Putin&Trump Meet; Intel; CFPB; Drill; Redistricting; Infowars; e-cars; Kabul | Yaron Brook Show - Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Fun of that principles, a little cells and individual wats.

Speaker 2 (00:15):
This is the show, all right, everybody, welcome to you
Rue Book Show on this Friday, August fifteenth.

Speaker 1 (00:28):
I hope everybody's having a fantastic had a fantastic week.
What do I have? Cham? All right, clean that out.

Speaker 3 (00:38):
Hope everybody's having a fantastic week and you're looking forward
to a weekend. It is ten pm here in Lisbon, Portugal,
so it's late. I'm a little tired, but yeah, you
know the world doesn't stop because I'm tired. So today

(00:58):
we're going to talk about.

Speaker 1 (01:01):
The news, and we'll start with I think what's on
everybody's minds and what we're going to be tracking throughout
the show because.

Speaker 3 (01:11):
You know, Trump and Trumpet put in a meeting right now,
and we'll keep track. I'll try to keep track on
on what is going on and what is new as
as the information comes out. At some point they're supposed
to have a a press conference where they will both

(01:34):
answer questions. But you know, we'll see it. It probably
will be after the show. It probably won't be during
the show. Quite a welcome Donald Trump gave to putin,
I mean the red coppet treatment. The planes flew in.
Putin's plane flew in a little bit after Trump's. They

(01:56):
rolled out the red corpet for him. He he got
a he got a flyover for F thirty five's and
a B two. Uh, you know which, which is a
huge honor I think for for visiting, for visiting.

Speaker 1 (02:13):
Dignitaries, usually reserved for allies. Uh.

Speaker 3 (02:17):
You know the handshake between Putin and Trump. I don't
know if you guys watched it. I watched it. Very chummy,
very warm, very friendly, touched each other, talked a little bit,
you know, very very you know, these are these are
good friends getting together.

Speaker 1 (02:36):
Uh, not at all kind of.

Speaker 3 (02:39):
Uh what you'd expect, of course it's Trump, But what
you'd expect from two enemies meeting. After all, Russia in
speech after speech after speech, is to find the United
States as its enemy.

Speaker 1 (02:54):
Uh.

Speaker 3 (02:55):
Putin is a leader of.

Speaker 1 (02:59):
A Tyrian regime that.

Speaker 3 (03:03):
Has invaded a neighboring country now for the first time,
that is slaughtering people in the battlefield, that has his
own people slaughtered. Who kills his opposition, who kills his media?
Is basically the dictator, maybe the dictator. Trump always knew
he wanted to be.

Speaker 1 (03:21):
But he has a brutal dictator. He is a really
really bad man. History will judge him to be a
really really bad man.

Speaker 3 (03:30):
And he is invited on American soil to meet with
American President. His arrival is celebrated, he is given the
full on red Copper treatment, and Putin's already won. No

(03:51):
matter what happens. Putins just elevated his stature in the
world dramatically.

Speaker 1 (03:57):
He is no longer pariah. He is the equal. He
is the equal of Donald Trump.

Speaker 3 (04:04):
I mean, the flyover is a little funny because on
the one hand, it's a huge sign of respect to
have the kind of flyover, and it's again it's significant
dignitaries and so on. On the other hand, it's a
B two and four thirty five's and Russia has nothing,
nothing in its arsenal, nothing comparable.

Speaker 1 (04:25):
It just it just, I mean, just.

Speaker 3 (04:27):
That flyover illustrates the relative positions, the power of the
two countries, the United States versus Russia. You know, Russia
is a nothing and nobody in comparison. And this is
what makes this so ridiculous and absurd that this is
even happening. As I said the other day, America has

(04:50):
nothing to gain from Russia. Russia has everything to gain
from the United States.

Speaker 1 (04:58):
When does not negotiation.

Speaker 3 (05:00):
Heat and treat with respect evil dictators, one deals with
them as appropriate to prevent nuclear war. One does not
appease them, One does not honor them.

Speaker 1 (05:18):
One does not, you know.

Speaker 3 (05:20):
Pretend that they are friends, and pretend that we share interests,
and pretend the wall on one side, which is what
this whole show in Alaska is.

Speaker 1 (05:32):
Trying to do.

Speaker 3 (05:32):
So Look, the very fact that the meeting is happening,
the very fact that the meaning is happening on American
soil already has given Putin a win.

Speaker 1 (05:45):
In a sense that he is now up there with
everybody else.

Speaker 3 (05:56):
You know, if Trump does not want to side with Ukraine,
then Trump should just move to the sidelines and and
and and none of none of his business and move on.
But to to to treat.

Speaker 1 (06:18):
Monster like Putin with respect is disgusting. Now, it's not surprising,
It's not unusual.

Speaker 3 (06:25):
Remember Trump did the same thing with the brutal dictator
of North Korea. At the time, I thoroughly condemned it.
It was one of the most I don't know, one
of the most humiliating things that an American president has
ever done, ever done, and for no no upside, no benefit,

(06:50):
no nothing to be gained. There again, and the North
Korean dictators everything to gain from meeting Trump. Trump is
nothing to gain from meeting the brutal dictator of North Korea.
Same thing is here with Russia. You could argue, at
least Russia, you know, is a power.

Speaker 1 (07:08):
At least Russia has nukes.

Speaker 3 (07:11):
But again, he could have meant he could have met
him in in Uee, he could have met him in Geneva,
he could have met him in anyway.

Speaker 1 (07:21):
He could have met him. He didn't have to.

Speaker 3 (07:23):
Invite him to the United States and treat him with
such with such honor.

Speaker 1 (07:28):
It is, it is truly despicable, just to give you
a sense of of kind of what the Russian delegation
thinks of us, and and how you know, how.

Speaker 3 (07:43):
How dismissive they are of us, and how they are
not embarrassed at all by what they stand for and
what they represent and what they want and what they
were going.

Speaker 1 (07:54):
To insist on. Well. Foreign Minister lever.

Speaker 3 (07:58):
Of arrived earlier in the day to Anchorage, Alaska. He
came in, you know, Putin came in with a student
tie and you know, dignified everything.

Speaker 1 (08:10):
Love of came in with pretty.

Speaker 3 (08:12):
Casual clothes quite a bit before putin so he could
change and then go into the meeting. Anyway, he came
in with wearing a sweatshirt with a big type right
in the front.

Speaker 1 (08:25):
USSR.

Speaker 3 (08:26):
I mean, it's not USSR, it's a ccc P I think,
but basically USSR. He came in with a USSR sweatshirt,
a Soviet Union sweatshirt, the pride and joy of Russia,
the Soviet Union, I mean, disgusting, despicable. This is not

(08:53):
only USSR communism, but USSR as an empire. USSR is controlling,
completely controlling Ukraine. USSR is the enemy of the United States.

Speaker 1 (09:09):
He doesn't care.

Speaker 3 (09:11):
He knows exactly what he wants. Unlike Trump, who has
no clue what he wants. This guy knows exactly what
he wants. And you know, they've they've they've won because
they got the summit. And now the question is what
else can they get from Trump? What else can they
squeeze out of this? You know, this, this incompetent president

(09:37):
who stands for nothing, this anti American president who stands
for nothing. I mean by the very fact that there's
a meeting. The United States has accepted Russia as part
of the club of legitimate major nations as compared to
his pariah state just yesterday. And it's uh, it's it's

(10:00):
sidelining because it started a war, a brutal war with
no justification, and he's getting an amazing photo op, an
amazing photo op with with Trump.

Speaker 1 (10:17):
You know, uh, uh treating him with respect. I mean,
remember how the Linsk he was treated when he came
to the White House. Now, you know, let's see what happens.

Speaker 3 (10:31):
Uh, does Putin give Trump a ceasefire, which only if
it serves Putin's interests only a Putin thinks he can
gain from a ceasefire.

Speaker 1 (10:44):
You know.

Speaker 3 (10:45):
The last about a few days ago, I think we
talked about this, Russia had made some significant inroad in
to Ukrainian territory on the Eastern Front, and.

Speaker 1 (10:56):
Don't ask.

Speaker 3 (10:59):
You know, it's units of the Russian military found a
gap in the defenses and streamed through and got pretty
far into Ukrainian territory. And a lot of this was
deemed as a push to take on additional territory in
order to get to this meeting.

Speaker 1 (11:15):
In a position of strength.

Speaker 3 (11:17):
Well over the last two days, those units that broke
through have been decimated. The Ukrainians have cut them off
in the main body of the Russian army, and the
Ukraine has basically taken back most of the land that
they have taken and is in the process of taking
back all of the land and killing or capturing all
of the Russian troops that made it in Russia is

(11:42):
having an almost impossible time fighting for inches in Dunask.

Speaker 1 (11:49):
Ceasefire might be something they need right now, just to recoup.

Speaker 3 (11:52):
Remember, the other thing that Ukrainian is doing is it
has bombed almost I think almost every refinery in Russia
over the last ten days has been attacked.

Speaker 1 (12:06):
They're all in flames.

Speaker 3 (12:08):
Factories have been attacked, oil facilities to be attacked Ukraine
is not a phenomenal job. Trying to cripple Russia's economy. Said,
might be completely in Putin's interest to have some kind
of ceasefire. Of course, Ukraine has to greet to cease fire,
so in Ukraine's not even there so and Trump earlier

(12:31):
today said that he was not negotiating for Ukraine, although
the fact that Trump said that means absolutely nothing he
could very well get into the meeting and completely change
his mind and make decisions for Ukraine, or pretend to
make a decisions for Ukraine.

Speaker 1 (12:52):
You know, Trump is Trump.

Speaker 3 (12:53):
So before this meeting, earlier today, Trump called the other
the brutal dictator, or less brutal than Putin, but still
a brutal dictator in Europe. Bela Husa's president Alexander Lukashenko,
and you know he wrote about this.

Speaker 1 (13:14):
You know, he wrote that.

Speaker 3 (13:16):
I had a wonderful talk with the highly respected president
of Belarus. I don't think anybody respects the president of
bel who's maybe Putin, but nobody respects the president of US.
He is despised by his own people, and he is
despised by the Europeans. He is not respected by anyone.

(13:43):
One guy respected him. You remember the guy who ran
the Russian private militia, who tried to kind of deal
with Lukashenko and of course got himself killed in the process.
Because nobody respects.

Speaker 1 (14:00):
Kushenko. The purpose of the call was to thank him.

Speaker 3 (14:06):
This is Trump to thank him for the release of
sixteen prisoners. We're also discussing the release of thirteen hundred
additional prisoners.

Speaker 1 (14:13):
Our conversation was a very good one.

Speaker 3 (14:15):
We discussed many topics, including President Putin's visit to Alaska.
I look forward to meeting President Lukashenko in the future.
Thank you for your attention on this matter. Yeah, I
mean Trump has never talked.

Speaker 1 (14:28):
To a dictator. He has not liked. Trump likes dictators.

Speaker 3 (14:33):
He admires them. People stand up when they walk into
a room. I guess that's the respect, the highly respected
that he means.

Speaker 1 (14:42):
So right now, you've.

Speaker 3 (14:43):
Got USSR, you know, fans USSR, believers in the USSR
walking around Alaska in the United States, no problem wearing
those shirts.

Speaker 1 (15:00):
You have people who have.

Speaker 3 (15:03):
Basically been responsible for an invasion of a sovereign country
and the killing and the torture, the the the you know,
rape mutilation of Ukrainians, and nobody cares. Nobody cares, at
least nobody in the Trump administration seems to care. One

(15:25):
good thing, one good sign about this meeting is originally
it was talked about the fact that Putin and Trump
would meet one on one during this meeting, that the
meeting would be just the two of them, And I
was very worried about that because you know, I think
I think Putin is so much, so much, you know,

(15:50):
so much smarter, more strategic and better at this than
Trump is. So Luckily it turns out that it won't
be one on one, it will be three on three.
So Putin will have with him his lover of and

(16:11):
his foreign policy adviser, and Trump will have with him
Marco Rubio. We think it's a little better on Russia.

Speaker 1 (16:18):
Than anybody else in the Trump administration, and the idiot
Witkoff who seems to be confused about a lot of
different things and seems to.

Speaker 3 (16:28):
Have failed in most of his negotiations. But they will
all be there, the sixth of them will be discussing.
Maybe at some point Trump and and Putin will talk
one on one, but at least he's got a little
bit of back up there. It's not him being by
himself being manipulated by Putin. Interestingly, you know, when the

(16:52):
election happened in twenty twenty four, almost, I mean very
few Republicans. This is just looking at a poll about
people's attitudes towards Ukraine and the US supporting Ukraine. Only
thirty percent of Republicans at the time supported sending US

(17:12):
military aid to Ukraine and to Lifeestan. Trump won on
this promise not to help Ukraine and not to support Ukraine,
and he was going to remember, he's going to solve
this and bring about peace in one day, and only
thirty percent of Republicans supported military aid to Ukraine, fifty
one percent of Independence and fifty two percent of Democrats.

(17:36):
No sorry, seventy seven percent of Democrats. Total was fifty
two percent. So both Independence it was only fifty one
percent and Republicans only thirty percent. Well, come July of
twenty five when this poll was taken, so last month,
the percentage of Republicans who want to support Ukraine militarily

(17:59):
as jumped to fifty one Independents sixty So Americans now
broadly sixty two percent American support support sending US military.

Speaker 1 (18:13):
Aid to Ukraine. So a lot has changed since the
election to today in terms of Republicans' attitudes. Maybe it's because.

Speaker 3 (18:24):
Trump changed his attitude, Maybe because Trump didn't achieve the
peace that he promised, Maybe because Trump realized and maybe
some Republicans realized that he was bssing them and that ultimately,
you know, this was as Trump keeps saying, this is.

Speaker 1 (18:40):
A lot harder than I expected.

Speaker 3 (18:43):
Now a big motivation for Trump in meeting with Putin
and putting on the show, and I think a real
risk for the world that Trump will be willing to
give up a lot in order to get a deal
with Russia in order to get something done.

Speaker 1 (19:04):
Is Trump's almost desperate attempt to try to get a
Nobel Peace Prize.

Speaker 3 (19:13):
I mean, it turns out that earlier this week Trump
called cold called, cold called a Norwegian minister, a minister
in the Norwegian government in Nowhay, of course, is where
the Nobel Prize are given, to ask about what his

(19:35):
prospects were of getting the Nobel Peace Prize. He basically
is lobbying actively to get the prize. This is hugely
important for him to get this recognition, to be on
a plaque together with Kissinger for the peace between North
and South Vietnam which lasted so long, Yes of our

(19:58):
thought for the Uslo cause, and a bunch of other people.

Speaker 1 (20:02):
He wants to be on that plaque. It's really really important.

Speaker 3 (20:04):
For him, and I think he's willing to give up
a lot, a lot in order to in order to
you know, to get that piece Noble Priest prize. I mean,
he is such a he is so dependent. He is

(20:26):
it's so important to him how other people see him,
how other people view him, other people estimate him. You know,
that is that is such a big deal for him,
according to this, according to this minister.

Speaker 1 (20:41):
You know that it was Trump, and it was Secretary
Bessett and uh and and some other people and you know,
and and a lot of it was about is am
I going to get the Noble Priest Prize? Am I
going to get? Oh? God?

Speaker 3 (21:05):
Anyway, as I as I said, this meeting is I
think a pretty bad.

Speaker 1 (21:11):
By the way, Hillary Clinton.

Speaker 3 (21:13):
I just saw a tweet come by that said that
Hillary Clinton said that Trump would deserve the Nobel Piece
Prize if he can get a deal done between Ukraine
and Russia.

Speaker 1 (21:26):
Even Hillary Clinton is going to give him the price.

Speaker 3 (21:30):
So it's a done deal, right, I mean, and now
he's got Hillary Clinton in his corners.

Speaker 1 (21:35):
It's absolutely it's absolutely there, all right.

Speaker 3 (21:51):
Yeah, you know they sat down before the meeting and
the press was there, and the press threw some questions
at them, and Putin was visibly uncomfortable. It's like he's
not used to getting questions from.

Speaker 1 (22:07):
From press. From press that is not just his accolades.
There is justice.

Speaker 3 (22:11):
Praising him, and he's visibly unhappy and and basically and
making faces and stuff, and and ultimately they say, okay,
no questions, no questions, and they walk up and they
asked the question the press.

Speaker 1 (22:24):
To leave, and they're left to their meeting. But it is.

Speaker 3 (22:29):
It is going to be interesting to see if there
is a real press conference afterwards, and whether Putin.

Speaker 1 (22:35):
Participates participates in it. All right, Uh, let's see.

Speaker 3 (22:46):
I suppose the the.

Speaker 1 (22:50):
The meeting is still ongoing.

Speaker 3 (22:53):
Uh, they have not broken for lunch yet, so I
guess they're talking is intense, They're committed.

Speaker 1 (23:00):
Uh, and that is Uh, that is where we are.

Speaker 3 (23:11):
And I'll keep monitoring to see if we get let
me see if there's anything else.

Speaker 1 (23:15):
Yeah, here it is.

Speaker 3 (23:15):
Hillary Clinton said she nominated Trump for Noble Peace Brice
if he ends Ukraine woar without giving territory to Russia. Okay,
so there's a there's some caveats there, she would nominate him.

Speaker 1 (23:33):
All right, we will see. So they've already been going
at it for an now and a half.

Speaker 4 (23:44):
Let's see what else did I want to cover up
with regard to this.

Speaker 1 (23:48):
I think that is it.

Speaker 3 (23:51):
And is now you know, uh wow, and is now
justifying our fat There's.

Speaker 1 (24:04):
Quite a quite a quite a leap there. All right,
we know where she stands. That's good.

Speaker 3 (24:10):
All right, let's put aside the Trump Putin meeting.

Speaker 1 (24:17):
For now. Oh yeah, there was one other thing I
did want to say someone I think, okay, So just give.

Speaker 3 (24:22):
You a sense of of of kind of the Russian
approach to this versus Trump praising everybody and hailing everybody.

Speaker 1 (24:31):
The Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, the head of
the Russian Orthodox Church, delivered.

Speaker 3 (24:38):
A speech today just ahead of the Alaska summit. Uh basically,
you know here here here he is basically threatening, will
go three if this doesn't go well. He says, nothing
can influenced the development of the human civilization as much

(25:01):
as a state of US Russia relations. Really, Russia at
best is a junior partner in the only other country
that matters in the world in that sense, and that
is China.

Speaker 1 (25:15):
So I don't think Russia matters that much. Okay.

Speaker 3 (25:18):
If they develop positively, then peace on the planet is insured,
and therefore the condition for progressive development of human civilization
also ensured. If there is no peace, if God forbid,
there's a threat of the nuclear conflict, which will entail
the destruction of not only the participants in this conflict,
but probably the entire human civilization. Then we will come

(25:40):
closer to nothing less than the most difficult and tragic
end of the existence of the human race. So World
War three. You wonder when MAGA gets the World War
three panic and hysteria. It's fed to them by Russian propaganda,

(26:03):
he continues, because the violation of peace between our countries
can lead to the global destruction of the entire human civilization.
And this is not some kind of horror story, but
a fact that stems to the possession by two states
of the most powerful nuclear potential, which is truly capable
of destroying the entire world. How many times are you
going to say the same thing? He asked the congregation
to pray, quote that the result of these negotiations will

(26:26):
truly bring hope to people and create the peak conditions
for an even more dynamic development of relations between our countries,
and not only between our countries, but also between Russia
and the Western world. So veiled threats in the background.

Speaker 4 (26:46):
All right, let's see where do I want to go
from here? I never started the super chat counter.

Speaker 1 (26:54):
There we go. That's much better, all right, Okay, put
that aside. I'll monitor it.

Speaker 3 (27:03):
If there are any developments, I'll fill you in as
we go along. If you see any development in the news,
put it up in the chat. I'll try to follow
the chat as well, so just in case I missed
something going on over there.

Speaker 1 (27:21):
All right.

Speaker 3 (27:24):
So we've talked a lot about Trump's economic fascism and
extent of which Trump is an economic fascist, more so
than any president probably since.

Speaker 1 (27:36):
FDR.

Speaker 3 (27:39):
And you know, we had the Golden share in the
US Steel Nipon Steel merger, We've had the US taker
equity interest in a rare Earth's company. And now and
we saw the President of the United States calling for
the dismissal and the firing of CEOs in Corporate American.

(28:00):
Of course, when the President of the United States called
for the firing of the COO of Intel, the CEO of.

Speaker 1 (28:07):
Was it Goldman Sachs the other day.

Speaker 3 (28:11):
It's not just an empty just a.

Speaker 1 (28:16):
Statement that carries no weight.

Speaker 3 (28:20):
This carries the weight of a threat from the President.

Speaker 1 (28:23):
Of the United States.

Speaker 3 (28:24):
This carries with it the potential for force for coersion,
and it just being horrible. I mean, in his first term,
Trump very much acted like he wanted to be the
CEO of the economy. I called him often central planner

(28:47):
in chief, and I think he acted that way.

Speaker 1 (28:49):
He would call CEOs.

Speaker 3 (28:51):
And tell them they couldn't move a plant here, they
couldn't build that plan, they couldn't shut that down. And
I think he's done that in spades this term. So
he's definitely central planner in chief. That is his economic policy.
He wants to run things well as part of this

(29:12):
economic fascism, which is controlling businesses while giving them the
illusion that they still have private property, that they still
control their own faith, their own fate, but really the
government controlling what.

Speaker 1 (29:24):
They do and how they do it.

Speaker 3 (29:26):
We have this story coming out of the meeting that
the CEO of Intel had earlier this week that we
talked about with Trump trying to appease Trump and trying
to get himself not fired. I guess, well, it turns
out that out of that meeting, a proposition came forward,
a possibility was discussed, and a possibility is being discussed

(29:48):
and pursued of the US government taking an equity stake
in Intel. The United States actually investing an inte, making
Intel what they call in Asia a national champion in
the chip rays. Now, you know, Obama did this with

(30:09):
the auto companies, with the auto bailout with GM, but it.

Speaker 1 (30:13):
Was temporary and it was.

Speaker 3 (30:16):
It was a bailouts and it was temporary, and the
government sold its steak pretty quickly. Here one fears that
it's not temporary. This is the new belief of the
National Conservatives, the National conservatives, Christian Conservatives of this you know,
new central planner in chief. They want to control the economy.

Speaker 1 (30:40):
They want to control American big businesses.

Speaker 3 (30:42):
They want the government involved, not just the government regulating
or the government picking winners or losers, or the government
even providing capital. They want the government actually have a steak,
to have an equity steak with everything that implies, including
a say in how the business is run. Now, again,

(31:06):
this is unprecedented in American history. It is a real, uh,
a real danger to whatever economic freedom we have left
in this country, and we don't have that much left.
And the fact that it's being done by a Republican.
Imagine what a Democrat does with this kind of power.

(31:27):
Imagine what a Democrat does once it's kosher and acceptable
and everything's everything's okay. With the US government literally investing
in businesses and in that sense really deciding winners and losers.

Speaker 1 (31:41):
It's not just about subsidies, it's about ownership. Talk about
socialism is a socialism the ownership of the means of production.
Do we have a socialist in the White House?

Speaker 3 (31:55):
Not really, We have a non ideological ideologist in the
government in the White House, but he is laying the
groundwork for socialism, fascism, for much greater statism in our
future than we've had.

Speaker 1 (32:10):
In our past.

Speaker 3 (32:12):
I mean the US government taking a position in the
Intel not just bailing Intel out.

Speaker 1 (32:17):
But literally taking an equity position.

Speaker 3 (32:20):
As a former bailling them out and sustaining that equity position,
not as a one time thing. Guess what happened to
Intel stock by the way up unannouncement six and a
half percent. That's a big move for stock like Intel,
because hey, who doesn't want the US government to be
a co investor with you. You're not going to go bankrupt.

Speaker 1 (32:44):
Government can just put money and give it to you,
keep pumping money into you.

Speaker 3 (32:54):
Yeah, I remember the export tax as well. That'll be interesting. Well,
the export a tax applied to Intel. Well, it'll just
be paying dividends to its new owner, the US government.
So yeah, a story to watch to watch good news
for the Trump administration. And I think this is good news.

(33:17):
I think this is right and this will ultimately lead
to positive things.

Speaker 1 (33:23):
An appellate, an appeals court.

Speaker 3 (33:25):
So the Trump administration can't get rid of the CFPB.
To literally get rid of the CFPB, they'd need to
pass they need to pass a law in Congress. They
need included in a bill, and they don't have a
beginner of a majority in the Senate to do that.
The Democrats will probably fight it, and they need sixty

(33:46):
votes to get rid of the CFPB to shut it
down completely. So what they've decided to do is basically
and they can't defund it. They can't eliminate the funding
to it because the CFPB was set up in a way.
The CFPREB is the Coma Cocuma Financial Protection Board.

Speaker 1 (34:04):
It's an awful entity.

Speaker 3 (34:06):
It's a regulatory entity that is doing actively doing great
damage to financial industry in the United States.

Speaker 1 (34:13):
It goes after companies.

Speaker 3 (34:15):
It pretends that it's protecting us for fraud, but it's
just you know, imposing standards and regulations is just horrific
on finance companies. And you know, financiers are having to
pay gazillions of dollars in penalties to the government for
things that are.

Speaker 1 (34:36):
Completely legal and completely legit anyway.

Speaker 3 (34:39):
So they can't stop the funding because when it was
set up, it was set up that its funding comes
directly from the Federal Reserve and is not approved by
Congress and is not approved by the executive which I
think is unconstitutional, but the court refused to rule it's unconstitutionality.

(35:00):
So what they decided to do is they basically decided
to use their executive.

Speaker 1 (35:05):
Power over the.

Speaker 3 (35:07):
Functioning of the CFPB to dismantle it from within without
completely eliminating it.

Speaker 1 (35:13):
So basically, fire a lot of the employees.

Speaker 3 (35:17):
And then the budget gets cut because you fired a
bunch of employees and restructure it so it becomes, if.

Speaker 1 (35:24):
You will, powerless. Indeed, there was a plan that was
being implemented to lay off eighty percent of the CFPB's
workforce and to.

Speaker 3 (35:41):
Terminate contracts with contractors, and then a court came in
and stopped us. It blocked it.

Speaker 1 (35:52):
An appellate court heard.

Speaker 3 (35:54):
The case and in a decision of two to one
to Republicans two Republicans to Trump appointees. Ruled that they
are allowed to proceed in firing all these people and restructuring.

Speaker 1 (36:13):
The court wrote, if the plaintiff theory re viable, it
would become the task of the judiciary, rather than the
executive branch, to determine what resources an agency needs to
perform its broad statutory functions. The government of the.

Speaker 3 (36:29):
Plaintiff, of course, is saying, no, they are what the
whole goal of this is to prevent it from doing
its statutory functions, which, of course it is. But the
Court doesn't want to intervene here. The dissenting judge wrote,
the notion courts are powerist to permit the president from
abolishing the agencies of the federal government that he was

(36:51):
elected the lead cannot be reconciled with either the constitutional
separation of powers or our nation's commitment to a government
of laws.

Speaker 1 (37:01):
I am happy to see the CFPB, you know, cut
back dramatically, and if they don't follow all the laws
and they're not diligent about pursuing God Frank, the law
that created them, you know, I'm fine with that.

Speaker 3 (37:17):
It will be interesting. I think that the appellate. The
people suing will try to get this hurt in front
of the entire district court, so I think twelve judges.
Whether they appeal this the Supreme Court, whether the Supban
Court takes the case is going to be interesting. But
it does look like, at least as of now, that

(37:43):
the trum Moon station will get its way and we'll
start shrinking the CFPB significantly, which ultimately is a win
for all of us if we can get a less
competent regulators are good now. It would be ideal if
we got a law pass to get rid of the CFPB,

(38:03):
but that again is very unlikely because Democrats won't pass it.
It is a crime that Republicans under Obama allowed Dot
Frank to pass, and as part of Dot Frank the
creation of CFPB. So Republicans have only themselves to blame
for the existence of this thing. But it's good to

(38:25):
see it gone. None of its victims deserve to be
victimized by it.

Speaker 1 (38:33):
All.

Speaker 3 (38:33):
Right, headline is Trump putin meeting ongoing after two hours.
The two sides have now been behind closed those for
two hours. The white lunch meeting has not yet started.

Speaker 1 (38:45):
Now.

Speaker 3 (38:45):
Remember Trump said at some point that if the meeting
was not going well, he'd leave quickly, he'd shut it
down quickly. So this is a sign it's going well.
I'm not sure what going well means. Is that going
well for us the good guys? Is that going well
for Putin? Is that going well for Trump?

Speaker 1 (39:02):
Going well? What is going well actually mean? I do
not know?

Speaker 3 (39:10):
All right, there's a question the other day about drill baby,
drill and are we indeed drilling like crazy? Is is
Trump's promise a reality.

Speaker 1 (39:24):
In terms of drilling for oil?

Speaker 3 (39:26):
Is all production up and our US producers drilling? Remember
that was a big part of his agenda. One of
the things he promised. And I know some of you
are very concerned about what Trump promised, what he was
elected on. One of the things was drill baby, Joe,
and I said, no, it wasn't happening because all prices
are low and there's a slowing the financial trimes today,

(39:47):
basically confirming that US shell producers I'm reading for the
article idling drilling rakes and holding back spending as a
shelter from an opic induced price lump that is likely
to send American output sharply lower. The number of crews
fracking shale oil and gas wells, a crucial barometer of

(40:09):
industry activity levels, hit a four year low last week,
and producers have wiped about one point eight billion from
capital spending plans over two quotas. This week, the Federal
Energy Information Administration predicted US oil output would fall next
year as crude prices drop to forty seven point seventy

(40:30):
seven a barrel, almost twenty dollars below shale drillers break
even price. Shale executives told The Financial Times they were
in a new price war with Saudi Arabia, Russia and
other OPIQ members and it would imperil Donald President Trump's
call for America to pump more crude. To quote an executive,

(40:53):
what the deminstation doesn't quite understand is that we're gonna.

Speaker 1 (40:57):
We've gone from baby drill to wait baby weight. And
by the way, this is.

Speaker 3 (41:04):
Part of the This is the conflict within the administration. Trump,
on the one hand, wants as promised American consumers low
energy prices, low gasoline prices, and has encouraged Saudi Arabia
to pump oil, wants restrictions on Russian oil to be lifted,
and is trying to trying to.

Speaker 1 (41:25):
Do what he can to appease the Russians.

Speaker 3 (41:27):
In order to get that, he wants more oil pumped
into the world market, which will drive down price, which
he'll get the low gasoline prices he promised.

Speaker 1 (41:36):
On the other hand, he also promised drill, baby drill,
But that's a conflicting goal. You can't have droll baby drill.

Speaker 3 (41:43):
The United States all production from facking in particular is
much more expensive than Saudi all production. So as I
told you, you know, I've said many times, oil needs
to be a seventy five dollars a bottle in order
to to justify fracking. So this executive continues, We're not

(42:06):
going to be putting any more rigs out until prices
get back and stabilize in the seventy five dollars range.
You will see the US productions start to drop in
the fall and into twenty twenty six. The article continues,
showing sowing shell output over the last twenty years made
the US the world's biggest oil and gas producer, but

(42:27):
its high cost of production is left it vulnerable to
crude price swings. Again, a quote from an executive, the
best way for OPIK to gain market chairs to keep
all prices in the sixties range for several years.

Speaker 1 (42:42):
This will reduce.

Speaker 3 (42:43):
Investment in the US shale, Canada, Brazil, and I would
add Argentina and all exploration around the world. It will
force consolidation. So that's that's what they're doing. They're keeping
it in the sixty around sixties.

Speaker 1 (43:01):
The yep. So no, there's no drill, baby drill. But
it's not because of environmental regulations anything like that. It's
because of all prices.

Speaker 3 (43:15):
It's because the conflicting the conflicting goals that Trump set
for himself.

Speaker 1 (43:22):
I told you no strategy, all right, drill. Redistricting. Quick
story about redistricting. We've been following this.

Speaker 3 (43:31):
You remember Texas redistrict and create five new at the
expense of Democrats, five new Republican districts. Before the twenty
twenty six election. California is releasing a map of redistricting
California to try to offset those five and gain five

(43:54):
Democratic seats in California to offset the Texas seats. And
you know, I suppose this is going to launch into
a whole struggle, a whole battle between the states. More
red states will switch and more Democratic states will switch,
and you know, at the end of the day, it's
how to tell who's going to have the upper hand.

(44:14):
Maybe Republicans because they ConTroll more more states. But in
order to avoid a vote on the Texas bill that
would do the redistricting, all their Republicans left, Sorry, all
the Democrats left the state so that there wouldn't be
a quorum, and they've been gone for two weeks and

(44:39):
therefore there hasn't been a vote.

Speaker 1 (44:44):
Let's see.

Speaker 3 (44:44):
So the Democrats in the Texas House of Representatives said
they would return conditional on the Texas legislature, ending its
comment special session in California releasing draft maps maps of
its state aimed at nullifying potential gains for the GOP
in Texas. Were prepared to bring this battle back to

(45:07):
Texas under the right conditions and to take this fight
to the courts.

Speaker 1 (45:12):
So stay tuned. It's hard to tell how this is
going to play out.

Speaker 3 (45:15):
Everybody's waiting to see if Texas can get this through.
If they can get it through, other states will act,
which could cause other states to act, which could cause
a huge mass as they all fantically try to do
this redistricting before the twenty twenty six congressional elections. We

(45:36):
will see how all that plays out.

Speaker 1 (45:44):
Quickly. An info ws in me main fours they were sued.

Speaker 3 (45:50):
Alex Jones was sued for claiming that the student massacre
at Sandy Hook Elementary School was a giant hoax that
nobody was killed during that The families of the killed
students sued. Alex Jones was ordered to pay one point
four billion dollars for deformation and emotional stress, and now

(46:16):
a district judge on Wednesday ordered that all the assets
belonging to info Wars be auctioned, be sold, and the
proceeding go to ten families the victims. I don't know
how much these assets are worth. Probably well showed at
one point four billion, but hopefully this wipes Alex Jones out.

(46:36):
Now I get a sense that he's got significant financial backers.
And then even if all this happens, he's going to
continue spouting his evil you know, conspiracies and his lies
and his discussing theories out there.

Speaker 1 (46:54):
But you know, I guess I guess we will. I
guess we will. Uh, but it does look like it
does look like he's finished. All right? What happened here? Uh?

(47:18):
What did I do I did something.

Speaker 4 (47:19):
Oh there it is okay, Sorry, one of my pages disappeared.

Speaker 5 (47:24):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (47:25):
Just looking in on the on the on the Trump
putin thing to see if there's anything new. No, nothing new,
nothing new to reports. I guess they're still going at
it all right. This is an interesting story about about
electric cars. So I'm she's gonna read you from this.

(47:45):
Uh it's a story in I guess in your whole finance. Uh.

Speaker 3 (47:51):
Last year, Ford ceo, the Coe fod commuted you know,
in a car that wasn't made by his own company.
In an effort to scope out the competition, Foley the
CEO spent six months driving around in a show me
SU seven. This is a japan If this is a
Chinese made This is a Chinese made electric sedan. And

(48:20):
it's an impressive car. It can accelerate faster than most porsches.
It has a giant touch screen that lets you turn
off the lights at your home, not just manage the car,
and comes with an AI assistant. And it's also about
thirty thousand dollars in China. Folly the CEO Ford, to

(48:41):
remind you, said it's fantastic.

Speaker 1 (48:45):
I don't want to give it up now. Foley is
openly feared.

Speaker 3 (48:54):
Has openly commented on what might happen to Ford if
more Americans can get behind the wheels of a show
me SU seven foters able to import it show me
from Shanghai for testing purposes. But for now, all of
us regular Americans cannot buy an Su seven or another
one of the many affordable and highly advanced evs made

(49:16):
in China. That's because of stiff tariffs and restrictions of
Chinese technology. If kept them out, so tariffs and non
tariff import restrictions. But if that changed, I'd say the
American auto industry is in danger of disappearing. Chinese evs

(49:40):
can be so cheap and high tech that they risk
out competing.

Speaker 1 (49:45):
All other cars, not just electric ones. But it become
attractive to buy an electric car given how cheap in
advance they are.

Speaker 3 (49:54):
In the rest of the world, traditional automakers are already
struggling in Europe. The Chinese are taking real market share
away from traditional European carmakers, and they have as much
market share right now in Europe as Mercedes Benz does.
Foley says, we're in a global competition with China, and if.

Speaker 1 (50:15):
We lose this, we do not have a future at Ford.
And the reality is he's right.

Speaker 3 (50:27):
I've been telling you this for a while. People make
fun of Chinese cars. There's no reason to make fun
of them. They are superior automobiles. They're as good as Tesla's,
if not better than Tesla, and much cheaper. So on
a price performance basis, they're significantly better cause than Tesla

(50:48):
byd show me and many others. There are a number
of Japanese of Chinese electric car manufacturers that are doing
phenomenally well.

Speaker 1 (51:00):
So you know, if you're in the auto.

Speaker 3 (51:06):
Industry, you've got to be worried about this. You've got
to be thinking about this. And American auto companies need
to catch up. And part of it is they need
to develop their own batteries. They can be dependent on
China for batteries, and.

Speaker 1 (51:20):
They need to improve. They need to leave fog the
Chinese in terms of battery technology. They need to leave
fog the Chinese in terms of software. So one thing
Tesla is still better than the Chinese ad is software.
But the Chinese are catching up. And of course.

Speaker 3 (51:38):
Right now they're shielded from this competition. They haven't been
for years, and maybe that's why they're so behind is
that they haven't needed to face the competition because the
US governments shielded them from And it could very well
be that the shielding is costing these auto companies years
of not having to compete, not having to be in

(52:01):
the best presenting the best game, not having to be
in top form, and ultimately that is what will kill them.
So often, the effort to protect an industry is what
ultimately kills the industry.

Speaker 4 (52:18):
All right, what is going on here?

Speaker 1 (52:28):
Right? Cool?

Speaker 3 (52:31):
Uh so, yeah, I say lower the tariffs, eliminate them,
let those Chinese cars, and let American automobile companies compete,
and let American consumers benefit from these cheaper and more
advanced cars. I mean, the reality is that it could
be that American car companies should basically make pickup trucks.

Speaker 1 (52:56):
That's what they're good at, pickup trucks, but very little else.

Speaker 3 (53:01):
Almost on every other front, you can get a superior
product from a Japanese company, a European company, or now
a Chinese company. So and now, with elimination of penalties
on the fuel standards, there's no reason American orto companies
can't just make pick up trucks and SUVs, which is

(53:24):
what I guess they're good at.

Speaker 1 (53:26):
That's it, all right.

Speaker 3 (53:30):
Finally, finally, today marks four years, four years since the
fall of Kabul to the Taliban.

Speaker 1 (53:43):
I mean, I don't know how many of you remember.

Speaker 3 (53:46):
The photos of the last USA for C seventeen lifting
off from Kabul's International airport. You had all these Afghans
desperate to get out of there, trying to hang on
to the wheels and hang on to the wings and
just hang on to anything sticking out. Most of them,

(54:06):
of course, couldn't do it, but indeed some of them
landed up going up with the plane and ultimately having
to let go and falling to their death. Some of
them actually snuck into you know, managed to climb into
the wheels, the thing above the wheels, and they got

(54:27):
crushed to death when the landing gear was pulled up.
I mean, a real tragic end to an unbelievably tragic war.
War there was not necessary a ward. There was handled
poorly from the beginning, from the very first. A war that,

(54:52):
just like Vietnam, where the generals and our generals and
our politicians light to us constantly and consistently, A war
that saw a couple of thousands of American die and
thousands injured.

Speaker 1 (55:09):
For no reason, with no achievement to show for it,
zero zilch nada. The Taliban today war Afghanistan with as
much brutal force as they did, as they ever did,
and they are today a training ground and a launching
ground for international terrorists, just that.

Speaker 3 (55:27):
They were back then. A war that achieved nothing, cost
American lives much, billions and billions in American treasure. And
again we will lie to, we will light to.

Speaker 1 (55:45):
From day one, American generals knew the war was going nowhere,
that the attempt to build nation build was futile, that
groups that we sacrificed for nothing, and yet they continued
to lie to us. They continued to tell us.

Speaker 3 (56:07):
That just another surge and just another mission, and just
another investment, and just something else, and we could turn
this around, and we could win this, and we could
bring in a proper government to replace the Taliban. It
was all fiction, And in private conversations they all admitted.
There was an amazing story three years ago, four years

(56:28):
ago in the Washington Post. It was a series of
articles based on interviews with generals and leading people within
the Defense Department and in politics. That laid out the lies,
the deceptions, laid out the tragedy that was Afghanistan and

(56:49):
the pathetic way in which this country fought that war.
And my sense of that article is that nobody read it.
Nobody seems to care.

Speaker 1 (57:00):
I don't know what it is about it, but.

Speaker 3 (57:04):
There's a sension which we care more about the war
in Ukraine than we cared about our own wars. I mean,
do you know there's still American troops in Syria and
I rock doing what fighting the elements of isis how
for what purpose?

Speaker 1 (57:19):
What's the strategy? What's the extras strategy?

Speaker 3 (57:23):
Can they defeat them? Is it winnable? Nobody asked these questions.
Nobody seems to care. How about being those troops home?
So just horrific, horrific war where Americans just don't care.

Speaker 1 (57:42):
We send a.

Speaker 3 (57:45):
You know, our soldiers off, many of them come back
in body bags.

Speaker 1 (57:51):
We don't care.

Speaker 3 (57:53):
The Western Post actually published the series of articles in
a book form on Amazon. Self published it in a way,
and nobody read it. I've seen nobody really talk about
it much, all the anti war people, you know, and

(58:15):
we never won this war. We never voted properly we
let our kaite escape with there have been allowed in escape.
Early on in the Afghan War, we let the heads
of the Taliban escape.

Speaker 1 (58:27):
It took us years to hunt them down and kill them.

Speaker 3 (58:31):
We never knew what we wanted there. We created a
corrupt government. Did why did we concern ourselves with bringing
democracy the Afghanistan?

Speaker 1 (58:42):
Who did we think we are? Almost everybody on the
ground knew that this would fail, knew there was no
purpose of it. We should have.

Speaker 3 (58:51):
Gone in thoroughly, systematically, ruthlessly.

Speaker 1 (58:58):
I know I'm going to lose some subscribers now, helplessly
destroyed the Taliban and everybody and everything associated with.

Speaker 5 (59:06):
It, destroyed al Qaeda, killed whoever we needed to kill
within al Qaeda, without concern for collateral damage, and gotten
out of there.

Speaker 3 (59:24):
That's what I argued at the time. The humiliating retreat
from Kabul. The thirteen Marines who died, you know, as
we're evacuating, died again for what?

Speaker 1 (59:41):
For nothing?

Speaker 3 (59:43):
All the Afghan people that we betrayed, and this administration
right now is betraying in spades.

Speaker 1 (59:52):
All the people who.

Speaker 3 (59:53):
Helped us, all the people who supported us while we
were there, and we are now sending back to Afghanistan.
Not giving them visas, not not helping them get out
of the country, didn't help them get out of the country.
Then it was absolutely unmitigated. The whole thing is an
unmitigated disaster. And the retreat was a disaster.

Speaker 1 (01:00:15):
And the retreat people forget a retreat that is blamed
on Biden, and it should be blamed on Biden.

Speaker 3 (01:00:22):
Biden did a horrible job. It was the beginning of
the end of the Biden administration, and he should carry
the blame for that. But there was somebody else involved
in that retreat. Oh the guy I'm meeting with Putin
right now, the President of the United States, and invited
the Taliman to America to negotiate a peace deal. Luckily,

(01:00:46):
the adults in the room convinced him not to do that, but.

Speaker 1 (01:00:49):
He wanted to bring them to the Ken David. The Taliban,
these monsters. And remember it was Trump who.

Speaker 3 (01:00:59):
Signed a peace still with the Taliban with our participation
of the Afghan government.

Speaker 1 (01:01:03):
The Afghan government was not.

Speaker 3 (01:01:06):
A party to the deal, was not a party to
the negotiations. And of course the Taliban even ignored that
peace deal completely, and basically it set us up for
retreat from Afghanistan, which Biden did so pathetically. But the
whole idea of negotiating with the Taliban, of signing a

(01:01:31):
deal with the Taliban, if anybody had said, you know,
in late two thousand and one, post September eleventh, that
that is how the Afghan thing is going to end,
with the President of the United States signing a peace
deal with the Taliban and being the back to power
after they hadn't been to power for twenty years, nobody

(01:01:54):
would have believed them. And yet that's exactly what Donald
Trump did. Donald Trump's foreign policy is an unmitigated disaster
because he has no principles. He stands for nothing.

Speaker 1 (01:02:11):
He adores, adores dictators, thugs, strong men.

Speaker 3 (01:02:26):
Anyway, let's see anything new. I guess nothing new. I
guess they're still talking. They haven't broken for lunch. It's
now more than two hours.

Speaker 1 (01:02:33):
WHOA.

Speaker 3 (01:02:34):
I think they're gonna have a deal. I think we're
gonna piece in our time. I think they're gonna come
out of this with peace in our time. Yeah, this
is a massive victory. If you puts in the longer
this goes, the more putin his winning. That's my interpretation.
But we'll see, we'll find out.

Speaker 1 (01:02:53):
You'll be able to say no, you're on, you were
wrong on Monday, or if we do a show tomorrow.

Speaker 3 (01:03:01):
Alright, that, my friends, is the news for August fifteenth, Friday,
August fifteenth.

Speaker 1 (01:03:08):
We're now going to shift to our super chat.

Speaker 3 (01:03:13):
We are very close to our first hour goal, but
we've already crossed the first hours.

Speaker 1 (01:03:19):
It's still behind you guys, are are keeping me behind.
You're making me work for the dollars. I'll give you that.

Speaker 3 (01:03:29):
So yeah, somebody said that during the press conference Putin
was pretending not to understand English and getting upset at
the questions because he couldn't understand the English. What he
was really upset was but by the question itself. Putin
has really good English. He knows English.

Speaker 1 (01:03:48):
But he's a good KGV operator. Remember he's from the KGB.
He's got a history.

Speaker 4 (01:03:53):
And all right, let's see, let us shift to to
the to the superchurch.

Speaker 1 (01:04:24):
God.

Speaker 4 (01:04:26):
Let me close this, let me close that, let me
move this over here, let me move this stuff over here,
let me shut that down.

Speaker 1 (01:04:36):
Remind you we have three sponsors.

Speaker 3 (01:04:39):
H Hendershot Wealth dot Com has products that can really
mitigate your capital gains, particularly if you've got stock that's
appreciated a lot, or you've got a company that you
plan to sell sometimes in the future. They can help
you prepare for that day and mitigate or postpone for

(01:05:00):
a very long time the actual payment of taxes on
the capital gains.

Speaker 1 (01:05:06):
So talk to them. Hand a shot with two te's.

Speaker 3 (01:05:12):
Wealth All one word dot com, slash ybs or go
to my YouTube channel and check out the video way interview.
Robert alex Epstein is world expert on all things related
to energy. You will learn a huge, huge amount from him.

(01:05:34):
It'll make you a better communicator about the issues around energy,
but also you will just learn.

Speaker 1 (01:05:40):
A lot of facts.

Speaker 3 (01:05:41):
Check him out Alex Sepstein dot substock dot com. Finally,
Thatnrayan Institute is announcing a new way to study Iran's ideas.
This is something called AARI Live Courses where you get
the rigor of ari's top notch educational.

Speaker 1 (01:05:56):
Programs at a commitment level that works for you.

Speaker 3 (01:06:00):
Is an open all no application required, so this is
a real change.

Speaker 1 (01:06:05):
There's no long term commitment.

Speaker 3 (01:06:07):
Take the courses that interest you, don't take the ones
you don't want to, you can take them whenever you want.
You can be you can join live, or you can
listen to recordings afterwards. Homework is optional see You're in Control.
The course is run eight to ten weeks and include
access to personal success coach to help you set goals,

(01:06:28):
stay motivated, and make the most of what you're learning.
Upcoming courses in October starting on October Objectivism through Ironman's fiction,
The Philosophy of Objectivism. I assume that's kind of going
over opah an Objectivism, work and business. Whether you're on
an intellectual journey or just curious, or you just want

(01:06:52):
to take your objectivism to the next level, check all
these out. Now there's a price you have to pay.
That are free, but you can get a discount, a
YBS discount. To get that discount, the discount quote is
twenty five YBS ten twenty five ybs ten. You do
it at check out. The course is start October first,

(01:07:13):
so don't wait. You can gain access to all of
that through Iran dot org slash dot here Ironran dotag
dot here.

Speaker 1 (01:07:23):
I know that I will probably be teaching some of
the courses next year, so not in October, but maybe
in January or maybe late in April. So yeah, check
it out. I think you'll really enjoy these courses.

Speaker 3 (01:07:40):
And again, no commitment, No you have to have no application.
Anybody can take it. Everybody can participate, open to all
of you. It's just a matter of pain. If you're
a student, I think you can get scholarships. All right,
let me just thank some uh some stickers are the
thank you for the sticker, Mary Ellen, thank you for

(01:08:03):
the sticker, and Barbara and thank you.

Speaker 1 (01:08:09):
And who else, who else? Who else? We've got Jeremy
and Robert.

Speaker 3 (01:08:19):
All right, thank you, guys. Really appreciate the support. Thank you,
thank you.

Speaker 1 (01:08:23):
And yeah, you can support the show with the super
chat with a sticker.

Speaker 3 (01:08:28):
Go on patreon dot com and put your own book
show and become a monthly supporter.

Speaker 1 (01:08:32):
All of that is great. Become a subscriber like the show.

Speaker 3 (01:08:35):
Do the things you do on YouTube and all of
those things elevate us in the algorithm and make it,
make it better. I will say, I'm missing some of
my whales. So the people who can write.

Speaker 1 (01:08:47):
Fifty dollars, one hundred dollar, fifty five hundred dollar kind
of stickers or super chats, please consider doing that.

Speaker 3 (01:08:56):
If you have the ability. The financial ability to do that.

Speaker 1 (01:09:01):
We need to stop making our goals again.

Speaker 3 (01:09:03):
We've been missing our goals lately, and I think because
of the different time zones and different times I'm doing this,
some of the people who usually come in.

Speaker 1 (01:09:12):
With those kind of what do you call it support
levels are not on live.

Speaker 3 (01:09:20):
So if you are on live, please consider doing a
stick or doing a question and supporting the show. But
you can also do ninety nine sense like Michael just did.
And it's great because if we have enough ninety nine sense,
if we had everybody doing ninety nine sense, we'd make
our goals. It wouldn't be a problem. So please consider
supporting it one way or the other as a trade

(01:09:41):
value for value. All right, let's jump in with a
fifty dollars question from that doodle Bunny, Thank you, Thank you,
That doodo Bunny, Part one. In your segment on super
babies from last show, you seem to pooh pooh the

(01:10:02):
prevailing idea in Silicon Valley that reason that the reason
these young tech entrepreneurs became extraordinary wealthy so quickly was
due to.

Speaker 1 (01:10:10):
Being born with a super high IQ.

Speaker 3 (01:10:13):
That's right, I do poo pooh that Uh, where's the
continuation of the question.

Speaker 1 (01:10:17):
There it is, but clearly that is the case.

Speaker 3 (01:10:23):
Being bored with that much host power is the only
ticket to being able to produce that level of wealth.
Values and choices can't replace hardware and hostpower.

Speaker 1 (01:10:32):
I just don't believe that. I don't believe that your
hardware is fixed.

Speaker 3 (01:10:37):
I don't believe that that it requires superior IQ to
make a lot of money. Indeed, the correlation between IQ
and money is not very high. IQ is not a
predictor of wealth of income and wealth. Many businessmen are
not extraordinary when it comes to IQ, and many people

(01:11:02):
who have very high IQ produce nothing or lazy bums
playing video games or you know, wasting their talent on
some pursuit that is not very valuable. I just don't
see the correlation. I know a lot of people in

(01:11:23):
Silica Vali who've made good money, maybe not that the
gazillion is.

Speaker 1 (01:11:29):
I don't think they have extraordinary IQ. I don't think
they were born with extraordinary hardware. Most of them were.

Speaker 3 (01:11:35):
I know a lot of them who are pretty mediocre
students or less.

Speaker 1 (01:11:39):
Now. I haven't run IQ test on everybody, so I
don't know.

Speaker 3 (01:11:43):
I know lots of people with very high IQ who
do nothing, achieved nothing, So sorry. I think that what
leads you to achieve great success in life is your character.
It's the choices you make, the values you pursue, and

(01:12:04):
the way you pursue those values. I think that being
rational adds. I don't know how many IQ points, but
a lot of IQ points do you IQ? I know
very small people are irrational. And the point is that

(01:12:27):
many of the people in Silicon Value who maybe did
succeed because of the IQ in addition to everything else,
don't particularly enjoy it. They're not particularly happy. They're not
particularly happy.

Speaker 1 (01:12:47):
So what's the value of it.

Speaker 3 (01:12:50):
Why would you sell those values if you're not going
to be happy, if you can't take pride in it,
if you don't take you know, if you don't take
meaning from it.

Speaker 1 (01:13:00):
So many rich people in Silicon Valley are unhappy. I
don't know what to do. A lost So there's a
lot more. There's a lot more than IQ.

Speaker 3 (01:13:23):
And to just pursue single minded d A. A spouse
will have IQ, so you can have high IQ babies.

Speaker 1 (01:13:30):
You gotta fall in love.

Speaker 3 (01:13:31):
You gotta fall in love with person's values, not they
the hostpower You don't fall in love with hostpower.

Speaker 1 (01:13:38):
Maybe in a car, but even then it's not enough.
So I pre pooed the idea that it was IQ
that led to the success.

Speaker 3 (01:13:46):
Yes, and more than that, I prepuwed the single minded
focus on IQ.

Speaker 1 (01:13:51):
As a as a as a as a path of dating.

Speaker 3 (01:13:54):
It is a past having kids as a as a
screen for which kids, which kids to have. I think
it's a wrong focus. I think focus on character, focus
on independence, focus on reason and rationality will lead to
much better results as a human being, not just much

(01:14:15):
better results in business.

Speaker 1 (01:14:19):
All right, One minute.

Speaker 3 (01:14:19):
Ago, the members of the White House press pool, they
traveled with the President to be told together in the
room set up for the Trump Putin press conference.

Speaker 1 (01:14:31):
So there is going to be a press conference, and
that means that they've got something to talk about to say,
they've got.

Speaker 3 (01:14:39):
Some results that come from this. You know, we will
see what was given and what was taken. They'll probably
announce some kind of cease fire. The question on what
terms or what Trump really wanted was a meeting in which.

Speaker 1 (01:14:54):
Zilenskills they participated. Maybe they'll announce that. We will see.

Speaker 3 (01:14:58):
So I will keep monitoring the but there is a
press conference about this thought.

Speaker 1 (01:15:04):
All right, let's see Wes. Thank you, Wes, another fifty
dollars question. Any good sources for the economic history and
politics of Hong Kong? Oh, god, no, I really don't have.
I don't think.

Speaker 3 (01:15:20):
I mean one good source that I remember reading and
really enjoying it. And I think there's a chap down
Hong Kong in it. But it's generally a good book,
although it's nowtdated. Is Commanding Heights, which was a book
written maybe fifteen years ago, so at a different period
and certainly before the Chinese takeover Hong Kong, and I

(01:15:43):
think it had a chap down Hong Kong.

Speaker 1 (01:15:45):
And it's a really good book.

Speaker 3 (01:15:46):
So if you want to read about Asia and read
about the post eighties liberalization really on a global scale,
Commanding Heights is excellent.

Speaker 1 (01:15:58):
It's the same guy who will the book on oil.

Speaker 3 (01:16:01):
Yeah, I forget his name you Yeah, yeah, I can't.
I can't pronounce his name, so uh, sorry, I don't,
But try commanding it.

Speaker 1 (01:16:13):
I think you'll enjoy broadly. And uh and uh, there's
definitely the chapter in Hong Kong is very good. Not VI,
I'll go with him.

Speaker 3 (01:16:22):
Have you seen Alex O'Connor's debate with Craig Biddle on
free will?

Speaker 1 (01:16:26):
What a disaster?

Speaker 3 (01:16:27):
Can any objectives to actually know what they're talking about?
From aar, I reach out to Alex for proper debate discussion.

Speaker 1 (01:16:35):
I haven't seen it. I haven't seen it. Am I
surprised it's a it's a it's a disaster. No.

Speaker 3 (01:16:44):
I I don't particularly have a lot of respect for
Craig Biddle's abilities.

Speaker 1 (01:16:50):
Uh, free will is a tricky issue. It's a tricky
issue to debate, but you need you need somebody like
on call ogreg uh or I think Ben could do
it to do the debate, or Jason Ryans, any one
of those who would be really good at the debate
like that. I'll talk to the people at the institudent

(01:17:11):
see if they will reach out to Alex o'canna. I mean,
it's a debate worth having. I don't know that Alex
o'canna will do another.

Speaker 3 (01:17:19):
Debate because isn't this a second debate with Craig Biddle
or is this the original one that he did a
year ago or two years ago?

Speaker 1 (01:17:27):
But I think they've talked before.

Speaker 3 (01:17:30):
So at some point he's going to say If this
is the level of objectivist.

Speaker 1 (01:17:34):
I don't want to debate them.

Speaker 3 (01:17:37):
We will see, But yeah, I think the number of
people will do a better job than Craig Harper Campbell.
If less than one hundred years after World War two
and sixty is years after the publication of Attlas Shrug,
the United States collapsed into dictatorship, how incompetent would the
advocates of a free society have to be.

Speaker 1 (01:17:59):
I don't know. I don't know. You know, it's not
clear that.

Speaker 3 (01:18:05):
You could get more competent advocates of free society and
that they would be do a better job. You know,
the dynamics of cultural change are super complex. Maybe that
you know, the collapse of the United States. In a sense,
the ideas that ultimately lead to the collapse of the
United States were set.

Speaker 1 (01:18:24):
In motion well before World War Two, and.

Speaker 3 (01:18:29):
It was almost impossible to reverse them, and you would
have to wait for them to play out before it
changed again. But yeah, if you want to just argue
that the defenders of capitalism, and I assume here you're
talking about Ironband, the objective's movements, I don't know who
else you want to include in the other free market
people have failed dramatically.

Speaker 1 (01:18:53):
All right. I'm not sure what the purpose of that is, Jennifer.

Speaker 3 (01:19:00):
They are anti littering signs in Alaska showing a moose
with a tire around his neck saying don't trash Alaska.
Put it in trump a trash in Alaska. I'd like
to see them both wrapped around a moose's neck. Thank

(01:19:21):
you for making me laugh, Jennifer. That's great. Noah Smith, Hi,
you're on big Fan. Please give my YouTube channel a
shout out. I make electronic music.

Speaker 1 (01:19:33):
Name is mister trips Tripster tr R t r ip
z t e R with a Z Tripster mostly mashups,
but some originals as well. Objectivists assemble search mister Tripster

(01:19:53):
with a Z. See Noah.

Speaker 3 (01:19:56):
Noah knows how to do marketing, and he knows how
to exploit twenty He just got his YouTube thing in
front of you know, five thousand people who are going
to listen to this, and it cost him twenty bucks.

Speaker 1 (01:20:09):
That's that's a pretty good deal.

Speaker 3 (01:20:10):
I'd say, if you like electronic music, go for it,
Go go check out mister Tripster.

Speaker 1 (01:20:16):
Thank you now. I appreciate, appreciate the support. Andrew.

Speaker 3 (01:20:21):
The public is frustrated that the ulterior motives of the
murderer of four college kids in Idaho may never be
revealed philosophically. The central reason and that he's evil. He's
evil because he chose evil actions. Yes, I mean for anything.

Speaker 1 (01:20:38):
I know.

Speaker 3 (01:20:39):
I don't know what altermotives are, and they might not
be any other than he hates.

Speaker 1 (01:20:43):
He's a hater. He's an evil bastard who hated and
expressed that through the worst form of violence.

Speaker 3 (01:21:07):
Yes, Harper Campbell and seconds seconds.

Speaker 1 (01:21:09):
Your view that I am incompetent. That's how she interpreted
what you said. She means me, and she seconded immediately,
So you can blame me for the collapse of Western civilization.

Speaker 3 (01:21:26):
I have broad shoulders. I can take it. Noah Smith
says he's not the economist, Norse Smith.

Speaker 1 (01:21:34):
I figured that. I don't think Noah Smith, the economist
is a fan of my show. All right, Faku Kastan Taiwan.

Speaker 3 (01:21:47):
Hey Ron just turned into the show because it's six
am here. Thanks for always being a voice of reason.

Speaker 1 (01:21:54):
Keep it up. I guess some people don't blame me
for the collapse of Western civilization. Question do you think
of the what do you think of the trend of
using holograms of dead celebrities and concerts. I love it.

Speaker 3 (01:22:06):
I mean I haven't actually seen one, but my wife
went to see a concert of Maria Cullis in hologram,
and she said it was stunning that they that they
It looked so real with the lighting and everything in
the hologram and she's on stage and of course it's

(01:22:27):
Maria Kellis singing because they're using her tape. But Marie
Kelis was also a great actress, voice plus acting.

Speaker 1 (01:22:36):
And you know she uh and she she loved it.
She had a blast.

Speaker 3 (01:22:42):
Why not Why not be able to bring people back
in their own voice, where you have the audio but
you don't have the video, and you can, through AI
take their images and turn it into a three dimensional,
three dimensional thing. I think it's fantastic. I don't see
the downside. I think it's amazing. And as I said,
I mean, I'm sorry I missed that concept. I would

(01:23:03):
have loved to see Maria Callas on stage, and uh,
my wife got to see it.

Speaker 1 (01:23:08):
I was, I was, I.

Speaker 3 (01:23:09):
Was traveling at the time. But I hope, I hope
I get a chance one day to see that concert.
Robert says is an IQ two percent. At least according
to Mensa, I can confirm that what you do with
your smart is about a zillion times more important the

(01:23:29):
one's mental hostpower. I know all too many smart people
who's poor choices led to mediocrity.

Speaker 1 (01:23:38):
Yeah, I mean, there's no question, no question. Uh.

Speaker 3 (01:23:42):
And I have no idea what my AQ is. I've
never had attested. I don't care. I don't care.

Speaker 1 (01:23:52):
I have no I really have no clue if I'm a.

Speaker 3 (01:23:54):
Two percent ten percent, I don't know. I'm you know,
I've he'sally smart. How smart? I just don't know, and
I don't It's never interested me. I've never been tempted
to go and do an IQ test, So I just
don't know. By the way, in terms of intellectual property rights,

(01:24:17):
I'm sure that the people doing this again they don't
want to be sued.

Speaker 1 (01:24:20):
They're getting permission, if you need permission. I don't know when.

Speaker 3 (01:24:23):
Does your image go into the public domain. Maria Callis
has been dead for quite a while, so I don't
know how that works.

Speaker 1 (01:24:30):
I don't know how that works.

Speaker 3 (01:24:33):
I see that Linda likes my kind of music, where yeah, Linda,
give us call us any day. Maria Cullus any day.
That is my kind of music. I told you I
want to see here in Lisbon, my wife and I
want to see Letra of Yata outdoors. It was beautiful,
It was really really nice.

Speaker 4 (01:24:58):
Let's see, all right, Michael.

Speaker 3 (01:25:08):
Why do the Chinese want a regulatory state while rejecting
the welfare state?

Speaker 1 (01:25:11):
Do they think warfare makes their population soft?

Speaker 3 (01:25:15):
Well, partially because they don't care right and how their
people live. And they want a regulatory state because they
want to control.

Speaker 1 (01:25:26):
They want power. Regulations give them power. They want the
country to be rich, so they don't want to waste
the money on redistribution. They want to use the money
to grow the economy.

Speaker 3 (01:25:38):
And of course there are also central planners, so they
want to be They think they can use the money
to grow the economy fast so that they can rule
over They can govern over a big political entity rather
than a small one.

Speaker 1 (01:25:55):
Michael, I think it would be a matter of your.

Speaker 3 (01:26:00):
Luck if Trump doesn't cause an economic or political disaster
before he leaves offs.

Speaker 1 (01:26:05):
I agree. Sickening to see him meet with the dictator
of Russia. What can I.

Speaker 3 (01:26:09):
Do to assuage these feelings? Well, just focus on positive things.

Speaker 1 (01:26:14):
In your life.

Speaker 3 (01:26:15):
Just focus on good values. Don't worry too much about it.
It's you know, it's we don't have any control about it.
We can talk about it, we can complain about it,
but at the end of the day, it's out of
our control. And just focus on the things you have
within your control. Focus on the good in your life,

(01:26:37):
your career, your family, your hobbies, your music, whatever.

Speaker 1 (01:26:42):
It happens to be.

Speaker 3 (01:26:43):
Don't let don't let the stupidity of politics drag you down,
drag your life down.

Speaker 1 (01:26:52):
It's bad enough to take in the cause of a
session or some kind of crisis. You don't have to
compound that by emotion constraining himself.

Speaker 3 (01:27:04):
All right, guys, we need four more twenty dollars questions
to get to our goal.

Speaker 1 (01:27:08):
Let's let's try to hit the goal today and make it.

Speaker 3 (01:27:16):
Michael, you know how ma Ley is so energetic and
excited about life. Do optimistic people tend to gravitate towards
free markets.

Speaker 1 (01:27:24):
I don't know, Mam.

Speaker 3 (01:27:24):
Donnie looks very excited and energetic as well, so I'd
be cautious to make that claim, right, Ma'm Donnie the
socialist candidate for mayor in New York I think one
of the reasons he won is because he's so energized
and appears optimistic and positive and seems full of life.

(01:27:45):
I'm sure. I'm sure it's different when he's not in
front of a camera. But you know, when I met
me Lay, he was very shy and quiet and not
the kind of vivacious, full of energy type that you
see in camera. So they're very different in person, and
I don't see a correlation between that and being pro

(01:28:06):
free markets. Daniel, what if Trump had Putin arrested? What
if Trump had Putin arrested during the meeting?

Speaker 1 (01:28:14):
I mean, that would be cool, but yeah, not gonna happen. Ever, h.

Speaker 3 (01:28:36):
James, if you didn't have to travel to make a living,
would you be a homebody just relaxing on the beach
and doing podcasts? I mean, I I do like to
be home and I do like to relax by they
I don't you know. I'm not big on sand, but
I like the I like the beach. I like relaxing,

(01:28:57):
but I like traveling. I would probably travel in addition,
and look, I would still go do like the Peterson Academy.

Speaker 1 (01:29:03):
I would still teach it to that institute.

Speaker 3 (01:29:06):
I would still hustle to do other kinds of work
because I like it, I enjoy it, and.

Speaker 1 (01:29:12):
I need income.

Speaker 3 (01:29:16):
Always says, So, I remember about a year ago you
said something to the fact I need to rethink what
I'm doing with the show because it's too negative and
too much news that's not what I want. Have you
thought more that made sense? I mean, I'm constantly taught
about this because most of my listeners seem to really

(01:29:37):
value the fact that I'm doing the news. I get
so many positive comments about the news. I get so
many people telling me this is how they get the news.
This is so I really have customers out there that
really value this. And you know, the reality is that
I have a steady stream of people who watching this.

(01:30:00):
I mean, it's pretty constant and steady, and the super
chat is there in terms of support, there's.

Speaker 1 (01:30:05):
Income coming in.

Speaker 3 (01:30:08):
I do want to do other types of shows as well,
because I think this is overly negative and too repetitive
in many respects. I just and I need to do
some stuff that's maybe a little bit more challenging, deeper topics,
and maybe do a few more you are rules for
life topics. I'm thinking of doing one tomorrow if I

(01:30:31):
do a show tomorrow, I'll probably do a Rules for
Life show tomorrow. Somebody else has suggested, was it Andrew.
Somebody suggested that I do shows on Iron Rand essays
or we analyze an Iron Rand essays, and I'm thinking
of doing that as kind of a once a month
members show, which will also be fun for me to
read those essays and really think about them and think

(01:30:51):
about how to present them.

Speaker 1 (01:30:53):
So that is that's my thinking.

Speaker 3 (01:30:57):
So I think the News is here to stay, but
I want to do some additional shows. So whether they
keep doing it five days a week or I do
it four days a week and introduce more deep you know,
more deep topics and other stuff, we'll see.

Speaker 1 (01:31:20):
We'll see.

Speaker 3 (01:31:20):
But I keep thinking about it. But it has all
our support and has a lot of viewers. It's hard
to just abandon now. I don't want to just abandon
it because I will miss it. I mean to me,
it's on the one hand, it's negative and all that.
On the other hand, it's an outlet for me. Right,
I read the news and I want to say stuff
about it, and I need an outlet to be able

(01:31:43):
to do that. Andrew, do you how do you think
characters like RFK and Telsea align with the modern right.
I mean, I think they align with them. The modern
right is not anything in particular in terms of of positions.

Speaker 1 (01:32:02):
The modern right is you know, hates.

Speaker 3 (01:32:10):
Hates expertise, hates knowledge, loves conspiracy theories, and.

Speaker 1 (01:32:20):
Is statist.

Speaker 3 (01:32:21):
And in that sense, I think K and Tulsi align
completely with the modern rate. So I'm sure that differences
are IFK might be pro ebortion and they're not, you know,
there might be a few differences here and there, but
their minor is compared to the essentials, which is emotionalism,
anti science, anti reality, anti fact and and.

Speaker 1 (01:32:43):
A respect for conspiracy theories.

Speaker 3 (01:32:44):
I think I think that completely aligns RFK and TALSI,
both those nuts with it. Hop up, If the United
States actually collapsed into dictation, is there any way to
escape to Won't there be a domino effect of every
other country fall suit.

Speaker 1 (01:33:00):
No, I don't think there has to be. I mean.

Speaker 3 (01:33:04):
It doesn't have to be. There are better people out there.
Argentina doesn't have to follow the United States. Now, there
will be an he cannot global economic crisis. There will
be challenges and problems, but ideas are not rooted to geography,
and there's absolutely no reason that other regions in the
world can have better ideas. And ultimately, maybe I'm naive

(01:33:25):
and overly hopeful. I'm hopeful for I cont feel like
China to shrug off its communist ideology or the Communist
party more correctly and embrace something more rational and more free.

(01:33:46):
So I don't know what China is going to be
like in ten years, never mind fifty. So no, I
don't think that at all. I don't think I'm not
as US centric as I think a lot of people are.
Liam says, why a sobody Western is moving to and
retiring in Vietnam?

Speaker 1 (01:34:05):
Have you been? I haven't been to Vietnam. I'd like
to go.

Speaker 3 (01:34:08):
I think it's because Vietnam is a place that's cheap
to live. It's super dynamic, it's it's it's going very fast,
the economy is there lots of opportunities to make money.
But it's a good place to retire because you can
live on like a SOID security check or retirement fund.

Speaker 1 (01:34:25):
That you have pretty well.

Speaker 3 (01:34:30):
And uh and and again, the people are friendly, the
food is fantastic. In Vietnam. You could probably live in
a pretty high stand of living with pretty low income.
And again there's a dynamism to the place.

Speaker 1 (01:34:48):
Clark.

Speaker 3 (01:34:49):
Is Craig bit a giant charlatan? His debate with Alex
o'conna he just released was hard to watch.

Speaker 1 (01:34:57):
I don't know. I don't think Craig is a charlatan.
He's just a man of you know, limited abilities is
you know, and he he thinks of himself a lot
more than what his abilities are. I mean, he's good
at some things and and he but he but he
presents himself and thinks of himself as as much better

(01:35:18):
than he is. Again, I haven't seen the debates. I
don't know how bad it is or whatever. And again
I'm asking if somebody can tell me. Is this a
new debate?

Speaker 3 (01:35:30):
Wasn't this a debate that was done a year or
two ago and has why why are you asking about
it now? Hasn't it been released a long time ago?

Speaker 1 (01:35:40):
Robert? Will you have a show with Amy Peacuff? Again?

Speaker 3 (01:35:44):
Probably not anytime soon. I mean, I have too many
disagreements right now with Amy.

Speaker 1 (01:35:49):
To to have a show with her.

Speaker 3 (01:35:51):
You know, I'd have to hash out those disagreements in
private first, and that hasn't happened yet, economy, How does
one develop a skill set to provide more value to others?
I have a BA master's pending accounting, full time employed,
but want more money and to create real value.

Speaker 1 (01:36:11):
In the world and my own life.

Speaker 3 (01:36:14):
Well, I don't think the way to think about it
is as a skill set to provide more value to others.
I think you have to, you know, think of it
as what is the skill set I need to develop
in order to provide value? What do I want to do?
What do I want to achieve? You say you want
to create real value in the world. What does that

(01:36:35):
look like for you? What does that mean to you?
What is real value? So you have to really, I think,
what you really need to do at this point.

Speaker 1 (01:36:42):
I would take the course that I mentioned that I'm
an intertut is offering on work on work and philosophy.

Speaker 3 (01:36:53):
I can't try on what it was titled work something Something.
I would take that course because I think, I think
they'll talk about these kind of issues, and I think
that it's exactly what you need is to do the
kind of introspection to figure out what you mean by

(01:37:13):
all these terms. It's called objectivism work in business. I
would definitely take that course. I think you'll learn a
lot there and I think that'll help you do the
kind of work that you have to do before you
go out and get a degree or anything like that,
to figure out what the right path is for you.

Speaker 1 (01:37:33):
In pokey, how do you shed emotional.

Speaker 3 (01:37:36):
Guilt that clashes with reason, example, accepting that civilian destruction
can be a just wartime strategy for victory, but still
highly feeling disturbed by it.

Speaker 1 (01:37:47):
I mean you you just have to.

Speaker 3 (01:37:51):
Really go through the action, the thinking of understanding it,
integrating it, constantly, integrating it with an ext rest of
your value, Understanding that the emotion that the feeling.

Speaker 1 (01:38:04):
Disturbed by it is probably.

Speaker 3 (01:38:06):
Coming from remnants of altruism, introspecting about that, really doing
the work. And here is where the real work needs
to be done, not so much on theory of war, but.

Speaker 1 (01:38:18):
Doing the work around altruism. What does it mean to
be selfish? What does it mean to be self interested?
In doing the philosophical and psychological work to really concretize
and make real to yourself what it means to be
self interested. And I think if you do that then
the emotion will go away after a while.

Speaker 3 (01:38:42):
I think Gene Moroney, she's been on the show a
number of times, has seminars that do that work on
these kinds of things. I think you also ask Gina Golin,
But I think, Gene, have you been swaring as a
wife who runs a company that puts on seminars around.

Speaker 1 (01:39:04):
Exactly these kind of issues?

Speaker 3 (01:39:06):
How to align your emotions with your philosophical ideas? And Poky,
how do you tell if a luxury is pride or
secondhanded vanity when motives overlap? For example, buying a ten
thousand dollars suit but because you love the craft and
spaceship and because you know it impresses clients.

Speaker 1 (01:39:29):
Well, I mean there's a couple of things.

Speaker 3 (01:39:31):
One is is impressive clients secondhanded?

Speaker 1 (01:39:37):
Or is it part of the job?

Speaker 3 (01:39:38):
Is it part of your work to exude success and
to exude a sense of wealth. I can imagine there's
some jobs in which wearing a ten thousand dollars suit
is just the price you pay. You know, it's kind
of investment in the job, and the respect you get
from the clients is something that's.

Speaker 1 (01:39:58):
Important for the job. But you have to work that out.

Speaker 3 (01:40:02):
There is no formula, right, and I'm the wrong person
to ask about a ten thousand dollars suit, because God,
I would never spend ten thousand dollars in the suit.

Speaker 1 (01:40:13):
But that's just me, right.

Speaker 3 (01:40:17):
You have to make sure that your values are first handed,
that you really do appreciate the craftandship, that you like
the way you look.

Speaker 1 (01:40:23):
In the suit, that you.

Speaker 3 (01:40:27):
Value the look in the way it makes you feel
above the ten thousand dollars, and that it's really crucial.

Speaker 1 (01:40:34):
For your profession. And you have to think all that through.

Speaker 3 (01:40:40):
You have to really introspect about what really is motivating
me to buy this suit. And you want to make
sure it's not sink and handed. You want to make
sure you really do value it.

Speaker 1 (01:40:54):
It really is a value to you.

Speaker 3 (01:40:56):
You want to make sure you don't have a better
use for ten thousand dollars than buying the suit that
is even more of a value to you. But that's
what you have to do in breaking it down. I
hope that's helpful, Peter. By the way, twenty two dollars.
To get to our goal, somebody has to come through
with a twenty two dollars question or twenty two dollars

(01:41:18):
sticker so we can make the goal today.

Speaker 1 (01:41:21):
That would be really, really really nice. It'd be nice
to beat the goal. It would be nice to make
the goal.

Speaker 3 (01:41:28):
And there's not a lot of time because we've got
almost no questions. Do you agree with Zubrin that humans
on Mars would inspire new generations of engineers, scientists and
be the catalyst for a new age of discovery.

Speaker 1 (01:41:50):
I don't think that's enough.

Speaker 3 (01:41:53):
I think they're going to have to have the right
ideas when they get there. But yeah, there's a sense
in which that's absolutely true. That is the spirit that
gets us. There is a spirit that's gonna keep people
searching and keep people going. It is inspiring. But I

(01:42:13):
do think it's going to be important to have good ideas.
But yes, I think that people are inspired by great achievement,
people inspired by science fiction and.

Speaker 1 (01:42:23):
Achieving scientific science fiction like goals. So yeah, I.

Speaker 3 (01:42:28):
Basically agree with Zubin, although I'd like to see him
emphasize good ideas more. Andrew, thank you, Andrew. So he
Andrew did twenty, so now I just need two. I
think some people feel emotional clashes because they fall prey
to thinking that because rational is dangerous, because most people

(01:42:50):
aren't rational, and so that puts you in the minority.

Speaker 1 (01:42:55):
I don't know if that's true.

Speaker 3 (01:42:57):
I think people have classes because they have classes because
we all grow up in in an altruistic world, in
an irrational world. We've all picked up conclusions and come
to conclusions, uh, you know, in the world out there,
because this is kind of world we live in that
now conflict with our rational evaluations and that creates emotional conflicts.

(01:43:22):
And I just think you need to do the introspective
work to get rid of that. We're not all kind
of firsthanders from a very young age, like I ran.

Speaker 1 (01:43:32):
Many of us pick up stuff from the culture and.

Speaker 3 (01:43:36):
We have to question all that and it takes time
and work an effort to do that. And until you
do all that work, you're not going to get rid
of the classes, all right, Jennifer, did you ever see

(01:44:00):
videos of months Mons sing opera with Freddie Mercury. No,
I didn't see her sing it with DDI Muky. I've seen,
and I've I've got many. I used to have lots
of recordings off her, and she had a beautiful voice,
but I never saw her singing with Freddie Merky.

Speaker 1 (01:44:19):
Know, hmm, I'll have to look for that.

Speaker 3 (01:44:26):
Uh, Linda says Lynn. Cordea says YBS is my new source. Yeah,
lots of people say that, thank you, and lind.

Speaker 1 (01:44:41):
Says, let's do a show. Not absolutely. Problem is shows
on not get very.

Speaker 3 (01:44:45):
Little viewers, very few viewers, and not a lot of
super chats. But I enjoyed doing shows or not. All right, guys,
Dave just did the two dollars to get us to
our goal. So thank you guys, thank you all the
super chatters, thank you all the states, because thanks everybody.

Speaker 1 (01:45:02):
I don't know if I'll do a show tomorrow. I might.

Speaker 3 (01:45:04):
If I do it, it'll be in my night, so
your afternoon. I'll try to let you know in advance,
but I'll decide later tomorrow. Same goes for Sunday. I'll
decide on Sunday whether they do a show or not.
Definitely will be a show on Monday, Monday night. Just
to give you up to speed, the Trump Putin meeting

(01:45:26):
lasted nearly three hours.

Speaker 1 (01:45:29):
That's the first meeting.

Speaker 3 (01:45:31):
Let's see a meeting with leaders and two key aids
on both sides. There was supposed to be an expanded
lunch session, but mister trumb and mister Putin appeared to
be moving ahead with a press confidence.

Speaker 1 (01:45:45):
It's unclear whether the lunch.

Speaker 3 (01:45:46):
Is being scrapped or if talks will continue after hearing
from the presidents, So we'll find out in a little while.
I'll comment on the I'll comment on the press conference
in a future show. Andrew came in with another five dollars.
So you don't think some people are faded that being
rational equals being lonely in the irrational world. I think

(01:46:07):
some people are willing to compromise their ideas in order
not to be lonely, But I don't think that is
the source of these conflicting emotions. So yes, there's certainly
people who give up on rationality because they fear it's
going to lead to loneliness. They want to fit in,
but it's not the source of the conflicting emotions. The

(01:46:29):
conflicting emotions again bad conclusions when came to earlier in life.

Speaker 1 (01:46:37):
I think John, thank you for the sticker in Pokey,
thank you for the sticker.

Speaker 3 (01:46:41):
Really appreciate you guys, and we exceeded the goal today,
So thank you and I will see you all. If
not tomorrow and Sunday Monday, then for sure by everybody,

All Episodes

Putin&Trump Meet; Intel; CFPB; Drill; Redistricting; Infowars; e-cars; Kabul | Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Herd with Colin Cowherd

.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;}Putin&Trump Meet; Intel; CFPB; Drill; Redistricting; Infowars; e-cars; Kabul | Yaron Brook Show