Shutdown; ACA; Tariff – Dividend, SCOTUS; 50y Mortgages; Rent; Same Sex; BBC | Yaron Brook Show - Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
A lot of them funds of Last Little Cell, Chris
and any individual loss. This is the show. All right, everybody,
welcome to your one book show on this Monday, November tenth.

(00:25):
I hope everybody is doing well and ready for another.
You're on book show. I don't know, somebody said, Lincoln says,
two YBA shows in two days.

Speaker 2 (00:36):
Christmas came early.

Speaker 1 (00:37):
But this is the third show in three days. Lincoln,
you you missed a show, and that's just part of
the course. Other words, they're win they're traveling. So uh,
usually you get six shows and six days on a
regular normal basis. So yeah, all right, guys, today we're

(01:00):
going to.

Speaker 2 (01:00):
Do a news roundup.

Speaker 1 (01:02):
We're going to talk about stuff that's going on a
primarily in Washington, DC's.

Speaker 2 (01:07):
It's pretty packed over the last few days.

Speaker 1 (01:09):
Given that over the weekend I didn't do Newsy shows,
all kind of Newsy shows, but not you know, political
news shows, I figured we'd try.

Speaker 2 (01:18):
To catch up on what is going on right now. Anyway,
it appears.

Speaker 1 (01:24):
That some Democrats, some Democratic senators in a panicking and
therefore voted with Republicans to end the government shutdown.

Speaker 2 (01:37):
Now, it's not why they're panicking.

Speaker 1 (01:38):
Other Democrats are really pissed off at them, actually, because
their view is that the recent elections vindicated Democrats and
showed the Democrats were pretty strong and and they should
have stuck with the shutdown and not given into Republicans.
But it seems like some senators, particularly former governors, it

(02:00):
turns out some Democratic senators former governors, have shifted and
they have now voted to reopen the governments.

Speaker 2 (02:10):
Eight of them shifted.

Speaker 1 (02:12):
So the Senate yesterday or today or yesterday, I voted,
I guess this morning.

Speaker 2 (02:19):
Sixty to forty.

Speaker 1 (02:20):
You need sixty votes to approve the Continuing Resolution, which
is the funding of government for another three months until January.
We'll do this all again on January for three months
under certain conditions. Again, the forty Democrats are voted against
this are pretty pissed off at their colleagues. But I

(02:42):
think what happened was, at the end of the day,
the government shutdown doesn't really didn't really affect anybody. Nobody
really could until until until two things happened. One airlines
started canceling flights that started late last week on Friday,
and it looked like they were going to be significant

(03:05):
flight cancelations. They were through the weekend and there was
going to be more this week. And my guess is
that I don't know, these senators have somewhere to go,
or they heard from constituencies and said, what the hell,
you know, we've got business flights, We've got to do this.
This is mayham, this cast at the airports. This is ridiculous.
You know, refund the government. It's hurting our flights. So

(03:27):
it finally hurts somebody. It owned a constituency. You know,
people who fly, People who fly, uh, you know, are
easy to pick up the phone and call the senator, call,
call the congressman or whatever and complain.

Speaker 2 (03:40):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (03:41):
And and maybe even the congressmen and senators felt it
themselves because they were at airports.

Speaker 2 (03:46):
Where the mayhem was going on.

Speaker 1 (03:48):
Uh, and they decided to backtrack.

Speaker 2 (03:50):
So that is part of it. The second part was.

Speaker 1 (03:54):
That there was no obvious way to fund food stamps
under their under the gunment shutdown. So the again there
was a constituency poor people who were gonna lose out
because the government wouldn't be able to fund, wouldn't be
able to.

Speaker 2 (04:15):
Pay for the food stamps.

Speaker 1 (04:17):
So suddenly these constituency that started hooting, they started getting
phone calls, and they caved. They caved. Now, you know,
I don't really care that much because I like gumma shutsdowns,
but they don't really matter that much one way or
the other. I mean, if anything, gum shutdowns prove that

(04:38):
you can go, you can manage without the government doing
a lot of stuff and manage fine. And indeed, if
we only privatized, which which a lot of countries have. Canada,
for example, has already for only privatized the controllers, the
A controllers, the whole A control system, not only do
we have more modern equipment, we'd have safer lying, but

(05:01):
we also not have you know this, uh them holding
this above our heads as a kind of a weapon
against us. So yeah, we should privatize a traffic control.
The Canadians have done it, you one, we think the
United States could do it, and uh God, people don't

(05:26):
feel a gumma shutdown. And maybe that's what really what
really got them to stop it is that people realize
suddenly that maybe they don't need the government at the
size that it exists. So anyway, Democrats did get a

(05:46):
few concessions from Republicans.

Speaker 2 (05:50):
The big one I think is that.

Speaker 1 (05:54):
The Trumpet administration is going to reverse all the layoffs
that it did at the begin of If you remember,
at the beginning of the shutdown, basically Trump said, Okay,
I'm just gonna fire a bunch of people and then
hire them again and not hire them again. Well, as
part of this deal, Trump is going to hire all
these people back. H So you know that that is

(06:18):
that is out. Uh. You know, so the one benefit
of the shutdown was maybe shrinking payball. Now that's not
gonna happen.

Speaker 2 (06:26):
They'll be high back and they'll be paid their full salaries.

Speaker 1 (06:29):
I think the Democrats also got some concessions in terms
of a few programs, a guarantee to fund these programs,
uh for.

Speaker 2 (06:39):
Kind of all through.

Speaker 1 (06:40):
Next year, in spite of the fact that the continued
Resolution only covers them until until what January. So they
got the Republicans to agree that that the well kind
of the warfare payments will continue throughout next year. I mean,
here's the point. This is all theater. It was always

(07:01):
all theater. It continues to be all theater. Nothing nothing
you and I will benefit from, no plus sight to us,
No nothing good is coming of this. So yeah, I mean,
so who cares, right, I mean, I don't think Americans
really cared that much about the gunment shutdown.

Speaker 2 (07:22):
It didn't affect many people and they just didn't care.

Speaker 1 (07:26):
And so other again, I'm happy that the gunment shutdown
is over, really happy because I'm flying all this week domestically,
and uh, you know, us allies canceled more than two
thousand flights on just Sunday, and there was seven thousand
flight delays. And I fly out tomorrow morning at seven

(07:49):
fifteen am. And then I've got a flight on Thursday,
and I've got a flight on Saturday. And I don't
want to miss any one of those. I don't want
tom canceled, and I don't want to delayed. So please
open up the government in the next day or so
so I don't have to suffer from what is going
on what is going on there. So yeah, Jennifer says

(08:11):
she's flying too. Yes, she's coming to Denver to see
the debate and to participate in the LPR session. I
think I'm pretty sure I sent.

Speaker 2 (08:21):
The names in. I need to.

Speaker 1 (08:23):
I need to make sure that they have your names
so you can attend the LPR session, all right, So yes,
I will be doing a debate Wednesday night at the
University of Colorado, Colorado Springs. It will be socialism versus capitalism.

(08:45):
I expect to be turnout, hopefully you guys, some of
you guys show up to support the capitalist position.

Speaker 2 (08:50):
There will be a lot of socialists there.

Speaker 1 (08:53):
Uh. And then I'm doing a debate on when No,
that's Thursday. Thursday night is is Colorado Springs. Wednesday is
in San Francisco, and that is a debate on Christianity.
And you can find information about both those debates on
my website and you can sign up and join us

(09:13):
and be there. I I you know, if you're interested,
this might be a treat for you guys.

Speaker 2 (09:19):
On Wednesday, I'm actually gonna.

Speaker 1 (09:20):
Wear a tie. It's required. It's crazy, but it's required.
So I'm wearing a tie on Wednesday.

Speaker 2 (09:28):
I'm dreading it.

Speaker 1 (09:29):
I don't think I remember how to tie a tie,
how to do the not. I had that problem in
Cambridge earlier. I figured it out ultimately, but but you know,
it's it's not not easy, not simple anyway, Right, shutdown
is over.

Speaker 2 (09:43):
You can go back to life if it affected you.

Speaker 1 (09:47):
If you're flying this week, and if you will fly,
planning to fly and thanks for giving. Airlines will be
the usual awful selves, but there won't be the added
issue of of the shutdown.

Speaker 2 (10:03):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (10:05):
Part of the shutdown was that Democrats didn't want to
vote for ending the shutdown until they got a guarantee
from Republicans that the Footable Care Act, the Obamacare, in
other words, would the subsidies that provided by the Footable
Care Act will be continued. H. Republicans are eluctant to

(10:26):
do that.

Speaker 2 (10:27):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (10:28):
You know, they never they never did away with Obamacare.
They never actually proposed any alternative to Obamacare. They never
they never actually put something together. But the uh, but
they want to I don't know. I think they really
want to just pretend that they care about Obamacare and

(10:52):
and pretend that they want to, you know, cut the subsidies,
but the end they'll subsidize at all. Anyway, Democrats wanted
to vote now on that. Republicans said, agreed in this
opening up of the government now in this vote, they
agreed that there would be a separate vote on the
Obamacare subsidies.

Speaker 2 (11:08):
That happens in January.

Speaker 1 (11:12):
Right now. In the meantime, Trump stepped in on the
ACO and the Obamacare subsidies.

Speaker 2 (11:20):
And this is what he wrote.

Speaker 1 (11:22):
I'm recommending to the centers Republicans that the hundreds of
billions of dollars currently being sent to money sucking insurance
companies in order to save bad healthcare provided by Obamacare,
we sent directly to the people so that they can
purchase their own, much better healthcare and have money left over.

Speaker 2 (11:40):
In other words, take from the big bad.

Speaker 1 (11:42):
Or capitalized insurance companies, give it to the people, and
terminate the dollars spent the worst healthcare anyway in the world.
Obamacare unrelated. We must still terminate the filibuster. Oh, I
was going to talk about the filibuster today. I'll talk
about it tomorrow. Okay, So god, So, first of all,

(12:06):
notice how he talks about insurance companies, and tell me
how he is different than Elizabeth Wong money sucking insurance companies,
or how different he is than the guy who shot
the guy the people who supported the guy who shot
the head of you know, the CEO of United Healthcare.
Big bad insurance companies, big bad in all caps. That's Trump, right. So,

(12:30):
so this anti insurance company, is this bias, this this
really you know, it's just just horrific that he puts
in the other man. Yeah, it would be great. Now
do we really want to send it directly to the
people who are we sending it to?

Speaker 2 (12:49):
Which people?

Speaker 1 (12:50):
How are they going to get it? How are we
gonna make sure that they spend it on insurance that
we want to spend the money insurance? What exactly what
we're gonna do now? Because there's a there's a kernel
of a idea here. Some senators jumped in to their
credit and said, Okay, what we're going to propose is
a dramatic expansion and health saving accounts. And what we

(13:11):
could do is funnel all the ACA subsidy money into
those health saving accounts. Let's say, for poor people, we
can help them fund health saving accounts and then they
could use that money, I guess to pay the healthcare costs.
It still doesn't solve how they're going to buy insurance
and solve the whole insurance market. But this is a

(13:34):
debate worth having. Is this is really this is valuable stuff.
This is what we should be talking about, not about extending.
This is what we should have been talking about since
they tried to eliminate Obamacare.

Speaker 2 (13:46):
And what was the twenty.

Speaker 1 (13:47):
Seventeen and McCain voted against it and crushed it. But
what should have been proposed at the time was an alternative,
and health saving accounts are clearly a good alternative, maybe
including a subsidy solow income people to buy health insurance.
But then you have to completely revamp the whole health

(14:07):
insurance market. You have to actually offer something alternative. Now
we all know what that should be. I mean we
all know, like many of us in the free market
world know what that should be. We've been advocating for
it for twenty something years. There's an AFCAM, the Association
for Free Marketing Medicine, has been advocating for this for

(14:30):
a long time. But you know, basically this is simple stuff.
You know, we should get rid of employer based insurance.
We should dramatically. And by the way, if you do that,
then people buy insurance individually, so they own the insurance policy,

(14:51):
so it's their insurance policy as individual. We incentivize individuals,
basically h says, to use that HSA money to buy
catastrophic insurance for big expenses, hospital stays, cancer treatment, heart attacks,
the big stuff, the big stuff that you really need

(15:14):
big money for. Uh, you know and then make it
really easy to have an HSA. HSA are great. You
can put money in them before taxes, you can take
them out without paying taxes. Basically, it's tax free money
as long as you pay it on as though as
you pay for it for healthcare, and you know it
really is. It's a terrific way in a mixed economy

(15:38):
to fund healthcare for individuals. And it allows you directly if.

Speaker 2 (15:44):
You want to help, if you want.

Speaker 1 (15:45):
To subsidize people who are poor. And again, in capitalism,
we should never subsidize people who anybody. But given the
went out of capitalism, given the mixed economy, given that
you have to do this not to get anything past,
the government could directly, just like with many education SAMI accounts,
could directly put money into health saving accounts, let's say,

(16:07):
and this could replace not just coming insurance, this could
replace Medicare Medicaid. It could replace Medicaid immediately because poor
people instead of being forced into this horrific government insurance
policy called Medicaid, they would now have money put in
the HSA and then they would decide how to allocate
it to buy a catastrophic insurance policy. And then they

(16:27):
would pay directly to hospitals and to doctors, and you
would create an actual market. You know, you've got a
deregularly healthcare all kinds of ways. For example, allow eer
services and non hospitals. You know, in emergency room services
and non hospitals, there's a lot of stuff that happens

(16:49):
in the emergency room that.

Speaker 2 (16:50):
Doesn't have to happen in a hospital. Allow.

Speaker 1 (16:55):
You know, physician assistants do a lot of the work
that physicians do so that you can know the price. Uh.
You know, if people are only buying catastrophic insurance, then
a lot of the insurance bureaucracy goes away.

Speaker 2 (17:09):
It just disappears.

Speaker 1 (17:11):
And again people now have a relationship directly with a
doctor instead of having a relationship with a administrator who
who is pulled by in different directions by doctors and
insurance companies and everything else. Uh.

Speaker 2 (17:25):
And you know, there's a bunch of stuff.

Speaker 1 (17:29):
I'm sure we need an expert to figure out that
you'd have to do in order to do all this,
For example, you'd have to completely deregulate the insurance market.
And one way to do that is to provide the
ability to buy insurance policy in any state you want,
not limited to the state in which you reside.

Speaker 2 (17:47):
That would allow for.

Speaker 1 (17:48):
Competition between states to see who would deregulate the fastest.
It's all doable, and it's all super exciting. Let people
pay out upon market for most medical expenses that are
not catastrophic. Create a robust market that are forced doctors
and hospitals and everybody's to actually advertise real prices and

(18:12):
to compete on prices. Remove the middleman from as much
as possible, and a lot of people to get the
insurance that they really need. What you really need is
insurance for when things go horribly wrong. And then if
you need in our mixed economy welfare state, if you
need just to subsidize certain people, then you can do

(18:35):
that with with uh you know, uh a subsidy directly
into an h SA, directly into HSA. So uh yeah,
I mean a lot of this, a lot of this.

Speaker 2 (18:56):
Uh you know.

Speaker 1 (18:57):
You would add ideally, right, if we going in all this,
you would add tortal reform. I mean the amount of
money the doctors pay.

Speaker 2 (19:06):
For what do you call it?

Speaker 1 (19:09):
For insurance for liability insurance is ridiculous. So total reform
would be good. Total reform would be good economy wide,
not just in healthcare. It would be good. So there's
a bunch of stuff that needs to be done.

Speaker 2 (19:20):
But notice this.

Speaker 1 (19:22):
You got all these Republican senators jumping in on Trump's tweet.
Where have they been over the last nine ten years?
Where have they been during the first Trump administration? Where
have they been in the first year or nine months
of the Trump administration? Why isn't HSA and reforming our
healthcare system towards a more market over ends and system.

(19:46):
Why isn't that being a Republican priority? Instead we got tariffs?
And instead, you know we're getting we got the big
beautiful bill, like in the big beautiful bill. Why couldn't
they haven fluted in the Big beautiful bill significant HSSA reform.
I think it would have qualified as being part of

(20:08):
a tax and spend bill that only needed fifty one votes.
There's so many things they could have done with that bill. Instead,
all they did was spend more on existing stuff and
and cut taxes in arguably irresponsible ways, and increase taxes
by allowing for tariffs. Why is the focus on all

(20:32):
this other stuff, stuff that's not helpful, stuff that is
not in a I mean, people are concerned about an
affordability crisis in America, and part of the affordability is
health insurance. There's no question about that. Well why aren't
we addressing that? And the best way to address that,
we know there's.

Speaker 2 (20:51):
Is, you know, it's a it's.

Speaker 1 (20:57):
Too completely reform health insurance and do that by introducing
hsa IS. And just like we described, this is not
this is not rocket science at all. It's just an
issue of priorities, and it does not look like Republicans.
Republicans have this as a priority. Now, maybe now that

(21:18):
Trump has tweeted what he tweeted, maybe this will encourage
them to do it. But I am skeptical. I am skeptical.
It would be really really cool if that is what
we got. It would be really really cool if out
of this shutdown and out of this discussion of the ACA,
what we get is a Republican party committed to introducing

(21:39):
free market reforms and healthcare. But I think the possibility
of that, the probability of that is close to zero,
sadly close to zero. It would be cool, but it
ain't happening. I mean, again, free choice, this, you know,

(22:02):
move towards freedom. Remember legislation is worth voting for if
it moves us towards more freedom. Hsas move us towards
more freedom. It's not the ultimate is somewhere we are
at the end, but it moves there. And even if
it includes a subsidy for HSA's it's still moving us
towards more freedom. I've often argued that one of the

(22:22):
ways to get rid of Medicare and Medicaid is to
get people a vouchure instead of to give them state insurance.
Give them a vulture that allows them to buy insurance,
and you know, and that vouture would be an HSA
deposit into their account, both to old people over sixty
five and young people, not young people, but poor people

(22:43):
who get Medicare. Today ninety million Americans ninety zero ninety
million Americans get Medicaid. That's the poor people's one, and
then tens of millions get Medicare, so that most of
our insurance, most of our healthcare system is government run.
It just is.

Speaker 2 (23:03):
All right.

Speaker 1 (23:04):
I see Michael has come back from I mean yesterday
he did a bunch of questions and then today is
doing another bunch of questions.

Speaker 2 (23:11):
So thank you, Michael.

Speaker 1 (23:12):
You two could join in and join Michael and ask questions,
support the show, and get to shape the actual content
of the show by asking the questions.

Speaker 2 (23:23):
All right, so.

Speaker 1 (23:27):
Trump is panicking a little bit about tariffs. He's panicking
about tariffs because the reality is that when taffs came
up in front of the Supreme Court last week, you know,
the couple, there's a lawsuit to claim that his use
of this Emergency Act, Economic Emergency Act, his use of

(23:51):
that in order to raise taffs is unconstitutional. And it
really did seem like, it really did seem like the
Supream Court was, you know, citing with the plaintiffs.

Speaker 2 (24:05):
It really does seem like.

Speaker 1 (24:06):
The Supreme Court conservatives as conservatives, it is many of
this room Court justices are very uncomfortable allowing Trump to
use this statute to to continue kind of at his
own discretion. One hundred percent is another discretion to raised
hous to race taffs in the US. And you know,

(24:33):
there's a good chance that it gets overturned. It's a
good chance that the tariffs, his use of this, you know,
goes away. Now, just before you celebrate, it is worth
noting that that even if that happens, right, even if

(24:57):
that happens, trumpell, I probably then try to use other
statutes in order to impose the tariffs, which will just
create a mess and a disaster. But he's not gonna
give up on tariffs. I wish, I wish that would
be wow. But he's not gonna give up on it.
He's just gonna switch from using this particular bill to

(25:18):
something else. They'll have to sue again if they argue
it's unconstitutional, and we'll go through the whole process again.

Speaker 2 (25:25):
He will keep shifting. He is not giving up on taps.

Speaker 1 (25:28):
He loves tariffs. Trump was pretty upset after this in
court hearing because he got a sense that he might lose.
He did say later in the day he said, I
heard the court case went well today. He always lies
like that, but I will say this, it would be
devastating for our country if we lost that. It's one

(25:50):
of the most important cases in the history of our country,
he says. And as an example, President she he hit
us with ray oaths. Then I hit him with the tariff,
one hundred percent tariff on top of the other towers
their paint.

Speaker 2 (26:05):
Then he called me in ten minutes and we made
a deal.

Speaker 1 (26:08):
Now none of that is actually true because if you
remember the sequences, Trump hit she with tariffs and she responded,
I mean, then they negotiated and they lowered the tariffs,
but they were still very high tarifts that Fenton al
talis and national security tariffs and other tariffs and thirty
five percent. And then she did the the rareroad materials,

(26:32):
and then Trump introduced moretalves, and then they negotiated another
deal which is only for a year long and nobody
knows exactly what the details are. So the whole thing
is a charade, right that, And it's clear that the
whole thing was started by Trump, not started by the Chinese,
started by Trump. Trump continues, if I didn't have tabs,

(26:53):
the entire world would be in a depression. Depression. Now,
in the past, at least tas helped sink the world
economy into depression. But in this case, Trump believes, which
at least wants us to believe, that his TAFs are
saving us from a depression. Wow, that is that is amazing,

(27:18):
I mean, and unbelievably delusional. He says, I did this
for the world. He's a good altist. Don't worry.

Speaker 2 (27:26):
This is for the world.

Speaker 1 (27:27):
He's gonna make the world great again, not just America,
the world great again.

Speaker 2 (27:32):
If I didn't put one hundred.

Speaker 1 (27:33):
Percent tariff immediately on China because of magnets, a special
kind of rare earth. Magnets are not a rare earth. Anyway,
we'd be closed up. I mean, the guy's delusional. He
has no concept of what is going on here. He

(27:54):
has no concept of how damaging his tariffs really are.
He has no concept of how much pain he is
placing on the US economy for.

Speaker 2 (28:02):
Absolutely zero reason.

Speaker 1 (28:04):
He's completely delusional and bought into a look into list
economic theory. He's helder since the nineteen eighties. It's not new,
but it's just he's just, yeah, completely bunkers when he
comes to this I mean generally, but when he comes
to this in particular, I mean even as somebody like

(28:26):
Neil Gotch Gosstich, a Trump appointee, and somebody who's voted
for the Trump administration in several cases, express deep concern
about the administration's expansive interpretation of the law, warning that
ad risks the voting congressional power over taxation and trade. Now,
Ghostich is very concerned about separation of powers so I'm

(28:46):
very hopeful that he will vote.

Speaker 2 (28:48):
Against Trump on this. He said during the hearing.

Speaker 1 (28:53):
It's a one way ratchet towards the gradual but continual
accretion a power in the execut a branch, and away
from the people's elected representatives. He said, Good for him.
That's absolutely right. Again, they're not ruling on the economics
of tariffs. They're ruling on the constitutionality of tarots. Remember,
taros in the Constitution h power grantite to with all

(29:18):
taxation to Congress, and Trump is using some statute to
try to claim that he now has unilateral, indefinite power
over taros to change touster increased touts. There, John Roberts,

(29:39):
you know, push the government lawyers about wood tawos. Could
could the statue be allowed to house on any product
from any country in any amount for any length of time?
Amy could Cony Barrett also question the scope of the
president's authority?

Speaker 2 (29:57):
I mean, is there a limit here? How many countries?

Speaker 1 (30:02):
Remember this is supposed to be an emergency act, So
what about countries like Spain and France were nominally our allies.
How can they be targeted for tarifs under an emergency act?
So yeah, you know, this is again, this is the
International nineteen seventy seven International Emergency Powers Economic Powers Act

(30:26):
I E e p A. That is being that is
being challenged here in the Supreme Court. Trump southority to
impose willy nilly whatever tarif she wants.

Speaker 2 (30:46):
So anyway, yeah, it's.

Speaker 1 (31:02):
Here's another quote from from from Grossage.

Speaker 2 (31:08):
I want I want to explain.

Speaker 1 (31:10):
I want you to explain to me how you draw
the line, because you say we shouldn't be concerned because
this is foreign affairs and the president has inherent authority
and so delegation.

Speaker 2 (31:20):
Off the books more or less.

Speaker 1 (31:22):
And if that's true, what would prohibit Congress from just
abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce for them at
at the claar war or to the president. So you know,
if this is faan parcy and uh, the president has
no limitation on what he could do in terms of
fun party. Well does that mean how we shouldn't be

(31:43):
involved in the clearing war or anything else when he.

Speaker 2 (31:45):
Comes to foreign affairs.

Speaker 1 (31:48):
So there's clear skepticism here from the from the court. Uh.

Speaker 2 (31:52):
And and and Trump is.

Speaker 1 (31:56):
It is panicking. So he came up with the solution
right first, So this is what he wrote. I'm reading
you his tweet. People are against people that are against
tariffs are fools, So I'm a fool. According to the
President of the United States of America, I've been called

(32:16):
whose We are now the richest, most respected country in
the world, with almost no inflation and a record stock market.
So here's the thing. I think we were the richest
a year ago. Nothing's really changed in that regard. Indeed,
and respected. We were probably more respected a year ago

(32:38):
than now. With the s now Biden, we were probably
more respected than we are now with Trump. In terms
of international affairs, almost no inflation. Inflation is higher now
than it was in Biden's final year, so inflation under
Trump has been higher. Price inflation CPR has been higher
under Trump than it was under Biden, so almost no inflation.

(32:59):
He keeps saying this, and yet the number is an
exact opposite. He keeps saying cost of food and groceies
have gone down, but cost of food and groceries have
gone up, And he keeps he really believes in this
idea that if you lie over and over and over
and over and over and over over again, people start
believing in and sometimes they do, so maybe it'll work,

(33:21):
and he says, a record stock market price. That's true,
stock markets at record, heighs, but I did sear graph
today the chows that over the last since Trump was inaugurated,
foreign stock markets have done a lot better than the
American stock market, a lot better. So, yes, the US
stock market's up thirteen percent, but it was up twenty
five percent of Biden for two years in a row.

(33:43):
WHOA Biden must have been a terrific president if you
measure him by stock market performance.

Speaker 2 (33:51):
So it's hard, hard to take this.

Speaker 1 (33:56):
Guy, this president seriously, he continued, four one ks highest ever.

Speaker 2 (34:02):
Yeah, we are.

Speaker 1 (34:04):
Taking in trillions of dollars, are we? And we'll soon
begin paying down I almost debt thirty seven trillion. That
is just a unbelievable, bold face lie. Not only are
we not paying down I an almost dead, we're actually
increasing that debt by one to two trillion dollars of

(34:25):
a year under Trump continuously, but he says this stuff,
and it's shocking because it's just a bold face, unequivocal,
not open the invitation, lie. We're taking in trillions of dollars.
How do you get to trillions of dollars. We've taken
it one hundred and fifty billion in tariffs, you know,

(34:48):
maybe ninety billion more than we would have otherwise. That's
not a trillion. A trillion is like eleven and a
half times that. I don't know, what what do we
do with this? What do we do with this president
who just boldly lies NonStop.

Speaker 2 (35:09):
Trillions?

Speaker 1 (35:10):
All the money the company countries promised to invest in America,
that's not suitcases of cash brought into the US Treasury
to pay down the debt. That is, if they ever
do it, which is very dubious, it will mean investment
in businesses in the United States, I hope, not clear
will ever happen. Anyway, he continues his record investment in

(35:31):
the United States, Plants and factories going up all over
the place, actually plants and factories, the only if you
take out AI a much much lower pace than under Biden.
Biden was an awful, horrible, pathetic, ridiculously bad president, and

(35:56):
yet Trump is out doing him in badness. So then
he says, here's there's a cake. He says, a dividend
of at least two thousand dollars a person, not including
high income people, will be paid to everyone. This is
how he wants to bribe you to shut up. You know,

(36:23):
how where's this money going to come from. We're running
a thirty seven trillion dollar debt, we run one to
two trillion dollars deficit of a year. Where you're going
to get the money to pay two thousand dollars to
every person? Not clear who he's talking about. I mean,
this is just nuts. It's insane, It doesn't make any sense,
doesn't add up economically, completely ignorant.

Speaker 2 (36:47):
Part of the course.

Speaker 1 (36:48):
Now, remember the Trump during his first court term seventeen
to twenty one, also promised to pay off the debt
in those days. It was nineteen trillion when he started,
but during his presidency the debt went from nineteen trillion
to twenty seven trillion. So he spouts stuff, he says stuff,

(37:12):
he announces stuff, he boasts about stuff. It's relationship to
reality is tenuous at best. And look, if the Supreme
Court strikes down the tariffs, it's going to be a
mess for the treasury. They're going to have to return

(37:32):
ninety billion dollars to different businesses from which they took
the tariffs.

Speaker 2 (37:36):
And I note the Trump believes that.

Speaker 1 (37:40):
You know, somehow, somehow we have more tariff revenue, but
somehow we didn't pay for it, which is again contradictory
and doesn't make any sense.

Speaker 2 (37:50):
More of his contradictions.

Speaker 1 (37:52):
But yeah, nineteen billion will have to be paid back
from the Treasury to the companies. I'd rather the money
being company's hands anyway. And then what then, what do
we do? At least we don't have tariffs, the economy
will be better, Prices will actually have an opportunity to

(38:13):
come down. So actually, the stream Court might be doing
the Trump presidency a massive favor I mean Trump, because
by reducing prices, people will feel better and they will
be more likely to vote Republican in the midterms. So
they might be saving the Republican party by.

Speaker 2 (38:37):
Doing this.

Speaker 1 (38:38):
Right, here's the Wall Seat Journal about this. I'll just
read you a section. President Trump is a big tariff problem.
This is the Wall Seat Journal editorial board. His water
taxes I like that. I like that he's calling they're
calling them border taxes. His water taxes are raising prices
and tariff goods. They're unpopular with voters, and the Supreme

(38:58):
Court might rule his e urgency tariffs a legal His
latest response promise voters a two thousand dollars tariff rebate.
That was this hail Mary passed Sunday as he declared
on social media that people that are against tariffs are fools.
He went on to promise various benefits from tarots, including
taking in trillions of dollars that will soon pay down

(39:20):
the national debt, and the kicker a dividend of at
least two thousand dollars a person will be paid to everyone. Now,
you know, I like the way the Wall Set Journal
puts this. This is a teaching moment for a high
school logic class. Start with the contradiction that mister Trump
can both pay at tariff rebate and pay down.

Speaker 2 (39:44):
The national debt.

Speaker 1 (39:46):
How do you do that at the same time increase
spending and pay down to the national debt often the
same pool of money. The annual federal budget deficit is
roughly one point eight trillion dollars even with the increased
tariff revenue, so paying a rebate would add to the
national debt, not reduce it. Mister trump claims of a

(40:09):
revenue benefit from tariffs also bellies what is Solicitor General
John Sow told this court on Wednesday in arguing the
tariffs aren't really taxes and are mainly a tool of
foreign policy.

Speaker 2 (40:22):
Mister s said, these tariffs, these policies.

Speaker 1 (40:25):
It is clear that these policies are most effective if
nobody ever pays the tariff.

Speaker 2 (40:33):
That's pretty wild.

Speaker 1 (40:35):
If it never raises a dime of revenue, these are
the most effective use of these of this particular policy,
because if you never get any revenue, that means that
other countries.

Speaker 2 (40:45):
Absorbing the tariffs.

Speaker 1 (40:47):
The more revenue you raise, the more other countries are
passing it on to you. In other words, prices have
to go up in the United States. They're not cutting
their costs in the motherland of where the goods are
coming from. So he added this solution general that quote.
So they're clearly regulatory tariffs, not taxes. They are not

(41:09):
They're not an ex size of the power to tax.
But wait a minute, The Wallseat Journal says, if taras
are most effective if no one ever pays them, then
how are they going to raise the revenue? Mister Trump
needs to pay those rebates. The truth is tariffs are taxes.
But mister So didn't want to admit this, lest the

(41:30):
quote conclude that mister mister Trump is used soaping a
constitutional power of Congress, which of.

Speaker 2 (41:37):
Course he is.

Speaker 1 (41:39):
Mister Trump is essentially promised to pay Americans two thousand
dollars of the border taxes they're paying in higher prices.
But if tars are free economic lunch and their benefits
are bound, why off a rebate? Shouldn't voters be thrilled
about tariffs? Even without a rebate, Trump is trying to

(42:01):
exploit the fact that the tariff impact is dispersed across
the economy, so consumers have a hard time sorting out
how much those taxes contribute to which higher prices. They
do know, however, that they're paying more than they used to,
which is why the election exit post last week showed
people broadly disapprove of mister Trump's handling of inflation in
the economy. Anyway, it goes on, but you get the drift.

(42:25):
Good for the Wall Street Journal, that's right on point.
They've been really good on tariff's. I mean, so it's
a lot of people being good on tariffs. Really, it's
only Trump and a few people around him that actually
have this, you know, have this delusion about how tariffs
work best. And for example, said the two thousand dollars.

(42:45):
Dividend could come in lots of forms. It could just
be the tax decrease that we are seeing. So we
already got the two thousand dollars when they decrease taxes.
But they didn't really decrease taxes. They just can you
knew the taxes we had before. Anyway, it doesn't matter.
I listen to get technical, but Bessett said, you've already
got your two thousand dollars refunds, so don't worry about it.

Speaker 2 (43:10):
You know you already have it. Be happy, celibate, celibate.

Speaker 3 (43:18):
Ah, all right, let's see what's over the weekend.

Speaker 1 (43:31):
Trump floated the idea of a fifty year mortgage. I mean, basically, supposedly,
the Trumpe demstation is working on the idea of a
fifty year mortgage. That is, I assume what they mean
by that is that they would force Fatty Fanny and Freddie,
who are still govermnent entities, they're still in government receivership,

(43:55):
to buy fifty year mortgages from banks who issued at
really good price. Thus to incentivize the bank and I
guess homeowners to get a fifty year mortgage. Now fifty

(44:15):
year mortgages subsidized by the government, because if there was
a market desire for fifty year mortgages, we would have.

Speaker 2 (44:22):
Fifty year mortgages.

Speaker 1 (44:23):
The reason there's no fifty year mortgages is because the
market doesn't really want them. Now. Arguably, the government is
already subsidizing thirty year mortgages or did and has since
a great depression through Fannie and Freddy, and now they
want to expand that to fifty year, with the idea
that that lowers the cost, That lowers the cost of

(44:44):
getting a mortgage, which addresses the concerns so many people
out they have on the unaffordability of buying a home.

Speaker 2 (44:54):
But there's a bunch of problems with this.

Speaker 1 (44:58):
One. Interestrates on a fifty year mortgage would be quite high,
probably higher than a thirty year mortgage, for the same
reason that interestrates on the thirty year mortgage are higher
than ones and five year mortgages or on floating rate mortgages,
because uncertainty about interestrates over fifty years is higher. Banks
want to protect themselves from the potential of inflation way

(45:20):
out in the future, so they want higher interest rates,
higher interest rates. Now, it's true, you're spending payments over
fifty years instead of thirty. So even with higher interest rates,
you'll probably get lower monthly payments. That is true assuming
home prices don't change. We'll get to that in a minute.

(45:44):
But you know, basically, what is this going to mean
for homeowners A It means they're never going to own
the home. Right how many people live in the same
house for fifty years, You never actually going to gain
home ownership. Ultimately, many people take out mortgages and they

(46:07):
make an assumption that one day they will pay it
all off and they will own the house one hundred percent.
They look forward to that. With a fifty year mortgage,
at least by paying the mortgage, you're never going to
get there. Also, it means that at least for the
first decade, you're paying almost all interest. That is, you're
gaining no equity in the home, which again will make

(46:31):
it very difficult for you to make any money by
selling in the home. You still have to make it
down payment with interestrates is high. With interestation where they are,
it just makes absolutely no sense they issue fifty year
mortgages on a home when you only plan to live
there a shorter period than that. An amount of interest

(46:53):
you will pay over that fifty years is just astounding.
Do the math of what how much interest versus so
much equity you will pay over that period of time,
particularly in the early years. Now, add to that that
giving people fifty year mortgages does not solve the supply problem,

(47:15):
which is the fundamental problem of affordability. Let's say people
get excited about the fifty year mortgage. Let's say everybody
wants to take out a fifty year mortgage because the
monthly payments are lower and make it possible for them
to pay them.

Speaker 2 (47:28):
By the way, all.

Speaker 1 (47:30):
It'll do is make you a renter. Right, your anty
payments will become closer to rent at a fifty year mortgage.

Speaker 2 (47:37):
But okay, so it lowers your AUNTHTI payments.

Speaker 1 (47:39):
Might as well just grant. But it lowers your anthy payments.
And so demand for housing increases, Supply hasn't increased. So
what happens to prices? This is your economic quiz of
the day. If demands increases for housing and supply doesn't change,
what happens thouse vices? They go up, They go up,

(48:08):
Surprises will go up, and therefore making home buying even
less affordable. And by the way, if the man you know, so,
it's just it's just this is.

Speaker 2 (48:25):
I mean, this is one of the.

Speaker 1 (48:26):
Most economically ignorant governments we've ever had. If this is serious,
the two thousand dollars rebate for tariffs, This tariffs just generally,
this this administration is is I fear, and this is
saying a lot, given the Biden administration, given I don't know,
a bunch of democratic administration, I really do think that

(48:50):
this is the most economically ignorant administration ever. This is
not sophisticated. This is not hard, This is not complicated,
This is not couched in neo Kaynesian equations. This is straightforward,
is applying demand first level, not even any really complicated effects.

(49:11):
If you've got to take out a fifty year mortgage,
might as well just rent. What differences make You're not
gonna build up any equity suddenly, not on in the
first decade, says the young person. Just rent.

Speaker 2 (49:24):
So what reduces rents?

Speaker 1 (49:27):
Wow, there's a whole series of stories of well, they're
all based.

Speaker 2 (49:31):
On one article.

Speaker 1 (49:32):
There's an article that came out today about what reduces rents?
And I know it's shocking, it's absolutely shocking.

Speaker 2 (49:41):
What actually reduces.

Speaker 1 (49:42):
Rents and we're talking here about rents at a lower income,
So what reduces rents is what called class C properties.
So where do class C properties? Rents go down? And
Class C is the beginning. It's it's where people really
feel the angst. It's increased supply, true, but supply of what?

(50:07):
Supply of what? Here's the beauty of it. Class C
rents go down when Class A supply goes up. Class
A is luxury. The more luxury condos you build, I

(50:28):
mean up to a point, the lower rents and Class
C go down.

Speaker 2 (50:35):
Some examples of this right now.

Speaker 1 (50:39):
Class C rents in Denver a down thirteen point nine percent,
in Naples, Florida thirteen point five percent, in Austin, Texas
thirteen point three percent, in Phoenix ten point five percent,
San Antonio seven point two percent, and Dallas Class E
rents a down six point five percent. What are all
these cities have in common? I noticed no cities day

(51:02):
in California or.

Speaker 2 (51:03):
In New York. What do they have in common?

Speaker 1 (51:07):
They just absorbed a massive wave of new apartments, but
not class C apartments. Not Class C apartments, Class A apartments,
luxury apartments. Now in cities that didn't see a big

(51:28):
wave of supply, CLASSY rents are going up. Twenty cities,
so Class C rents go up more than three percent.
Nineteen of those twenty cities had supplied below the national average. Now,
why is an increase of supply Class A apartments lowering

(51:50):
rents in Class C. Well, this is what's called in
real estate, the musical chairs effect. When a brand new
luxury apartment opens up. Where did the new renters of
that Class A apartment come from? Well, they leave a

(52:12):
slightly older apartment and go into the new luxury apartment.
That slightly old apartment now freeze up and the owner
has to attract new renters. Now he can't attract them
at the old rent because this new luxury apartment is competing,

(52:33):
so he has to lower the rent a little bit.

Speaker 2 (52:35):
So he lowers the rent a little bit.

Speaker 1 (52:39):
Now, who's going to come to fill in this new
still Class A but slightly older apartment. What people may
be live in Class B apartments, but now the rent
has gone down in this old Class A apartment and
they can move into it, which means that their apartment
in a Class B building now has to be repriced
downwards in order to tracked class BE older apartments into

(53:02):
this apartment. You can see how it trickles down. So
you constantly are moving older, smaller apartments, and it keeps
pulling people from older, smaller apartments into newer, larger apartments,
and people living class C apartments get the biggest benefit.

(53:30):
So the you know, for example in Austin when it
went down thirteen point.

Speaker 2 (53:34):
Three percent, that's just Class C.

Speaker 1 (53:36):
All the other classes went down, but the smaller amounts,
and it just grows as you get lower in the
income in.

Speaker 2 (53:42):
The type of apartment.

Speaker 1 (53:44):
And of course for class C apartments who are spending
a huge chunk of their payroll paycheck in rent already,
it's a massive benefit, massive benefit. So and to fill
those apartments, landlords have to cut prices a lot because
the people who at the margin can move up have

(54:04):
moved up. So this is not trickle down economics. This
is as I've described them many times, this is a
waterfall effect. This is a flooding economics. This is you know,
waterfall economics. So the point is that if you build

(54:29):
new apartments, even God forbid luxury ones, rents go down
throughout the entire spectrum, and indeed they go down more
in the cheaper, older apartments than they do in the
luxury apartments. So you know, if we want to solve

(54:53):
their flotability crisis in terms of rents in New York
and San Francisco, in the places where they're still going up,
it's easy build massive quantities of luxury apartments. And you know,
when you have lots of new apartments, you get falling
class C rents. When you have very few new apartments,

(55:16):
you get rising class rents. Same effect the other way around.
New supply at the top create relief at the bottom. Now,
it's also true, and again in spite of the fact
that people deny this, particularly voters are denying it, people
experiencing this deny thiss, some of you even deny it.

(55:38):
Wages pretty much across the income spectrum have been growing
faster than rents for three straight years.

Speaker 2 (55:45):
The reality is.

Speaker 1 (55:46):
More people can afford apartments now, moree you can afford
rent right now rents than ever before, or at least
in the last decade or so.

Speaker 2 (55:58):
And this can become even bigger if we build more.

Speaker 1 (56:04):
By the way, Denver, which saw the biggest decline in
class C rents thirteen point nine percent, has supply way
over US average. The only city that's saw declining C
class rents and does not have supply over US average
is Making Georgia. Don't know what's going on in Making Georgia.
Maybe demand a shwunk. But in every other city Denver, Naples, Austin,

(56:29):
Fort Meyers, Florida, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, Phoenix, as on
a Boulder, Colorado, Asheville, Southsota, Florida, rents Class C dropped substantially.
So that was a quick economic classon. The evidence for
this is an ambiguous. Again, if you care about housing costs,

(56:50):
if you care about affordability, more freedom is the solution.
Isn't that amazing? And imagine if somebody actually ran on that.
I'm running on a freedom agenda to lower your cost
of living because I know you care about the cost
of living. And by the way, people are very considered
about fertility, we're not having enough kids. Well, there's a

(57:12):
new study out about the relationship between housing costs and fertility, and.

Speaker 2 (57:20):
So this is a conclusion they come to.

Speaker 1 (57:21):
Now, you know, rising costs since nineteen ninety in housing
are responsible for eleven percent fewer children fifty one percent
of the total fertility rate decline between the two thousands
and the twenty teens, and seven percentage points fewer young

(57:42):
families in the twenty tens. So all that is explained
by rising housing prices. Large families are more cost sensitive,
and so rising housing costs disincentivizes fertility. Take it for
what it is. That is a study there was published recently.

(58:04):
You know, I got the quote out of marginal evolution.
People are very concerned about fertility. One way to at
least address it is more freedom. Because more freedom lowest costs.
Lower costs provide more incent more distances, less distance, less

(58:24):
distanc centives to their children. I think I got that
double negative right all right quickly. On same sex marriages,
good news coming out of the Supreme Court. The Supreme
Court declined today to reconsider same sex marriage decision.

Speaker 2 (58:40):
They'd been a that was a twenty fifteen ruling.

Speaker 1 (58:43):
They had a case in front of them that could
have given the opportunity to review this again, and they
reflushed to take it. And by doing so, the lower courts,
you know, their basically decision from twenty fifteen to allow
same six marriages holds and yeah, that is that is

(59:09):
good news. This is a case brought by Kim Davis.

Speaker 2 (59:11):
I don't know if you remember Kim Davis.

Speaker 1 (59:13):
She was a what is that a county whatever, and
she refused to do gay marriages and she was fired
as a consequence, and she's suing. So it's related to
all of that. The only justice that we know of
that is explicitly called for revisiting the marriage ruling is
Clarence Thomas. He obviously lost out on this particular decision

(59:37):
and the court just didn't take it up, and therefore
it is mute. Gay marriage is safe at least for now,
how hotel?

Speaker 2 (59:45):
For how long? But at least for now it is safe?

Speaker 1 (59:49):
All right. Let's see. Finally, the BBC people over the
last i'd say a year or so have suddenly discovered
something that I remember knowing in the nineteen eighties.

Speaker 2 (01:00:08):
What's that forty years ago?

Speaker 1 (01:00:10):
I remember distinctly thinking about this, and then in forty
years ago, they're suddenly discovering that the BBC has a
left wing bias. I mean, I'm shocked. Who would have expected? Well,
I remember, I remember this. I think the thing that
struck me. Actually it's fifty years ago. I think the

(01:00:32):
first time I realized this was in the nineteen seventies
during a particularly bad period of Palestinian terrorism, and you know,
children were killed and it was really bad, and the
BBC insisted on calling them guerrillas and refused to call
them terrorists. And this is true in their seventies and

(01:00:54):
then during the second in To Fight in the early nineties,
and I remember all you know, these guys have a
bias against and generally following the coverage of economic issues
of margat Thatcher, of a lot of other things, it
was clear that the BBC has a left wing bias.

Speaker 2 (01:01:13):
Well.

Speaker 1 (01:01:15):
A skydal has erupted after the BBC Directed General Tim
Davis and BBC News head Deba Turners announced their resignation
last week, following revelations that they had that the show
Panorama that BBC has had actually edited Trump's January sixth

(01:01:38):
speech to make it sound like he was even more
encouraging of violence than he actually was.

Speaker 2 (01:01:47):
Now Trump threatened to.

Speaker 1 (01:01:49):
Sue them for I think two million dollars or something
like that, or two billion dollars or whatever. But generally,
you know the consequence of the top people at BBC fired.
But the reality is that the report that came out
that identified this, and a report by the way, written
by BBC researchers, was not just about Trump. It argued

(01:02:14):
that the BBC's US election coverage overemphasized Kamala Harris and
over emphasized its campaign issues like abortion, and you know,
it had very little coverage of things like immigration on
the economy that they used, constantly used partisan language when
discussing the election, partisan in favor of the Democrats. It

(01:02:37):
constantly exaggerated outright invented cases of racial discrimination, for example,
and you know, they falsely claimed that there was an
ethnic penalty in car insurance where there's no evidence of that.
They made bogus claim about the antic minorities having more
insecure jobs, no evidence of that. They did not highlights

(01:03:00):
can even get stories about, for example, the cost of asylum,
both in the US and in the UK, immigration asylum,
the airing the history programs had acous, you know, todaysious
account of slavery, anti Western civilization bias. And they were
very one sided on transitions, even when in the UK

(01:03:26):
leading authorities came out against transitioning. They sided with the
left on this issue. They basically relate Haramas propaganda throughout
the war, sometimes presenting openly pro ramas figures as if
they were objectives. And then they dismissed complaints over and

(01:03:48):
over again in a arrogant and cavalier manner. Now that's
not me, that is what the report says. And the
reality is that, with exception of this resignation, the BBC
shows no signs of acknowledging the problem, let alone addressing it.

Speaker 2 (01:04:06):
It's still trying to deflect.

Speaker 1 (01:04:10):
And UH claimed that it represents the mainstream, that it's
not biased at all.

Speaker 2 (01:04:17):
I mean, this is typical of kind of the left.

Speaker 1 (01:04:23):
I once, I want to remember talking to an NPR
senior person at NPR at a conference New was then,
and I said something completely innocently straightforward. I thought he
was obvious that NPR is biased left left biased. And
he looked at me and said, noing not. And I
think he really believed that. I think the left thinks

(01:04:44):
that they are the middle. I think the left is
just as delusional, just as delusional as the left is
just as delusional as Trumpet in a sense that they
think they think this is this is the middle. Now,

(01:05:06):
he answers can't wait for a similar in tonal report
from Fox News. That's not the point. The point is
the BBC is a tax funded enterprise. This is a
government news show. This is why I'm really happy NPR.
You know, one of the best things Republicans have done
recently is get rid of funding for NPR and PBS,
because there should be no gunment funded media. And then

(01:05:28):
you want to be biased, to be biased, that's okay,
but you can't be gumm and funded and have such
an extraordinary bias. And look, this report came out, but
this is after fifty years that I know they're biased.
I know they're biased, and the reality is that it's

(01:05:53):
stunning that it's taken fifty years for this to be corrected.
I mean again, the solution is not a revamping of
the BBC. It's not fiving people, it's not changing editorial standards.
The solution is privatizing it, getting the other out of
funding it. And then again, you can be as biased
as you want to be. You can be Fox News,
you can be CNN, you can be whatever you want,

(01:06:16):
you can be MSNBC. You get to decide on the
level of bias. As long as people who will need
to fund you and watch you and support advertising. I mean.
One of the things that came out is BBC's senior
International editor says, yeah, he got it wrong in Gaza

(01:06:38):
hospital report. This is early on in the war, where
the BBC claimed that Israel had bombed the hospital. On
the other hand, he says he has no regrets on
his reporting for Gaza.

Speaker 2 (01:06:50):
And then there was a.

Speaker 1 (01:06:50):
Big story at the time that really shaped a lot
of the coverage about what was going on in Gaza
in it promoted the story away.

Speaker 2 (01:07:01):
And yet no regrets, no regrets.

Speaker 1 (01:07:05):
All right, guys, that is the news for this Monday,
November tenth. And there's a lot more news, but you know,
that's that's enough. And I will try to do a
show tomorrow. We'll see if I can pull it off,
but I will try to do a show tomorrow. I'll
try to do a show Friday. For certain. There will

(01:07:28):
be no shows on Wednesday and Thursday. All right, let's see,
we've got some stickers West that a fifty dollars sticker,
Thank you, Wes, Wes is pretty consistent with fifty dollars
sometimes one hundred dollars stickers, So thank you, thank you,
Wes who helps get us to our targets. And then
let's see, we didn't get many stickers today. We've got

(01:07:48):
a lot of questions. An honest user called Meisenbach Jonathan
honing those all stick of people, and then the rest
I think are all questions. So thank you, guys, eyes,
thanks for making it possible, and remind you that we've
got goals. We're in our second hour. We're ninety eight

(01:08:09):
dollars short.

Speaker 2 (01:08:09):
No, that's not right. We're what am I getting wrong here?

Speaker 1 (01:08:16):
We yeah, no, we're we are one hundred and two
dollars short of our goal. One hundred and two dollars
short of our goal, which is not a lot given
that it's only three h nine here in Puerto Rico.
We shifted, you, guys shifted clocks on us, so the
gap is now larger. So one hundred and two dollars

(01:08:36):
short of the second hour goal. I hope we can
make that. That it's important to make those. We've made
them over the last few days. So let's let's let's
try to make our goal today. I mean three, our
goal would be even better, but let's certainly make the
second hour goal.

Speaker 2 (01:08:51):
So we're looking for one hundred and two.

Speaker 1 (01:08:53):
Two fifty dollars questions we'll make it up, or five
twenty dollars questions will make it there. I as Sue and
we'll get two dollars from somebody. So please consider asking
a question about anything. And it's a great way for
you to shape the show. Get me answering what you
me talking about, what you want me to talk about,
and yeah, it'll be good.

Speaker 2 (01:09:16):
So thank you all the super chatters.

Speaker 1 (01:09:18):
Please become a super chatter and if not, go to
patreon dot com and become a monthly contributor. I've got
a goal for the end of the year. How many
how many Patreons? I think I need eleven or twelve
new subscribers to Patreon to get me to the goal,
So please consider becoming a subscribe on Patreon and getting

(01:09:40):
us there. All right, Clay just came in with one
hundred dollars, which basically gets us to a twelve goals.
So thank you, thank you, thank you. Clay really really
appreciate it. Thanks, he says, thanks for your content you're on.
Thank you Clay for the support. That is great. By
the way, I just want to remind you we will
have a new Year's Eve show as we always do.

(01:10:02):
It'll be a big fundraiser for the year. We'll start
it early on New Year's Eve and we'll go for
as long as it takes to raise the amount of
money that I set. I will set the goal based
on kind of my you know, what it looks like
on an annual basis, and where we are, so I
will let you know.

Speaker 2 (01:10:21):
But it will be a lot of money.

Speaker 1 (01:10:23):
I know somewhere between fifteen and twenty thousand dollars will
probably be the goal for one show. It's just a
lot of money, so please take that into account.

Speaker 2 (01:10:33):
Hopefully many of you who don't.

Speaker 1 (01:10:35):
Listen live on a regular basis will pop in at
least to support the show and to show your appreciation
value for value and to get us into the new
year twenty twenty six on a great footing.

Speaker 2 (01:10:49):
So it will be there.

Speaker 1 (01:10:53):
It will be there. It will be there, you know.
So we will be having the show as we do
every year. Some people have asked if it'll happen. It
will happen, and it'll be fun and I might have
some people like I might have gregs Lemar we drop
in or Alex Epstein or or Epstein Epstein and some

(01:11:18):
others just dropping in and saying hi and maybe spending
a few minutes with us while we do it. So
we'll make it not just me talking for four hours,
because these shows are probably gonna last four hours to
get to the kind of numbers. But we should definitely,
we should definitely, Yeah, we'll make it as long as

(01:11:38):
it needs to be. I booked dinner late so we
can go late. Right, it's new as if anyway, dinner
should be late. All right, Well, mind have some of
our sponsors for the show.

Speaker 2 (01:11:50):
For the show today.

Speaker 1 (01:11:52):
We do have a new sponsor today, you know, and
that is Mychael Williams.

Speaker 2 (01:12:01):
Michael Williams is just become a sponsor.

Speaker 1 (01:12:07):
Michael is a friend and I work with Michael and
something called Defenders of Capitalism Project. Michael is the owner
and the guy who runs the Defenders of Capitalism Project.
As part of that, I'm actually speaking at the leadship
program of the Rockies on Friday. I've been speaking for

(01:12:29):
Defenders of Capitalism Project for about twenty years. It is
basically a project dedicated to producing educational content on capitalism
and we have worked on it together. I've been speaking
in Denver in Connecticut in Wisconsin, basically helping people understand

(01:12:53):
and defend them all foundations of a free society. Michael
is also in a long time contributed to Iman Institute and.

Speaker 2 (01:13:04):
A support of the show and.

Speaker 1 (01:13:06):
A consistent voice of reason and freedom. So check him out.
Check out Defenders of Capitalism Defenders of Capitalism dot com
one World Defenders of Capitalism dot com. The Imine Institute
is a sponsor and they are in you know, encouraging
people to sign up for Iron Ran Confidence Europe, which

(01:13:30):
is going to be in the beautiful I mean just
gorgeous city, great food, great people, and a beautiful city
a Porto, Porto, Portugal.

Speaker 2 (01:13:40):
We have.

Speaker 1 (01:13:41):
The Institute has scholarships for students and young people. Generally,
anybody under thirty four years old counts as young. Thirty
four years old counts as young, so you can apply
for scholarship. As long as you're thirty four years old
or younger, you can apply for scholarship. But they're also
selling adult tickets, so if you'd like to come as

(01:14:01):
an adult, I think I think you know you'll have
a blast. I'll be there on Cargata will be there,
Nikos will be there. Ben Bear and I'm missing somebody
I can't remember whom, but I'm missing somebody who's also
going to be there. Oh teut's funny that it's funny,
will also be there the dates April April seventeenth to

(01:14:23):
the nineteenth in beautiful, amazing Porto.

Speaker 2 (01:14:28):
It's not a bad.

Speaker 1 (01:14:29):
Flight even from the East coast if you want to
come there are I don't know if they're direct flight's
a Porto which you can get a direct flight from
Lisbon and then hop up is listening to now a
flight from Lisbon. So you can also as always get
a yarn Brook Show discount discount and you get a
ten percent discount by using twenty six YBS ten as

(01:14:52):
the checkout code twenty six YBS ten. The Alex Epstein
alex Epstein is also a supporter a sponsor of the
Rue Book Show. Alex is the leading authority out there
in the world on issues of climate change, issues of

(01:15:14):
fossil fuels and energy and electricity more broadly, so really
really important right now, particularly with the massive expansion of
AI and the building of AI data centers, this is
going to become more and more of an issue, and
including the fact that electricity prices are going up in
Europe the ridiculously high, but the US they're going up
as well. He is the guy because he's also out

(01:15:36):
there in front of Congress and in front of the
Trump administration advocating for more liberty, more freedom, which is
the way to go if we want to reduce costs,
if we want to increase freedom. So follow Alex alex
Epstein dot substock dot com. And finally we've got a
hinder Shot Wealth Management hander Shot Wealth Help Hendershot with

(01:15:59):
two tea's wealth dot com slash ybs. They have a
really cool product that can reduce your capital gains liabilities
if you have appreciated stock or about to sell a company.
You can find an interview I did with Robert Hendershot
on my playlist under sponsors. And of course you can
go to handershot well dot com slash ybs and gain

(01:16:21):
information there and sign up for a one on one
discussion about your particularly financial situation and how they can
be of help. All right, let's jump in. I'll remind
you again to sign up for Patreon. I'm hoping to
get eleven or twelve new Patreon subscribers supporting the.

Speaker 2 (01:16:41):
On Books show. Between now and the end of the year.

Speaker 1 (01:16:43):
And I don't just mean people who are moving from
PayPal to Patreon, but new monthly supporters. Twelve new monthly
supporters between now and the end of the year. So
six in November, six in December, or any other combination
will work as well. Maybe we can get twelve in
November and then I'll worry about it in December. But
twelve new Patron subscribers would be amazing at any level.

(01:17:05):
At ten dollars, for example, you get a ad free
advertising free version of the podcast to your Apple podcast
or whatever podcast app you use. You'll get an artsist
feed to that podcast to be able to listen to
show at free. All right, let us start with fifty

(01:17:26):
dollars questions. Actually, Remo did sixty dollars. Remo says thoughts
on the proxy Voting Advisory Firm's Institutional Shareholders services and
Glass Lewis.

Speaker 2 (01:17:38):
I don't know Glass Lewis very well.

Speaker 1 (01:17:40):
It seems to me that they often fail to remind
sholders that their foundational purpose of a business is to
maximize shaholder value. Yes, I find them overly conventional, overly
swayed by the politics of the moment or the hot
thing diesg when those are relevant and not focused on

(01:18:02):
shaholder wealth maximization. So I don't think they do justice
to shareholders. Uh you know, I never followed the advice.
Uh when when we voted proxy statements? Uh when when
in my hedge fund, we made our own decisions, We
made our own evaluations, not you know, based on their recommendation.
But I know a lot of companies do because it's

(01:18:25):
a way to shrug responsibility. Right. Oh, the institutional shoholder
services said so, so a lot of people, a lot
of institutional investors do that, and that is unfortunate. Say, yes,
I don't have concrete examples, haven't followed it closely. But

(01:18:47):
they do not not only not remind but they don't
make recommendations that are that are based on maximizing shoholder wealth.
They often make recommendations based on what is politically correct
at the moment. It would be interesting to do some
studies and see whether they can recommendations, for example, have
changed with the shift in the administration, the shift to

(01:19:07):
focus of each administration.

Speaker 2 (01:19:09):
That would be interesting.

Speaker 1 (01:19:11):
Jack Clean tock Clean says, Hey, Ron, thank you for
the fifty dollars first, as long as my flight doesn't
get canceled, I'll be in Denver area from Thursday to Monday,
and I was planning to come to your talk in
Colorado Springs. Excellent, it's not a talk, it's a debate.
I'll send you a separate email, but if anyone else
wants to go, maybe you can, they can email you. Yes.

(01:19:34):
I think also there might be some people planning to
do a lunch with me and some of the members
of the local projectors community, and maybe some of the
people coming in for the debate on Friday.

Speaker 2 (01:19:49):
Now I'm not sure this is going to happen.

Speaker 1 (01:19:51):
I'm waiting to hear from them, but I am available
lunch on Friday to meet with people if they want.
I can't commit to dinner or anything after the debate.
That's going to be a very long day in flying
in from San Francisco early in the morning and then
have to drive down to Colorado Springs. Then I have
to drive back to Denver, and then morning of Friday,

(01:20:13):
I've got LPR, so it's going to be busy. But
after al PR, I'm getting pretty free, so potentially lunch
Friday is in the cards. Hopefully I'll wait to hear
from the people in Denver about their organization. But yes, yeah,
email me if you're coming. That'll be fun. Be fun
to see you, guys. Michael, that's ominous. Powers predict America

(01:20:37):
will become Nazi Germany or only if trends are not reversed.
I don't see them being reversed in the slightest although
no one saw me lay coming either.

Speaker 2 (01:20:46):
You never know.

Speaker 1 (01:20:47):
Well, first, you know you can't as long as people
at free will. Trends can be reversed. Trends can change.
And remember, Dominus Powers was written in nineteen eighties, and
I think at the time thought that it was going
to happen sooner rather than later. So so that that

(01:21:12):
is a that is a that is.

Speaker 2 (01:21:21):
Sorry distracted for a second there.

Speaker 1 (01:21:23):
So you have to remember that nothing is for certain
when it comes to human beings, because they can change
their minds and things can change, cultures can change. So
did he predict partic in the nineteen eighties he thought
it was going to happen soon. I don't think he
thought it was going to happen fifty years in the future.
It's already forty years in the future, right, and it

(01:21:46):
hasn't happened yet. So these processes usually take longer than
we expect them to. They usually are slower than what
we expect. But he did predict. He predicted that we
become you know, fascist, not Nazi Germany, but fascist. He
didn't think we would go communism, and that's consistent with
his dim hypothesis. He didn't think that the authoritarianism would

(01:22:10):
come from the left. He thought the authoritarianism would come
from the right, from a fascist right, a Nazi Germany right,
or a right kind of fascist right ultimately wrapped in
the flagon in across. So yeah, you never know, but
it does seem to be happening right right. I think

(01:22:32):
I think now it's not gonna happen anytime soon. They
might very well be a big backlash against the right
right now, and you might get Congress will turn to
the left next election, and they might be a democratic
president soon. That is, you cannot extrapolate long term trends
from short term phenomena. You have to look at the

(01:22:52):
long term trend and the long term trends. There was
more thoritarianism, and the long term trend on the right
is greater and great euth araterimanism, great and greater power centralized,
and greater and greater role for religion. Uh, and and
and and for nationalism on the right.

Speaker 2 (01:23:10):
And I think that's where the right is heading.

Speaker 1 (01:23:12):
And then the question is how long does it take
the American public to buy into it, and whether we
get a charismatic lead or not like Melay, but a
Malay of fascism who rallies everybody around the flag.

Speaker 2 (01:23:23):
Maybe it don't, maybe it will never happen. There is
hope for that.

Speaker 1 (01:23:26):
But uh, it's but we will see, we will see again.
No guarantees. Michael is Kant the reason tolls are popular.
Why is trolling cool? That's why Nick point Is is popular.
It's not his ideas, it's his ability to antagonize people

(01:23:48):
so effectively.

Speaker 2 (01:23:50):
That's part of it.

Speaker 1 (01:23:50):
I think at the end it is is it is ideas,
but he clearly gains an audience through the trolling.

Speaker 3 (01:23:58):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (01:23:58):
There are a number of people out there, a very
good trollers. I'm not a very good troll obviously, It's
one of the reasons my following is relatively small. But
it's contresponsible for trolling.

Speaker 2 (01:24:09):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:24:11):
I mean, that's that's a reach You could argue that
because Kant ultimately is responsible for the emotionalism in the culture,
because he basically undermines reason, and there for people, you know,
given up on reason and they become emotionalists.

Speaker 2 (01:24:25):
And emotionalists are susceptible to trolls and response to trolls
and more likely to do trolling. So you could make
that argument.

Speaker 1 (01:24:32):
But it's a little I mean, it's not very effective
to think about trolling cont I mean, that's too big
of a gap, big big of an ideological leap, you know,
take smaller steps. Trolling is made possible to a large
extent by by by by the Internet, by social media.
It's made possible by a progressive education, by emotionalism, and you.

Speaker 2 (01:24:54):
Can get to cont down the road.

Speaker 1 (01:24:57):
I mean, he is ultimately you can draw all bad
ideas back to Cunt, but it's not always that useful.

Speaker 2 (01:25:06):
To hold it that way. Thomas.

Speaker 1 (01:25:08):
Good to see, Thomas. So I know you've discussed this,
but what is the meaning of price inflations versus monitoring inflation?

Speaker 2 (01:25:16):
And price inflation.

Speaker 1 (01:25:17):
Means prices are going up generally, prices are going up
now again, Even price inflation taris, for example, don't cause
price inflation, because price inflation is prices overall are going up. Now, arguably,
prices overall go up only when you have monetary inflation.

(01:25:40):
You can have a short period of time where a
supply shock, for whatever reason, supply just crushed. Let's say
there's a massive power audience the entire USA electricities cut.
But then you don'tso have a demand, Schuck. So you'd
have to think about scenarios where you have a supply

(01:26:01):
shock but not.

Speaker 2 (01:26:01):
A demand Chuck.

Speaker 1 (01:26:05):
Well, the government gives you all checks, so there's no demand, Chuck.
You still have money even if you're not working, but
supplies down COVID. But those a short term supply will
adjust as will demand. So price inflation is usually a
phenomena of monetary inflation, but it monitor inflation is hard

(01:26:28):
to measure. Monitoring inflation is more money. Now, what is money?
We've talked about this many times. How do we measure money?
What counts as money? Is it in one?

Speaker 2 (01:26:39):
Is it in two?

Speaker 1 (01:26:39):
Is an M three? Is it some other measure of money?
Do we count bitcoin? Do we count gold?

Speaker 2 (01:26:44):
What is money? And how do we measure it?

Speaker 1 (01:26:50):
Now? You know Friedman said inflation is always a monetary phenomena,
but doesn't have to be always a monitor phenomenon. So,
for example, inflation can go up in a sense of
prices can go up even in the absence of money
increasing if people expect money to increase in the future,
for example, because the government is running huge amounts of debt,

(01:27:12):
and you know, they think that the government will print
money in order to pay off that debt. So the
phenomena of prices going up is complex. Monetary inflation, by
the way, can also manifest itself without price inflation.

Speaker 2 (01:27:34):
That is, you can have an increase.

Speaker 1 (01:27:35):
In the amount of money in the amount of money,
but all that money flows in a particular direction into housing,
into the stock market, although I think I don't think
that's sustainable into certain areas, and that arguabily is what
creates bubbles in certain places or huge increases and prices

(01:27:56):
in relative prices. In prices some goods are not in others.
So monetary inflation has many evils, so it doesn't affect
prices all at the same time. In the same way,
price inflation mostly is just CPI or PPE or whatever
the people say. Well, whatever the way you're measuring it,

(01:28:18):
its overall price increases usually if that goes on for
a long time, that is caused by monitoringy inflation by
printing more money. But printing more money in a fiat
electronic money world is not easy to see, to observe,
or to measure, so what we use is the proxy.

(01:28:38):
Prices went up all right, Remo says, how is your
tour in Europe? It was good. It was good. We
did events. I mean all the events were good events.
I thought reasonable attendance in all of them. The one
in Oslo was the biggest. We probably had over two
hundred people. They're young, fifteen to twenty five, so in
that sense it was tastic audience. I'm looking forward to

(01:29:01):
finding ways to engage with that audience again in other circumstances.
So that is great. And they have two hundred kids
there and talk about morality of capitalism when they've never
heard anything like it is really good. So that was
I really enjoyed that. The other talks all had thirty
five to forty or so people, which is pretty good.

(01:29:22):
And then in Lisbon and Porto we had three events
that all kind of varied, but we had sixty in
one event, one hundred and fifty in the other and
a dinner which was very good with about forty people.
So all the events in Lisbon were really sorry. In

(01:29:44):
Portugal really good. So yeah, it was a terrific tour,
a lot of positive comments, a lot of opportunities for more,
for more engagement, for more interaction. So yeah, I'm looking
forward to twenty twenty six and what we can do
in twenty twenty six.

Speaker 2 (01:30:02):
This is a good beginning.

Speaker 1 (01:30:06):
And yeah, by the way, if you have if you
would like me to come to your country, to your school,
to your state, to your city, to whatever, and you
can arrange an audience.

Speaker 2 (01:30:17):
Don't worry about a fee for now.

Speaker 1 (01:30:20):
You know, if you can arrange an audience with expectation
of let's say fifty people, particularly if they're young students,
then I will come. So you know, it's up to
you to arrange it and to schedule it with me,
and we will make it happen.

Speaker 2 (01:30:36):
We will make it happen.

Speaker 1 (01:30:41):
Remo, this is he says, this is for your show yesterday,
and anti Semitism one of the most important topics of today.
Thank you, Yeah, definitely is Sadly who the health thought
that we need it? Vhab If, a pharmaceutical company discovered
a cure for diabetes, hit it, but hit it to

(01:31:03):
keep secret, to keep selling treatment drugs. Doesn't that show
the need for government run healthcare without profit motive? God?
I mean, I hate these kinds of questions because these
kind of hypotheticals. You can make corporations out to be
evil in these kind of questions in an endless amount.
I mean, what if the government keeps it. What if

(01:31:24):
the government discovers a cure for diabetes but it realizes
that it's gonna cost a lot of money and only
some It will be able to only give it to
some people, and it doesn't want the hassle of.

Speaker 2 (01:31:37):
Having to deal with inequalities.

Speaker 1 (01:31:38):
Some people get the drug and some people don't because
it doesn't have enough drug. It won't be able to
produce enough drugs to give it to everybody because the
price is so high, so they would hide it. Does
that mean does that mean that we shouldn't have government
run health care and instead we should have private health care?
I mean, no one concrete, fictional, made up example is

(01:31:59):
going to prove one way or the other anything. The
reality is that we should have private run healthcare for
for the simple reason that you have no rights to
take from some and give to others, to redistribute wealth,
to tell doctors what treatment they can and cannot give, patience,
and at what price. It should be dictated that the

(01:32:21):
reason to have private healthcare is not because of any
particular dug drug under any particular circumstances. It's because the
only moral way to do to engage with other people
is through voluntary interaction. And the only system that allows
voluntary interaction is a private system. And under that private system,

(01:32:44):
all kinds of things will happen that you specifically might
not like. Now, the probability that pharmacy company would do
such a thing is almost zero. Maybe there is zero
will for so many reasons. I mean, this is a
big discovery. It could charge a lot of money from

(01:33:06):
a lot of people. It could make a killing. If
it keeps its secret, its competitor will probably discover this.
I mean, most research that pharmaceutical companies are doing is
not hidden in secret. They publish papers, they're discussing it,
scientists are debating it, and then they try to get
me the first ones and then get a patent. But

(01:33:28):
you know other companies are going to discover this, So
why would you sit on it, and this alsos umes
the pharmaceutical companies don't really care about the health of
their patients. You know, the good will that they would
generate with such a drug. Maybe they'd lose some income
on the other drugs that they were selling before, but
now they're going to get this big one time boost

(01:33:49):
that cures diabetes, which then allows them to invest in
a lot of other type of diseases versus think of
the bad press that they will get if they were
hiding the drug.

Speaker 2 (01:34:01):
It's just not a tenable position to have.

Speaker 1 (01:34:04):
Would it not leak? With scientists who care about the
health of people? Not leak the information that this was available? Why?
Because they're so loyal to the pharmaseud of the company,
they would never leak anything.

Speaker 2 (01:34:19):
So you know this, I've heard this before.

Speaker 1 (01:34:22):
You know, auto companies invented cars that run on water,
but they hit it because all companies paid them to
hide it or something like that, Right, All companies discovered
motives that could run on water, but they hit it
so they can continue selling oil. Really, you think that
is doable, You think that is sustainable. So no, first

(01:34:47):
of all, it doesn't show anything, It doesn't show the
need for anything. You can't make up an example out
of thin air and science fiction and say, look, this
proves that individual rights don't matter. All the other benefits
we know of private healthcare don't matter because I've got
one example.

Speaker 2 (01:35:05):
Plus the example is unrealistic.

Speaker 1 (01:35:09):
Robert Saturday's episode, you were unusually fired up, encouraging of
all the rest of us to be too. Trolls Trump
and Donnie Carlson fuentas a perfect storm.

Speaker 2 (01:35:20):
Your response was startling but motivating.

Speaker 1 (01:35:24):
Wow. I don't remember it that way, but I'm glad
that's I heard a lot of people comment positively in
that show, and that's great.

Speaker 2 (01:35:31):
I don't remember having more energy than I.

Speaker 1 (01:35:32):
Usually do, but I guess it came across that way.
It's good thoughts in Gilbert and Sullivan. You know, nice
not I mean neither in terms of story.

Speaker 2 (01:35:43):
Particularly in terms of music.

Speaker 1 (01:35:44):
Not as great as the operetta composers of you know, Austria,
Hungary of the time or previous time. So good, but
not as great as the original operettas. I also find
it funny to hear opera operetta sung in English, but

(01:36:06):
the music is just it's again, it's cute, it's nice.
It's good. It's just not great when great is in
Operetta Calman or Lehr.

Speaker 2 (01:36:16):
Or Strauss Roland.

Speaker 1 (01:36:20):
A donation towards your tie, buy an next one.

Speaker 2 (01:36:23):
I'm not buying one.

Speaker 1 (01:36:23):
I've got old ties that have worn in the past,
so no reason to buy a tie. No ties, but
thank you for the donation. Yeah, James, what is the
Asian show you mentioned about Happiness and Love? You said
it was one of your favorite shows. I remember it
goes into the past and present. I mean Mister Sunshine,

(01:36:45):
the Korean show that addresses the conflict between love and patriotism.
But I don't remember happiness. What happiness has to do
with it? I don't remember. The only one I can
think of right now is mister Sunshine. Oops, Michael. Has

(01:37:07):
ocon served to grow the objectives movement? It is in
merely an expensive way to preach to the choir. Wow,
there's a false economy, if ever you heard one. I
think it's It serves both purposes. It serves to a
growth objectives movement, not so much directly in the sense
that new people come there and then they get convinced
by objectivism, because that's not the target audience. It serves

(01:37:29):
to grow the Objectives movement because it saves to motivate
people who are already part of the Objectives movement or
are thinking of entering the Objectives movement to become more engaged,
more involved, to support the institute, to go out there
and and and become active active in supporting the institute.
So it's you know, it's uh. It serves that purpose.

(01:37:50):
It serves to help educate and help serve to motivate
a community of people that are crucial to the spreading
of objectivism.

Speaker 2 (01:38:02):
So it's bads.

Speaker 1 (01:38:02):
Objectivism grows Objectives Movement indirectly by motivating people in the
movement and also encouraging people to join the movement. So
you might be somewhere alone, somewhere holding these ideas and
you come to okon it aspires you that there are
other people. You maybe gain friends, you discover what the
institute is doing you, and you you join a movement

(01:38:28):
a community rather than just being alone. And that serves
immense value. But the idea that we either preach the choir,
I don't say anything, we do it they're preaching, and
I don't consider you the choir.

Speaker 2 (01:38:42):
I can see you all thinking individuals and what.

Speaker 1 (01:38:45):
We do is speak about topics. Sometimes it's new materials.
Sometimes we encourage you to think differently about things. We're
never just telling you what you already know in simplistic ways.
And again, you are not a choir, you are thinking individuals.
So I think it's a very derogatory way of thinking
about okonn which I hope you will change your mind

(01:39:07):
about Michael. When are you having Jason Ryines on? I
will have him on. I don't know when the interviews
are being scheduled by Angela and when schedules.

Speaker 2 (01:39:25):
Fit Michael.

Speaker 1 (01:39:28):
Are these Democrat victories a good sign in American people
are rejecting trump Ism, although the Democrats one in largely
blue areas, will Middle America reject MAGA in the midterms.
I do think it is a good sign that people
are rejecting trump Ism. The polls show that people swung
away from Trump and that a big motivation was tariffs

(01:39:52):
and just Trump generally. And you know, Hispanics shifted away
from Trump, and that suggests that they, you know, they
hate what they're seeing from Ice. So yeah, I mean, overall,
I think it's a positive and an indication of what's
to come.

Speaker 2 (01:40:08):
We'll see.

Speaker 1 (01:40:09):
I mean, there's a whole year before that happens, so
who knows. Michael, did you see a Lunmusk quoting paragraphs
of Mitla Shrugged in response to criticism about his one
trillion dollar pay package.

Speaker 2 (01:40:20):
I did not. I'll look that up.

Speaker 1 (01:40:22):
That is exciting that he's quoting Atlas Shrugged. Not too surprising,
but exciting. And yeah, good for him. You got the
pay package he wanted. Now he he has to live
up to it because he won't get any of that
money if Tesla doesn't just become one of the greatest
companies in human history.

Speaker 2 (01:40:42):
We'll see if it can pull that off.

Speaker 1 (01:40:44):
Michael, national socialist to the right, international socialist to the left,
cognitively incapable, emotionless everywhere. Sadly, that is a pretty good
description of the world in which we live. Politically, Michael
has the demise of New York City always being exaggerated.

Speaker 2 (01:41:01):
Yeah, yeah, I mean particularly.

Speaker 1 (01:41:03):
I remember during COVID, people thought New York City was
over and it came back strong.

Speaker 2 (01:41:08):
It came back strong after what's.

Speaker 1 (01:41:10):
His name, the last leftist who ran New York. And
I think I don't think mcdonnie will destroy New York,
New York is too powerful for him to do that.
We'll see.

Speaker 2 (01:41:22):
I'll talk more about Mumdani in a future show.

Speaker 1 (01:41:25):
Democratic Socialism is finally feeling the winds in its sale
after decades of struggling in obscurity. I think for a while,
but Mumdanni is not popular internationally, and Democratic Socialism is
still not popular internet nationally. And when Mumdanni fails, that

(01:41:46):
win in their sales.

Speaker 2 (01:41:47):
Will be blown out.

Speaker 1 (01:41:52):
Mary Alene, did you see that Trump is proposing a
tariff dividend presumably need to be paid from all the
billions trillions we've made on taiffs. He is beyond delusion. Yeah,
we talked about that earlier. Thank you, Marilean. Michael, how
much dollars to sponsor David Hammon's show. It's time to
get it gets he gets properly exposed, It'll happen.

Speaker 2 (01:42:14):
I don't need dollars for that. It'll happen, but it
will happen when I think the time is right.

Speaker 1 (01:42:18):
There's certain reasons why I would rather bite my time
for now. Michael. I mean, it's not like if I
say stuff suddenly he will lose whatever following he is
he doesn't have a big following. Almost nobody knows who
Dev Hammond is. Almost nobody follows him. So and the

(01:42:39):
people who do follow him, I'm not going to convince
him not to follow him. There's no other than you know,
a sense of justice and my personal satisfaction. There's no great,
you know, change that's going to happen as a consequence
of this. Michael, If infinity isn't real, why is it
useful in mathematics? Is math just rationalistic platonic forms? No,

(01:43:03):
because it is usual Sometimes you can conceive of something
that is that is a potentiality, is not a reality,
but a potentiality, and in that sense it can be
useful in mathematics.

Speaker 2 (01:43:15):
Think about calculus.

Speaker 1 (01:43:17):
Where you know this is, or parallel lines that you
know never meet, or or whatever, and it's it's it's
convenient to think in terms of infinity when one understands
that infinity is a potentiality, not a reality. I think
that's right. But a good question to ask Hawvy when
he is on the show. You should make a list

(01:43:39):
of all the good questions to ask Cavy and people
like that when they when they visit the show, because.

Speaker 2 (01:43:43):
Often you guys don't have enough questions.

Speaker 1 (01:43:48):
Lincoln. Also, a stock market growing faster than economic growth
isn't necessarily a good thing and could be a sign
of a bubble. Stock markets to us GDP ratio is
quite elevated.

Speaker 2 (01:43:58):
Yeah, I mean, but it's not clear.

Speaker 1 (01:43:59):
I mean, a lot of what's happening with the stock
market is driven by massive investment in AI. That is
probably a bubble, but a productive bubble, and sense and
went to the bubble bursts, You'll have a lot of infrastructure.
It's incredibly valuable and long term will be incredibly valuable.
But you know, the stock market is the most successful
companies and often the biggest companies in and they're big

(01:44:21):
because they're successful, and their performance is not always indicative
of the performance small and medium sized businesses in the economy.
There could be a divergence there, which is not healthy,
but it could happen. Eco to reality news from the UK,
the High Court has backed people's rights to criticize Islam.

Speaker 2 (01:44:38):
Oh my god, what a shock.

Speaker 1 (01:44:41):
Basically Islamic blasphemy law out in the UK. Good. I mean,
that is a real relief that the courte ruled that
way and not the opposite. There's still a way to go,
you know, to establish full freedom of speech in the UK.
But this is a definitely, definitely, definitely a step in
the right direction.

Speaker 2 (01:44:58):
And did you.

Speaker 1 (01:44:59):
Happen to see that the Objective's podcast out to the
leka of the Lennard and Kira phone call. Yes, well
I didn't see that. Somebody told me who the leka was.
But again I'm not paying too much attention to all
of that. But yeah, somebody told me who the leka was.
I assumed the person who told me it was right. But
as you know, I don't really want to talk about it, Lincoln,

(01:45:20):
other than it's horrible to leak a private phone call.
It's just horrible.

Speaker 2 (01:45:23):
It's illegal.

Speaker 1 (01:45:24):
It's literally illegal in California to recorde a private phone call,
and to leak it is just just horrible behavior, you know,
And it's just I just don't think it's acceptable.

Speaker 2 (01:45:39):
I don't care.

Speaker 1 (01:45:39):
Almost what the circumstance is, though. I'd love someday to
have you run speak at the University of Arizona and
Tucson in twenty twenty six. Well, either someday or twenty
twenty six. Hopefully I can work something out with the
political Philosophy department to set up a date. Yeah, talk
to them. I'm happy to come and speak. I doubt
the philosophy department will do it, but maybe you can

(01:46:01):
find a student club on campus that will invite me.

Speaker 2 (01:46:03):
But if they say yes, we will find a date.

Speaker 1 (01:46:13):
Yeah, and Neil says, Ahmadel Shawa meeting Trump at the
White House is sad, pathetic, It's ridiculous. Ahmad Shaa is
the current president of Syria. He's an authoritarian thug. He
is where you can join the club of authoritarian thugs
meeting with Trump. But what's unique about him is he
was a member of Al Qaida, was one of the

(01:46:35):
founders of ISIS, was a real barbarian, has the I
think the blood of American soldiers on his hands, and
now is the president of Syria and embraced by the
US and has told everybody that he has moderated, that
he's a new man, that he's moderate, not to worry
about him.

Speaker 2 (01:46:54):
He's a good one of.

Speaker 1 (01:46:55):
The good guys. Yeah right, all right, guys.

Speaker 2 (01:46:59):
That that is the show.

Speaker 1 (01:47:01):
Thank you to all the super chatters, Thank you for
all the questions. Thank you to all the sticker people
who did stickers. I think I thank you personally, all
of you, and thanks thanks for being here. Thank you
Clay who came in with one hundred dollars out of
no way. Thank you, of course, Wes for the fifty dollars.

(01:47:21):
I will see you up probably tomorrow, probably tomorrow if
I can, if I'm not completely falling apart from exhaustion,
I will try to do a show tomorrow. All right, guys,
see tomorrow. Bye, everybody,

All Episodes

Shutdown; ACA; Tariff – Dividend, SCOTUS; 50y Mortgages; Rent; Same Sex; BBC | Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Ruthie's Table 4

The Joe Rogan Experience

.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;}Shutdown; ACA; Tariff – Dividend, SCOTUS; 50y Mortgages; Rent; Same Sex; BBC | Yaron Brook Show