(01:13:50):
go through in order to achieve what he achieves. Now
the achievement is the same as you said, they both
get a degree. Is one shouldn't get an A because
he tried hard to They both get a's. But in
terms of admiring, in terms a character and admiration of
the character. Absolutely how you got to where you got

(01:14:11):
matters and makes a difference.

Speaker 15 (01:14:13):
Excellent. I think it's just a great point to bring
out because again maybe you're not seeing this the way
I do, but especially younger objectivists, but even some older
folks who want to say, well, but that would lead
to you know, participation trophies and egalitarianism, and no, it's not.
It's just one when when you great judge somebody, you
got to judge everything.

Speaker 8 (01:14:31):
I just don't.

Speaker 1 (01:14:31):
I just don't socialize enough with objectivists to get into
these conversations. Very good, too much of a loan, No,
I guess, okay, but yeah, I I you know, it
sounds familiar in the sense that, yeah, I can see
how young objectivists would would would make that case. But

(01:14:52):
it's it's wrong. It's wrong.

Speaker 8 (01:14:56):
Good, Thank you?

Speaker 1 (01:14:58):
Sure? All right. Uh let's see we're going to start
this time with Daniel.

Speaker 3 (01:15:06):
Jeron.

Speaker 12 (01:15:06):
I wonder if you're planning on doing some sort of
a year end summary on the economy, the markets, and
where you think things might go in twenty twenty six.
And I have to preface this by saying, back before
Trump got elected, this time. After hearing all the terrible

(01:15:26):
things you were saying, I bought a bunch of calls
on gold, got in at under three thousand dollars on
a lot, and so I'm looking for the next big
trade out of you.

Speaker 1 (01:15:37):
Wow, that is amazing. Next time you do that, can
you can you text me and let me know I
can cut.

Speaker 5 (01:15:44):
I was embarrassed. I was embarrassed thinking I'm probably who.

Speaker 1 (01:15:48):
Could imagine gold at forty five hundred. I mean, it's
just unimaginable to me, and I don't understand it. And
I'm sorry. I know there's a bunch of gold bugs
out there who think I'm a complete iigno amus because
they get that they understand it doesn't make any sense
to me from an economics perspective, I don't get it.
It's it's not compensating for inflation. Inflation's price increases, it's

(01:16:11):
not reflective of increase in M two. It just it's
just out of nowhere. So I don't get.

Speaker 4 (01:16:18):
Why do they think you're missing something obvious? Like these
these commenters.

Speaker 1 (01:16:23):
Well, because they believe gold is money. In there's a
sensure which is implicitly money and it going up, you know,
immediately suggests that the value of the dollar has declined
significantly and all prices and all wages be denominated in gold.
And of course if you did that, that would mean

(01:16:43):
that your your income has just declined in terms of
purchasing power in terms of the value of the dollar
by fifty, by yeah, fifty, over the last over the
last year or so, And that just is insane to me.
That's just not true. I remember that it used to
be said that an ounce of gold could buy a suit,

(01:17:06):
and so in when an ounce of gold was forty
five bucks, that's how much a suit costs approximately, and
a nice suit cost four hundred and fifty bucks when
gold went up to four hundred and fifty, and it
kind of tracking for a while there. Yeah, an ounce
of gold could buy a suit, but what the hell
four five hundred dollars. Suits give me a break, particularly

(01:17:26):
if you can get them cheap from Asia. You can
get suits have gone cheaper, not more expensive, and sillin
me not that expensive. So let's say a suit now
is fifty a nice suit, the same kind of nice
suit that you could get once for four and fifty,
Maybe it's fifteen hundred dollars. I don't know of a
suit that costs four five I'm sure there is. I'm
not saying there isn't a suit that cost forty five

(01:17:48):
hundred dollars. I'm sure Chanelle or Lousvitan or something like that.
But it's but it's just absolutely not true that an
ounce of gold buys the same today as it did
forty years ago. That's just it buys so much more today.
Gold has gone up in real terms, in terms of
puchasing power. It's gone up dramatically. And I don't know

(01:18:12):
why they think what they think. I haven't got into it.
As I said, I'm alone, so I haven't got into
a debate with them, but it would be interesting to
try to figure that out.

Speaker 4 (01:18:20):
But they're pretty harsh with you.

Speaker 1 (01:18:22):
Yes, people are people generally, when they disagree with me,
they don't disagree with me gently.

Speaker 4 (01:18:27):
They they feel like respectfully, they always a way to
respectfully disagree with them.

Speaker 1 (01:18:33):
They feel like if they're going to disagree with me,
they have to make clear that my my my faults, uh,
you know, irredeemable and uh and uh yeah, it's it's
it's a brutal out there in the world of social media,
particularly if they're anonymous if they if they don't put
their name on the post, and then they're even more brutal.

Speaker 4 (01:18:53):
Yeah, they're name callers.

Speaker 1 (01:18:55):
Yeah, but yeah, so of course I'm president too. So yeah.
So January thirty, first show, I will do a section
on how the economy has been and where I think
it's going. I have to say that I haven't called

(01:19:17):
it very well in the past, right I mean, I mean,
I've been calling the session for a long time and
it hasn't happened. I thought there would be a session
during the Biden term. I think I don't understand the
latest GDP reading and where that is coming from and
what's generating it. It's you know, and I don't understand

(01:19:40):
where the market is at this point. It really does
feel like, you know, nineteen ninety nine or beginning of
two thousand and you know if but I don't have
the courage to sell everything into short the market. I
wish I wish I had that. You know, if I
had my style, had my hitch fund, I might be
doing it. But I don't have the cover.

Speaker 8 (01:20:01):
You know.

Speaker 1 (01:20:01):
My attitude is I'm just going to stay diverse ft
It's worked for the last fifty years. It'll work for
the next And but yeah, I wish i'd bought some
call options in gold, or on the market for that matter.
Call options on in video would have done pretty well too.

Speaker 5 (01:20:17):
Oh yeah, sure.

Speaker 1 (01:20:19):
But that's the thing. It doesn't make sense that gold
goes up that much and then video goes up that much.
That and you know, unless the Invidia is pure monetary inflation, right,
what's driving the in Vidia stock is monetary inflation, and
gold is predicting massive depreciation and the value of the
dollar over the next few years. And that means we'll

(01:20:41):
see price inflation go up dramatically in the next few years.
Maybe that's going to happen. I just don't see it.
I see much more likely in Vidia collapsing and losing
I don't know, forty fifty percent of its value. I
wouldn't be shocked if that happened. I'd be pretty shocked
of inflation was double digits any I mean, CPI consume

(01:21:02):
inflation double digit anytime in the foreseeable future.

Speaker 5 (01:21:07):
Right, Thank you, looking forward to the show.

Speaker 1 (01:21:10):
Thanks all right, Ryan, Ryan, Okay, we'll go buback. I
was thinking would but that's fine. No, I can go.
I can goa Ryan next, So that's.

Speaker 14 (01:21:24):
All this question is related to all this discussion. What
do you think about the prospect of the tariff rebate
checks mimicking stimulus checks from COVID And as second part,

(01:21:46):
you know, do you do you think that the impacts
of that sort of stimulus, which is.

Speaker 1 (01:21:51):
What it is, really would would have the same.

Speaker 14 (01:22:00):
Impacts to the economy or two inflation or to other
metrics as the COVID checked Or has that already been
priced into people's markets, like they don't know, People don't
know what's going to happen. How can you price that in?

Speaker 1 (01:22:10):
Yeah, I don't eats priced. I don't think anybody expects
the checks to ever materialize. I think it's a fantasy.
It's one of those lies that Trump keeps saying, and
it will never happen.

Speaker 4 (01:22:18):
I think just said it again.

Speaker 1 (01:22:20):
Who did every two days bested? I mean, excess secretary war?
What the hell does you know?

Speaker 10 (01:22:29):
So?

Speaker 1 (01:22:32):
Okay, I mean, I don't. I don't know why they're
saying it. Maybe maybe their plan is to try to
bribe the American people before the next election, in before
the congression election in twenty twenty six. They have to
get Congress to pass it, so it'd have to be
in a budget resolution next year. You know that we're

(01:22:54):
running these massive deficits. You know, I don't. I can't
imagine it happening. I just can't imagine it happening. Now
if it does, then again, it really depends. It depends
what the FED does, right, So you can imagine them,
you know, basically issuing all of US two thousand dollars

(01:23:18):
checks and the FEDS sucking up two thousand dollars per
person money out of the economy at the same time.
So it's called immunizing. So they immunize the effect of
it by taking the money out of the economy by buying,
by you know, selling a bunch of bonds in their portfolio.

Speaker 4 (01:23:41):
You know.

Speaker 1 (01:23:43):
That is possible, So I really, I really, But if
Trump gets his guy into the FED, it's unlikely that
would happen because that would probably also if the FED
starts selling bonds, that'll that'll drive interest rates up. Uh, So.

Speaker 8 (01:24:05):
I know it would be a slowed drip in.

Speaker 11 (01:24:07):
But what if the terrorists get overruled and all the
one hundred billion dollars it's a different scale, but all
that gets sent back to the manufacturers and importers. Would
that also be an inflation driver?

Speaker 1 (01:24:20):
No, because it's it's gonna be spent anyway, right, it's
just a question of who's spending. It's the government of them.
They're not taking any additional debt out. I mean, interstates
would change, interstates would reflect it. Yeah, it's gonna be
interesting to see. I don't I don't know. I don't
think that's inflationaty in the same sense as putting, uh,

(01:24:42):
putting money out of nowhere and distributing it. I I
I need it. I'll think about it, but I don't
think it's gonna happen. That's why I haven't given any thought,
because I think it's just it's just a it's just
something that these guy guys are saying, uh to make
a conversation. But I don't think there's any any way
that it could become a realistic thing. Uh. But and

(01:25:07):
I think the same quote is going to rule against
Trump on the tariffs.

Speaker 4 (01:25:10):
And then the question is shape up the electorate. Don't
you think you're own They're just trying to hype people up,
regardless of whether they're going to deliver on the promise.

Speaker 1 (01:25:19):
Yeah, but the election is far away. Enough in the
future that people will say, but why haven't you delivered it?
I'll need yet, So hyping it up now is a
little early. They should have done it in six months.
Should they should basically say, they should have said in
six months, if you give me a republic in Congress,
I'll give you the checks. But now is a little

(01:25:39):
early that people will say, why haven't you delivered You've
had a year that you said, Yeah, what's new? I mean,
I need to think about what Jacob said, if that
makes a difference. If it comes directly to consumers, it
goes through the companies in terms of its effect and prices.

(01:26:00):
I mean, the thing about what happened during COVID is
that they it was basically completely you know, they basically
borrowed a huge amount of money, which was monetized by
the FED. Because there wasn't enough of a market to
actually borrow all that money. It was monetized by the FED.
That is, the FED created money so that they could

(01:26:22):
then and then they pitched it directly to consumers who
then went out and spend it. And so you had
an immediate effect of an increase in demand without you know,
supply catching up and prices have to go up. It's
not true that every stimulus has that same effect. For example,

(01:26:44):
if you give it to Walmart, it doesn't quite filter
through the economy in a way that raises prices in
the same way as you give it to every household,
it doesn't have the same impact on prices. It might
smooth it out over the longer run, and I'm not

(01:27:04):
sure it would be monetized. I don't know what the
FED is going to do. It's going to be interesting
to see what the FED does over the next year.
That will really determine what happens over the next year.
Is you know what the feds mandate is. Once a
FED a point a Trump appointee is running the FED.

Speaker 4 (01:27:21):
Is there any doubt it's going to be whatever Trump wants?

Speaker 1 (01:27:25):
There is some doubt, Okay, there is some doubt. I mean,
he's going to try to make sure that the person
he nominates is somebody who will do what he wants.
But you know, who knows? People could I guess we
should just buy gold in the meantime, I don't know
how do you buy gold at forty five hundred? God?

Speaker 8 (01:27:46):
Do you buy a platinum not gold or silver?

Speaker 1 (01:27:49):
Sil visit all time highs as well, and completely irrationally
so at least from my perspective. Yeah, I don't know.
You know, maybe you should buy bitcoin. Bitcoin is cheap.
It's only eighty seven thousand. It was one hundred and
twenty four thousand not that long ago. So there you go.
There's there's upside, all.

Speaker 6 (01:28:08):
Right's Steve, there are other possibilities or Golden City at
both paying at.

Speaker 1 (01:28:16):
All time highs.

Speaker 6 (01:28:19):
Other question someone mentioned Michael Angel meant what meaning what
I mean, there's like a wide.

Speaker 13 (01:28:24):
Like if you look at like gold flows like.

Speaker 6 (01:28:26):
The biggest buyers and like retails, like central banks, like
I think I says more about the West makes my
potential weaponization of the US dollar than it does anything
about inflation.

Speaker 1 (01:28:42):
I just I just don't know. You know what people
what the central banks are going to do with the
gold Okay, because they're not going to go to bolt
stand it, that is for certain.

Speaker 6 (01:28:57):
And listen, I think they use it for bilateral bilateral settlement.

Speaker 1 (01:29:03):
I don't think that will ever happen. I mean, ever,
it's a long time, but it's not gonna happen anytime
soon because it's it's Yeah, do.

Speaker 4 (01:29:12):
You think it's irrational to buy gold at this price.

Speaker 1 (01:29:15):
No, I don't think it's irrational. I mean I it's
it's rational for me to buy gold at this price
because I don't get it. But if you get it,
then do it. I mean, I don't have all the
knowledge in the world and these things, Steve.

Speaker 6 (01:29:29):
It's difficult because like people worth like it's two thousand,
but also could be nineteen ninety five, right like in
nineteen ninety.

Speaker 7 (01:29:36):
Five, there was a long way to run, and in terms.

Speaker 1 (01:29:39):
Of stock market. In terms of stock market, yes, and
it could be nineteen ninety five, although it's unlikely because
valuations are much more like ninety ninety nine in terms
of in terms of price to book pe foward P,
backward P. However you want to value it. It doesn't
look like ninety five. It looks much more like ninety nine.
But I'm not saying it is because because it could
value just could go a lot higher, and the upside

(01:30:03):
of AI could be a lot higher than the upside
of Internet. Right, So yeah, I don't know. I just
I know. I don't understand that. I know, but I
didn't understand ninety nine either, and I failed to make
any money off of that one as well, so it's
I both put options in Amazon.

Speaker 6 (01:30:26):
Too soon a few months a few months and someone
mentioned Michael Angelo.

Speaker 7 (01:30:30):
A few months ago, either you or someone on the
chat recommended that I read Agony the Ecstasy, which was
an absolutely amazing book.

Speaker 1 (01:30:38):
Is amazing.

Speaker 6 (01:30:39):
I will go back and see more of Michaelangelists, a
whole new appreciation for what it took to like bake
the Sistine Chapel good After after that, well into another
book that you recommended a couple of years ago that
I read, which was Christendom. Look at these people that

(01:30:59):
come off and I hear it like I listen to
the podcast, so I hear like in the questions like
why aren't we making more progress in objectivism?

Speaker 7 (01:31:10):
And what are we going to do in like ten years?

Speaker 6 (01:31:12):
And I think that book gave me a real appreciation
for the time scale that like an intellectual movement can take,
because that book starts three hundred years into Christianity, right,
and it ends a thousand years later, right, like it
took really thirteen hundred years for Christianity to you know,

(01:31:35):
conquer Europe. I'm not saying that this will take thirteen
hundred years, but like the it feels like I could say,
where are we going to be in ten twenty fifty years?
Seems like really the wrong time scale to be thinking about.
I don't you know, I've thought about.

Speaker 7 (01:31:53):
This, Andrew. I'm not convinced that.

Speaker 6 (01:31:57):
Just having zoom or zoom or the Internet it's like
necessarily going to help us, because that seems like a
nutrament technology.

Speaker 4 (01:32:05):
Man, you're wrong about that. You're being You're being cynical
it's actually gonna help us. But I do agree with
you as on your fundamental point that like it is
going to take longer than a lot of people think.

Speaker 7 (01:32:20):
Yeah, that's some sort of belief.

Speaker 6 (01:32:22):
Eehold, I was gonna ask you Rod, like, how do
you think about like these time scans? It just strikes
me like even Christianity was wrong, right, and it still
was able to win out over you know, other things
and its day. And if I was like being like optimistic,
I'd be like, hey, man, if we could have like

(01:32:43):
we could have like some of the mysticism crushed in
a couple of hundred years, like we'll be just way
better off, And that seems like a much more attainable
goal than like we're gonna be living in this lasi
faire capitalist society, you know, voluntary taxes.

Speaker 1 (01:33:01):
Yeah, I mean I was. I've been an objectivist for
almost fifty years. It's a little scary to say that.
Like I read Outla Shrugged forty forty eight years ago,
is that right? Yeah, seven in nineteen seventy, nineteen seventy seven, right,

(01:33:21):
So I read at LEAs Shrug in nineteen seventy seven,
So it's almost fifty years and so yeah, I mean things,
you know, from the perspective of progress and objectivism, Wow,
I mean a huge amount of progress has happened. From
the perspective of changing the world. Almost nothing's happened, right,

(01:33:42):
So it's not going to be ten years, it's not
going to be twenty years. You should think in terms
of you know, fifty to one hundred to several hundred
years in terms of progress. Christianity also had the huge
benefit of the Roman Empire basically making it to state religion.
And even in spite of that, it took hundreds of

(01:34:05):
years after that to solidify as hold on the West,
and it was challenged. Now Christianity's false. So that is
a detriment that right, that it should take them longer
given that they're false, but then again, everything else around
them were false, So everything was false. It was just

(01:34:26):
a matter of false ideas battling each other. You would
think that a true philosophy or philosophy that you know
is moving us certainly towards reality and objectivity, would spread faster.
But you know, given how entrenched false ideas are, and

(01:34:49):
given how anti intellectual so many people are, and given
how many people are at the missing link stage kind
of the perceptual level, I just don't see how it happens.
And less than fifty to one hundred years, I mean,
it's just I've become I used to be more optimistic
in that sense, and it've become more I think, realistic.

(01:35:09):
So I used to argue with Landed, but lended as
usual is right. So it was.

Speaker 4 (01:35:13):
And do you view the Internet as a net positive
or a net negative?

Speaker 1 (01:35:17):
It's definitely a net positive because because you know, the
access to information and ideas has to benefit us, it
doesn't hurt us. And the reality is that we don't
have to, you know, write out in script the Aristotle's books,
and we're not going to lose the books. And everything's online.
You can access everything that has to be in that benefit,

(01:35:40):
but how much it helps to shorten it. You know,
there's a shorten it for thirteen hundred years to six
hundred years to three hundred years. In any case, we're
talking about a long period of time. We're not talking
about a decade or two. I always thought that by
the end of my life, i'd like to see the
beginnings of a positive change. And I still would like

(01:36:04):
to see that. But I'm most skeptical now that I will.
I figure I've got twenty maybe, okay, let me make
it thirty years, just we'll be optimistic. Thirty is maybe.

Speaker 4 (01:36:16):
Didn't you give us didn't you give a lecture on
being optimistic, like a big lecture at Ocon?

Speaker 1 (01:36:22):
Yeah, but you know, but you you not not irrationally,
not irrationally, So.

Speaker 4 (01:36:28):
Would you update that conclusion?

Speaker 1 (01:36:30):
No, you should be optimistic depends on what In terms
of changing the world, there's no reason to be optimistic,
and I don't think I don't think that was my
conclusion at the talk, that I was optimistic about changing
the world.

Speaker 6 (01:36:45):
Change yourself as chairman of AARI, how has this like
you're you're shifting, You're like, I guess you're thinking about
different time.

Speaker 7 (01:36:54):
Scales, like, how has that evolved?

Speaker 6 (01:36:59):
What you think or how you've influenced the strategy if
you don't when you say anything, you don't want to.

Speaker 7 (01:37:04):
But I'm curious about that.

Speaker 1 (01:37:05):
I don't think it's really shifted the strategy much because
the strategy has always been long term. You know, in
long term could mean decades or centuries, it doesn't really
matter for that respect, right, So the long term strategy
has always been get people to read din Rand and
train intellectuals, because intellectuals ultimately change the culture. Right, Ironran
being the chief intellectuals, you want people reading her, and

(01:37:28):
then train as many intellectuals as you can and get
them out there. I think what I've discovered, and this
is why I think it's going to take longer, is
that getting people to read inn Rand it's not that hard,
but particularly as the culture deteriorates and education deteriates, what

(01:37:51):
they get out of reading iron Ran becomes less and less.
That is, it changes few and fewer people actually reading
the books. And then it turns out that training intellectuals
is super difficult, much much more difficult than I would
have expected.

Speaker 4 (01:38:07):
But it seems like Aari has really honed in on
focusing in on that element of it, which is training
new intellectuals, like I see it. A different intensity of
focus on that in the last couple of years.

Speaker 1 (01:38:20):
Partially because there's somebody to train. But yes, I think
that's right, but it's still hard, harder than I think
people appreciate that. People understand it's really I mean objectivism.
You know, you could perceive it as easy in a sense. Yeah,
it all makes sense I can apply to my life.
But then to integrate it as an intellectual and to

(01:38:44):
apply it as an intellectual, and to apply consistently intellectual
and to be able to write and speak about it,
and then to be able to write and speak in
a way that has an impact out there in the world.
It's really really hard, and it's hard to train people
to do it. So it's the only it's the answers.
It's all you can do. Keep doing it. Sorry, Steve, No,

(01:39:08):
not a satisfying answer, but uh I'm satisfied, Okay, good good?
Uh Randy.

Speaker 10 (01:39:19):
Yeah, I've been using the chat g t P for
different things that I've been very impressed with their answers
and so on.

Speaker 1 (01:39:25):
But are there other.

Speaker 10 (01:39:29):
You know, sites that are that do you think are
just as good or more useful or.

Speaker 1 (01:39:36):
I mean, I think I think they're all really good.
They they have a little bit of a different attitude.
Growk is pretty good on some things. That's the Twitter,
the X one Gemini which is is Gemini Google is
that rights Google? And then there's one other one that

(01:39:58):
is what's what's that? Claud and anthropic goes thinking of Anthropic. Yeah,
I think they're all good. Gibt I think is the
I don't know. It comes across as the most natural Grock.
I worry because alone Musk runs it, so it has

(01:40:24):
its biases. I find it fascinating because it's sometimes really
really that's right. Anthropic is Claude, Okay, that's what you
guys were saying. Claude. It's sometimes really good and really satisfying,
and sometimes it's stupid and it's it's so obvious that yeah.

(01:40:44):
I mean, all it can really do is regurgitate what's
out there in terms of information. It can it it's
and it can't separate what's true and what's not. I
have to often guide it away from sources which I
don't trust, like Wikipedia for example, of fen tell it
don't use Wikipedia and give me an answer an answer shift.
It changes because it's waiting the different things differently. Because

(01:41:08):
Wikipedia is not not part of the set, it's fascinating
playground with it. I think it does a really good
job with objectivism. And I think that's because.

Speaker 9 (01:41:18):
I would recommend I would recommend co pilot, which gives
you a choice of five different types of algorithms. One
of the five is GTP, but there are four others,
and depending on what your interest is and which algorithm

(01:41:46):
you think will do the better job in it, you
have your choice.

Speaker 1 (01:41:52):
Cool. Yeah, I'll try that out. But I'm super impressed
with the understanding of objectivism, understanding in quotation marks. And
I think the reason is that it's been trained on
all available public information, and there's a lot of stuff
out there, good stuff and objectivism, and now critics haven't
written that much, and the bad objectivists, if you want

(01:42:16):
to call them that, haven't written that much. And there's
just a ton of iron Rand straight iron Rand available
on the web. There's a ton of you know, Aari
stuff available on the web. So I'm pretty impressed. When
you ask you a question, how would iron Ran view
this and this? It gives it gives good. It gives
good answers, so it it has us a skeptical band.

Speaker 4 (01:42:40):
You know, Uh, do you have any doubt that it's
going to revolutionize business.

Speaker 1 (01:42:46):
No, I've said it's going to be it's going to
be huge. And I don't know that LMS is I mean,
I'm pretty you know, I don't know that l l
M is the final word in AI. I mean, there's
a lot of other types of algorithms that people are
looking at. It'll be interesting to see what they come
up with. But yeah, it's it's definitely going to revolutionize

(01:43:07):
the way we do work that we do. It's going
to revolutionize the way doctors do what they do, biotech
stuff gets done. I mean a lot of things are
going to change dramatically.

Speaker 10 (01:43:18):
I've had some experience with just setting my seatpat machine.
I try different settings and then I asked chat GPT
when I'm having problems with the setting, and she suggests
another setting that works. Yeah, And she goes through all
that analysis and the input to them, and she footnotes
that it's the Sepath machine manufacturer that gave her the information.

(01:43:42):
So it's really interesting how that.

Speaker 1 (01:43:44):
But she scans their website and pulls the information from
their website. Yeah, and if you're asking a question that's
being asked before, it will have an answer. If you
ask a question that's completely new, I'm not sure the
answer is going to be a good one.

Speaker 10 (01:44:00):
My daughter's a computer he's a software designer, could check,
but verify.

Speaker 13 (01:44:06):
Yeah, yeah, certainly, certainly.

Speaker 12 (01:44:10):
In designing electronic circuits what they call ethics, there are
literally millions of pages of documentation out there about all
these tiny details about what is done with transistors and
what's legal, what's not, and so forth. And it's a
tremendous tool for just going through PDFs and saying, I'm

(01:44:32):
looking for some specific information, please find this.

Speaker 1 (01:44:35):
Yeah, it's it's amazing and it's got to revolutionize the
way so much as gets done. And you know, maybe
the market is pricing the value of all that already,
you know, And in that case, maybe it is nineteen
ninety five. You know, I'm still in the market. I'm
not out, so I'm certainly hoping it's ninety five, and

(01:44:57):
let me know when it's ninety nine. So I notice.

Speaker 10 (01:44:59):
So thank you, thank you very much, very good answers
from everybody.

Speaker 16 (01:45:04):
Hey, Jacob, With the new year coming up, the wife
and I were looking to build our budget, and we
may relocate, like I was saying, into Utah. So as
part of it is my work as a program where
if you relocate with them, then you sell within thirty days,

(01:45:25):
they give you three percent of the cash value of
your house and I'll probably stay in Utah for about
five years. And then if you sell under what you
bought for up to fifty thousand dollars, they cover what
you like, cover the difference.

Speaker 11 (01:45:41):
So the thought, yeah, so the thought was, we're we're
trying to sign.

Speaker 7 (01:45:48):
A lot.

Speaker 17 (01:45:52):
You're breaking up the Jacob dollar. Yeah, you're breaking up.
You've lost coverage.

Speaker 1 (01:46:04):
Yeah, okay, well we come back he yeah, let me
come back here, all right, Adam.

Speaker 9 (01:46:15):
I would like to recommend another Korean TV series. This
one is called Doctor Romantic and the English spelling is
just dr Period Space Romantic, and the theme is the

(01:46:43):
danger of politically controlled medicine, because South Korea has a
system like the British or the Canadians, where essentially medicine
is under complete government control unless you're very wealthy, and

(01:47:07):
there's a conflict between the doctors rack climbing the bureaucratic
political ladder and making their decisions on the basis of
what will the government ministry like. And there are doctors

(01:47:28):
who are practicing real scientific medicine and the conflict between
the two is the central conflict in the series and
it's absolutely fascinating.

Speaker 1 (01:47:47):
Cool, I'll check it out Netflix.

Speaker 9 (01:47:51):
No, it's an viki okay, rakoviki yep?

Speaker 1 (01:47:58):
Viki Yeah, I know that. Okay, Cool, I'll check it out.
Thank you, Adam. Let's see who have I not gone
another time? Ryan Brew Bacob oh, and Jacob is back? Okay, Jacob,
wait a second buying Let's do Jacob yep.

Speaker 11 (01:48:17):
So there's a unique benefit of buying a larger house
knowing that when you sell, you get an extra amount back.
I was wanting to get your perspective on should we
want we want to buy a good house wherever that is,
but should we lean more towards the higher evaluation of

(01:48:38):
a house knowing that you can get and three years
an extra ten fifteen thousand dollars or is it not
worth the risk?

Speaker 8 (01:48:46):
And how to evaluate that?

Speaker 1 (01:48:49):
I mean, it really depends on the housing marketing Utah,
And I don't know what it's like. I don't know
if prices, how high prices are is a salt take.

Speaker 11 (01:48:58):
To the north Salt Lake most most of the houses
are new builds. Three bed maybe four bed, two to
three bath is about four hundred or five hundred to
seven hundred thousand.

Speaker 1 (01:49:11):
I'd say buy buy a house that you love. You know,
you don't find a house that you really like, rather
than try to play the financial game and try to
speculate about what's going to happen in three years, Get
a house you can enjoy living in for three years.
You know, if it's expensive, you've got a little bit
of a cushion because you've got that price guarantee. If
it's a little cheaper, you're giving up that cushion. You know,

(01:49:33):
who cares because you can enjoy the house anyway. So
I'd focus on now rather than trying to do financial engineering.

Speaker 11 (01:49:40):
Okay, yeah, we're after living in condo and Saint Louis
where like we don't we want a house we love.
The question is do we have a little bit of
flexibility and income after mortgage or would we go a
little tighter on the budget.

Speaker 1 (01:49:57):
I mean, I think you should decide that based on
the kind of you know, the kind of life you
want to live, rather than about what will happen in
three years. So again, you know, make those calculations regarding
how much disposable income do you want to have after
mortgage payments to go out and to travel and to
do all that stuff, and then work backwards from that.
Rather than forget about, you know, forget about the houses

(01:50:20):
and investment as a source of income, think about how
much money do you want? How much money, how much
money do you want in order to live on a
day to day basis? That should be the focus. Thank you, sure,
uh and uh Ryan. Finally we get to Ryan bou Bacum. Sorry,
thank you.

Speaker 13 (01:50:41):
So the best quotes from the fountain Head is when
Rourke tells too he doesn't think of him. And if
I explain the context in which I'm asking this question,
we might get into another discussion on family relationships and
being flipping about them. So I'm going to ask about
it in your context. So I assume you, you know,
for your daily ship as you put in and you know,
a couple of hours or whatever of work and going

(01:51:04):
through the news and reading all these you know, stupid
Trump quotes and Matt Walsh and Tuger Carlson and whoever else, Yeah, it's.

Speaker 1 (01:51:10):
A little bit more than two hours. In a couple
of hours.

Speaker 13 (01:51:12):
Okay, however, two hours is probably too long to go
through all that kind of jump.

Speaker 1 (01:51:18):
But no, are you taking a lot more than that
to go of it? Okay?

Speaker 13 (01:51:22):
Well no, I'm I'm saying it's probably painful to have
to read it out for over two hours, is what
I meant by that? Are you able to compartmentalize that
outside of your you know, once you get into normal life,
you know, then you do the show, you do all
this research, Like how do you not let all that
stuff live and free your head? And like, you know,
what are your tips for doing that?

Speaker 1 (01:51:44):
I mean, the way I do it is, I I
vent on the show, right, So I get to I
get to I get to express my frustration and upset
at everything that's going on in the world to you guys.
And once that's done, I'm done. You know, I've said
my piece. There's nothing else I can do about it.

(01:52:05):
I don't control Trump. I can't let Trump make me miserable.
You know, it's out of my control. There's a point
in which it becomes almost metaphysical. It's not so I'm upset,
I express my upset on the show and then I
go on with life. So it's easier for me than

(01:52:27):
for you guys, I think, because you guys listen to
me and you're like, oh God, the world's falling apart,
and you don't have the opportunity event but I do.
So if I wasn't doing a daily show, I wasn't
doing a regular show, it would be harder for me
because I'd still be aware of what's going on in
the world, and I wouldn't have a way to express

(01:52:48):
my frustration and my anger and with it. So, you know,
that would be that would be the issue. It's my
ability to talk about it that I you know, I
let go of it that way. I mean, the best
way to go of anger is to express it and

(01:53:09):
and and and move on.

Speaker 13 (01:53:12):
Thank you.

Speaker 1 (01:53:13):
Sure uh. And you know, I hope that part of
what I do for you guys is you guys don't
have to go through the Twitter feed and through the
news and watch Fox or watch CNN or whatever. You
listen to this and you can spend an hour and
a half with me, and that's it, and and that's
the news for the day, and you kind of internalize

(01:53:34):
and you go on living so so that you don't
have to, you know, go down the rabbit holes of
all these all these nuts and crazies, you know. But
I do that and then, yeah, it doesn't really affect me.
Usually it does, and once in a while I feel like,
why am I being so obnoxious to my wife or something?

(01:53:56):
And you know, I realize I'm still carrying some of
it with me, and I, you know, you need to
just let it go. So it's sometimes can be hot.

Speaker 4 (01:54:05):
Even you're on brook and overexpose on politics.

Speaker 1 (01:54:08):
Then even you, even you're on book and yeah, do
do things that are wrong. It turns out how to believe.
All right, let's let's do some super chats and I think.

Speaker 4 (01:54:20):
We'll call it you missed me? What's that you missed me?
I didn't ask a question.

Speaker 1 (01:54:25):
I've been piping in because you pipe in all the time,
so I I, yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:54:29):
But I didn't get a formal question.

Speaker 1 (01:54:31):
To get a formal do a formal question. Then we'll
get to super chats and we'll call it a day.

Speaker 6 (01:54:35):
Ye.

Speaker 4 (01:54:35):
So the new Oxford term added to the dictionary is
rage bait. Okay, And I kind of think it's interesting
from a couple of phenomenons like a it's a social phenomenon,
Like it's like somebody purposefully trying to get you en

(01:54:57):
rage for clicks on the internet and for audience and
stuff like that. Yeah, what do you think about that
as a cultural phenomenon.

Speaker 1 (01:55:09):
Oh, you know, I definitely think it is a cultural phenomena.
I think it's a it's a secondhanded and a kind
of a cheap shot, cowardly thing to do to rage
bate somebody. And and you know, it's like a hidden run,
intellectual hidden run. But it's it's happening more and more

(01:55:31):
and again. The thing about online is you can hide
behind anonymity. Most of the people who do this are
cowards and would never do it face to face. And uh,
and yet they feel completely, you know, completely comfortable saying
the most outrageous, ridiculous, huggable things online.

Speaker 4 (01:55:55):
What do you think about the fact that obviously people
want to feel and rape or allow themselves to be
to feel in rage just because they're kind of baited.

Speaker 1 (01:56:07):
Well, it's hard not to sometimes, I mean, you know,
sometimes you know that you're being baited, and yet what
is being said is objectively offensive and true. So I
don't I have sympathy for the people who are baited
into it. I mean, uh, you know something is being
done that is unjust and wrong and deserving of rage.

(01:56:32):
It's the people who do it who I who I despise.

Speaker 4 (01:56:35):
Okay, I just think I was thinking of it from
the perspective of life. I do think the mixed economy
and all of the forces and that that, you know,
all of the implications of the mixed economy does cause
people pent up anger.

Speaker 1 (01:56:54):
Yeah, I think that's right.

Speaker 4 (01:56:55):
I mean, they're fellow citizens.

Speaker 1 (01:56:57):
Talks about that a lot. This is the consequence of
the mist economy. It destroys our soul. It makes us
zero sum thinkers, it makes us enemies of one another.
And this is part of its expression. And it's a
mixed economy the soul, not just a mixed economy of economics.
We don't have values, we don't have principles. If we do,
the mixtures of all kinds of stuff, or they're really

(01:57:19):
bad principles and bad model values. And that frustrates us
because you know, there's a sense in which we know
they're wrong and bad, but we don't know what to
do about it. And yeah, so people are very confused
out there, and we're seeing the expression of that confusion
that is a result of this mixed economy of values
and the mixed economy of economics all over the internet,

(01:57:43):
particularly on my YouTube feed YouTube comments, all right, thanks
to Andrew Jason. With high taxes and runaway spending, Washington
State wants a constitutional change to tax one million plus
owners as if these twenty one, five hundred and thirty
will stay, I'd rather sell a billionaire a mountain or

(01:58:07):
dam any non flippant way to raise three billion to
keep the rich. I mean two things. I don't think
they'll go. You think they're all going to leave. I
don't think they're going to leave. I mean they didn't leave.
They haven't really left California. I know there are a billionaire.
A million attacks was passed in California. It raised the
top marginal state in come tex from ten to thirteen percent.

(01:58:30):
If you made over a million dollars a year. How
many people left because of that three you know, I
don't know, not a lot. I mean, the exodus in
California was not over that. And then that was supposed
to be temporary, and then they made a permanent and
how many people left. There's still more millionaires in California
than any other place anyway, you know, in the United States.

(01:58:52):
I think, you know, I think even more than New York,
in more than Washington State. So first, I think you
overestimate how many people will actually leave. I think many
of them will actually stay. Second, sure, there's an easy
way to raise money. Taxing millionaires actually doesn't raise that
much money. It would be easier way to raise money.

(01:59:13):
It's to tax the middle class. Middle class is where
the money is. There's more money in the middle class
than there is in the upper one percent, top one percent,
you know, start taxing the lower middle class. We don't
tax the lower middle class at all. They pay they
don't pay any taxes. So if you really were serious

(01:59:37):
about it, one way to raise the amount of revenue
for government is to increase the base, increase the number
of people paying into the system, as opposed to taking
money out of the system. What politicians have done over
the years is reduce the number of people paying into
the system. So they've cut taxes on lower middle class.

(01:59:58):
They've made it zero if you're lower certain income level,
you know, so it and that has increased the burden
of taxation on the ridge, so that you keep having
to increase taxes on the ridge to keep up. But
the reality is that the base is shrinking, so you
can increase sales taxes to raise the three billion. There

(02:00:21):
are lots of ways in which you can raise taxes
if you wanted. But of course the real solution is
the cut spending. It's the cut spinning. All right, helpout Campbell.
You say the left always wins. Is that really true?
Communism collapsed worldwide and the Democratic Party shifted to the

(02:00:41):
right for decades after the Reagan Revolution. I mean, no,
they did not really. I mean they became lefts, extreme leftists,
but it's not that they shifted right. It's not that
they advocated for free markets. They just advocate for less socialism.
But it's not like they deregulated in mass so they

(02:01:02):
did anything dramatic. I mean, the most dramatic thing Clinton
did was welfare reform, and a lot of what Clinton
had to do he was forced to do by by
nude Gingrich. So no, my part about the left is
they win the Marael battle, and as a consequence, I mean,
think of all the left's victories. Right, JFK instituted the

(02:01:28):
New Deal, Republicans. The right supposedly claimed that they would
overturn it as soon as they got into power. They
didn't overturn it. They doubled down on it. And then
the left brought us the Great Society under Johnson, and
the Republicans said, oh, as soon as we get into tower,
will overturn that. And they haven't overturned it. They've doubled

(02:01:48):
down on it. They're much more enthusiastic. You know, the
welfare state has not shrunk under the right, it increases
under the right. The right to become the biggest defenders
of the welface date the left one on gay marriage,
the left one for a while at least on abortion.
Maybe it's losing now an abortion. Certainly on all the

(02:02:10):
economic issues. The lift is one now It hasn't one
in a sense that we're socialist, but it's one in
a sense that the Republicans, the right never even talks about,
doesn't even talk about reversing the programs of the left.
So in that sense, the left always wins. Michael, and

(02:02:33):
you know, the turn to the right was very short lived.
Michael says, what is Alex f saying up to these days?
I mean, what he has been throughout educating people about energy.
I think he's more involved in politics than ever before.
I'm going to try to interview him soon. I'm going
to try to get him on the show to interview
him soon so you can ask him directly. Neo, I'm

(02:02:55):
still shocked that Israel in the United States were able
to make up after the US liberty incident. What's your
take on the incident. I mean, it's it's I'm not
chucked at all.

Speaker 10 (02:03:05):
It was a.

Speaker 1 (02:03:07):
Mistaken friendly fire incident. The United States has killed, you know,
in the Iraq War and the first Irak War on
the Gulf for in nineteen ninety one, Americans killed more
American troops than Iraqis did. That is there more casualties
from friendly fire than they were from enemy fire. It's

(02:03:31):
just part of war. I mean, nobody is surprised by it.
Nobody is shocked by it, except the anti Semites who
want to make a big deal out of it. The
liberty is not unusual at all. It is a common
occurrence in war, and it was a mistake. There been
I don't know nine different reports on it, official reports

(02:03:53):
on it. It's been going, you know, and all the
questions have been answered. People continue to lie about it. Obviously,
the sailors on the boat were pretty traumatized about it,
and they have all kinds of conspiracy theories about it.
But the reality is there was a mistaken friendly fire.
Mistaken friendly fire happens all the time. I mean, I
was witnessed directly to you know, I mean witness you know,

(02:04:21):
we saw it almost in real time in nineteen eighty two,
and a whole Israeli column of tanks, kids eighteen nineteen
year old kids killed by an Israeli pilot. We thought
they were an enemy column of tanks. And people say,
how could that be? I mean, they're all marked. It's
clear that there Israeli tanks. They're not Syrian tanks. Any

(02:04:41):
fool could see that. Well, a very very well trained,
sophisticated Israeli pilot, in the fog of war, bombed his
own tanks and he killed a number of people. No,
I mean in the fog of war, in the intensity
of action. None of that is obvious. None of that
is obvious. And people make a lot of mistakes, a

(02:05:02):
lot of mistakes. People die, a lot of people in wars.
More people die because of mistakes that are made then
because of enemy brilliance. You know, liberty was a mistake,
nothing more than that.

Speaker 4 (02:05:18):
You know how the anti stem might cheer on like
they want to make you think that people are saying
that Israel is perfect, But who actually says Israel is perfect?

Speaker 1 (02:05:29):
Yeah? Yeah, nobody says that. I mean, yep, you can
find so many errors of logic on their side. It's
it's truly stunny. Like numbers. You spoke of how people
shouldn't really plan more than fifty years out, So how
does that tie into a philosophy taking one hundred years
and more to spread? Well, I mean, you're not planning

(02:05:52):
it out for a hundred years, but you realize that
it's going to take one hundred years or so to spad.
You plan for the next few decads. You plan to
maximize the impact tomorrow and over the next ten, twenty,
thirty forty years. But you don't plan it. There's no
plans at the issue for what happens one hundred years
from now. I mean, it would be bizarre to have

(02:06:13):
such a plan. How do you know what technologies will be,
what the state of the world will be. Maybe we're
in dark ages, Maybe we've had a post nuclear apocalyptic.
I mean, who knows. So you plan for the future
that you have some reasonable estimate of what's going to
happen in but your horizon can still be one hundred

(02:06:34):
years in a sense of it's going to say one
hundred years for all this to have an impact if
all goes well. Ginger, are you saying that people should
be taught at pistemology first and foremost so they can
get objectivism. No, I don't think people should be taught
at pistemology, and except for specialists, I think people need

(02:06:58):
to be taught to think. They need to be taught
to use their minds, and that is certainly what people
should be taught. And people should model good epistemology. They
should model how to use their mind properly. We should
be using concepts effectively. We should be communicating logically in

(02:07:18):
that sense. But no, I don't think we should go
out there start teaching people formal epistemology. We're not going
to get it very far. There are very few people
who have any interest in that or have any capacity
to actually understand the process of formal epistemology. What people
need is within their context to be able to use

(02:07:40):
their reason and for that they need the basic thinking skills.
They need basic understanding of logic and basic understanding of
how to think, which does not involve, you know, teaching epistemology. Yeah,
I mean, I don't think, you know. I think for example, look,

(02:08:06):
civilization did very well even before Iran came up with
the theory of concepts. So you know, people came up
with concepts even before they had a theory of concert formation.
So theory concert formation is important and should should animate
how intellectuals approach their topics and our intellectus communicate ideas.

(02:08:29):
But in terms of literally teaching concert formation to people,
very few people need to know the theory of concertformation.

Speaker 4 (02:08:38):
The theory of conceptformation is going to eventually cure the
world of Platonism once, yes, but not but.

Speaker 1 (02:08:47):
Directly, not in a direct way, right, Okay? Molten splendor
gaining Iran's description an American sense of life, which seemed
to be a first step in heading towards culture of objectivism.
But why did we lose this sense of life so quickly? Well,
it wasn't so quickly. It's taken a hundred or so
years for us to lose that sense of life. I

(02:09:10):
don't know that we've lost it completely. It's one hundred
hundred and fifty years. We lost it because it had
no philosophical grounding, It had no philosophical foundation. It was
eroded by our pimelia. Intellectual and political leadership undermined it
over and over again. And there's only so much that
people can respond emostly without having a solid understanding and

(02:09:35):
grasp of what was going on around them. At some point,
that emotional response is going to give way to the
benevolence of the ideas that they hold. Michael thoughts on
the movie Nuremberg s, I'm not sure which movie you're
talking about. I understand there's a new movie called Nuremberg.

(02:09:55):
I have no idea. I haven't seen it, so I
don't know anything about it. If you're talking about, you know,
the old movie, what was it about the new book
Trials with Spencer Tracy and that that was That's an
amazing three plus hour movie. That's an amazing, amazing movie.
Judgment in Newhim book, Thank You, Judgment and New Book,

(02:10:18):
then that's an amazing movie, one of the great movies
out there, and a real You'll learn a lot about
justice and about how to think about what happened in
World War Two, so that that is of a committed movie.
I don't know about this new newm bog movie and
what it is and what it's about. I'd be suspicious

(02:10:41):
if it's about the Trials again, it's about anything about
that because it's modern.

Speaker 6 (02:10:47):
It's a it's built on this guy's book who was
the psychologist who interviewed the so of the book written
about him a few years ago.

Speaker 1 (02:10:56):
I interviewed the Nazis. Yeah, yeah, I'm suspicious. So you know,
I'll probably see it because I'm curious, but I don't
expect anything good, given given it's a psychologist, and then
given on top of that, it's a modern interpretation of
what he wrote into a movie. It's it's it's got

(02:11:20):
to be I don't know, overly psychologizing and too little
about ideas. But it'll be interesting. It'd be any anything
that treats that topic is going to be interesting and
reflective of the state of the world. I don't know
who James Vanderbilt, the director is. I don't know what
else he did. All right, guys, thank you, yep?

Speaker 11 (02:11:45):
Yeah, Jacob quick quick follow up, So for budgeting because
it related to the last question. Yeah, so if we make
our disposable income for now, but say we want kids
in two to three years, start with one, maybe two,
how would you budget that in or would you say
any future promotions or increases in pay could cover that.

(02:12:10):
We already budget in eight thousand for HSA a year
or so we'll have like thirty thousand within three years
for that.

Speaker 1 (02:12:18):
Yeah, I mean kids are not that expensive healthcare wise,
and and you know your your diaper budget goes up, right,
diaper has suddenly become a big item.

Speaker 8 (02:12:29):
But on the other hand, or for P and SO,
diapers are pretty cheap.

Speaker 1 (02:12:32):
There you go, so you work for P, so kids
are not that expensive. You know, there's there's a lot
of expenses associated with him, particularly if you both working
in this childcare. But if there's no childcare then it's
not an issue. But on the other hand, you're going
to spend less on dinner's out, movies, having a life, right,
so all the other stuff that you do is gone

(02:12:54):
because you'll be you'll be completely focused on the kids,
so you'll save money. I wouldn't try to overly budget.
I mean, make an estimate of what you think you need.
Think about if there's any like childcare, think about how
you're going to deal with childcare because it is expensive.
And if you're a lying on two incomes and suddenly

(02:13:17):
a part of one of those incomes is going to childcare,
that's the one item you might want to think about
budgeting four for kids. Other than that, they're not that expensive.

Speaker 4 (02:13:26):
Debt your own what at that age where you're just
like living on debt because you said you weren't like
saving until you're mid thirties, and.

Speaker 1 (02:13:35):
You know we how literally our largest monthly expense at
a certain point was diapers. I mean, we just didn't
spend money on anything. We didn't go out. We had
a crummy you know. We had a car that my
father in law bought for us, a three thousand dollars

(02:13:57):
old Honda a Cord. So we had one car. We
rented in those days. It was in Austin, so the
rent was cheap, relatively cheap. We had a decent apartment,
but nothing.

Speaker 4 (02:14:08):
We aren't you getting a PhD.

Speaker 1 (02:14:10):
I was getting a PhD and I was working. I
was working. No PhD was didn't cost anything. I was
in a scholarship and I worked right. I did consulting
and I worked for my professors and I taught. But
you know we lived. We lived on well less than
twenty thousand dollars a year. I mean I still have

(02:14:30):
my because I did quick and I still have my
my my. I can still tell you exactly what I
spent money on and what my income was. And we managed.
I mean, you know, people tell me, you know, how
do you you manage? You the trade offs? You don't
go out, like going out was a big deal, right,

(02:14:50):
a big big deal. You eat it home. You don't
buy expensive toys. You don't have a big you know
in those days have a big television, a little television
with a VHS tapes. I mean you, I don't know.
You you survive. You don't buy by.

Speaker 8 (02:15:08):
Modern American modern American paralysis.

Speaker 1 (02:15:12):
What's it?

Speaker 8 (02:15:13):
I think I maybe doing a little analysis.

Speaker 1 (02:15:15):
Yeah, I think you get an analysis paralysis. Figure out
a budget for your disposable ink abo, what you think
you need approximately to live off of. And there's a
lot of flexibility within. So if you suddenly discover you
eating out too much and you kept back on that
and you spend the money on something else, I mean
it's it's don't overdo it. Don't overdo it.

Speaker 4 (02:15:33):
But you know, in but you can't have the same
life as if you didn't have children. You know, your
lifestyle is going to change.

Speaker 1 (02:15:42):
Yeah, once you have children, your lifestyle is going to change.
But your spending habits will adjust. And but you can
live within the same budget. You just adjust. You just
have trade offs. You just stop doing some things and
do other things.

Speaker 14 (02:15:54):
I find you don't have a social life because you're
focused on your kids.

Speaker 1 (02:15:56):
You save so much money. That's right, that's right, don't
you don't have you don't again, I mean you're so
focused on the kids, you don't really go out. Uh.
You know, maybe once in a while, you you go
away for a weekend and you get somebody to babysit.
But it's but you know, yeah, there's not a lot

(02:16:17):
of expenses. I don't know. We we you know, we
we were for six years while I was in school
and my wife was not allowed to work because she
was on an F two visa. I was on an
F one visas. I couldn't work off campus. I could
only work on campus. It was yeah, we survived on

(02:16:38):
very little money. So uh, and then when I got
my first job as a professor, I think the salary
is sixty three thousand dollars a year. I literally thought
I was a gazillionaire. I thought it was a billionaire.
I'd never imagined that much money. I didn't, you know,
I start I started a business that failed because of that,

(02:16:58):
because I thought I was so flaw with money I
could just do all kinds of crazy things with it,
you know, but survived it all and did well.

Speaker 4 (02:17:08):
So look at you now, Well, yeah, I mean we
could do beat just then apartment tour. That's pretty impressive.

Speaker 1 (02:17:16):
Yeah, No, it's it's you know, that's you. You can
you can do a lot, uh with a little, and
don't overthink it. Just think. You got to think it's
a trade offs. You got to think in terms of
I don't have to do this. I can do something else,
so I don't have to go out, you know, twice

(02:17:38):
a week Tonight's dinners. I can go once a week.
I can go none at all, and I'll still live
a good, fulfilling life. That is your you'll the goodness
of your life is not dependent on any particular material thing.

Speaker 8 (02:17:53):
Yep, I agree.

Speaker 1 (02:17:54):
Thanks, all right, guys, have a great weekend. I will
see you guys on my day with nicos. We got
nicos that'll be fun. Bye.

All Episodes

AMA & Hangout with Contributors (Dec 2025) | Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Burden

.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;}AMA & Hangout with Contributors (Dec 2025) | Yaron Brook Show