Mamdani; Grade Inflation; Russia's War; Job Mismatch; Redistricting; Good News | Yaron Brook Show - Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
A lot of them fund the Metal Misters of Widow
Last and an individual lots. This is the show. Oh right, everybody,
welcome to your one book show on this Wednesday, November nineteenth.

(00:25):
It's almost Thanksgiving. Hope everybody's having a fantastic week. I'm
looking forward to next week Thanksgiving and holiday season and
all of that. It's gonna be. Uh, it's gonna be
a lot of fun, all right. Uh.

Speaker 2 (00:42):
I don't think we I think this is the last
show of the week.

Speaker 1 (00:44):
Probably we'll see if I if I can do any
shows the rest of the week, but probably this is
the last show of the week. All right, let's make
it a good one, right, So Nicos Nicos, you know
Nicos Nicos. I can't whose name is family name? I
cannot pronounce Soti whatever, impossible to pronounce it's you can't

(01:09):
do it anyway. Nikos has a good video out a
couple of days ago, a few days ago, four days ago.

Speaker 2 (01:15):
It's got to be already got fifty one thousand views.

Speaker 1 (01:17):
I mean, Nikos's videos just they just do they get
amazing on a viewership, which is great. He's got forget
forget woke, the new Left, the left, new formula and
how to fight it, which is a good title. And
uh and yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:36):
Fifty one thousand views. That's great. So I want to
talk a little bit about something.

Speaker 1 (01:41):
He says, then connected to mom Donnie and some news
from the Mam Donnie camp from from today, Remo wants
to pay me to try to pronounce Nikos's family name. I'm,
you know, sure, for the right amount of money, I'm
willing to try to pronounce anything. And this connects to
a video of the Nick for interest is put out.

(02:03):
I think it's just just put out. Yeah, it came
out today. Nick Foinder put out a video today about
how progressive democrats, i e. Leftists can work with nationalists, republicans,
groupers or whatever. It's a former United Front, which I've
been talking about for decades now. Right, somehow wrap yourself

(02:28):
around a flag and a environmentalism and wrapping some other
topics and you get the formula where everybody can be
happy authoritarianism and the one thing that everybody agrees about
is no free market.

Speaker 2 (02:41):
So that's easy.

Speaker 1 (02:42):
So let's talk about Mom Donnie in the context of
kind of what is the left trying to.

Speaker 2 (02:48):
Do and where's the left going to go?

Speaker 1 (02:51):
Because I agree with I agree with kind of Nikoses
analysis because basically says looks dead. Woke is the visive.
People are not going to vote for woke. The're not
interested in woke. The kind of identitarian politics of the
left is only going to get so many people involved.

(03:14):
And the kind of everything's about the victims. That's that's
not what mum donny wanna, maum donnyjana on one thing,
on on on a thing that he kept pushing and
he kept promoting, and he kept saying, and he kept
and he was very dynamic and young, and but he
but he one thing he pushed on, pushed on, pushed on,
pushed on, and that is affordability. That is we need

(03:38):
to you know, you guys, the government needs to help
you be able to afford stuff. And you know, and
this is a form of kind of left wing populism.
We can the master's uh, houses too expensive, We can
solve that problem. Will subsidize your houses, rent is too high,

(03:58):
will freeze rents.

Speaker 2 (04:00):
You know, we we the government can solve your problem.

Speaker 1 (04:04):
And it's it's very similar to kind of popularism on
the way there's no principle, it's a question of it's
a question of the government just you know, coming up
with something and just doing it and just solving the problem.
But the problems identified as those problems that are kind

(04:24):
of resonate with the mass of people. And you can
see that the Republicans and Trump is pivoted with Mam
Donnie to affordability. Affordability is the catchword, right, we need
to make things more affordable. And of course Trump is
quite happy to throw out the free market stuff in
order to make things more footable. Mam Donnie never believed

(04:47):
in the free market stuff. He's not throwing anything out,
but he's going to jump on the on the affordability stuff.
The key word now is how do we give free
stuff to people? Right? This is kind of left doing populism,
and it's Democrats have always stood for this to some extent,
but now it's it's kind of more explicit than they

(05:08):
have a free bus rides, free public transportation, and you
know that wrapped us up with other things from the
left that that are important to them, like green stuff.
They'll talk a lot about green stuff, but Mamdani's not
gonna I mean, what can you do if you're mayor
in New York in terms of green policy. There's not
a lot you can actually do in that regard. So

(05:32):
most of what his stuff is going to be redistribution.

Speaker 2 (05:35):
Right, tax the.

Speaker 1 (05:37):
Rich, I mean Republicans, particularly of the of the of
the Fuentes, Tucka JD. Van's type, but all four increasing
Texas and the Wish Josh you know what's his name, Fowley.

Speaker 2 (05:52):
The Senator. They're all four.

Speaker 1 (05:57):
Taxing the rich, increasing, increasing Texas, and the US redistributing
them in the name of affordability, right, affordability. So let's
just redistribute massive amounts of wealth towards the people who
supposedly need it. I mean, there seems to be a
consensus now that there's a sense of which the Scandinavian

(06:18):
model is the right model.

Speaker 2 (06:21):
That just make people satisfied.

Speaker 1 (06:25):
You know, we can kill some innovation or kill some
productivity well with these economic growth, but we take away
the bottom, so people at least the bottom is gone.

Speaker 2 (06:36):
So people are just satisfied. Everybody's just okay. And you
know what did mom, Donny run on.

Speaker 1 (06:47):
He didn't run on woke, he didn't run on identitarian politics.
I mean a little bit mainly to appease his left,
But what he really ran on were the economic issues
with the free busses, the the rent control and a
bunch of other things, and at the same time things

(07:09):
that are actually mum Donnie's that are pretty good. He
down't played because he didn't think that there's leftist supporters
would really go for them that much like mc donnie
has supported dramatically changing building codes in New York City
to allow for more construction of housing, significantly more construction
of housing.

Speaker 2 (07:27):
So he's bought into.

Speaker 1 (07:29):
Somebody's convinced him that affordability rent controllers is not enough.

Speaker 2 (07:35):
You also need to build more, so they're actually going
to build more.

Speaker 1 (07:39):
Also, there was announcement today coming out of New York
City which I think is interesting, which is that mum
donnie has basically m'mdannie and the current New York Police
Department commissioner have agreed that she will continue in her
role into the mud donne the administration. Now, this woman's

(08:03):
name is Jessica Trish desca. Tish is not a kind
of a progressive leftist. She's not woke, she's not defund
the police. I mean, she is a huge advocate for
police officers, a huge office advocate for police presence and neighborhoods.

(08:24):
Under her watch, crime in New York City and I know,
I know, I know some of you just don't want
to hear this, but crime in New York City has
gone down a lot. Violent crime in New York City
has gone down a lot. Murderates in New York City
down to historic lows, particularly this year.

Speaker 2 (08:43):
And this is not number rigging the numbers.

Speaker 1 (08:46):
This is the reality. It's across the country. In most places,
crime is down. Not if you want, but in most places,
crime is down. It's back to the trends we saw
in the late twenty teens. And the New York Police
Department Commissioner has done a pretty good job in New
York City. And she hasn't done it by timming back police,
by reducing the police budget and all of that. And

(09:08):
the reason she says she agreed to stay on, even
though who and Mum Donny don't agree on a bunch
of stuff, is because she believes she can continue to
do her job. She believes she can continue to make
New York safe. She believes that Mum Donnie is going
to give enough to be able to, you know, continue
the trend of lower crime in New York. And I

(09:29):
think mum Donny's smart, right, He's he's taken the crime
issue out. He's not gonna he's not gonna he's not
gonna run and he's not going to really advocate for
defunding the police. It's a losing strategy for the left.
You know, everywhere they made a big deal out of that.
They lost. Mum Donnie knows that he didn't run on that. Really,

(09:50):
he ran on you can't afford stuff. We need, we
need the government. We need goverment run grosty stores. We
need we need goverment run grosty store. We need gum
and run rental units. We need an increased building, we
need a uh you know, we need we need free
buses and and I don't know, and we need to
stick the homeless in the subway system. I'm not sure

(10:11):
how that will go. I think that will backfire on him.
He is not he's not looking for a fight on police.
It'll be interesting how he positions himself viasa e. Donald
Trump in terms of ice and in terms of immigration,
and and how big of a fight he gets into.

(10:32):
So Nick Frantis says as a video today that basically says, Look,
progressive Democrats and nationalist Republicans can unify. We can unify
around a lot of issues. We can unify around a
lot of issues. You know, the left will have to

(10:54):
give up on on immigration, that will have to accept
the fact that they should be a border and you know,
still di immigration. And as I've said many many times,
I don't think it's that hard for the lift to
give up an immigration because when they go to their
union roots, right, not the woke stuff. The wok is
open the borders, anybody can come in, but to their

(11:16):
if they go if you go back to the to
the union roots, they're not pro immigration, they're anti immigration. Now,
how many you know democrats, how many progressives leftists are
like that are still union oriented, more oriented towards called
marx than oriented to wards post colonial, you know, postmodern stuff.

(11:40):
I don't know, but I think Mamdania is this guy
debated the socialists had debated in Colorado, Bakshaw Bascal is
a Marxist more than he is a a A a woke.
So you're going to get You're going to get more
of these people, you know, Okay, So they'll compromise an

(12:01):
immigration as Nick foyentes is the right will compromise in
free markets, which they already are. So that's nobody compromise.
They're ready there, right, they're already there, and there's a
bunch of stuff that they can agree on to do
you know suddenly, I don't think anybody on the right

(12:22):
is going to object or in controls. I don't think
anybody on the right is going to object to uh,
you know, different ways in which to deal with so
called affordability, you know, socialized healthcare. I think the right
and the left can probably come together on a plan

(12:42):
to socialize healthcare. I mean maybe not, you know all
the senators we have right now, but we're talking about
the new right, We're talking about the Nick Foy intess
techer Coss.

Speaker 2 (12:54):
Right.

Speaker 1 (12:55):
Yeah, they're they're cool with with socializing health care. And
of course, the one thing that unifies the Mamdanis and
Nick for intises of the world, the one thing that
they suddenly agree on beyond its affordability and we need
to destroy the free market or to gain success, the

(13:16):
one thing they can really unify on is hatred for
is Israel. So, as.

Speaker 2 (13:23):
You know, Nick Fointa says, yeah, I mean, if.

Speaker 1 (13:27):
The left and the right you come together to eliminate
all fallen aid to Israel, a majority of Americans will
support that.

Speaker 2 (13:34):
And I think that's right.

Speaker 1 (13:35):
A majority of Americans right now would support that.

Speaker 2 (13:41):
So you know, we're going to We're going to see
how all this evolves.

Speaker 1 (13:49):
But again, the root to authoritarianism, the path to authoritarianism
is through some kind of unity of left and right,
some kind of coalition that takes the radical left and
the radical right. I I don't think environmentalism is something
they're going to disagree about at the end of the day.

(14:10):
The right is accommodating of certain issues around environmentalism. And
if you listen to the Integralists, the Patrick Denise, the Vermules,
the Denians of the Vermules all actively talk about man's
responsibility to nature and we have to keep our environment

(14:30):
and God left nature for us. We must, you know,
we must be good keepers.

Speaker 2 (14:38):
Of the garden.

Speaker 1 (14:38):
We must be good gardeners, we must keep the environment.
I mean, they don't sound that different than the left.
And we must they say, balance economic growth with environmentalism.
And I think this new type of leftist populist leftists
who are going to be more concerned about economics I
eat marks than modern woke stuff. I mean, they're not

(15:03):
really Marxist, and I actually challenged Buscar in terms of
how Marxist he is.

Speaker 2 (15:07):
They're not really Marxist.

Speaker 1 (15:09):
But they accept the idea that the employee employee relationship
is in an exploitation agreement arrangement, and they reject that.
And they care about economic class, they care about inequality,
they care about costs. But they do believe in economic growth.
So they think they believe in economic growth, so they

(15:31):
can align with some of the yimbies and some of
the pro growth Democrats on some issues, like Mamdani supporting
more building of housing units in New York. I mean,
I think he'd like much of that building to be
done by the government with public funds. But he's he

(15:54):
wants to reduce regulations so more building can be built,
more housing can be built, more residential cooties can be built.
And you know, you're seeing a real blurring. You know,
what is the difference, What are the disagreements if we
can take policing off, because that's that's kind of part

(16:14):
of the walk for right stuff. You know, they kind
of agree in identity politics, but Neither one is going
to win an identity policy. If we take identity politics
and we we kind of subdue it a little bit,
if we say, okay, we'll we'refore giving people free stuff,

(16:35):
we'refore making things more affordable, We're for reducing costs.

Speaker 2 (16:38):
However that is done.

Speaker 1 (16:40):
You know, they pretend that they can do that through
things like rent control, even though prices will go up,
or through socialized medicine, quality will go down and taxes
will have to go up. Say, but they can agree
on all this stuff. They can agree on Israel, hate Israel.
They can't be anti sem Might explicitly right. They can't

(17:02):
come out again against the Jews because that'll that'll lose
votes that way. But if they come out just against Israel, no,
they win on that one. You know, the right on
the left could really light They hate CEOs. I'm just
watching there's a video that came up here about the

(17:23):
the murderer of the CEO of United Healthcare. They don't
disagree about that. Go after the CEOs, tax the rich,
and suddenly you've got a very powerful political entity that is,
you know, kind of a unity of populist right and
populist left. Now, whether that could ever happened, just in

(17:45):
terms of just the alignment is how to tell. But again,
the likely scenario is you get a very charismatic leader
who comes about, who advocates for ideas that attracted both
to the populist left and attractive to the populist right,
and forms a large coalition that's neither left nor right,
just collectivist, but it's populist and gains political power that way.

(18:12):
You know, it has to be appeasing of religion, it
has to be patriotic, it has to be in some
way another America. First, it has to be anti crime.
That's the things that the left will have to give in.
And in order to get the left, it has to
be pro you know, pro environment, at least soft pro environment.

(18:34):
It has to be pro redistribution. It has to be
pro free stuff to people. You know, it has to
be anti free markets. And that combination of in some
ways the worst of all worlds is how you get
the next authoritarian, you know, the next real populist, big

(18:55):
time leader who is an authoritarian. And you know Trump
flirts with that, but he's too the visive to unite
people around a vision because he doesn't have a vision
because he doesn't really care. It's all about corruption and
and and and narcissism and how he looks and and
and what he can get out of it. But if

(19:16):
you had somebody who's really committed and who understood how
to exploit all these all this, I mean, you can
build a really big significance substantial coalition around it. And
this is why it's going to be worth watching Mumdani,
seeing what he actually does, seeing how he rallies or

(19:39):
doesn't rally support around it, seeing what he gives and
what he doubles down on. Right, I think I think
he's going to double down on his anti Israel stuff
at the same time as making clears of the world
that he's not anti Semitic and not being too who

(20:00):
only not being too woke.

Speaker 2 (20:02):
Because that is super unpopular.

Speaker 1 (20:06):
So yeah, we will we will see how it evolves.
But the good news for those of you living in
New York or wanting to visit New York or wanted
to go to business in New York is that New
York could probably continue to be a safe place even
with mum Donnie winning, given that he just announced that

(20:27):
Jessica Tish is going to remain the mayor of.

Speaker 2 (20:34):
The Mayor of God.

Speaker 1 (20:36):
It just gets this is you remain in the Police department, commissioner.
And she's done, as I said, a good job with
with crime so far during her tenure. And she sent
out the way this was announced. It wasn't that Mum
Donnie announced that. She announced it first. She sent out

(20:57):
an email to all the police officers and to people
who work in the police department basically saying that she
is staying and she's committed to the path they've they've
they've put together to reduce crime.

Speaker 2 (21:16):
In the department.

Speaker 1 (21:17):
And so she announced that the police officer first, and
then Mum Donnie came out and announced it to the
press and everybody else. So again I think a sign
that he is not going to go down the path
of defunding the police. Defunding the police, which is good,

(21:40):
good for all of us who visit New York and
don't want to be worried about increasing crime. Yeah, so
we're gonna wait and see what he actually does with
homeless people, you know, whether you can make us and

(22:00):
and and there's subways free.

Speaker 2 (22:02):
How he raises the money to do that.

Speaker 1 (22:04):
I mean one of his first one of his first
challenges is going to be to convince the governor of
New York and the New York legislature to raise taxes.
He can't, I don't think, unilaterally raise taxes in.

Speaker 2 (22:17):
New York City.

Speaker 1 (22:18):
He has to get he has to get approval of
of state government. It'll be interesting how he gets that.
I wouldn't be shocked if taxes go up. Maybe not
as much as he would like, but taxes will probably
go up in New York. Uh. And and yeah, free
stuff will happen, rent control will happen. We'll see if

(22:39):
more housing building will happen again. There seems to be
a push to deregulate the building of housing and deregulate zonning.
Some more, more more apartments can be built. We'll see
if it actually actually happens or not. All right, So

(23:06):
that is uh, that is mum danny to be watched,
to be watched, and I think I think to be
uh followed as kind of the the model of a
new populist populist not anti woke but uh non woke
left that will try against steam in the next few

(23:31):
years and and particularly it will try against steam towards the.

Speaker 2 (23:37):
The coming uh. You know, congressional elections. I mean, I
I doubt that mum Donny.

Speaker 1 (23:51):
I mean, I'm being criticized because, uh, mum Donny has
a well fleshed out policy about h about homelessness. I
am very skeptical about that, very skeptical about that. He's
proposing to use spaces to address the issue of you know,
of of the homeless in in in you know, in

(24:16):
the underground system in New York City. I think it's
I think these are superficial ways he's he wants to
increase mental health and all this stuff. Stuff just been
tried in em Francisco and tried in Los Angeles and
has not worked anyway. And there's no real reason to
think that Mam donnie is going to be able to

(24:38):
solve the problem of homelessness in New York. So I'm
dismissive because I'm dismissive because I don't think it's a
serious I don't think he's serious about it. I don't
think anybody's really serious about the homeless. They don't know
what they're doing, and and there's no easy solution to it.
I mean, you you have to do a massive combination

(24:59):
all timately in the long run, the combination is dramatically
increase housing the availability of housing, so the prices come
down a lot, not come down a little, but come
down a lot. I think that's doable, although nobody's actually nobody.
It doesn't look like anybody's actually doing it. But you know,
there's no there's very little homelessness in parts of the
country where housing is very, very cheap. But then you

(25:22):
also have to solve the drug problem and the mental
health problem. And the drug problem you're probably gonna have
to solve by legalizing drugs in some way, and the
mental health problem you're going to have to solve by
finding different ways to be able to get people into
facilities where they can be helped. And how you do that,
and it's constitutionality, and how you do that within the

(25:44):
scope of the rule of law, I don't know exactly,
but you've got to You've got to take people who
are incapable of taking care of themselves and therefore turn
to harassing other people because of their mental health problems.
You've got to get them out of the streets and
you've got them get them into institutions and and and that's.

Speaker 2 (26:02):
Going to have to happen.

Speaker 1 (26:03):
And I don't see anybody proposing, uh, you know, those
kind of solutions to the problem. Beyond that, I just
don't think. I think Mamdani is a is you know,
basically a leftist con artist in a sense that you know,
price controls, any kind of price controls never work. A

(26:25):
government run grocery store is a joke. All you need
to do is bring in Walmart and into New York
City and prices will come down. But Walmart is banned
from New York City. Here's other proposals around around more
government involvement in the economy are pathetic and bad.

Speaker 2 (26:43):
So you know, you all of that, all of that is.

Speaker 1 (26:51):
It's difficult left wing pretending to solve problems that then
make it worse. Making buses free, making subways free, as
if money grows on trees, and then increasing dramatically increasing
taxes on the people who actually productive in the city,
who actually are creating the jobs, and actually you know,

(27:11):
allowing if you can, of any kind of economy in
the city, taxing and penalizing success, penalizing production, penalizing people
who actually work for a living, penalizing people who are
being successful in order to fund all the stuff for
people who have not been. It is again left doing popularism,
but is a disaster in terms of its economics and

(27:35):
in terms of its morality, in terms of its justice.
It is unjust to tax the rich to give people,
you know, free bus rights. People should pay for bus rides.
It's a service, you know, if anything, Privatize the bussing
system and increase competition, make it easier for uber and

(27:55):
lyft and of course bringing weimo, being way moo and
being fibulous, cause that's how you lower transortation costs in
New York City, not by offering free stuff. Uffering these
stuff only distorts and perverts. I mean, how many times
do we have to talk about the importance of pricing,
the importance of the price signal, the perversion of subsidizing

(28:19):
demand and taxing supply so that you get less supply
and more demand, which only causes prices to go up
even more in one way another like prices can be
like prices can be either that the literal price goes up,
or it can be that the product that you reaching quality.

(28:40):
For example, you make buses free, you know, too many
people start using and then you can't take them. You
can't use them unusable so the economic distortions are massive,
and every one of these programs has massive economic distortions
associated with it. We all, I mean, anybody who study
economics knows this. And yet the populist left keeps pushing

(29:02):
and pushing. This time, it'll work. This time, we've got
a clever way to do it. We talked about this
about rain control yesterday. It's a disaster, and I haven't
And again mcdonnie has not offered a serious plan to
solve the real problems that New York faces, and which
is not surprising because he comes from the left. And

(29:25):
just as Trump is not offered a serious plan to
lower costs in America, to lower the cost of living
in America, you could have a serious plan on how
to lower the cost of living in America. But it's
not tariffs. It's not you know it controls over trade.
It's not more government spending. It's not growth in government.

(29:47):
It has to do with the exact opposite process. It
has to do with deregulation, freeing.

Speaker 2 (29:51):
Up and all of that.

Speaker 1 (29:55):
All right, I will recommend Nikosa's video. You can find
Nikos's video a Nichosa's video on.

Speaker 2 (30:05):
YouTube.

Speaker 1 (30:06):
It's got forget woke the left new formula and how
to fight it. It's it's quite good and I'm sure
you'll know how to find Nick foy Interos's video as well.
Make Walmart pay living wage. Walmart pays a living wage.
Every single one of the people working at Walmart is alive.
They all make a living wage if they and if

(30:28):
Walmart didn't present the best job opportunity they had, they
wouldn't work there. But so and the fact is, Walmart
wanted to open stores in New York. New Yorkers wanted
jobs at Walmart because they were good jobs, and the

(30:48):
authoritarians in chief, the authoritarians in charge, prohibited Walmart from
entering the city.

Speaker 2 (30:56):
And basically Walmart has walked away.

Speaker 1 (30:59):
But if you want to low costs, and the low
costs are not because they pay the employees less than
other people.

Speaker 2 (31:04):
The low cost of Walmart have nothing to do with
the cost very little to do with the.

Speaker 1 (31:08):
Cost of labor, and everything to do with a superior
supply chain management system, a a understanding of you know,
getting the products that people actually want to the store
when they want it, uh and in bulk, so that
the cost of low. It's got to do with warehousing.
It's got it's got to do with supply chain. I mean,

(31:30):
Walmont is, together with Amazon, the two best companies in
the world, and supply chain management. That's why they cost
a low So you want a low cost of living,
it's easy. Do you regulate, Allow Walmart in, allow other
big retailers in a lot of people who actually know

(31:52):
how to lower costs. And the government grocery store is
a joke, always has been a joke, always would be
a joke. You can write up the best business plan
in the world, but the incentives all messed up and
all screwed up, and every attempt at a government run
grocery store has failed.

Speaker 2 (32:12):
Why would you expect it to be different this time?

Speaker 1 (32:15):
Not to mention again the immorality of raising taxes on
the productive in order to fund such a stupid scheme.
All right, here's the most depressing story you'll hear about.
I don't know this month this year. This is about

(32:38):
as depressing as it gets. And it's not political. It's
just real. It's what's going on in our in our world.
I mean, it's somewhat political because the main culprit is
coming out of California, But you get a sense that
this might be going.

Speaker 2 (32:50):
On all over the country.

Speaker 1 (32:53):
There's just been a study coming out of the University
of California, San Diego examining this the entry class, uh,
the incoming freshmen into the University of California San Diego.
It's a it's a. University of California San Diego is
one of the most beautiful campuses in the country. It's
a it's a it's a really good university. It's particularly

(33:16):
good at certain stem subjects, biology and biotech and things
like that, and and it's it's again gorgeous campus. If
you've never been, it's worth visiting to see how beautiful
the university is.

Speaker 2 (33:29):
Anyway, Uh, they just published a report about.

Speaker 1 (33:35):
Kind of the the math proficiency of incoming students freshman
student at UC San Diego. And let's be clear, it's
not easy to get into UC San Diego. You have
to have really good grades, you have to have really
good grades in high school to get into UC San Diego.
And yet, whereas five years ago about thirty incoming freshmen

(34:01):
thirty three zero at you see San Diego arrived at
school without the math skills that would allow them a
college education. So you know, below high school level about thirty.
So you see, San Diego introduced a remedial math class
where those thirty students could be taught up to get

(34:21):
them to the point where they could take, you know,
like a calculus class in college, which is kind of
a quiet particularly even for psychology and for certainly for
biology at the university. But according to a recent report,
that number today, just five years later, is nine hundred students.

Speaker 2 (34:44):
Nine hundred.

Speaker 1 (34:47):
Students who've been accepted and who are freshmen at U
see San Diego do not have skills, you know, high
school math skills.

Speaker 2 (34:58):
It's actually worse than that.

Speaker 1 (35:01):
Most of the nine hundred don't actually fully meet middle
school mass standards. Middle school mass standards. Here's an example
of a problem that was it a third of the
student the quote of the code of the students couldn't solve.
Here's the problem. You can probably all do it in

(35:21):
your heads, and if you can't, don't.

Speaker 2 (35:23):
Tell me, because I don't want to know.

Speaker 1 (35:25):
Seven plus two equals X plus six. What is X
seven plus two equals X plus six? What is X? Now?
I hope that every one of you got the answer right.
The answer is three, obviously, but twenty five percent. Twenty

(35:50):
five percent of incoming freshmen a QCSD could not answer
that question got the answer.

Speaker 2 (35:58):
Well, I see a few of you got the answer right.

Speaker 1 (36:03):
Good, But you know, getting an answer right on this
problem is you know, like a fourth grader should get
their answer right on this, Like certainly a middle school
student should get the answer right on this. Anybody who's
done just a little bit beginning algebra, I mean doesn't
even require really algebra.

Speaker 2 (36:20):
But twenty five percent got wrong.

Speaker 1 (36:24):
They don't even fully meet middle school math standards. They
struggle with fractions. They cannot do algebra. The university is selective,
so not super selectical like Harvard, but they had meant
about thirty percent of undergraduate applicants. So they introduced a

(36:45):
remedial math course that focuses on concepts on concepts in
math that are taught in elementary and middle school. Elementary
in middle school, you're studying in college. These kids can't think.

(37:08):
I've been telling you this for years now. They can't think.
One of the coursest tutors noted that students face more
issues with quote logical thinking than with math facts. Per see,
they didn't know how to begin solving a Wood problem.

(37:29):
So we've got kids, large numbers of kids who are
making it into college, making it into college at a
top university, who don't know math, don't no math at

(38:00):
a middle school level, who can't think, for which for
whom logic is you know, logic is a challenge. Now,
how does this happen? Because remember this is a selective

(38:22):
university that it's only a third of the students get in.
How is it the third that they accept have no knowledge?
Right now? It's happening because students are getting it. Looks

(38:52):
it's not because students are not going or not taking
advanced math classes in high school. They are. But the
reality is that if they took advanced math classus in
high schools and got czds or f's, they couldn't get
into UCSD. I mean, if you look at these students,

(39:16):
you would expect them to have failed high school math,
and yet they all have a's and b's. You'd expect
them to have failed middle school math, but they all
have a's and b's. I mean, here's here's a stunning

(39:38):
statistic for you. Of those who demonstrated math skills not
meeting middle school levels, the report found forty two of
them reported completing calculus or precalculus in high school. So
these are kids that don't know algebra, who can't do

(40:00):
an algebraic equation, can't solve algebra, and yet they took
calculus or peat calculus in high school and they got
an an A B in calculus, and they come to
the university and they don't even know how to do algebra.
It's it's unbelievable. I mean, I'm reading from this is

(40:23):
a I mean, there's a bunch of news stories here.
This is from a publication called The Argument by Kelsey
pipe Up, and she writes this, you know, and it's
not only yeah, the students who were broadly receiving good grades,
more than a quarter.

Speaker 2 (40:38):
A quarter of the students.

Speaker 1 (40:40):
Needing remedial math had a four point zero grade average
in math greade point average. The average was three point seven.
In fact, a report found that on average, student grades
in twenty twenty five rows compared to those students admitted
in twenty.

Speaker 2 (40:57):
Twenty So what's going on?

Speaker 1 (41:07):
What is going on the reality is that what's going
on is the teachers are passing everybody. Teachers are giving
a's and b's to students no matter what the level
of knowledge is.

Speaker 2 (41:22):
This is happening in high schools all over the country,
and they just pass everybody.

Speaker 1 (41:33):
People. Parents and school administrative complain if teachers give low grades.
It certainly if they fail as students and the teachers
just have given up and they just give them high grades.
I mean, a teacher says, I've taught AP calculus when

(41:54):
no one can do fractions AP calculus. You know, so
say my exam results when I was teaching it, Well,
mostly one student who actually has you know, the pre
workers and skills gets a five on the AP exam,
maybe one more ekes out a three, and everybody else

(42:14):
gets a one or two. I wasn't allowed to grade
in a way that would hold them accountable. She was asked,
what would happen if you did grade based on their
actual mastery of calculus? If I was failing all the
kids who weren't doing un level work, that would be

(42:35):
almost all of them. The kids will all be trying
to drop the class to preserve the GPAs, because that
is the set of kids that cares about class rank.
And if all the kids drop, they just won't run
the class at all. So they cancel APCL and then
she'd be out of a job, so she's not gonna
fail them all. So yeah, and kids don't know. They

(43:10):
don't know in a sense, teachers giving them a from
middle school on they just get a's and nobody tells
them they don't know anything. Then they were having college
and they don't know anything, or they do the AP
exam and they don't know anything. So this is what
happened when you get great inflation. This is what happened

(43:31):
when you give everybody an A. Nobody knows anything. The
center structure is completely distorted and perverted. And you know,
in the past, in California, there was some reality check
on this, like students had to take an SAT on

(43:54):
ACT test, which actually, while I think somebody, I think
Michael said it was a proxify Q, maybe it is,
but it basically tests knowledge. It's just knowledge of a field.
But in California, in California since twenty twenty, the use

(44:17):
of the system eliminated the requirement for SAT and ACT tests.
This was against the advice of academic you know, people
who know anything about education. So it's gone in twenty twenty.
They did it twenty twenty for COVID and then twenty
twenty one, they made it permanent, and since then the

(44:42):
number of students coming into at least UCSD and I
assume the entire California system.

Speaker 2 (44:50):
Don't know math.

Speaker 1 (44:53):
From thirty two people thirty two students to one thousand,
all they can about is the grade, because that's what's
going to turn on whether they get admitted into school.
There's no test of knowledge. When they get admitted into school,
they don't know anything. And what I found particularly scary

(45:14):
is that comment about they can't do logic, they can't think. Yeah,
not surprising. And this is not a COVID thing or
a phone thing. We like to blend COVID and phones
for everything. This is about bad teachers, bad administrators, and
parents who don't pay attention. This is about a system

(45:37):
that is rejected tests even though they provide objectivity about
knowledge in favor of teachers who then are not a
lot are really great, and if they great properly, they
don't really have a job. And then it screws up

(45:57):
students who might have deceived them. I was into thinking
we're going to go in and get an engineering degree,
but they don't have the math skills to do that.
And even if they do do the remedial math at
the university, they're so far behind. The capacity to think

(46:18):
has been so you know, hoods and harmed that very
few of them ever completed an engineering degree, even once
they passed the remedial college stuff. I mean, there's a
building that happens and a skill that's developed that they
don't have because their math in high school was I

(46:39):
don't know what they did in math class. They certainly
weren't studying math. They certainly weren't learning math. The other
thing that the audico at least makes clear is these
are not These students are not lazy, and these students
are not dumb. It's a lot extent. This is not
the student's fault. This is the fault of government schools.

(47:03):
This is the fault of teacher unions and teachers. This
is the fault of a system, the system of education
in this case at the state level. And I also
think this is the fault of parents who are not
paying enough attention to what they student. The kids are
being taunt but this is the fault of government schools,

(47:26):
government education. That's the bottom line. That is the bottom line,
and it's super depressing, super depressing. How you get out
of this, you know, I don't know. By the way,
it's also the fault of woke, right, it's the fault

(47:49):
of woke egalitarianism, the ones they have. All students should
get the same grade, nobody should fail the class there is,
everybody is the same, out should be the same, implemented.

Speaker 2 (48:02):
At the at the schools.

Speaker 1 (48:04):
Woke egalitarianism, or galitarianism more broadly, is an unbelievably destructive philosophy.
And here's a great example. Everybody gets the same grade.

Speaker 2 (48:15):
Everybody gets a's and b's.

Speaker 1 (48:16):
Well, then nobody knows anything, and a few, a few,
a very few number of students can overcome that, but
most kids get destroyed by it.

Speaker 2 (48:31):
We need to go back to teaching merit based knowledge.

Speaker 1 (48:39):
Grades are secondary, and universities need to start thinking about
other ways to admit students other than grades, because obviously grades.

Speaker 2 (48:50):
Don't work.

Speaker 1 (48:51):
The incentives are all messed up, and everybody's got a
GPA of four point zero even if they don't know anything.
I mean, this isn't even like somebody says John Dewey.
But it isn't even John Dewey's doing. This is just

(49:13):
I mean, it's not like they're using any of John
Dewey's methodology.

Speaker 2 (49:17):
Even this is just.

Speaker 1 (49:19):
Teachers who don't care, administrators really don't care, and an
egalitarian ideology that is just destroying education in America. Right.
I mean, to the to the credit of the person

(49:42):
who wrote the argument article, I mean, she blames the
whole idea of equity. She says, the aim of equity
is not to brag about how many students of a
target background you woulden a in calculus.

Speaker 2 (49:55):
It's ensure that every student actually learns. That's what equity
should mean.

Speaker 1 (50:03):
And then she goes on furthermore to the parents reading
in this, your child's good grades may mean nothing.

Speaker 2 (50:09):
Parents understandably tend to assume that if their kids is
getting in a grades that means they are learning. I'm
here to deliver bad news.

Speaker 1 (50:16):
It doesn't. It is very possible that your child who
is bringing home straight a's is a catastrophically is catastrophically
behind in one or more subject areas. I've heard stories
from parents whose kids were getting a's in language arts
and could not fluently read. I've heard from parents whose
kids were getting a's in math, then failed a placement

(50:39):
test and learned that their school had simply not bothered
to cover a significant portion of the curriculum. I mean,
this is horrific, and this is why education needs to
be privatized. Parents need to take responsibility for their kids' education, responsibility.
Gument schools need to be shut down, and you just

(51:04):
you know, the whole evil incentive structure of state run
schools needs to be eliminated and it needs you know,
the private sector is very good at getting results. So yeah,
I mean it's unbelieved depressing. This is one university. One

(51:25):
can only imagine that this is this is in a
lot of different places. Oh wow, we're going late today.
All right. We are way, way, way, way, way way
behind on our fundraising goals. Remember this is show funded
by support from listeners watchers like you, and we're way behind,

(51:46):
and you know, we're at the one hour mark almost
and we haven't reached the one hour goal. We're far
behind the one hour goals.

Speaker 2 (51:52):
So you know, step up here.

Speaker 1 (51:56):
You guys can do stickers, you can do super checked questions,
variety of different ways in which you can support the show.
Please consider doing so so that the show can keep going.
Because the only way this show is possible the only
way I can devote the time necessary for the show
is because of the funding you provide, and so please

(52:17):
consider that stickers questions. We've got a lot of like
one two dollar questions, not even a lot of that,
but we need some twenty fifty hundred and fifty dollars
questions to keep us rolling here and to keep it
all good. All right, David, thank you for the sticker,

(52:39):
or df thank you for the sticker. Keep it, keep
it incoming. Guys, We're still about one hundred, one hundred
and thirty five dollars short, So let's keep it going
for the first hour goal, not even for the three
hours we might be going, because I'm only I'm less
than halfway through, although these stories are going to be
shorter maybe who knows. God.

Speaker 2 (53:04):
Then we're going back to education. I'm gonna flip the
order here.

Speaker 1 (53:07):
Let's talk about jobs mismatch, because that seems more appropriate
given what we just talked about. I mean, obviously that
what we just talked about is one huge problem with education.
But one of the other problems with education, and and
and this is this has released in high schools, but
it also mainly relates to colleges.

Speaker 2 (53:28):
Is we're producing a lot.

Speaker 1 (53:29):
You know, we're encouraging people, incentivizing people with subsidizing people
to go to college, go to university, learn fields where
they cannot find jobs in afterwards, where there's no work
for them afterwards. We have diminished the value of what

(53:54):
used to be called blue collar work and elevated the
value of I don't know, uh, you know, college degrees
and and it kind of work that that produces. But
the reality is we'll probably we probably have today too
many graduates.

Speaker 2 (54:13):
Now, this is not a market failure.

Speaker 1 (54:16):
You would usually say it's a market failure when you
produce too much of a good and there's not enough
demand for it. There's just not enough demand for ethnic
studies graduates and and uh, and you know, gender studies graduates,
and Middle East studies graduates, and but he probably even

(54:37):
philosophy and history and so on. There's just not a
lot of demand. And we get a lot of kids
who come out of college and there's not a lot
of jobs. And yet there is a lot of demand.

Speaker 2 (54:53):
For skilled labor.

Speaker 1 (54:58):
Uh. The COO four I was giving a talk Jim Fowley,
and he was basically said that photo right now has
got five thousand openings, five thousand job openings for mechanical jobs.
Now mechanical jobs now note these are jobs that pay

(55:21):
one hundred and twenty thousand dollars a year.

Speaker 2 (55:24):
So these are not low jobs. These are not Walmart jobs.
These are not first job.

Speaker 1 (55:30):
Out of college jobs unless you're in STEM one hundred
and twenty thousand dollars. And by the way, you can
become a co mechanic without taking out the kind of
debt that it would require you to get a BA
or a master's or PhD in gender studies. So he says,
they've got five they cannot fill. They cannot find five

(55:53):
thousand mechanic jobs. They can't fill them that are paying
one hundred and twenty thousand a year, he writes, Or
he says, we have over a million openings and critical
jobs in the country, emergency services, trucking, factory workers, plumbers, electricians,

(56:16):
and tradesmen. Right, he says, you know, he's got a
bay factory b with a lift and tools and no
one to work in it. We do not have trade

(56:37):
schools in this country. We don't teach people how to
be mechanics. We you know, community colleges have become remedia,
high schools, GOMA, working work at training programs suck. Unsurprisingly,
they're not very good. And what do we subsidize. We

(57:01):
subsidize anybody who wants to go to college with loans
and grants and a million other ways, and it doesn't
matter how much it's going to cost. And of course
a big part of this is that the government is
willing to lend money to anybody who goes to college,
no matter what they drop prospects on. At the end

(57:21):
of the day, one solution to this problem is to
privatize student loans. I mean, isn't the solution to almost
every problem to privatize I know it sounds that way,
but it's true. It is. It's the moral solution, and
it's the economically efficient solution, and it's the educationally correct

(57:42):
solution to privatize student loans. And banks have to do it,
or private equity does it? You know, private equity is good.
Then the lender, the person who's going to lend you
the money to go to university, is going to ask you,
what's you going to study, how long is it going
to take, how are you going to pay me back?

(58:03):
What are your job prospects? Afterwards, and they're going to
determine the interest rate on your loan that you get
to go to college based on the risk that they're
taking that you won't be able to pay it back.

Speaker 2 (58:21):
So my guess is that are alone to study gender studies.

Speaker 1 (58:27):
Is going to have a higher interest rate than a
loan to study I don't know, computer science, which makes
complete rational sense, and this incentivizes people to go and
study it.

Speaker 2 (58:45):
Won't this incentivize the most.

Speaker 1 (58:47):
Passionate people, the most committed people, they will go. But
at the margin, this incentivizes people from going to study
something that they will never get a job in and
instead maybe would you, but instead motivates fewer people to
go to college, more people to find jobs like these

(59:09):
mechanics who make one hundred and twenty thousand dollars a year.

Speaker 2 (59:12):
That's opening salarly. That's just the beginning.

Speaker 1 (59:20):
According to this article, only one hundred and fourteen thousand
Americans in their twenties completed vocational programs during the first
ten months of last year, compared to one point two
four million who graduated from four year colleges and four
hundred and five thousand who received advanced degrees. Yet recent
bachelor of recipients in their twenties were five point six

(59:42):
percentage points less likely to be employed than those who
finished vocational programs. And you would expect that there's enough
people at the margin who should and who would probably
benefit in every aspect of their lives from going totional
programs rather than going to college. But we have the

(01:00:04):
incentive structure upside down. This is again my point about
the fact, you know that markets provide healthy incentives. Markets
create incentive structures that work, that kept people to do
things that make sense, moral and practical. And it is

(01:00:30):
every time we try to intervene, anytime we step in
and and distort prices, dissort incentives, like by subsidizing through
the government student loans, we pervert, we distort the ability
of people or the incentives of people to actually pursue

(01:00:50):
what is in actually their self interest. So, you know,
bring markets, bring markets to education, bring markets to student loans,
bring markets to you know, the the job market and

(01:01:11):
the expectation of the job market. Markets are great at
matching skill and education and getting people to the to
the right place the best matches their skill set and
abilities and interests. But yeah, exactly the opposite, right, exactly

(01:01:34):
the opposite. Now, we'll see, we'll see it. It might
be that the people are learning that there's some move
towards reducing the kind of what do you call it,
the student loan issue, and not funding you know, unpromising

(01:01:57):
graduate degrees. But it's just, I mean, the fact is
that our government tries to steal everybody towards college. And
that's not good for it's not good for anybody, and
it's disruptive and distortive. The whole student loan program a
disruptive and distortive and again a big push. I mean,

(01:02:20):
Trump is talking about doing your way with the Education Department,
but keeping all the things the Education Apartment does, just
letting other people do it other departments in the government,
which is crazy, if you, I mean. Much more fun
than getting rid of the Education Apartment is getting rid
of student loans. Get rid of student loans. That should
be what we stand for. Government gives out no student loans,

(01:02:43):
just like it doesn't shouldn't subsidize business, shouldn't subsidize education.
Get out of the business completely, one hundred percent, privatize
it all all right, Now, let's do Russia's war, all right,
I mean, I haven't talked about the one in Ukraine

(01:03:03):
in a long time. I figured we do a quick
catch up. It's this is going to be very quick.
We'll have to come back to this topic another time
because we're ready an hour in more than an hour
in Thank you either way for picking up on the
on the super chat fund where where Now we've covered
the first hour and we're now into the second hour,
and and uh, you know, the the trickling in of

(01:03:25):
a funding for the show is increased, which is great.
The reality is that the war is ongoing and there's
no end in sight. Uh. While Ukraine does not seem
to have the capabilities suddenly given the military support that
it's received from the United States and Europe. Given that support,
it does not seem to have the capabilities to push

(01:03:48):
the Russians out of Ukrainian territory. Russia is advancing so
slowly to achieve its goals is going to take decades
and going to cost them hundreds of thousands of Russian
lives a year. I mean, this war is to a

(01:04:11):
large to stand still. You know, Putin is playing the
long game in the sense that he thinks he can
outlast is Zelenski. The fact is there's a big corruption
corruption investigation right now in Ukraine that is involving people
pretty close to Zelenski, and Zelenski is becoming less and

(01:04:33):
less popular in Ukraine. But the reality is that the
opposition parties in Ukraine are just as adamant about this
war as Zelenski is. So Putin gained something, but he
doesn't gain as much as he think he does. With
Zelensky leaving the scene, because the opposition parties are just
as adamant about fighting this war as Zelenski's. So Putin

(01:04:56):
is basically, I think, come to the conclusion that ending
the war is worse for him politically than keeping it going.
If he ends the war, he has to explain to
the Russian people, what the hell is going on, why
so many people died, Why the economy is in such shambles,

(01:05:20):
why this stand up living in quality of life has
declined so much. You know why.

Speaker 2 (01:05:28):
Russia didn't win.

Speaker 1 (01:05:32):
Because Russian people expected it to win, and to win
quickly and to win easily, as the most commentators around
the world, and it didn't.

Speaker 2 (01:05:41):
He didn't win, didn't lose exactly, but it didn't win.
Given its aims. You could say it lost.

Speaker 1 (01:05:51):
So but if he continues the war, he can place
the Russian economy on a war standing, he can rile
up patriotic spirit and you could say, well, going to
win any day. Now. He can lie to the Russian
people repeatedly he can. He's not imposed the draft because
he knows how unpopular that will be. But instead he's
paying people to join the military, paying them a lot

(01:06:13):
of money, particularly among the poor and among the ethnic minorities,
very large ethnic minorities in Russia, and the lower standard living,
the declining quality of life in Russia is explained as well,
we're war, I mean, and this is this is, this
is a must war for Russia, and we're gonna win.

(01:06:35):
And people are just willing to go along with it.
And they're certainly not willing to go and try to
get rid of Putin given how you know, his strong
arm tactics. So Putin is basically in this for the
long run, no incentive to cut a deal. Trump would
like a deal. And in this talk again about I
guess the the the the Trumpet administration are trying to

(01:07:04):
put together another peace effort, another peace proposal or twenty
points after the Gaza model twenty point piece deal, and
they're gonna They're gonna keep trying because Trump doesn't want
this war. A lot of people on his right, a
lot of people in the party don't like Ukraine and
they like Russia. They don't want America supporting Ukraine. But

(01:07:26):
if if Putin doesn't agree to a ceisfire and doesn't
agree to any peace deal, Trump is kind of I mean,
it would look like he's he's completely capitulated Putin if
he gives up, so he has to continue supporting Ukraine.
He does it indirectly through NATO and through Europe, but
he still does it, not fully, not to the point

(01:07:48):
where Ukraine could actually win, but just enough to keep
the keep the keep it going. And he dabbles and
he plays, and he tries his so called peace deal,
but there's going to be a peace deal. Putin doesn't
want a peace deal, you know, and Americans are tired
of this. At some point America is going to say,

(01:08:12):
well enough, you know, just whatever, let's stop supporting Ukrainians.
There's already a majority in America that wants the US
to stop supporting Israel. At some point here will have
a majority in Americans who want to stop supporting Ukraine.
You know, Russia will get its way. I don't think

(01:08:32):
that will help Russia win any faster, or maybe a
little bit faster. But this is a world that's going
to go on for a long, long, long long time
every time. By the way, there is a peace initiative
coming out of the White House.

Speaker 2 (01:08:47):
Russia denies it.

Speaker 1 (01:08:48):
Russia denies that it's interested, like he is from out
of a news piece. The Kremlin on Wednesday played down
a report that the United States was okay in a
twenty eight point piece deal for Ukraine and said there
were no new developments to announce since and August summit
between Putin and Trump. So yeah, Russia doesn't want it,

(01:09:12):
doesn't need it. It is quite happy just to grind
its young people into oblivion. It's quite happy, quite happy
to grind its economy into oblivion and to suffer quietly.

Speaker 2 (01:09:24):
This is the fate of the Russian people.

Speaker 1 (01:09:26):
If you've read the stavskill told story, you know, the
Russians are kind of okay with just just suffering. Suffering
is cool, you know, Suffering, Suffering is okay, you know,
and yeah, they're good at suffering, and so they're doing it.
They're doing it, and this could go on for a

(01:09:47):
long time because the Russians are well trained and suffering. Sad, pathetic,
but you know reality all right quickly on redistricting, so
you know the Texas plan.

Speaker 2 (01:10:08):
The big thing in.

Speaker 1 (01:10:08):
Texas was we're going to redistrict Texas and that'll give
the Republicans five new districts and that'll help them preserve
the House. And then California goes in and it also
redistricts and it gains five, so it wipes out the
Texas advantage. And now a federal court has ruled what

(01:10:30):
Texas did unconstitutional on the grounds of its discriminating based
on race, and they said they can't use the new
redistricting map. They have to use the old map, which
wipes out the five district advantage Republicans have. And yet
the California want is still holding. I don't think a
federal court is going to wipe that up because they

(01:10:51):
went through a whole referendum with the people.

Speaker 2 (01:10:56):
So it's in front of the courts.

Speaker 1 (01:10:58):
Now.

Speaker 2 (01:10:58):
The Trumpet Dower station has appealed this already.

Speaker 1 (01:11:02):
To the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is going to
be in a position where they will help determine the
fate of the next election. But yeah, I mean, a
low court just struck down Texas a new congressional map,
and it's in front of Supreme courts.

Speaker 2 (01:11:18):
I don't know how quickly Supreme Court will hear it.

Speaker 1 (01:11:23):
You know what the problem is that, right? I mean,
the filing deadline for running in these districts is fast approaching.
Texas candidates must declare their bids for Congress by December eighth,
and yet it's unlikely. I can't imagine how the Supreme

(01:11:44):
Court is going to make a ruling on this before
December eighth. The whole issue about redistricting and race and
standards and all of this is is something Supreme Court
is going to deal with.

Speaker 2 (01:11:58):
It wants to deal with it.

Speaker 1 (01:12:00):
It's got it's gonna come down with some something that's
got the Tennessee case in front of it. But it's
hard to believe all of that is going to be
resolved by December eighth. So it doesn't look like Republican
incompetence is going to lead them to actually have led
Democrats to increase the number of their districts without Republicans

(01:12:23):
being able to match it. So we'll see, we'll see
how all of this is going to play out and
whether Trump can get the Supreme Coach to rule quickly.
Uh and uh, so we can goot will rule? Will

(01:12:45):
it rule in time to make a difference? Uh? And uh?
By what standard are they going to rule? And they're
gonna have to face up to the Civil Rights Acts
and and a variety of different precedents that they then
selves that the stream quote itself has and you know
it's it's not obvious at all how Distream code is

(01:13:07):
going to rule on all of this. Are they going
to cut back the Voting Rights Actor? I mean.

Speaker 2 (01:13:14):
There's some inclination that they will, but when how badly?

Speaker 1 (01:13:21):
So? How to tell? But again, there is a there
is a a case I think we talked about it
in a previous show from Louisiana that is looking at
again redistricting on the same kind of basis. Let's see,
let's see how they ultimately will. All Right, a few

(01:13:42):
good news I like to remind you a little bit,
you know, foordability crisis, all this stuff. So just a
few things. There is a there is a great mailing,
you know email that you can get on a regular.

Speaker 2 (01:13:58):
Basis from human progress.

Speaker 1 (01:14:00):
It comes once a week, I think, and it's got
some really just great good news stories, and so it's
a great resource for good news. So I picked three three.
One of them you've already seen. So this one you've
already seen. But I think we now have twenty twenty
four numbers. And this is the twenty four numbers. It

(01:14:23):
shows the middle class continues to shrink, oh my god,
continues to shrink, but it almost exclusively continues to shrink,
not almost, it exclusively continues to shrink. Because the number
of Americans earning over one hundred and fifty thousand is
now growing, continues to grow significantly. Now this is all

(01:14:44):
inflation adjusted. Don't worry, there's no cheating going on. But
it went from five point two percent to thirty three
point eight that's huge, huge, And the number of poor
people fifty thousand or less went from thirty eight point
four percent to twenty one percent. And the middle class

(01:15:04):
has gone from fifty six to forty five but all
in a good direction. A lot of people in middle
class have become relatively rich. So again this is to
counter all the economic doomerism out there, and all this affordability,
stuff and everything else. No, things are getting better. In
spite of everything, things are slowly getting better. Well maybe

(01:15:31):
not so slowly. Look at that, Look at how much.
How many people are making a lot of money. And
again this is adjusted for inflation. It's not adjusted for
home prices, but adjusted for inflation. And home prices are
really a problem on the coasts. In much of the
middle of America. Home prices are not that big of
a deal now. But you might say, oh, yes, of

(01:15:53):
course we know this, you're on. But it's young people.
Young people are being screwed. Gen Z is screwed. And
I've showed you graphs about income and the fact that
gen Z makes more money than everybody else at the
age at which they are. But you say, no, no, no,
it's not about income. It's about wealth. They don't have
any wealth. They don't have homes, they don't have all

(01:16:13):
this stuff. It's the good wealth. This is average wealth
at age thirty four by generation. The orange that is
covered up by me, that is baby boomers. Baby boomers
at the age of thirty four had, on average, is
all average, a net worth of two hundred and fifty

(01:16:34):
seven thousand dollars inflation adjusted guys in today's dollars. Is
it today's dollars, yeah, twenty twenty four dollars last year's dollars.
Gen x had at the age of thirty four networth
of two hundred and eighty three thousand, and notice a
wealth and millennials and gen zas on average have three

(01:17:00):
hundred and forty seven thousand dollars. It seems amazing the
one hundred thousand dollars richer. They're forty percent richer than
baby booms. Uh so, you know, maybe maybe I don't

(01:17:21):
know what else is going on here, but this looks good.
And even if they have more debt, no, that much
more debt, so stop.

Speaker 2 (01:17:33):
I mean the domerism.

Speaker 1 (01:17:34):
The problem with the domerism is it plays into the
hands of the populists. It makes it all the populist
complaining and then solutions much more likely. And it's not
because their parents have given them money that transaction, that

(01:17:55):
transfer of wealth is going to happen. We're talking about
trillions of dollars, tens of trillions of dollars. No, this
is because they make more money. I mean, if you
look at income, gen z Is make more money at
that age than any previous generation. Indeed, each generation makes
more money than the previous generation. At age let's say
twenty five, they make more money. They just they do.

(01:18:20):
Doesn't mean it will continue that way, but at least
for now that's the case. Now.

Speaker 2 (01:18:23):
A lot of that is because the stock market.

Speaker 1 (01:18:25):
Stock market has done phenomenally well over the lifetime of
millennials and gen zas particularly millennials maybe got into the
stock market sometimes around the financial crisis, and it's gone
shoot straight up since then. Not bad. The same thing
with baby boomers who got into stock market in the
seventies and eighties at the bottom in the seventies and
eighties instance, and it's gone up.

Speaker 2 (01:18:46):
You know, it's had some bumps, but generally gone up.

Speaker 1 (01:18:50):
But we live in an incredibly wealthy country, much much
better shape than European contemporaries, you know, and we need
to stop complaining, focused on the good and focus on
making it better, much much better. Ryan says, I like this,

(01:19:17):
when says your wealth graft doesn't factor in all the
existential angst and how hard life is for gen Z,
I think that's right. I mean, look, gen Z has
grown up in hard times. They lived to a great depression.
Oh no, wait a minute, they actually didn't. But they
lived to a world war, right, a world war. No,
that didn't happen, to the meta, they didn't even they

(01:19:39):
were drafted. They were sent overseas to fight in other wars. No,
that didn't happen. No, none of that happened. It turned out,
I mean, but they did. They were told that they
were killing the planet through climate change. That's a lot
of angst. They were told they are supporting genocide by

(01:20:00):
their tax money being funneled to Israel, and then for
the supporting jedicide. That must create a lot of angst.
It's not that they were told they had to go
and fight for Israel. They were told that some of
their money is going over there. And you know, some
of them couldn't afford the latest version of the iPhone.
They're still stuck with last year's iPhone and that must
be very, very hard for them. So yes, I'm sorry

(01:20:21):
if some of you are gen zs and I'm making
fun of you, but you deserve to be made fun
of because you guys are the most complaining generation, the
richest and most complaining generation ever, and we're gonna get
socialism because of you in some form or another, all right.

(01:20:45):
And finally one that doesn't affect Americans as much but
is on a global scale, is a huge piece of
good news. There is a new malaria drug that in
a stage three which is the final age of testing,
has done phenomenally well. It's a new treatment that cures

(01:21:09):
more than ninety nine malaria cases in those stage three tests.

Speaker 2 (01:21:16):
The drug candidate.

Speaker 1 (01:21:19):
May be also be able to prevent the spread of
the drug of drug resistant sub Saharan malaria. It's called
ganlum Ga n lum and it looks like the biggest
innovation and malaria treatment since the introduction of nineteen ninety

(01:21:42):
nine of combination therapies which were not as effective. And
think about it, about a million people die in parts
of Africa, particularly in Africa, but in other parts of
the world as well from malaria.

Speaker 2 (01:21:57):
And there's a cure.

Speaker 1 (01:21:59):
There's a a simple treatment now that cures ninety nine
percent of cases. So pretty cool, very effective, and yeah,
I mean, the science of medicine continues to advance in

(01:22:20):
spite of the attempts by governments and government agencies to
hamper its success. Science of medicine.

Speaker 2 (01:22:29):
Continues to advance.

Speaker 1 (01:22:31):
This is all good? All right? That is it. That
is the news for this November nineteenth Wednesday. It's Wednesday,
November nineteenth. All right, Let's see how we're doing on fundraising.
All right, we're doing okay, We're like short one hundred
and forty dollars or so to get to a second
hour goal. And we're definitely going to get into the

(01:22:51):
second hour. I mean we're in the second hour now.
We're probably going to go into the third hour given
the questions we have. We have quite a few questions,
too many of them in the two dollars realm and
not enough in the twenty and fifty dollars realm, but
we have a few.

Speaker 2 (01:23:05):
So if you'd like to.

Speaker 1 (01:23:06):
Support the show, if you'd like to help make the
show continue and possible, and you know, payfoot trade value
for value, please consider doing a sticker or a super chat.
Super Chat is great because you get to ask anything
you want, and you get to make a statement or
attack me or criticize me or whatever, and I will

(01:23:27):
read them all out loud as long as you put
a dollar amount to it. You can also support the
show on a monthly basis on Patreon dot com. I'm
actually looking for nine new people has to be new
and it's not doesn't count if you move from PayPal,
so it has to be new Patreon supporters. So I'm

(01:23:48):
looking for nine new Patreon supporters. I got two over
the last day or so, so I'm looking for nine
more who will support the one book show on Patreon
on a monthly basis. I think the two that I got,
we're both doing five dollars a month, so I think
almost all of you can afford to do five dollars
a month. The question is the show valuable enough for
you to do five dollars a month? Think of it

(01:24:09):
that way.

Speaker 2 (01:24:10):
Is it a ten dollars a month?

Speaker 1 (01:24:12):
You get a podcast, an audio podcast on your Apple podcast,
on any podcast you want, with no ads.

Speaker 2 (01:24:18):
With no ads, you get a feed that has no
advertising on it, So.

Speaker 1 (01:24:24):
You should consider the ten dollars. Of course, those of
you who value the show even more than that and
who can afford it, yeah, I mean it would love
to have a few people sign up at one thousand dollars.
With five hundred dollars or two fifty a month or
one hundred dollars a month. That makes a huge difference.
That really puts the show on solid financial ground so

(01:24:47):
that we can really plan expansion into the future. So
please consider doing that Patreon dot com just so show
you on book show.

Speaker 2 (01:24:56):
I also want to mention some of my some of
my sponsors, UH we have UH we have.

Speaker 1 (01:25:05):
Hander Shot Wealth, hander Shot Wealth, Hendershot Wealth dot com
slash y b s is offering a product they can
really help with un limiting your capital gains, tax exposure,
and liability. Uh It's It's a it's a product that
is used by many many wealthy individuals, and they make

(01:25:26):
it possible for people who are still wealthy with less
so to use the same product. UH you can. You
can find an interview about this on my YouTube channel.
Uh In the playlist for sponsors, we also have a
we also have. You can also find out more hander

(01:25:47):
Shot Wealth with two T's hender Shot with two t's Wealth,
one word dot Com slash y b s. Uh We
also Haven Institute dinn Institute, which is promoting uh It's
conference in Porto Lisbon, a beautiful city worth visiting. You
can come as an adult you know, and you can

(01:26:08):
get a discount twenty six YBS ten. Twenty six ybs
ten is the discount code, or you get ten percent off,
or you can come as a young person, anybody under
thirty four.

Speaker 2 (01:26:20):
And apply for a scholarship.

Speaker 1 (01:26:23):
I know the number of scholarships, the number of people
who applying for scholarship has gone up quite.

Speaker 2 (01:26:28):
A bit this year.

Speaker 1 (01:26:30):
You want even more. And I think the budget has
gone up as well, So I think they're going to
offer more scholarships this year. So you don't apply, apply, apply, apply,
and you know, let them know that you heard about
it from this show. And let's get a massive conference.
Let's get a humongous conference in Porto. It's going to
be a lot of fun. It's again a beautiful city,

(01:26:51):
and the Portuguese are incredibly incredible hosts, and it's going
to be a good time. I'll be there, Nikos will
be there on call, will be there as well, Ben
and Tut's.

Speaker 2 (01:27:06):
Funny, So I'll be there to talk about it.

Speaker 1 (01:27:10):
Let's see. Uh and uh? What else did I want
to cover? Yes, we have Michael Williams of Defenders of Capitalism,
of Leadership Program, the Rockies' sponsor. Check them out, Defenders
of Capitalism dot com, Defenders of Capitalism dot com. I
am a speaker for the Defenders of Capitalism. I do

(01:27:31):
a couple of lectures on capitalism for them. They are
dedicated to educating people about what capitalism really means. Michael
is longtime objectivist and longtime friend. Check out his website
Defenders of Capitalism dot com if you're interested at all
in capitalism. Uh and uh? Who have I missed? I

(01:27:52):
missed Alex al Epstein Epstein, Alex Epstein, who is of
course the world of authority on all things related to power, energy, electricity,
fossil fuels. Check him out. Alex Epstein, Alex Epstein substack
dot com. Alex Epstein substack dot com. All right, let's

(01:28:16):
move to your questions and see you see see what happens.
But don't forget. You can still ask while I'm answering,
and you can ask about anything, whether I covet it
today or not. And uh yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:28:38):
Michael.

Speaker 1 (01:28:39):
Oh, by the way, thank you David again for another sticker.
Thank you, David, very generous. Keep the stickers coming, guys.
It's an easy way to support the show. Enrick, thank you,
and you you Ticus, thank you for the gifting. Thank
you for the for gifting some memberships. That's another way

(01:29:03):
to support the show or is the gift membership? So
become a member, Lincoln, Thank you, David again, thank you,
a DF thank you, and Tom?

Speaker 2 (01:29:14):
Who else do we have?

Speaker 1 (01:29:15):
David again? No?

Speaker 2 (01:29:18):
What am I doing?

Speaker 1 (01:29:18):
All right, let's go all the way up here.

Speaker 2 (01:29:21):
I think I've got everybody all right. If I missed you,
thank you anyway.

Speaker 1 (01:29:26):
I really appreciate it, all right, Michael, Fascism has a
whole theory of the good and why it does what
it does.

Speaker 2 (01:29:34):
Trump is not that.

Speaker 1 (01:29:36):
Absolutely, He's just a guy with a club. He doesn't
have any theory. He just says whatever to get what
he wants today. Vance has theories Trump does not. Yes, absolutely,
you know. Vance is a you know, much more theocratic
Vance as a whole ideology based on post liberal writings.

(01:30:00):
Dvance is committed to kind of a an integralist maybe
integolist light. Maybe he's not quite willing to go all
the way common good conservatism, I mean, common good constitutionalism.
Vance is definitely the more intellectual, theoretical, committed guy.

Speaker 2 (01:30:15):
It's why I've told you.

Speaker 1 (01:30:18):
For months, if not years, that he's more dangerous than
Trump is. Trump is dangerous because he's a he's a
thug with a club, and he's breaking stuff, and and
he could break enough stuff that it's not repaarable. It's
not repearable.

Speaker 2 (01:30:36):
That's the danger with Trump, that he sets it up
so that you can't repair it.

Speaker 1 (01:30:41):
Uh and and UH. Therefore we elect an authoritarian as
the as the only out, and it could be it
could be in that sense, a leftist authoritarian.

Speaker 2 (01:30:53):
So we are going to get an authoritarian out of this.
I think I fear rationally P.

Speaker 1 (01:31:01):
Fifty dollars or sixty dollars. It's actually fifty sixty UO
sixty US, so seventy dollars, Thank you, RATIONALLYP. My doctor
refuses to prescribe antibiotics due to guidelines.

Speaker 2 (01:31:13):
What my previous doctor did and it helped.

Speaker 1 (01:31:16):
I'm obviously willing to follow medical advice, but I'm troubled
by the government restrictions.

Speaker 2 (01:31:21):
What I can and can't take to help me medically.

Speaker 1 (01:31:24):
Yeah. Absolutely, Again, the government shouldn't be involved. I mean,
I understand that some medical authority, you know, Doctor's Federation
or something, could come out and say, look, you guys
oversubscribing antibiotics and this is making antibiotics generally less effective.

(01:31:45):
Doctors should really think twice about subscribing antibotics and only
use antibiotics when they're needed, really needed. But it's not
the government's job to do that. Government is not there
to police our use of drugs. That is not there
to demize the use of I don't know any biotics
or any other drug in the con in our health

(01:32:06):
care system. It shouldn't be involved in health care. There
should be government separation between the government in health care.
Government has no role in health care, not in fruit pyramids,
not in subsidy angine farming, and not in dictating what
treatments are okay and what treatments are not. That should
be between you and your doctor and maybe many doctors.
Maybe you want second, third, fourth opinions, but it should

(01:32:28):
be up to you, not up to the government. Thomas,
is it possible to dramatically lower housing prices by allowing
huge amounts of building without wiping on millions billions of
dollars of equity that existing homeowners currently have. Well, probably not,

(01:32:49):
but wiping that equity is good. I mean, the reality
is that housing is not a wealth producing asset. Housing
prices should not be going up. People should stop viewing
houses as investments. They should now view housing as where
you stash your savings. Housing is a consumption good, and

(01:33:13):
as a consumption good should if the market was functioning
properly without coming into vention, housing value should go down
in most places unless there's some extraordinary demand for the
particular place in which you live in. Supply has not
matched it yet. So it's just like you buy a

(01:33:34):
car automobile. You don't expect the value to go up
over time, expect to go down over time. And that
could be that you buy a rare model that is
unique and it actually goes up in time because people
really really want this model and there are very few
of them, and demand, you know, outstrip supply. Same thing
with housing, unless you're in a unique location or it's

(01:33:57):
a unique house, it's something extraordinary thing really really different. Yeah,
you know, the reality is that house prices should not
go up, they should go down, and the fact that
people have a lot of equity in those houses tough.

(01:34:18):
I mean, it might very well be that if we
had lesser fake capitalism, some stock prices would go down
because they'd stop being cronies of the government. Some companies
would go bust. Could they stop getting subsidies? That's good,
I mean in a sense by not allowing housing, we

(01:34:40):
are subsidizing existing homeowners at the expense of future homeowners
or at the expensive you who'd like to own home.
Not good for anybody, by the way. We talked about
this yesterday a little bit. But the reality is that
a lot of people, because of the way housing is
taxed and priced, live in homes that they shouldn't live in.

(01:35:04):
A lot of people stay in neighborhoods after you know,
they have really good educational systems, but they don't, you know,
but the kids are growing up and they they live
in they stay in big homes, even though they'd be
happier in small homes, because they don't want to sell
because there's capital gains taxes and because of the you know,

(01:35:26):
the mortgage is basically subsidized and so much about and
prices go up all the time, so it's a great investment,
so why leave.

Speaker 2 (01:35:40):
But that's all distortions, that's all perversions.

Speaker 1 (01:35:44):
Robert props from five Minutes with Robert and Amy Nasser. Sorry,
fewer super chats lately. I'm cash shy. This month, my
daughter just bought her first house and dad helped a bit.
That's nice.

Speaker 2 (01:36:02):
Still a multi supporter. Thanks for what you do. Appreciate
the support, Robert.

Speaker 1 (01:36:07):
I don't keep track of you guys, so I don't
actually know when you're dipping off a little bit, when
you're increasing a little bit. I appreciate everything all of
you guys do, at whatever level you actually do it.

Speaker 2 (01:36:23):
All right, here's one from yesterday.

Speaker 1 (01:36:25):
I left over from yesterday that came in just after
I shut down the show, and that's Lincoln saying, can't
wait to visit Jerusalem and Tel AVIVN twenty twenty six
with some liberty minded students on campus in the summer.

Speaker 2 (01:36:36):
That sounds amazing. You know, what is the what is
the program that you're going in?

Speaker 1 (01:36:42):
What context does this? And you should definitely meet up
with the objectivists in Israel when you go. Remo thoughts
on the idea of fasting improving your a tough, fuggy
fuggy something like that, because currently I'm reading Peter a Tea,

(01:37:04):
I mean a teas is anti fasting ultimately is my
understanding because it reduces your It reduces muscle. You know,
to grow muscle, you need constant you need a constant
input of protein. So he is more recently turned away

(01:37:27):
from fasting. I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:37:30):
Look, I can't fast. I hate fasting.

Speaker 1 (01:37:33):
I break.

Speaker 2 (01:37:34):
I just can't do it.

Speaker 1 (01:37:35):
It's not you know, I'm weak when it comes to
food and I get hungry. I get brain fog when
I get hungry, I can't think. People say, if you
last long enough, you get sharper. Never happened to me.
I've never gotten sharper by not eating. Eating is essential
to life, so I never fast. I mean I eat

(01:37:56):
relatively early in the evening, so I don't eat much
before bad so three hours before bedtime I usually don't
eat and then but I eat in the morning about
an hour after I wake up. So I don't do
sixteen hours. I probably do closer to fourteen hours, or
you know, twelve to fourteen hours. But yeah, I don't know.
I mean you have to ask a real scientist, and

(01:38:18):
I shouldn't have an opinion, and that I shouldn't be
giving you advice and stuff like that.

Speaker 2 (01:38:23):
All right, let's see.

Speaker 1 (01:38:26):
Remo also says, do you have a special workout routine
while traveling? No, I mean it's basically the same workout routine.
I try to extend it into travel when I can,
So if I have early morning flights, I don't work out,
so I you know, I usually go to the gym
at my hotel. Hotels I stay at almost always have gyms,
pretty nice gyms, actually nicer than what I have at

(01:38:47):
home or in my building, and I work out. I
do the same kind of routines I do here. I
lift weights, and I do the elliptical for my zone too,
and my Norwegian full by for my high intensity workouts.
So I do a mixture of all of those when
I'm traveling. But the reality is that a lot of

(01:39:10):
times when I'm traveling, I'm just too tired. I need
to sleep in because I'm sleep deprived because of the
flights and because of the changing time zones. So I
just sleep in rather than working out. That's just the reality.
It's part of the price you pay for traveling, is
that you just don't exercise as much. I walk more

(01:39:30):
when I'm traveling, so I do most steps. I don't
do a lot of steps here in Puerto Rico. I'm
pretty much at home. When I'm in Puerto Rico, I exercise,
but I don't do a lot of walk just straight walking.
When I travel, I walk a lot through airports, through
city streets, but a lot through airports, so that compensates
a little bit for the fact that I do less
working out. Kim, is there a hell? If there is

(01:39:55):
a hell, John Dewey, is there? I hope, so, I hope.
So if there's a rational hell, then he is. Who
knows what hell is like? Okay, Remo wants me to
pronounce Nikos's family name. I'm going to take a shot
at it. But I probably didn't learn reading through phonics.
I probably learned to site.

Speaker 2 (01:40:14):
See. That's why this is so hard for me.

Speaker 1 (01:40:17):
So t rockco Pulus, Soku up, t Rockapulus.

Speaker 2 (01:40:28):
Best I can do.

Speaker 1 (01:40:29):
Sorry, Nikos, I apologize for that, and I Remo, I'm
not sure what you actually gained by that, but there
we have it. Ryan says, there's no free lunch. There
isn't a free lunch. Somebody pays always. The money has
to come from somewhere. We talked about that yesterday. That's
a quote from Milton Friedman. No free lunch, Ryan. The
cure's task of economics is to demonstrate to men how

(01:40:52):
little they really know about what they imagine they can design. Hayek,
that is a really, really bad quote, as competed to
Milton Friedman quote, because you know, think of how much
I mean design in what realm? But think about Apple
design and Google design and plan and all of that.

(01:41:16):
So it's you have to separate the realm of kind
of the private sector and the realm of government. There's
a fundamental difference between planning and designing in each one
of those realms and how they work. It's not design
that's a problem. Hayak has a lot of problems in
the way he thinks about this. You've used reason as

(01:41:36):
a problem, and design is a problem. We don't have
enough reason and we don't have a capacity to design
just the same thing. But it's both wrong. It's the
fact that you cannot make choices for other people, the
fact that you cannot choose values for other people. You
cannot decide what's good or bad for other people.

Speaker 2 (01:41:55):
It's not a question of.

Speaker 1 (01:41:57):
You know how much you can think, or how much
you can know, or how much you can design.

Speaker 2 (01:42:07):
Lincoln.

Speaker 1 (01:42:08):
Contrary to conservative myth, New York City and San Francisco
are safe places to live if you can afford to
live in a decent area. Yes, actually very safe places
to live, particularly in New York City. It's one of
the safest places in the country. It's safer than in
a lot of rural areas and suburban areas. It's Yeah, sadly,
there's a lot of mythology around these things. Robert making

(01:42:31):
all mistake. Forcing every job to pay an arbitrary living
wage means eliminating many entry level jobs, eliminating opportunities. Yeah,
it's a minimum wage to destroy jobs, which is what
minimum wages do.

Speaker 2 (01:42:43):
All kinds of minimal wages destroy jobs.

Speaker 1 (01:42:49):
Jean, my friend was fired from teaching for refusing to
pass as fourth graders.

Speaker 2 (01:42:54):
I mean, that's pathetic, sad, horrible, Eddie.

Speaker 1 (01:43:00):
Any thoughts on Mike Green's thesis that passive investing is
distorting the market.

Speaker 2 (01:43:06):
Yeah, I mean I think he's He's wrong. That is,
the reality is.

Speaker 1 (01:43:13):
That it is marginal investors who descerb prices. Passive investors
are not the marginal investor. Passive investors just followers. And
you know, you don't need a lot of marginal investors
to move prices to where they need to be, to
move prices to reflect the best information available. So no,

(01:43:34):
I don't think it's passive investing, and the passive investing
is the best way to invest. To invest for most
of us is the best way to invest money. And
let the professionals, the people who know what they're doing,
do the active investing and the moving of prices. You
should not be in the business of moving prices because

(01:43:58):
you don't know enough, so let the.

Speaker 2 (01:44:00):
Pros do it.

Speaker 1 (01:44:04):
So No, I don't think that's true, and I don't
know that markets are that distorted. I mean, passive investing
is not what's driving up in Vidia stock. What's driving
up in VideA is the hoop ala and all the
excitement and people who think they know that in video
is worth this amount and a buying And you can

(01:44:25):
see how information new information causes prices to change very quickly.
That's not passive investors. That's active investors moving stock prices quickly. Lincoln,
I'd love to see a breakdown of colleges by percent
of degrees that are STEM and business related. There probably

(01:44:48):
is such a breakdown. I wouldn't be surprised if you
can find it. Ian Yuran, you should ask the audience
a question. Super chat answers only ida right, I need
to have a good question and the truth of your
answer is determined by how much money you put on it.

(01:45:11):
All right, Ian says there's a huge mechanic shortage in aviation, too,
huge regulation burden that makes companent people apprentices for years
and makes them feel like they can never be trusted.

Speaker 2 (01:45:24):
Well, that's sad, but yeah, I'm not surprised.

Speaker 1 (01:45:27):
I mean, a lot of these blue collar jobs that
pay a lot of money, but a heavily regulated, heavily controlled,
and have you know, in the culture a negative appreciation
for them. You know, there's a lot of jobs there,
and we don't train people for those jobs. We don't

(01:45:49):
inspire people with those jobs. Lincoln is on a roll
the last few days. He's asking a ton of super chats.
You want to sense a super chat at the end
of last show, Can you pull that up and respond
to it? I did already The Oceanist, how you on?
I saw your Stitch and Adam appearance yesterday. I thought
you did great. They both said they'd love to have

(01:46:10):
you back on sometime to get more into objectivism and
economic topics. That'd be great, Happy to go back on
the show. I didn't get a lot of new subscribers
from it. I was surprised because there were four hundred
people watching live and a bunch of people watching afterwards,
and didn't get a lot of people subscribing to my show,
which is ultimately the goal of going on other people shows.

(01:46:31):
So it's a little disappointed by that. You got a
little bit of a bump in subscriptions today, not yesterday,
but today. Maybe that's because delayed from the Stitch and
Atoms but Adam, but you know, I don't. We'll see.
Who knows. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:46:46):
I enjoyed it though, and I will definitely go back.
Jennifer Sais.

Speaker 1 (01:46:51):
Walt Disney designed Disneyland because he thought it would be
a cool place to go. Many people around him told
him he was easy. Turns out many others agreed with him,
and the rest is history. Yeah. Absolutely, I mean the
reality is entrepreneurs design stuff all the time, including cities,
including places. You know, there's a big difference between doing

(01:47:14):
stuff as an entrepreneur and designing where your fundamental relationship
with everybody around you is voluntary, is noncursive, versus a
government designing stuff where your funda mental relationship with everybody
around you is coursive. That makes a big difference in

(01:47:36):
the consequence of the design Sandy said, great to meet
you in Colorado, Sandy.

Speaker 2 (01:47:42):
Great to meet you.

Speaker 1 (01:47:43):
I'm glad, I'm glad you had a chance to come
to my talk. Adam. The introduction of index funds in
the seventies is to personal finance what the chlorination of
water was the public health thoughts. Uh, yeah, well assume
your view colination is a good thing. Yeah, it's it's

(01:48:05):
a miraculous thing. I mean, it's it. It really allowed
people that are very very very very low cost. Index
funds are very cheap, cheap for the investor to participate
in the stock market and to participate in the dramatic
increase in stock market valuations over the last you know,

(01:48:27):
forty years, and to participate without having to become an
expert on stocks whatever it having to gain the knowledge,
just the general knowledge that the US is a good
generally a good place, good place to invest, the good,
good economy, and as a consequence, things will go up
because things keep getting better. And as long as that happens,

(01:48:48):
indexing is fantastic, and it allows people to specialize. It
allows people to do the thing they're really really good
at and let other people determine prices in the stock market.
So yeah, I don't know about the particular metaphor, but
it's a huge benefit to humanity. Lincoln says. It's a

(01:49:09):
program called Homeland that allows Jewish students to visit Israel
once in the summer for free. I'm not Jewish, but
I still get a reduced rate for being a student. Okay, cool,
that's cool. You should definitely get together with the local
objectivist there when you're there, so let me know when
you're going. Lincoln continues to say, ironically, I'm a finance

(01:49:30):
and law double major, yet not Jewish, which certainly puts
me in the minority.

Speaker 2 (01:49:35):
That's funny.

Speaker 1 (01:49:37):
Cool, Thank you Lincoln for asking all those questions. Thank
you to all the other super chatters. Really really really
really really appreciate it. And I will see you guys.
I'm not sure when I will try to do a
show over the weekend if I have time, but I
right now my schedule is stacked and I just don't

(01:49:57):
I don't think we'll have time. So Thursday, Friday, Saturday,
Sunday four days without a show. Monday, I'll try to
do one in the evening after a fly A fly home,
and I'll try to do one in the evening but
the next four days there'll be no shows, so I'm
preparing you for that withdrawal syndrome. I know many of
you go through You're on Brooks Show withdrawal syndrome. Hopefully

(01:50:20):
there'll be no news during the next four days, so
there'll be no big deal, no big glass. I will
see you all, probably Monday, maybe before, but most likely
on Monday. Bye, everybody, have a great weekend, have a
great rest of the weekend, Have a great weekend. Bye.

All Episodes

Mamdani; Grade Inflation; Russia's War; Job Mismatch; Redistricting; Good News | Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Crime Junkie

Stuff You Should Know

.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;}Mamdani; Grade Inflation; Russia's War; Job Mismatch; Redistricting; Good News | Yaron Brook Show