PPI; FDA; Arms Embargo; Toronto Film; China Model; Hyperloop?; Super Babies | Yaron Brook Show - Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
Fun. Is that a principles about dat self interest and
individual wise? This is the show. Oh right, everybody, welcome
to you around Brook Show on this Thursday, August fourteenth. It's

(00:30):
late here. I have a feeling in this office that
I have. I think they turn off the air conditioning
after a certain hour. I'm the only one here. It's
nine pm, and I think the air conditioning is off
because it is hot in here. I don't know what
it's like outside. It was it was ninety all day,
but anyway, it's hot. I'm complaining. On the other hand,

(00:53):
in Michigan, the sun actually came out today. The sun
came out. It is after all August, and then Michiganians
on my chat are celebrating because they finally, you know,
it's a beautiful day in Michigan, and you got to
celebrate a beautiful day in Michigan. Once in a while,
it actually happens. I am in a Lisbon, Portugal. It

(01:13):
was ninety degrees today. But I have to say the
weather here is is very California like, which is nice,
which is pretty much perfect. It's it's not super hot hot,
but not super hot. It's relatively dry, certainly compared to
Puerto Rico. It's dry and it never rains. It just

(01:37):
never rains. In the summer, it doesn't rain, just like California.
Last rain is sometime in in i don't know, in
in June, and then it range again in September. But
in between it doesn't rain, just like Israel, just like
you know California. This is the weather. I like, no rain,
no snow, and and and just just nice, nice weather anyway.

(02:02):
You know, Puerto Rico's difficult. It never gets too hot,
which is good. It never gets below seventies. It never
gets even mildly cold. But it rains a lot, and
it rains in unpredictable times and it just rains just
you never know. It could be blue skies everywhere, and
within fifteen minutes of training. That is not too In Portugual,
you just get blue skies in the rain and it's gorgeous.

(02:24):
All right, enough about the weather. You're not here to
hear about the weather. My monetor here is yeah, it's
not quite right. All right, let's talk about the news.
All right. So tomorrow put In and Trump will be
meeting in Anchorage, Alaska for the big summit on Ukraine.

(02:47):
I will be commenting on it tomorrow, although I don't
by the time I do the show, I don't think.
I don't know that it'll be. Oh, I don't know
how much we'll know. Anchorage, Alaska is like on that
other time zone somewhere to Hawaii, So I'm not sure
when they're meeting and whether we'll have any information by
the time we do the show. I hope we have.
I hope I have something interesting to say about it.

(03:10):
As you know, I'm worried about this meeting. I'm worried
because I think Putin is better at this than Trump is.
I think Trump is very weak, particularly in dealing with Putin.
You know these already, there's already all kinds of Trump
is trying to dangle economic stuff in front of Putin
in exchange for a peace or cease fire or something.

(03:33):
I don't know, rare earth materials from Alaska, which we
don't even get minerals in Alaska. You don't getting rid
of all the sanctions and all of that. So Trump
is definitely going after Putin on the economics of it.
And that's good because Russia is really struggling, it's suffering,

(03:54):
and it's being hit hard. Economically another then putin basic
he wants Donbas. He wants to be able to get
around the fortifications that the Ukrainians are built that have
basically prevented his army from moving forward for the last two,
you know, almost three years, two and a half years,

(04:15):
and they just stuck at this border, at this line
of fortifications in don Bas. And he would love to
see Ukraine retreat from those fortifications in exchange for cease fire,
which he will then violate at some point six months
an hour year and now and if he has replenished
troops and now he doesn't face those fortifications in front

(04:40):
of him. So we know what Putin wants. Putin wants
he ceased fire, a pause. He wants all the economic goodies,
but what he wants is a pause. He wants to
get around the fortifications. He's willing to give up some
territory in the south in order to get you know,
better established in the east. He wants to continue this war.

(05:02):
He doesn't want peace. He wants to cease fire. Uh.
And I think he'll he'll come at it from a
perspective of no, I'm a peace maker. I want to
I want to fight, need to stop I want everything
to go so anyway. So we'll see. We'll see if
if the people are surrounding Trump are smart enough for
good enough to be able to prep him for what

(05:22):
he's going to face. Maybe Marco Rubio, who is relatively
speaking of Russia hawk, I don't know who else with
cuffs strikes me as pretty dumb, but not very not
very yeah, not very savvy, not very strategic, uh hag saith. Yeah,
it's just ignorant. So I'm not sure who is there

(05:44):
and his like uh team for a policy team, they
can really prep and and and and and coach Trump
for his meeting with Putin. So yeah, I'm worried. Eupeans
are worried. Zelensky is worried. They should be worried, wor worried.
We'll see what happens Smrong, We'll see what happens strong

(06:08):
And of course a lot of it depends on you know,
just through a pole he has with Putin, with the
Putin sex up term and says nice things about him.
And I think Putin is smart enough, savy enough that
he knows how to play Trump. I think he knows that,
not like Zelensky didn't know how to play Trump. I
think Putin knows how to play Trump, and I think

(06:28):
he'll he'll play him, all right, So put that aside.
We'll talk more about it that for certain tomorrow, whether
we have info, we don't have info, we'll talk about
it in anticipation of or if there's already a press
conference post press conference. Let's talk about this PPI number

(06:50):
that came out. PPI is the Producer Price Index. It
is an index of of the prices produces pay, like
if anything else, It's like an augrated number. It's kind
of tricky how they calculate it. It's not exactly a
measure of it's not a measure of prices consumers face.
It's much more about producers and includes services. And it's

(07:14):
tricky how how they calculate these things. So it's a
it's a noisy number. It is a number. People talk
about it as an indicative inflation because producers are playing
higher prices. Ultimately they will pass those prices onto consumers
and consumer prices will go up. So there is a
correlation between PPI and CPI consumer price index down the road,

(07:38):
and again this is price inflation. I know the other
definitions of inflation. We're just using inflation here in the
conventional sense, and even there it has to be really
tricky because there's the price level really rising, or is
just a particular basket of goods rising, and that's always
tricky to identify. Importantly, PPI does not include tariffs. It

(08:03):
does not include the impact of tariffs. So this is
the price that the producer is paying, excluding input taxes,
in excluding customs, excluding tariffs. Right now, the number that

(08:24):
came in today was a big surprise. It came in
significantly higher than expected. The estimate for the month, for
the one month with point two percent, that's what people
were expecting. It came in a point nine percent. Now,

(08:44):
a point nine percent is very high. That suggests a
PPI annualized if you go project forward and if it
stays at point nine percent, unlikely, but if it's stayed
it would be, you know, between seven and eight percent.
That's a very high increase in prices. Producer places still
prices on a year over year basis, that is, if

(09:08):
we look backwards to twelve months ago. Over the last
twelve months, the increases being three point three percent es
to most two point five. So we're moving away from
like the two to three range and moving into the
plus three percent, which is I think, why we sim

(09:30):
to a lot of people. And this is going to
put Joan Powell in a real bind. I mean, Powell
believes that the way to fight believes that the way
to fight price inflation, the way to fight consumer inflation
is to raise interest rates. And you know, interest rates

(09:53):
and inflation had stabilized round two point seven percent. That's
CPI inflation, right, CPI stabilized to a round pot seven percent,
and the hope was it was going to come down
from that, and the Fed of course as a two
percent goal. But PPI now suggests maybe CPI, when it's
ultimately reported, will start heading up above two point seven percent,

(10:17):
above few percent, way away from the fed's goal of
two which means the Fed might need to reverse any
interestate cut that they might have planned and might ultimately
be increasing interest rates. Now again, this is all kind
of the thinking of how how all this plays out?

(10:39):
Right now, there is another measure of inflation, the PCE
personal consumption expenditure, which is again another measure of consumer prices.
Consumer prices it is expected out I think next week,
and given the PPI number. Now it's expected to be

(10:59):
up quite a bit, again, putting pressure on Powell not
to lower interest rates. On the other hand, if the
employment numbers are to believe be believed, then this economy
is slowing. Hiring is slowing, and since the Fed has
a mandate for full employment, it should be lowing interest

(11:20):
rates they increase employment. So Powell and the FAD are
in a quandary. Do they increase interest rates to fight
inflation or what they perceivers inflation? Or do they lower
interest rates to fight a slowing economy? And of course

(11:41):
this is the central planet dilemma. There's no right answer.
You're divorced your self from market signals. You've divorced yourself
for market prices. There is no right amount of interest rate.
Interestrates should be determined in the marketplace. And of course
there's no right amount of money. Quantity of money should
be based on supplying demand, not based on the decisions

(12:06):
of twelve individuals around the table. But you can see Trump,
of course, putting huge amount of pressure on the Fed
to lower interest rates, and Powell not knowing what to do.
He's stuck, he's in trouble. He probably cannot give Trump

(12:27):
what he wants. I don't think he's in a position
raised interest rates and inflation. Consumer inflation might get out
of control and he'll be blamed for it. He is
in a no win situation here, no win situation. So
I feel for Central Planner, Comrade FED chairman Powell's it's

(12:51):
a it's a sad position to be in. But I
guess he chose it, and Trump nominated it, you know,
pointed him. But it's also worth pointing out here that
PPI is way up. This is a big deal. The
mounted went up today. It's not trivial at all. You know,
tariffs have an impact on prices that goes beyond just

(13:13):
the tax increase. For example, if you're a domestic producer,
you don't pay a tariff, but you see your competitors
from overseas paying a tariff. I eat. Their products are
now going to cost more by fifteen percent in some cases,

(13:33):
by twenty five percent in other cases. Maybe if it's
a you know, if it's chocolate from Switzerland, thirty nine percent,
you can afford to rate your prices a little bit.
You can afford it raise your prices even though no tariff.
But you can now raise prices increase your profit margins

(13:54):
because customers won't watch the competitive because the competitives prices
even I am because of tariffs. So even though PPI
doesn't capture tariffs directly, it could be capturing the effect
of tariffs, that is the domestic industry's response to tats,
which is to raise prices. So how to tell exactly

(14:19):
what's going on here? A lot of the increase was
in services, and again, how to tell why what's driving this?
It could be that this is just monetary inflation. It
could be what's going on is that there is just
too much money. The Fed is being loose with money
in spite of interest rates being where they are. Maybe

(14:42):
maybe they should be tighter on the money supply. Right,
tightness on money and interest rates are not necessarily exactly
the same thing. So how do you how do you
deal with all this if you're the Fed? How to tell?
Trump now is in a corner. He's going to keep

(15:04):
pushing the Fit to lower interest rates. But now we
might be facing a trump flation, and really Trump not
Trump inflation, but a Trump's stagflation, because it also looks
like the economy stagnating. Right, Job numbers were adjusted downwards
so we could ververy well face a situation where the

(15:28):
economy is stagnating, jobs are very hard to find, Unemployment
might increase, and you have inflation, which we haven't seen
anything like that since kind of the mid to late
nineteen seventies. Also, with noting that Trump hasn't fired anybody yet,
you would think that whoever the people are who produce

(15:51):
the PPI, who do the PPI this is in the
labor statistic viewer again, might be worried about their jobs.
Maybe Trump won't fire them. Maybe this new guy he
just appointed ahead is going to change the whole team.
It's just unacceptable, unacceptable that Trump is not getting the

(16:12):
numbers he wants. I mean, I mean Trump wants certain numbers,
he wants certain facts to be true in the world,
and the world is not cooperating. The people who work
for Trump and the government are co operating. The statistical
statisticians are not cooperating. I mean, it's a conspiracy. It
really is a conspiracy to undermine Trump's presidency by denying

(16:34):
him the numbers he so desires. And I think they
should all resign in shape because they can't provide the
right numbers anyway. That was the Producer Price Index wholetel
price of goods. We will watch next week. I think

(16:55):
it is for the PC the personal assumption, and that
I think will tell us where prices are heading and
whether there's direct indirect what kind of impact tariffs are having.
I think while tariffs again are excluded for PPI, the

(17:17):
indirect effects of tariff's could be significant, and could be
I'm pretty sure they are. What is driving this very
high number for PPI. Not good economically, not good for
any of us, not good for Trump, not good news
for Trump administration. Although I don't think they care, and
MEGA doesn't care. Mega doesn't care. They only care about

(17:39):
inflation when Biden does it, They don't care about price
is going up. If Trump does it, it's not the same.
It's not the same, right, you know, it's not the
price is going up that matters. It's why you're doing it.
Trump is doing it to make America great again, and
therefore it's forgivable, it's understandable, and it's acceptable. And Biden

(18:02):
did it because he's a leftist comedy and we hate
leftist commis, and therefore it's unacceptable and we should reject it.
I think there was a Editorial Today Editorio again by
the Editorial Board, which is publishing regular concerns about different

(18:24):
aspects of the Trump administration in its editorial pages UH
and and this one is on the FDA. UH and
UH an FDA an entity that already dramatically reduces the
number of life saving drugs that are available to US.
UH an FDA that makes it very very difficult to

(18:47):
bring out new drugs, new medicines, potential treatments for life extension,
very difficult to get your hand to get it because
it because of the FDA. It costs so much money
to to being a drug to market, to do the
kind of testing that they require, to dot all the
eyes and cross all the t's and all the stuff,

(19:10):
all the stuff that the FDA requires to do, which
adds billions and billions and billions of dollars to the
cost of being a drug to market, and in particular
being a drug to market for diseases that are not massive,
where you're not going to make a huge fortune on.
A big reason why drug prices is expensive is FDA regulations.

(19:32):
I would like to see the FDA gone, you know,
I would like to see a market solution for testing
and approving or at least recommending drugs. I'd like to
see doctors take a much more active role in deciding
which drugs to advise patients to take, based on information
that they get from various advisory organizations, and maybe they

(19:54):
pay a monthly fee in order to get to get
their advice. I would like to see testing labs, private
testing labs testing these these drugs. I'd also like it
to be possible for me to take a drug under
the with the knowledge that it hasn't been fully one
hundred percent being tested, double blind, whatever studies. But I'm

(20:18):
dying of cancer anyway, So why couldn't I be able
to take a drug any case, even if it hasn't
gone through all the FDA rigamar role. So I'd like
the FDA not to exist and to leave it up
to me to decide which drugs to take and which
drugs not to take. Me and my doctor, you know,
And we saw what is possible when the FDA loosens

(20:40):
things up a little bit and speeds things up a
little bit, it makes an effort. We saw that with
the mr in a vaccine during COVID. We got to,
you know, in spite of the fact that it typically
takes a vaccine three to five years to be developed
and approved and tested and everything else. Here we got design,

(21:00):
production and testing in eight months, and indeed it had
already passed Phase one i e. Harm The risks associated
with it were known and known to be minimal already
in what it was it in June of twenty twenty,

(21:24):
I mean the number of lives that could have been
saved if in June of twenty twenty, the drug companies
could have said, look, we haven't tasted tested efficacy yet,
but we know it's not harmful, you know, particularly if
you're in a risk group, or if you're in a
risk group, if you want to take it, we'll give
it to you. You have to sign a waiver because
we're telling you, you know, we haven't done all the

(21:45):
testing yet. But if you only assigned the waiver, come
on over and get get the vaccine. Why not let
people who risk will risk takers try our drugs before
everybody else. Anyway, the story we heard from those of
support the Trump administration is that Trump would be the

(22:07):
deregulation president, that we would have less regulations, not more. Now,
I innocently enough thought that this would apply to such
institutions like the FDA as well as everything else that
you know, drug approval would increase. And I think actually
during Trump's first term a drug approval did go up.

(22:27):
The people he nominated at the Healthy Human Services and
the FDA were people who reduced the amount of regulation
and rigg tape and actually improved more drugs the Biden
than under Biden. You know later on. So for example,
annual no novel this is new for new diseases drug

(22:50):
approvals average fifty two in the first Trump presidency and
then they averaged forty eight under Joe Biden. You'd expect
to draw because Joe Biden's going to be appoint people
who are going to be more conservative, more risk averse.
That's what the Left tends to be relative to people
who generally are more trusting of the farmer it or

(23:11):
some more trusting of markets, doctors, patients making decisions for themselves. Well,
that has reversed under this Trump administration. Under this administration,
it is very, very very difficult to get drugs approved. Indeed,
in the first seven months of this year, only twenty
two novel drugs have been approved. On current trends that

(23:34):
would make thirty eight for the year, which is ten
less than Biden and fourteen less than the average in
Trump's first term. And this is not an accident. I mean,
let's take one example, which is a very very concerning example.
You know, as all of us get older, you know,

(23:59):
the approval of drugs become more over naship, right, cancer
for example, becomes more and more of a threat. And
to me, you know, this example is just it's just
it's just horrific. Right, here's the example I'm reading from
the editorial in the most digital. One concern is the
regulators are nixing drugs under the false flag of raising

(24:23):
scientific standards. They should be lowering scientific standards as zero
and let the market determine the scientific slanders appropriate for
approving drugs. But that's you know, that's me being radically capitalist,
which is unheard of today. A case in point is
replemouon Replemounds. That's a Native company melanoma treatment, which the

(24:46):
FDA rejected last month. Now listen to this. This is stunning.
This is a drug that was rejected in spite of
the fact about a third of the patients who hadn't
responded to priyor immunotherapy showed a strong response to reprimunes
in clinical trials, so third of the people who other

(25:08):
treatment did not help at all responded very positively to this.
Tumor shrank and nearly all patients and responses proved durable
over three years. Serious side effects were rare. On Colleges
who treated patients in the trial hailed the results. This

(25:32):
is going to beat a new drug to a new
way immunotherapy to treat. Immunotherapy as when you get the
body to fight the disease itself, which is so much
better than chemotherapy, a huge advance of a chemotherapy. And
then collegists the doctors thought, this is definitely going to
be approved. A third of the patients showed a strong response,

(25:55):
tumor shrunk in all patients and very few side effects.
And yet the FDA said the trial was quote not
considered to be an adequate and warll controlled clinical investigation
that provides substantial evidence of effectiveness. In other words, you

(26:18):
need double you know, blind placebo, lengthy multi year extended
trials where you're giving some people who have cancer a placebo.
I think that should be immoral and unethical. Why not

(26:38):
approve this drunk. Why not give a third of the
patients who have this disease a chance of getting cured?
I continue from the article. It's quibble is that the
trialactic control group. Vinnie Possad, the head of the Biologics division,
the guy who resigned and then was rehired, has long

(27:00):
criticized such single armed studies that have no placebo group.
But it would be again unethical to get people with
a disease that's going to kill them a placebo reading again,
he believes medicines should undergo randomized control trials that attract
patients over longer periods to measure overall survival, never mind

(27:24):
if patients die in the interim. I mean, this is
just terrific. Replemants executives said they were blindsided by the
FDA rejection and it's shifting post talk demand demands, that is,
its changing standards. Leading oncologists Lamb blasted the FDA and
urged the agency to reconsider Reprimune's results are unprecedented. Vishal Patel,

(27:52):
a dermatology oncologist that George Washington University Cancer Center, wrote
to doctor Maccueri, who's the head of the FDA, this
quote physicians urgently want to need this agent based on
the data they have seen. Indeed, the precedent said by
this rejection is likely to halt many aspects of the

(28:14):
science and clinical development who quiet to move agents like
this into practice in later line diseases. The world looks
for leadership from the FDA based on rationality. Oh my god,
science and evidence. Doing a randomized control trial would be

(28:35):
considered as unethical. I mean, this is just terrific. Now,
this is what happens when you have one government agency
determined for all of us, well, we can and cannot
do right. So if you have melanoma, and if you say,
oh I heard about this drug, I want to take
that drug that a third a third of the people

(28:56):
sow remission, so over three years and no seric side effects, No, sir,
the fd eight, people who know better than you, people
who know what's good for you, have decided you shall
not have access to this drug. Instead, you're gonna have
to go through painful chemotherapy or whatever the alternative therapy is,

(29:16):
and you might die because you won't have access to this.
We don't accept, we don't accept that you have the
ability to choose. I mean, the only hope we have
is that other countries adopt this drug, and that you
can do medical tourism and go over there to get it,

(29:39):
and that you find a doctor who knows about this,
and can you advise you on where you can fly
too to get the right drug. Because in America, in
the land of the free, I guess the home and
the brave, we're too cowardly to approve drugs that maybe
only a third of his people can benefit from. The

(30:02):
article goes on to say this is creating tremendous and
certainly pharmaceutical developments, development developers. If doctor Mackiew really wants
to make drug approvals for deadly and rare diseases faster
and more flexible, he'd send a signal by ordering the
FDA to reconsider repplements treatment. Here's another one. He'd does

(30:26):
a green light stealth biotherapeutics treatment for Bath syndrome, which
the bureaucracy is strangling. Bath causes a fatal weakening of
the heart, muscle and immune system and afflicts about one
hundred and fifty Americans. So this is a very tiny disease,
very very very rare, only about one hundred and fifty

(30:47):
people it's a sort of rare disease. The therapy that
doctor Macari says he wants to bring to market faster well.
Stealth applied for approval in January twenty twenty four, and
the FDA Advisory Committee last autumn found a drug to
be effective. It works, but the agency keeps changing its

(31:09):
demands and has deployed one excuse after another to delay approval.
The agency recently told Stealth to resubmit its application, which
took at least which would take at least six months
to review, and just reapplying an application, just the paperwork,
I mean, I know somebody who's gone through this process.
The paperwork of putting together FDA application is unbelievable. Stell's CEO,

(31:39):
Renae McCarthy says her company might not survive that long.
If the company fails, patients that began receiving the medicine
in the trial will lose access, and others might never benefit.
Parents of children in Stealth's trial urging the FDA to
approve it saw Democrats and Republicans in Congress. It's just

(32:04):
it's just unbelievable. They don't you know, these bureaucrats don't care.
They've got their little power struggles that they're engaged in.
They've got their little agenda items with pharmaceutical companies. They
want to show whose boss, and they have their theories,
and you know, one of the problems is, you know,
one of the problems, maybe the key problem, is that

(32:27):
the government is the one who pays for many of
these therapies. And I think some of the concern is
if we approve some of these drugs and they're only
effective to about a third of the people who get them,
but they cost a lot of money and a lot
of people take them. We're spending a lot of money
to save just a third. And we have to be

(32:48):
stingy with all this money, and we have to be
careful we are we spend it. So it's easier it
just not to approve drugs, particularly if they're going to
be expensive. And I'm I'm sure there's drug that is
for Boss syndrome. Since they're only one hundred and fifty
sick people in all of the United States of America,
is going to be expensive. I mean, how are they
going to pay back for developing this drug? Well, the

(33:14):
solution to that is get the goverment out of paying
for drugs, get the goverment out of this business, and
get the government out of approving drugs. I mean, if
this is a market process, if these are competing firms,
then surely this would be a lot faster, love more,

(33:35):
if effective, and the drugs would come out and some
of them would come out with lots of warning labels. Right,
here's how it did in the trials. Here's what we expect.
Here's the side effect, here's our lack of you know,
here's the reading we put on it. I mean, who
knows how in a competitive market, an FDA like FDA

(33:58):
like entities would compete with one another, and then you'd
actually you'd actually engage doctors at the level of their judgment.
You would actually be placing more responsibility on doctors. And
I think some doctors would resent it. Those are the
doctors you don't want to have to treat you, and

(34:19):
other doctors would jump on the opportunity. Those are the
kind of doctors you want, the doctors who love the challenge.
I mean, it's so frustrating that we have all these
problems that free markets are clearly a solution to, and

(34:44):
the solution is we know what it is, and instead
we get a bunch of bureaucrats, all with degrees, and
you know, all these guys, the head of the FDA,
Macquarie and Passat and all these they're very highly qualified,

(35:06):
very highly qualified, but they have no incentives to do
the right thing. Ultimately when they get into that position,
they're just bureaucrats. Now, remember these are also people who've
been appointed by Trump and by Make America Healthy Again
and by RFK. So there are also there's a good

(35:27):
chance that half of them, or maybe ninety percent of
them are just quacks. They just don't know what they're doing,
and they don't really care, and they're just screwing this
up because they're absolutely incompetent. Because that's what I expect
from RFK and Trump nominees. All right, so here's a

(35:57):
feel good story, I think, right. So, remember in Germany,
I told you the other day that Germany had put
an arms umbogo on Israel. They're not selling Israel arms
or systems that go into weapons systems. Well, the boss
of a Bavarian based group which makes gearboxes used in

(36:18):
Israeli armored vehicles, maybe even in Israeli tanks, I don't know,
said that his company had a responsibility to ensure that
Israel can maintain it's the turns capabilities. Chief executive Alexander Segal.
This is from the Financial Times, said Rennick. Is the
company was trying to understand the consequences of Chancellor Mertz's

(36:44):
This is the head of the German government announcement last
week that he would suspend the sale of military products
that could be used in Gauza. Sego said that as
a German company, Rennick would comply with the country's law
and regulations, but he added that the company, which has
a market capitalization of six point three billion dollars, was

(37:04):
considering other ways to fulfill its contracts if the ban
was confirmed by Germany Security Council. Now quoting Sego, the CEO,
it is also clear that we are discussing a plan beat.
The plan beat is that we relocate production of these
specific transmissions to the United States. Now is all accounts

(37:33):
for only two to three percent of RENEX sales, So
this is not about losing the business. It's not about
keeping sales up. This is clearly about a principal stand
that Israel should be able to buy these weapons. That
is all, you know, should be in a position to

(37:56):
defend itself, and that he feels like he believes that
his company should be able to sell them their weapons
necessary for their self defense. I continue for the article
asked about the morality of supplying tank opponents to Israel,
which has been accused of widespread human rights abuses. This

(38:18):
is financial times, after all, where are I after Ramas's
ACTUB seven twenty twenty three. Segal said that it was
a difficult discussion. He added, of course we see all
the discussions about the Gaza strip, but from the German
point of view, we have responsibility to ensure that Israel

(38:40):
is able to maintain its deterrens capabilities. These are not
only needed in Gauza, but also at other borders. So
he is willing to ship production to the US so
that he doesn't fall under the arms in Bogo that
his local German government is imposing in Israel, he continue,

(39:00):
he can continue to supply Israel with with these tank parts,
so good for him. It's great to see CEOs will
get Seal standing up to their own government and UH
and actually telling them they're wrong and telling them that

(39:21):
they're gonna in spite of what they're told, They're going
to find ways to do the opposite good for him.
All right, talk about Israel. There is a film that

(39:42):
was submitted to the Toronto Film Festival, very prestigious film
festival in Toronto. It's the Toronto International Film Festival t
i f F and the film, the film is called
The Word between Us The Ultimate Rescue, which is a

(40:03):
depiction of of what happened in October seventh and an
attempt of I guess, a grandfather to rescue his children
and grandchildren from what was going on there. And you know,

(40:26):
so it depicts in the movie, it's a documentary. It depicts,
It has depictions of what was going on October seventh,
and for that purpose, it's using original source material. It
is using film videos. They were posted by hamas in

(40:53):
uh you know, as they were raping, murdering, pillaging, slaughtering,
massacring the various people. So the story is a story
of one man during all of this. But you know,
there's storytellers and they're showing what was going on, what

(41:14):
is the context. They're showing the actual real videos which
are upsetting I guess. Anyway, the festival yesterday, I guess
told the filmmakers after the film had been accepted that

(41:37):
they would not be able to show them the film
after all. And the reason they gave is it's hard
to even say it, but the reason they gave was
that they had not received permission from Ramas to use
videos the Ramas had posted that Ramas had taken. It

(42:00):
was a I guess a property right and its old
for a property right issue. They hadn't got all the
clearances from the people who took the videos, most of
whom I hope are dead, to actually show them in
this movie. Can you imagine we're not going to show
you the video of the concentration camp because Hitler died

(42:25):
before we could sign the release form so that we
could show you what he did, what his orders. You know,
it's kaff says it required permission from Rahmas to use

(42:45):
the footage. But of course that's ridiculous. There's no way
that is the case. The reality is that the film
festival was facing a boycott by its own staff, who
said that if the film was going to be a broadcast,

(43:06):
they would not show up for work. It was faced
with the security issues around the protests against Israel. It
was faced with the fact that there are lots and
lots and lots of people out there in the world
who do not want to see reality, who do not

(43:28):
want to face facts, who are not interested in the
evil Hamas committed, only interested and made up evils that
Israel is committing. They don't want to see, they don't
want to look, they don't want to go there. And
the Toronto International Film Festival was going to let that ride.

(43:55):
Now once this hit the news and the New York
Post made it a headline story. And you know, it
is interesting that the New York Times didn't pick it up.
The Weston Post didn't pick it up, not that I
saw anyway. I didn't see any of the mainstream big
newspapers picked this up. This was primarily pushed by the
New York Post and then picked up by a bunch

(44:17):
of other other second tier, third or fourth tier journals.
The head of the CEO of TIFF put out a
statement saying, no, no, we really want to show this movie.
We understand the concerns they get. They got, they got
a lot of letters from the Toronto Jewish community. And

(44:40):
you know, this is not about censorship, you know, of
course not, because it's not government. This is not about
restricting speech. This is not about respecting this point of view.
This is just a legal issue. We're working it out.
We're trying to figure it out. We're looking at different options. Anyway.
The good news is that by this afternoon, the Toronto

(45:03):
International Film Festival has reversed course and they are now
committed to screening this movie. Now, if you're in Toronto.
I don't know if I have any listeners in Toronto.
If you're in Toronto, let me just make an ask.
I don't usually ask you to do stuff. I ask
for money, but I want you to ask you to

(45:24):
do stuff. I'm gonna ask you to go see this film.
I want you to go see this film. I wanted
to be a market response. I want people to show up.
I want it to be lines. I want there to
be standing room only. I want the festival to get
a sense that this is a film that needs an audience,

(45:45):
and I think it does. I mean, I can just
tell you some of the photos that I've seen of
scenes coming out of these the scenes that we saw
after October seventh, But I think a lot of people
have forgotten the Hamas terrorist holding up a baby. We

(46:08):
all know what he's gonna about to do to it,
the bloodied bodies throwing a grenade into a bunker, which
we're you know, a bunch of unarmed civilians in just
the horror of that day. People should be reminded of that,

(46:30):
people should bear witness to it. And by the way,
this is a story of a hero, so I think
you'll be inspired by. It's a story of somebody who
didn't just sit in his hands, who suddenly went out
there and did something. But the fact the Toronto Film
Festival could deny this film, at least initially, it's just

(46:55):
one more sign of kind of the growing anti Israel
antisemitic And it used to be that you could say, oh, no,
people can be anti Israel and I'll be anti Semitic.
I think that's that's a true animo. I think anti
Israel at this point, given what's happened, given everything that's
going on, the anti Israel is all anti Semitism, and

(47:19):
it is really disgusting and horrific. The lies, the made
up stories, which really, you know, is familiar if you've
followed the Israeli Palestinian debate, because that has been the
reality from the beginning. But they always make up stories,

(47:42):
they always lie they always invent stuff. That is the
one thing, that is the one thing that the Palestinians
and their supporters have always been good at is making
up stories in line. And it continues, and the difference
is now, and I really think we've reached a tipping
point in some sense. The West is just embracing their

(48:02):
lives and rolling with it and making up their own
and supporting them and amplifying them. And the West is
becoming dramatically more antismatic and anti Israeli day by day. Now,
it's it really is. We're watching watching all this unfolds,
and it is it is super scary. Just run the numbers,

(48:25):
run the numbers. There's also a small country, and you know,
it's it's enemies and it's haters more motivated seems than ever,
all over the world, and outnumber it, you know, not

(48:45):
ten to one, maybe one hundred to one, maybe two
hundred to one. All right, let's shift to another topic.
Interesting article in the Economists today which you know, really
got me thinking. Reminded me of a theme that I've

(49:07):
been playing around with for quite a while now. This
is an article the title is growth loving authoritarians failing
on their own terms in Asia, Eastern Africa, and Gulf
leaders now face in a pleasant choice. And here's the thing.
You know, for a long time, authoritarian leaders embraced ideologies

(49:28):
that clearly were anti growth that you know, resulted in
in no no economic prospects, no economic success. And there's
no sense in which they knew this or or at
least discovered it very quickly. Whether that is true of
all the countries that embraced various forms of Marxism, or

(49:52):
whether it's true of African countries that embrace socialism after colonialism,
thinking that that was going to cure all their problems.
They basically embraced economic models that were clearly destructive to
economic growth. And you know, a certain number of countries,

(50:12):
starting i'd say in the late nineteen seventies and into
the nineteen eighties, poor countries in Asia primarily started embracing
the ideas of Margaret Thatcher and to some extent, Ronald
Reagan and suddenly kind of Milton Friedman, and at least

(50:32):
a little bit right, they start embracing markets. They started
embracing bits and parts of capitalism. They started embracing a
market economy to some extent, some extent or another and
the consequence of this was the dramatic, unbelievable growth that

(50:53):
we saw in the Asian tigers in Taiwan and in
South Korea, and in uh in Singapore and in I'm
missing I'm missing some some I'm missing at least one
Asia Tiger. Anyway, these economies did phenomenally well, and even

(51:16):
economies that didn't completely embrace the model started doing better.
And then, of course there was China, who I would argue,
embraced exactly that model, embraced it under authoritarianism, but embraced
it to a loge extent in certain provinces in China,
particularly in Guangxu and in the Shanghai area, and their

(51:38):
economies did phenomenally well. And while some of these economies,
Taiwan and South Korea in particular, transitioned at some point
from authoritarian regimes to politically free regimes, others did not.
Singapore did not, China did not. But basically, in those days,

(52:01):
everybody was looking to the West, and in particular they
were looking to America as the model for development, as
the model for achievement, and the authoritarians were hesitant about
it because they understood that they were risking losing their
theiritarian hold by mimicating American Indeed again in South Korea

(52:26):
and Taiwan, they lost it. Those countries became politically free.
Now fast forward twenty years to the two thousands, and
now you've got a whole new group of countries that
are looking to grow economically and have authoritarian regimes. What

(52:52):
model do they look for? Who do they look for?
An example? A model? And this is true, this is
true to this date. I mean, we're talking about countries
in a variety of different places in Africa, uh, Rwanda,
uh Tanzania, but Tswana, you know, a bunch of countries

(53:13):
in both East and West Africa. You're talking about the
Gulf countries, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, Bahrain, Yui,
and you're talking about the lagers in Asia, Malaysia and
Indonesia and and uh you know, Thailand, Cambodia and others.

(53:34):
And so what do they look for in Vietnam? Of course, well,
they couldn't look to the United States. But when they
look at the United States, what do they see? They
see a dying superpower, they see a fading super power.
They see a country that has no confidence, no belief,

(53:58):
and suddenly a country that does not stand by freemonkets.
So what they see is what they think, what they
believe is the death of capitalism and the failure of capitalism.
And by the way, that's the real damage of two
thousand and eight two thousand and nine financial crisis that

(54:19):
the whole world interpreted it as capitalism fails. This is
what happens when you embrace capitalism. So don't embrace capitalism
if you don't want to fail like the West failed
during the financial crisis. And so and where do they

(54:39):
look for success? They skip over South Korea and Taiwan.
They're not interested because most of these countries are by authoritarians.
And they look at South Korea and Taiwan and they
see that in their transition towards prosperity, towards economic growth,
towards economic success, they also transition politically. What they look

(55:01):
for is to is China and Singapore. Now, in China,
they misinterpret the data. They believe that China grew so
fast because of smart, effective central planning, state enterprises, government projects.

(55:21):
And they look at Singapore and again they misinterpret the data.
They think that it grew because of smart authoritarian governance.
Even though we China and Singapore, while authoritarian politically at
least before Kshi, China and Singapore to this day are

(55:44):
very free economically. Singapore is the freest economy in the
world today, China not so much, but its economic progress
or in those areas that are free. And what they
learned was we can try to target economic growth through investment,

(56:06):
through infrastructure, through government, central planning, through pseudo property rights
and pretend privatization and pretend markets. And that's what you see.
What you see in the Gulf, what you see in
in Saudi Arabia, you see this massive push all these

(56:29):
all rich countries using the vast resources of oil to
invest heavily in projects and building stuff and creating stuff.
But what is underneath, what has actually been created, what
is actually being built? Does it produce anything economically? If
the oil ever runs out, what is actually left? It

(56:51):
seems like nothing. And you know, even Vietnam, in other countries,
to the extent that they central the plan, they're struggling. Rwanda,

(57:11):
which looked like it was going to be a model
for economic growth in Africa as a dictator which governs
how capital is allocated, so does Ethiopia. The economies are
going fast, but there's no they're there. Ultimately, they're not producing,

(57:35):
they're not creating, and economic growth is suffering. The model
is not working because they don't understand the model. They're
not willing to give up the freedom to let markets
actually make determinations about capital locations. But what should be built,
where should investment be made, what should this economy specialize in.

(58:01):
They wanted to decide. They're smart NBS in Saudi Arabia,
super smart. He's the guy. He wants to decide how
city should be built, and how industry should be built,
and what Saudi Arabia should invest in, and what industries
should prosper and which should not. And indeed, all of

(58:25):
this is a consequence of the fact that there's no
model for capitalism anymore. There's no model even for a
little bit of capitalism, which is what America was in
maybe the Reagan era and the pre Reagan era in
the past, far from capitalism, but at least in that direction,
at least talking to talk. We don't talk to talk anymore.
We're the most anti capitalist there is out there right now,

(58:47):
this Trump administration. So what you get is authoritarians, who
are who say they want growth, who are investing in
a way that they think will produce growth, And as
the title from the Economist suggests, they're failing on their

(59:08):
own terms. They're failing on the terms of growth. And
while they're growing now, they're not growing as fast as
they expected. They all have twenty thirty visions that are
not going to become a reality. They're growing again less
than expected, and they're expected in the future to grow

(59:29):
even less. Of course, China leads the pack. In the
end of the day, the Chinese model that they're trying
to emulate is imploding, is facing massive difficulties. The economy
is not crumbling, the economy is not the depression, but
it's not growing nowhere near as fast as one would expect.
And it's still poor. So these economies are not going

(59:54):
faster than average, not faster than other poor countries. And
it's sad because I think what they're lacking, what they're
really lacking, is a model, the idea of freedom and capitalism,

(01:00:21):
and they don't understand or whatever economic growth is produced
is a consequence of whatever freedom they allow, and the
less freedom they allow, the more they decide or the
major economic decisions, the less economic growth they'll get, the
less prosperity, the less rich day people will be. The

(01:00:46):
reality is that autocrats autocrats have done generally very badly
when it comes to economic growth. From nineteen fifty to
two thousand and six, according to a paper by Mike
at Duke University, those who manage a decade or more

(01:01:10):
empower autocrats produced growth of one percent a year, which
is a measly amount. That is, long term presidencies governances
don't produce good economic results because they suggest athoritarianism. The
thiritarianism is bad for freedom, and lack of freedom is

(01:01:31):
bad for economic growth. What is good for economic growth
real freedom, individual freedom, liberty, lead people alone. And you know,
if you care about the economy, allow capital to be
allocated by your financial industry. Allow it to be allocated freely.

(01:01:53):
Get the government out of the business of allocating capital.
That's the biggest improvement you can make. All right, Who
is this good president? Bill Clinton? Bill Clinton was terrible.
I mean he didn't do much. That's the only good

(01:02:14):
thing about him. And he passed one good thing, which
was the warfare Phone. But nothing else is good. Nothing.
Jimmy Carter was good shocking. All right, here's a good story,
but out of China, it's not a good story in
terms of what it reflects about America. You remember, you

(01:02:37):
remember the hyper loop. You remember hyper loop Elone Musk's
idea of a super fast I mean, you know, several
hundred miles an hour train. There would go a tunnel.
Basically they would go from La to San Francisco, and
it could go very fast because it would be in

(01:02:58):
a tube. There was a vacuum, and the vacuum would
allow it to go at unbelievable speeds because what slows
down a train. To logic, what slows down a train
is air resistance. Well, if you take away air resistance,
it can go a lot faster. Anyway, hyper Loop was
a way to get rid of air resistance and allow

(01:03:21):
these things to go super fast. And unfortunately that company
was shut down in twenty twenty three and there is
going to be no hyper loop in the United States.
But the Chinese have picked up on the idea. China's
testing a vacuum high speed train that can travel. Listen
to this. It can travel one thousand kilometers an hour.

(01:03:47):
One thousand kilometers an hour. Now that's significantly faster than
airplanes today. Not faster than the boomet plane, but faster
than conventional airplanes today a thousand kilometers an hour. That

(01:04:08):
is pretty amazing. It's a magnetic levitation system right with
a vacuum tube could make the trip between Shanghai and
huang Xiu two hundred kilometers. That trip would take nine minutes.

(01:04:29):
It would be a massive energy saver again because no
friction less time, use the same amount of energy to
produce much higher speeds, and you could make You can
make the Beijing Shanghai trip in an hour and a half.
I think it takes five hours six hours. Now I
did that train in the high speed train that they have.

(01:04:57):
I don't know. Ian says, acceleration might be a pro maybe,
you know. My guess is there ways to solve that?
My guess is there ways to solve that. And this
is the thing, this is the kind of stuff China
is doing big ambitious infrastructure projects that one hundred and

(01:05:24):
something years ago America was the bold one in the
world to do, and now it's China. Now I'll take
it because I think it's cool. And once it's provable,
maybe others will use it. That's technology, but it is

(01:05:44):
this is it really is amazing and it just shows
human ingenuity is not stopping. Maybe you can't get anything
done in the US, but maybe in other places some
stuff can be done. And again the richer the most successful.
This kind of stuff happens in China. I think ultimately,
in the long run, the less powerful the central government

(01:06:05):
will be all right, somebody says in the in the
chat here, somebody says in the Twitter feed, somebody says,
if California Governor Knewsom tried to build this, it would
take at least one hundred and twenty four years, it
would cost nine trillion dollars and span just nine miles

(01:06:28):
and crawl ultimately when all's said and done, at nine
miles an hour instead of one thousand kilometers an hour. Anyway,
this is cool. And I'm sure a lot of people

(01:06:49):
will poo poo it because it's China, but it's it
is what it is. All right. Here's some more cool stuff.
Cool but you know, weird and uh and and probably
probably a little deceptive. There's a new fad among in
Silicon Valley. There are companies now that are doing genetic

(01:07:13):
what's called genetic optimization on IVF embryos. So basically what
you can do is instead of conceiving the usual way
you can, you can use IVF technology and then you
can have multiple embryos and then you can choose UH,

(01:07:40):
which one to carry the towne to to actually embed
in their in their mother and carry it to its tone.
And they are companies, at least two companies that I
read about UH that this is UH, that offer this
genetic optimization. So they they scan the genes of these embryos,

(01:08:04):
they scan them for diseases for you know, the things
that parents would want. They couldst avoid any for delica
to cancer, things like that. But it's also possible or
at least these companies are claiming that they have some

(01:08:27):
insight into being able to predict the IQ, the intelligence
at least as measured by IQ of the of the
different of the different embOS if once they become you know,
obviously born and become human beings. So a startup called

(01:08:51):
Nucleus Genomics and Herosite, they become publicly offering IQ predictions
based on genetic tests to help people select with eemper
is to use in virtual fertilization. And there's a huge
demand for this. It can cost anyway from six thousand
to fifty thousand dollars to get this genetic screening including

(01:09:13):
IQ done, And of course they're going to be trade
offs because you're not designing the baby right not yet,
So all right, I want the baby not to have cancer,
but they're not to have cancer might also involve low IQ.
So how do I balance it all? How do I

(01:09:34):
you know, where do I place IQ relative to cancer?
Relative to I don't know, eye color, blonde hair. You know,
I don't know what else they're offering. You know, what
is what is important, what is not important? How do
I rank these things? Alzheimer's for example, that's we have,
we know genes that make it very high probability you

(01:09:56):
get Alzheimer's. On the other hand, by the time these
kids go up, they might be cure file Simmer's. The
same with cancer, IQ is forever. Although you know, those
chips planted inside your brain, you could increase your IQ
quite a bit. So now in Silicon Valley, right now,
there's a big push for IQ testing for MBOs because

(01:10:25):
you know, I think I've talked about this in the past.
I think a lot of people in the Valley, particularly
the ones who get very rich, very quickly, very young.
They have this philosopher king mentality. They know it all.
They are the rulers. They succeed because they're smart, because
they were born with high IQ. They're convinced of that.
They bought into the one buffet Bill Gates story, that

(01:10:46):
it has nothing to do with any choices they made.
It all has to do with the IQ. It's all
determinist determinism. There's no free will, after all, they tell us.
And as a consequence they are. You know, there matchmaking
services now in Silicon Valley that are matching you up

(01:11:07):
with somebody who there's a high likelihood the two of
you will produce a brilliant baby. So I suppose the
intelligence and IQ are being discussed all the time matchmaking.
In matchmaking, matchmaking is made a comeback. People are sick
of the of the online dating, so they're using live
matchmakers like an old Jewish stetto and IQ is a

(01:11:31):
big criteria. I don't want to I only want to
date women with an IQ of one hundred and thirty
and above. I guess some of the some of the
guys on my chat probably want to date women who
was very low IQ if I remember right, right, some
of the in cells and some of the men going
their own way, they want they want low IQ women.

(01:11:52):
They don't want high Q women. They certainly don't want
high owning women. So so the idea is, you know
a lot of these kids, and many of them are
young in Silicon Valley, who are really really smart and
being very successful. They also think they have a kind
of a moral responsibility to society to produce genius babies.

(01:12:15):
This is how the world will become better, and this
is how we need geniuses. We need really smart people, right,
you know, among the rationalists. Since AI poses an existential threat,
we need geniuses to be able to combat AI. And
the only way to get geniuses is to produce them.
And the only way to produce them is by screening

(01:12:37):
our embryos, or by marrying and having kids only with somebody,
as you know, the smartest person we can find. So,
while it's great that we have now the potential to
screen genes for all kinds of things, and I have

(01:13:01):
no more qualms of people doing designer babies, and it's
great that we can screen for these things, this obsession
with the determinism of genes is troubling, particularly among the smartest,
most successful in our world. It's also a bit of

(01:13:26):
a scam because the reality is that we don't exactly
know what produces IQ. The probability that these probabilistic models
actually work is very low. Maybe maybe they're giving you

(01:13:48):
an extra few points in the IQ score. They're not
making a huge difference. But people want to believe, want
to believe now they'll get better one day. There's will exist,
but it's it's a little early, a little early. And

(01:14:13):
you know, I think this obsession with with y Q
instead of thinking about the kind of world that encourages
innovation in collages, progress, raising kids to be independent, independent thinkers,
independent producers, doing the doing the kind of work that

(01:14:36):
ultimately is going to be required in order to live
in a successful world. Producing babies is not going to
be the solution. And you know this, this obsession about
i Q, with with dating is it's not going to
lead to good results, I don't think. But it's going

(01:14:57):
to be interesting. According to research, see current models explain
about five to ten percent of the differences in cognitive
ability between people. If parents rank their embryos by predictive
IQ they could gain between three to four points on
average compared to choosing randomly. It's not going to be
something to make your childhood prodigy these models. I love

(01:15:22):
the tech. I love the tech. I love that we're
looking at that. I love that we want to improve
the human race. I think that's all a good thing,
not a bad thing. All right, guys, that is the
news for Thursday, August fourteenth. Where else where else are
you going to hear about these stories? I don't think.

(01:15:44):
I don't think most of the podcast is out there
talking about them. Maybe that's why they have five million subscribers,
because they only talk about the latest grievance, the latest
in jut. Just that the left is committed against us.
That is what sells, all right, quick, remind that we

(01:16:09):
have goals that we try to meet those goals. That
the goal and the show is two hundred and fifty
dollars an hour in the super chat or the stickers.
If you want help in reaching that, maybe go to
Twitter and remind everybody the show is on live right
now and they can come over and support the show.
But another way is just to do a sticker or

(01:16:29):
to ask a question. The question, Well, so you know,
get you to tell me what you want me to
talk about, if there are stories I'm missing, if there's
something going on that you want me to talk about.
I did talk about Sweeney. I talked about Sidney Sweeney.
I don't know that I had to take anybody care
about but you or anybody valued. But I didn't talk

(01:16:52):
about Sweeney and not enough. I should have Sweeney corner
every show that'll that'll get that'll get the numbers up.
So please come over and support the show value for value.
We have three sponsors for the show. Hander Shot Wealth,
handers Our wealth dot com, slash ybs, Hindershot Wealth dot Com,

(01:17:12):
slash ybs. Hander Shot Health has products that can help
you save significant money on your taxes. In order to
learn more about this, particularly capital gains taxes and in
particularly if you're in a situation where you have significant
capital gains liabilities tax liabilities, then check out a shot

(01:17:33):
wealth dot com, slash ybs or check out the video
I did with Robert Handershot that is on my YouTube
channel in the in the UH playlist that is for
UH sponsors, so check that out. Alex Epstein. Alex Epstein

(01:17:53):
is the number one thinker on all things related to
fossil fuels. If you want understand why this industry is
so crucial for human existence, if you want to understand
why we cannot cannot just transition to solar and wind
and live happily ever after. If you want to know
why Alex thinks that the way to solve whatever environmental

(01:18:17):
problems we face today is more fossil fuels, then read Alex.
He's provocative, he's controversial, but he's damn good and he's
got factions and reality in his side. So try him out.
Alex Epstein. That's upsick dot com. And finally, the I
N Institute is reminding you that there is an app
for your phone, iron Institute app. You can find it

(01:18:40):
at Ironran dot oak slash start here, where you can
link to either the Apple Store or the Google Store
and get your app. The app has all of the
Land of Peacock's courses crucial to the studying and understanding
of rejectivism, and it has lots of content by iron
Range herself, so check it out out. It's great to

(01:19:02):
have kind of irand everything in your pocket available to
anytime through your phone. All right, And finally, a reminder
to check out Patreon dot com and become a monthly
contributor to the show, and please please do that. And

(01:19:22):
it's great because it's a way for this show to
have reliable income. And this show is only possible because
of you, because the support I get from you. All right,
let's do stick a thank yous quickly. Wes fifty dollars,
Thank you, thank you, Thank you. Wes comes through pretty

(01:19:44):
much every show, every day. I really really appreciate it
helps us get to our targets. Let's see who else
did a sticker. We got Jason, Thank you, Jason as
the Economy, thank you, Nobod of Randroid thank you, James,
thank you. And Jonathan Honing thank you. Guys. Really appreciate that.

(01:20:06):
I really appreciate it. I will add, so we're still
kind of quite a bit short of our second hour goal.
We're all into the second hour, and we got quite
a few questions, so we'll be here for a little while.
Of course, we'll be here for even longer if you
ask questions. I mean, Jonathan Honing always likes three hour shows.
I'm willing to go for three hours if we get
enough questions and the questions a significant number of them

(01:20:30):
needs three at the twenty dollars level higher so that
we can make up the gap and you reach our goals.
Goals are meant to be achieved, so please help me
achieve these goals for the show. All right, let us
start with Andrew fifty dollars. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

(01:20:53):
Andrew says you on drugs up use. The technological wonders
are farmer from modern era. We seek the enlightenment of
the Middle Ages. We seek to go backwards towards simple
shortened life. Life extension isn't a frontry. This is from
a modern conservative. I don't know if it's a direct quote,

(01:21:16):
if you're quoting somebody in particular, or whether that's just
you basically ridiculing them, but it's absolutely the case, right.
I do think that a life extension is viewed as
in effrontery by many people within the conservative movement, particularly
the religious conservative movement. They do view it as plain

(01:21:38):
God and there are all kinds of social and other
consequences to longevity that they think worse than death, obviously,
like divorce, right to go up if we lived long.
They don't like that. You know, longevity is also very
self interested it's very selfish. It's promoting your life extension.

(01:22:02):
It's promoting and you'd have to dedicate real time and
effort and thought to how to live long. You would
have to dedicate money to buying the drugs and the
medicines and whatever to be able to live long. So
you know, it's a very selfish activity, longevity. It's and yeah,

(01:22:26):
we definitely, we definitely cannot allow it. People to pursue
their self interested, self interested thing. Yeah, super Keski says
divorce in the report, there was a submitted to George
Bush in two thousand and I think four on Biotech
Commission on a Life extension. The committee advised not investing

(01:22:49):
in life extension and not promoting life extension and for
the FDA not to approve life extending drugs. And they
had a whole bunch of reasons, and one of the
reasons was that it would create, you know, bad social
outcomes because the reality is that if we live to
be two hundred, then divorsarates would go up. I mean,
it's one thing to be married for I don't know,

(01:23:11):
fifty sixty years, but you can't expect people to actually
stay married for one hundred one hundred and fifty years,
they'd get bored with one another. I mean one hundred
years a long time, and devorsaritess would go up because
the longer people are together, the more likely thes they
get divorced or this wasn't the commission, but maybe people
would come up with alternative living arrangements. I don't know.

(01:23:32):
The point is it would shake up the conventional traditional
conservative way of living that is so central to I
don't know, Western so, I don't know what bullshit they have,
but that was one of the reasons one of the
things that they listened to. This is many stupid things
that one stuck with me because it was stupid on steroids.

(01:23:53):
But yes, the conservative conservative movement today or what counts
as the conservatives maga right, whatever you want to call them,
rejects the Enlightenment, basically reject science. You can see that
with RFK and all the people he's appointed. They reject science,
they reject modern medicine, they hate the pharmaceutical industry, and yeah,

(01:24:18):
I mean these are witch doctors and they want us
to go backwards. Is this is the this is the
you know, the daily wire people. This is religion as
the ultimate value let's return to a time when we're
more religious. This is a backward looking reactionary movement, exactly

(01:24:41):
opposite of a you know, the what you would consider
a progressive, a properly progressive, a good progressive movement. They
are regressive movement. And this is the right and the
left right. This is environmentalists who want to see mankind
suffer and die and some of the Christians who want

(01:25:02):
to see mankind suffering die. Is so so so similar.
Yeah some of you. Yeah, okay, thank you, Andrew, I
agree with you. I agree, Hakkan, thank you Joan. How

(01:25:29):
do you personally compartmentalize the tragic human toll in Gaza
from israel strategic aims while still prioritizing the primacy of
individual rights of a collective ideals? What rational framework reconciles well,
I mean, it's it's it's it's very simple. The tragic
human toll in Gaza is the fault and the responsibility

(01:25:52):
of Hamas, and it could end tomorrow if Ramas surrendered
to release the hostages. Israel literally bears no responsibility for
whoever dies, whatever suffering, whatever innocence die in Gaza. All
the blame literally one hundred percent of it, and I

(01:26:14):
have no qualms about this at all. Lies with Hamas
and those who make Hamas possible, which is a big
chunk of the population in Gaza. Now. Israel has only,
in my view, should have only one strategic aim, and

(01:26:36):
that is the destruction of Hamas and the I don't
know what's the term. I'm looking for, the conveying to
the Palestinian people that their policies towards Israel a self

(01:26:59):
destry will never work. The Palestinian people need to be
you know, they need to be humiliated, They need to
be on their knees. They need to accept the fact,
the fact that they have been wrong, and they need

(01:27:20):
to change their ways, and that will never happen unless
they go through shock therapy, which is going on right
now now. The individual rights at stake are not the Palestinians.
The Palestinians individual rights are being violated by Ramas, by
Ramas not surrendering. The responsibility of the Israeli government is

(01:27:42):
to the individual rights of its own people, of Israeli citizens,
who they are responsible for protecting, and they need to
do it's their moral responsibility to do whatever it takes
to protect the individual rights or Israeli, and that requires
the complete annihilation of Ramas and complete victory over the Palestinians.

(01:28:10):
That's what protecting the individual rights or Israelis requires, and
that does not involve violating the rights of Palestinians. The
rights of Palestinians are being violated, not by Israel, They're
being violated by Ramas. Israel is doing what it needs
to do to protect itself. If if you kidnap my

(01:28:34):
kids in in order to get them free, in a
shootout with you, a bunch of innocent pedestrians get shot,
it's your fault, not mine. Even if I even if
the bullets out of my gun hit the pedestrians, you're
the one who violated rights. You're the one who initiated

(01:28:56):
the violence. You bate all them, aral responsibility, all of it.
So I don't think there's any problem now. If you
want the full rational framework, then I've got an essay
on this. Just look it up online. It's easy to
find just war theory. Just put just war theory you're

(01:29:19):
on brook and you will get the essay I wrote
with Alex Epstein on exactly this issue. You know the
the what it takes to win and when is it appropriate?
You know, what is the mass status of civilians, even
innocent civilians in enemy territory in a war? What is

(01:29:41):
the morality of war? How should how should armies behave
in war? We go into great depth and length in
that essay. So if you really have a question, if
my answer is not satisfying, then please check out the essay.
And I don't know that I could do much better
than that essay. If you specific questions coming out of that,
I say, ask them. But what Israel is doing is

(01:30:06):
an individualistic, individual rights respecting approach. Barbara, glad you're enjoying
our weather here in Portugal. Sorry I was not able
to go to Lisbon for the objective's meet up. I'm
sure everyone working for Trump is terrified or upsetting him.
Thanks for the news. Yes, I mean, I'm sure they are,

(01:30:30):
and so they don't upset him too often except when
the statistic has come out and it's hard to manipulate
the statistics on a regular basis and you're gonna get caught,
and so there's a lot of Yeah, it's challenging. Thank you, Bob,
but I really appreciate the support. Sorry, I'm missed meeting
you while I'm here in Portugal, monotropic. If you knew

(01:30:51):
a work colleague was cheating on this spouse, would you
inform the spouse, would failure to do some amount to
morally sanctioning their behavior. No, I don't think so. I
don't think it's any of your business. It's their responsibility,
not yours. Now you need to evaluate your relationship with

(01:31:13):
this person. But it's not your responsibility. Go and tell
the spouse that they're being cheated on unless Look, unless
you're friends with the spouse. Now, if you're but this
is just a work colleague. You didn't say friends. But
if it's just a work colleague, no, you have no
responsibility at all. You're not sanctioning their behavior. You are

(01:31:35):
not responsible the behavior of other people. You're not responsible
for letting other people know you know that that somebody
did something to them. It's not on you. So no. Now,
if the friends, then it becomes a much bigger conundrum,
and then I would say, yes, then I think you
do need to tell if you're friends with the wife,

(01:31:58):
and I wouldn't be friends with a husband if it
was acting irrationally or dishonestly. Now, again, beware of coming
to broad conclusions about the behaviors of other people. They
might be good reason for somebody to be cheating, as

(01:32:19):
you call it. It might not be cheating. They might
be telling their wife, their might what might know. I mean,
who knows what's going on. It's very tricky to tell
what's going on in other people's bedrooms. I don't make
automatic assumptions about people's relationships. They might know ready, and

(01:32:41):
they're letting it go. It might have been consensual. I mean,
there's a lot of possibilities. Yeah. Anyway, John, attributing Argentina's
recent economic success to me Lay is appropriate with in
the proper context that it's ideas that drive the world.

(01:33:04):
The leader does matter, but ideas and freedom drive results.
Do you think it would be smart for me Lay
to make it explicit that the success they're now enjoying
is due to the productivity of the Argentinian people, not
the political decree on mean luck, all right, let me
stop there and then I'll do the rest of the question. Yes,

(01:33:26):
but we have to be careful here. So it's ideas
in action and Melay is responsible here because Melay has
eliminated the force, the coersion, the restrictions, the barriers the productivity.
He has done that. Now it's true once you eliminate

(01:33:49):
those barriers. It is the Argentina people who actually go
and get to work, actually go and produce, make something,
create something that is true. So they both get credit.
He gets credit for eliminating the barriers. It's his ideas
get credit for. But it's an implementation of his good
ideas that get credit. And then now ge Genian people

(01:34:11):
get credit for actually doing something with it, but actually
going out and taking advantage, if you will, of the
liberty and freedom that they have. So yes, I think
the moone emphasizes that it's your productivity and your productivity
is made possible because of the freedom that these ideas
implemented allow you, and I'm implementing them. Support me to

(01:34:35):
implement them more. That is the package that needs to
be sold, and I think he does that to a
logic extent. John continues that his role has been to
remove the political shackles that held them back, unleashing the
creative and productive potential of millions of individuals acting in
their own rational self interest. Yes, of course they have
to want to act in those self interest, but yes,

(01:34:57):
saying all that would be incredibly valuable, and to some
extent he does not to the extent you or I
would want, not as articulately as you put it, but
to some extent he does. Because he talks about the
benefits of freedom and the benefits of unshackli and the
benefits of markets. He could make it more explicit if

(01:35:17):
he was more of an objectivist and less of a libertarian,
then he would put it in more individualistic terms, which
is what you did. The potential millions acting in their
own rational self interest to be productive. John continues, I
think this would help people better conceptualize where success comes
from and hold comparison of me Lay to Trump, where

(01:35:38):
one walks towards an ideal and the other is pure
narcissistic emotionalism. Yes, I agree with you completely. It would
also clarify to them that it's not a personality. It's
a set of ideas and it's liberty and freedom. But
at the end of the day, it's a culture. It's
their culture. It's what they do with that liberty and

(01:35:59):
freedom which will determine their fate. It will allow greater
confidence that this Argentinian experiment will continue. And yeah, it's
you're absolutely right. That the more explicit you are about

(01:36:22):
the ideas that are having positive results and about how
those positive how those ideas filter through to the positive results,
the more sustainable they are, the more impactful they are
the ideas are so yeah, absolutely, thank you John. All Right, guys,

(01:36:43):
we got about d and twenty people watching right now
live on Twitter. We probably had about three hundred people
of four hundred people watching throughout the show. Let's get
some stickers going even one, nine, nine ninety nine something
so we can chip away and get closer to our goal. Remember,
this is a value for value. You listen to the show,
you must get some value from the show. That's why
you listen, I see. And the way to e special

(01:37:06):
value is to just click on that dollar sign at
the bottom of the chat thing here, and that allows
you to do a quick super chat or ask a question,
or just make a financial contribution. Or you can click
right now on Patreon and go to Patreon and become
a monthly supporter, which would be great. And don't forget
I'd like the show before you leave. Liking is free

(01:37:28):
and it helps algorithm. It helps me with algorithm significantly.
Harpa Campbell, do you think fifty years from now, politicians
in the West will be much more principled free marketeers
than today, even if they're so far from objectivism. Fifty
years from now, yeah, I think so. Either that or
will be in the midst of the of a kind
of a dark age. But I hope that that is

(01:37:50):
the answer, that they will be much more free market
oriented and much more principled than in their stand and
under way to objectivism. Are DF. Thank you for the sticker.
I really appreciate that. Stephen Harper, Mary, Aleen Gail, thank

(01:38:11):
you guys, are DF. Thank you all for the stickers.
Keep them coming. Eddie, thank you for the sticker. I
really appreciate it. James says, just ten years ago, characters
like Tucker Coulson, Candice or Nick foyntis would be inconceivable
that these creatures of mainstream suggest American reviemer republic is
collapsing quickly. It really is scary. It Just remember America

(01:38:35):
is a big country and they are still pretty marginal.
They're not central figures. They might be among sudden groups
of youth, they might be among Suddain people on the right,
but they're not central figures in the culture. Not yet,
but it is tragic and sad that they're even in
the culture. James, you hear it with young people today

(01:39:00):
being for freedom and individual liberty for boomers being a
Nazi a Nazi is hip and cool. Well, I don't
know how much you hear that. I hope that's not
massive numbers. I do think it's more numbers than I think.
It's scary. It's bigger than it should be by far.

(01:39:23):
But yes, I think freedom and capitalism. I remember people
leaving objectivism in twenty sixteen to go to the alt
right because the ult right was cool and objectivism was
stayed and there's no action. You didn't have cool memes,
you didn't insult people, you didn't smash windows, you didn't

(01:39:44):
do cool stuff. So ult right and that's the kind
of mindless kids that we've raised. I guess, Andrew your
remox about RFK is anti sign attitude to remind me
of when rand was asked about her similarities with Buckley,

(01:40:04):
and she said none and that when there's a difference
of reason and mysticism, politics don't even matter. Yeah, I
agree with her, and and and this is you know,
this is why you know often voting republican is contemptible,
is wrong. It's just bad decision because when the difference

(01:40:28):
between reason and mysticism and politics, what difference does it make? Yep, Liam,
these and RFK is a mystic, no question about it.
A secular atheistmistic, but a mystic. Liam says, these tasks
are being used for corruption and favoritism to a scale

(01:40:50):
that has never been seen in this country's history. It's
probably true. Although corruption uh in favoritism during the railroad
era were really bad, really bad and widespread here. It's
all about Trump and the people around Trump in those days,
with the state level, at the federal level, different commissions.

(01:41:13):
It was really bad with the railroads, and it was
only one industry or mostly one industry. Not You have
a you algorithm. Typically does your next move, madam, more
than your last mistake? Yes, the future is always more
important than the past. The past is the past, the
past is over, the past doesn't exist, and the past

(01:41:35):
will never come back. And the past, the past has finished.
You know, your whole orientation in life should be around
the future, and therefore your next move is what matters.
What happened in the past is dead now. It's important
to the extent that you should need to learn from
it and know the consequence of the past. But right now,

(01:42:00):
looking forward is what matters, and the orientation of successful
people is towards the future, not the past. Z four hundred,
Race ask if you can email me the question. Yes,
you can email away. Let's see. Well, and a little

(01:42:25):
compensation for the tariffs on your Swiss chocolate. Luckily my
chocolate is not Swiss, but I appreciate it anyway. I'm
sure my chocolate is tariffed, not quite at that level,
but tariff from elsewhere. I think my favorite chocolate right
now is from Spain, not known for it's chocolate necessarily,
but I like it. Paul, what do you think of

(01:42:49):
Trump's review of Sifsonian Museum's exhibitions to make sure they
aligned with Trump's view of history. I think it's horrible.
I think it's corrupt. What view of history does Trump have?
What authority does Trump have over his view of history?
I mean, the Sismonians shouldn't exist, It should be privatized.

(01:43:11):
The federal government should not have a position in the history,
should not have a view of history. And I don't
think to an extent of Smithsonian exists. It should be
independent of politics, independent of the president, and it'll be
It'll be an outcome of academic historians. And if history

(01:43:32):
is corrupted and debased, then that's what all appear. The
way to fight that is get better historians, or to
get the government out of the business of teaching history
or having museums of history. Shouldn't be the worle of
government to manage and run museums. They should be all privatized.
All those museums in Washington, d C. Should be privatized. Andrew,

(01:43:55):
objectivists should do something with their lives other than just
be objectivists. But in their very acceptance of objectivism, one
has achieved having exemplified virtues such as honesty and independence.
Well yes, but it really I mean, what does it
mean to accept objectivism if you don't live it? So
the real acceptance is the living of it. To me,

(01:44:17):
it's much more important how you live than what you
declare yourself to be. So go out and live and
listen to my ruthful life shows that you know have
something to say about how to live and living. I

(01:44:37):
don't see the is that the email? Paul? Right, all right,
let me take this otherwise that will this ape I'm
Alaly speaking. What's the topic of is from breaking gods
into ten sections and leaving one and leveling one every
six hours until all gods and surrender unconditionally, no negotiation,

(01:44:59):
no common station. We will pound you until you submit
immediately and completely. It seems like they would cave after
the first strike, But who would cave. I don't think
Hamas cares. This is the problem with with the Islamists.
It's a suicidal ideology, so it's not easy to get
them to cave. But yeah, I mean, that's not that

(01:45:22):
different than the strategy I proposed on October seventh. Gaza
needed to be pounded and it needed to be made
very clear who was responsible for the deaths that were happening,
and the Pastinians needed to be encouraged to turn the
Hamas and to release the hostages, and if not, they
would continue to be pounded. Water, food, electricity, internet service

(01:45:45):
should have all been cut off stopped immediately. I mean,
it is ridiculous to feed your enemy as you fight them,
and you say not everybody's your enemy. The children are
not your enemy. That's right. Garza can get their children
fed as soon as they surrender. As soon as they

(01:46:09):
hand off for the hostages, everybody will be fed. Andrew, well,
I mean you should draw a difference between Ramas and
the goddens, to the extent that some godslands are innocent,

(01:46:29):
and the ones I think of here are the children.
Their parents are not innocent for the most part, but
the children are innocent our grant. The two year olds
and three year olds and five year olds and even
eight year olds are innocent. Twelve, thirteen, fourteen year olds,
I don't know, but you know, young children are innocent,

(01:46:49):
and yet again their death are completely at the hands
of Ramas. Andrew. Jews themselves in beating great odds, defeating
the hordes, they attrireat the success to God, but in
reality it is their fidelity the reason and explains the

(01:47:10):
victories over the against the odds. Yeah, I mean, you know,
I don't know if Jews pride themselves over beating great odds.
I mean, six million of them died in the Holocaust.
About what is it? Fifty percent of the Jewish population
in Europe died and that was almost all the popularity
died in the Holocaust. I don't think that's defeating the hordes.

(01:47:33):
Of beating the odds. I guess the fact that some
survived is beating the odds. I don't think most Jews
attribat it to God. Most of the Jews I know
are pretty secular. Many of them are atheists. What it
means to be Jewish without recognizing the religion is an
interesting question. Again, I think you're defined more by how

(01:47:55):
the world defines you than by how you define yourself.
The world defines you as Jews because that's the bloodline,
that's the genetic line that you come from. Bet To
the extent that Jews have succeeded, it's they've succeeded for
the same reason anybody succeeds to extend, anybody really succeeds,

(01:48:17):
it's because of his fidelity. The reason there's nothing unique
here about Jews, Loan Dissenter, you said you'd be rereading
Atlas on audiobooks started yet, Maybe keep us updated on
your reflections along the way. Curious what strikes you on
a fresh reading. Maybe show on Wisdom from Atlas. Yeah,

(01:48:41):
I mean I will be. I haven't started yet, just
because I'm so backed up in books that I have
to read for material I need for different projects. I'm
working on so at some point I will reread at
the Shrug. I listened to it, and I will share
with you my impressions when I do that. All right, guys,

(01:49:05):
thank you, Thank you to all the superchatters. Thank you
for being here. Tomorrow's show will be at about the
same time, maybe half an hour later. It'll be at
four thirty pm Eastern time. Four thirty pm Eastern time.
Hopefully you'll be able to join me then. And isn't

(01:49:26):
it still a form of collectivism. I'm not sure what
you're talking about. Flashing. You know, it can be a
form of collectivism. It can also be a form of
self defense. You know, if the world views you as
a member of a collective and wants to kill you

(01:49:47):
because you're a member of a particular group that they define.
Even if you say, I'm not member of the group,
I'm an individual. I have nothing to do with them.
You might have to join up with other members of
this group in order to defend yourself. You might not
have a choice. Are you doing it in the name
of collectivism? Absolutely not. You're doing it in the name
of defending yourself. But the world has categorized this. It

(01:50:08):
puts you into a box as a collectivist, and they
are the collectivists, not you. You are trying to protect
yourself from them, from the people who would categorize you
as something, even though you don't categorize yourself that way.
Am I a Jew? No, it doesn't mean anything to

(01:50:30):
me to say that I'm a Jew. I don't consider
myself part of the tribe and part of the collective.
But do I know that if I go into the
streets of London and defend Israel, I will be considered
a Jew? Or if I walk around with my Israeli
passport or in my American passport it says that was
morn in Jerusalem? Will I be considered a Jew by

(01:50:53):
all the people out there? And will they want to
lynch me? Even though I denounce collective, reject my own Judaism,
want to be just, But I defend Israel because it's
a free country. Do they care? No, they will view
me as a Jew, and they will lynch me with
the rest of the Jews, and they will throw me
into the concentration camp. And if my only way to

(01:51:15):
protect myself, if the only way to protect myself is
to get together with a bunch of other people who
affiliate themselves or have been affiliated themselves with being Jewish,
and that's the only way I can survive, then, so
be it. That's not me being a collectivist, that's them

(01:51:38):
being collectivists, the people trying to kill me. That's why
Israel is a primarily a acti of self defense. The
creation of the state of Israel an act of self defense,
not primarily collectivistic. Ad Now, it's got collectivistic elements, and
I'm a huge critic of Israel for being tribal and
collectivists and all of that, and appeasing religion and all

(01:52:03):
of that. I'm huge critic of visual, but it's basic creation.
It was an act of self defense flesh. And thank
you for the backing up the question with a sticker
and nominalists. Is it okay to buy products from our
communist countries such as China? Well, you know you need

(01:52:25):
to answer that. Do you think it's okay? There's no dictate,
I don't think. Let me just say this, China is
not communist. I mean, I've said this for years now
and I'll keep saying it. For over ten years. I've
said this China is not communist. It's a thiritarian. If anything,

(01:52:46):
China is fascist, it's much more fascist than communists. There's
no I mean, America is big of a welfare state
than China. There's very little redistribution of wealth. The Chinese
don't own all the means of production. They own some,
but not all, and certainly not even the most important ones.

(01:53:08):
So no, I don't think China is communists. I think
China's fascist. Is it okay to buy products from China?
You have to make that call. It depends on how
difficult it is to get products from other places, It
depends on your evaluation of China as a threat to

(01:53:29):
the United States, and it depends on your evaluation of
the extent to which buying a product from China helps
the Chinese government versus helping the company and the individuals
from which you bought the product. So I think there's
enough freedom to assume that many of the products, not all,
that we buy from China, the benefit of cruse to

(01:53:50):
the individuals. But yes, there are some products where the
benefit of cruise to the state. I definitely think it's
wrong to buy products from state enterprises in China, and
over time, as China becomes more thoritarian, and more restrictive
and more state owned, more fascist. Then it will become

(01:54:11):
less and less morally okay to buy stuff from China.
But every one of us needs to make those evaluations
based on how much time you have to research, how
much effort you're will need to make, and what alternatives
you have. You can't crypple your life because I'm not
buying stuff from China given the current reality, Andrew, just

(01:54:35):
some feedback the show walking through Rand's essay on engalitarianism
in inflation was excellent. Would you consider interacting with her
work more on the show if if only members show? Yes, Yes,
I think that's a good idea for only members show
to do shows on particular irad essays. Those shows require

(01:55:00):
lot of preps, so that's the one hesitation I have,
But I am thinking of doing that. Thank you, Andrew. Drin.
Who is today's Da Vinci Einstein, Betaven, Mozart or Churchill?
Besides your an, Who's a figure you're in awe of
in your lifetime? Politician? Writer? I mean no politician maybe

(01:55:24):
me Layers the closest one you could get to in
terms of writers. Nobody right now that I would say
I'm in awe of outside of objectivism, of course, you
know the objectives writers. But a lot of the people

(01:55:49):
who are the Vinci Einstein, Beta and Mozart Churchill are
business people. And there are a lot of business people
I'm in awe of. I mean, just the fact that
business people can function in the world in which we
live and produce and create and build and grow in
spite of all the regulations and controls and mindlessness of

(01:56:09):
some of the employees and is staggering. But you know,
I'd suddenly say that somebody likes Steve Jobs is a
is a great personal hero of mine. Ill un Musk
sometimes and suddenly in his productive capacity, Jetbizos is amazing.

(01:56:31):
I mean what he built, what he's built, the kind
of company's built, and there are lots of others. I mean,
the progress is being made right now in AI is stunning.
So it's more people in business than anybody anywhere else.
That's where the real geniuses, if you will, all the

(01:56:51):
real man of ability are all right, guys, thank you
for the last minut of questions. I appreciate that. I
will see you guys, uh tomorrow four thirty pm East
Coast time. Talk to you then. Bye. Everybody,

All Episodes

PPI; FDA; Arms Embargo; Toronto Film; China Model; Hyperloop?; Super Babies | Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

.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;}PPI; FDA; Arms Embargo; Toronto Film; China Model; Hyperloop?; Super Babies | Yaron Brook Show