Tariffs; Financial Risk; Epstein; MTG; Hamas; Settlers; Chile; Mexico; UK | Yaron Brook Show - Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
Fundamental principles. I'll of freedom, little members and individual wats.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
This is the show, all right, everybody, welcome to here
one books show and this uh Monday.

Speaker 1 (00:25):
November seventeenth. I hope everybody is ready for the week,
and we'll be doing shows most most of the week Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday,
maybe Thursday. I don't think so. I think I've got
a yeah, I've got an interview on Thursday with a

(00:46):
New Zealand some some show in New Zealand. So i
have to do it at two pm my time, which
is like eight am their time or something. Particularly the
following day, so some crazy thing, and then I'm on
a flight. So no show Thursday, probably no show Friday,
no show Saturday Sunday. So Monday will be the next

(01:06):
show after that. So just to give you a heads up,
all right, let's jump in to the news. We've got
kind of a lot of items, none of them super
in depth, but a lot of them, just a lot
of them, a lot of stuff happening. We'll start with
our favorite topic, you know, the topic that we keep
coming back to because it is, after all, I'm not

(01:30):
going to New Zealand, Michael. They you know, we're doing it.
That's why there's a time difference. We're doing it via
via the internet, that thing called the Internet. So I'm
talking about DII in merit in hiring on New Zealand television.
I'm debating some of the guests. I'd love to go

(01:53):
to New Zealand. New Zealand is one of my favorite
places on planet Earth. So yeah, if anybody can arrange
for me a talk in New Zealand, you know, I'm
ready to go. I'm ready to go, so so do it. Yeah,
let's let's get me to New Zealand. I'm eager, all right.

(02:15):
So tariffs a favorite topic, Trump's favorite topic. We could
keep coming back to it because it's continuously in your
news and uh and uh, you know, Trump keeps bringing
it into the news one or the other. Anyway, end
of last week, there was this story that came out
that Mega and Trump just jumped on. I mean, it

(02:36):
made their day. It was so exciting. They were so thrilled.
This is the headline. Fed study vindicates Trump trade policy.
Fed study vindicates Trump trade policy. One hundred and fifty
years of evidence shows tariffs lower inflation. I mean, this
is amazing, amazing, a sweeping new analysis of trade policy

(03:01):
of tariff policy spending one hundred and fifty years suggests
that the economic establishment may have fundamentally misunderstood how tariff's
effect prices and employment, a finding with profound implications for
understanding President Donald Trump's trade policy and proper response by
the Federal Reserve. Researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of

(03:21):
San Francisco examined major tariff changes from eighteen seventy through
twenty twenty across the United States and the United Kingdom
and France. They conclusion conclusion challenges the conventional wisdom wisdom
that dominated economic policy debates in recent years. When countries
raise tariff's, prices actually fall, not rise. Okay, yeah, I mean,

(03:54):
I'm not going to doubt the empirical prowess of the
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and its researchers. So
what the hell is going on? Have I been lying
to you all these years? And it's been years by
telling you the tariffs raise prices, hoot, the economy do
bad stuff? No, what is the And a bunch of people,

(04:21):
by the way, we tweeted that, we tweeted this study
and it went all out and people were thumping their
chest and this is amazing and this is great. What
actually happens, what is actually going on here? So it

(04:42):
does show the tariffs over the long run reduce inflation,
not immediately, but over a longer period of time, actually
reduced prices. Why do they reduce prices? Why do they
reduce prices because they dramatically reduce economic activity. They reduce employment.

(05:08):
And as employment goes down and economic activity goes down,
people have less money and they basically can afford and
buy fewer things. There's less demand, and prices will generally
go down, so they go up when tariffs are first introduced,
then the economy suffers, and then prices go down a

(05:31):
little bit. So, yeah, if what you care about is
not sheer prices, right, but what you care about is prosperity,
what being economic well being, then tarif's an awful idea.

(05:52):
Tariffs seem to be anti inflationary because they result in
a week economy. Right, So when the economy goes down,
you know, prices are not going to go up. But
you know, think about you know one of the big

(06:15):
examples of this, and this is not always cause of right,
this is the problem with empirical studies, you have to
differentiate causality. But think about Smooth Holly, which was passed
I think what was in nineteen thirty. So it's passed
during the Great Depression. So the Great Depression, you know,
you get the stock market collapse, you get a recession,

(06:38):
Taxes are raised, all this stuff. It's becoming a depression.
Banks are collapsing, and then so demand is collapsing, and
then you increase tariffs. Well, yeah, tarist's are not going
to raise prices because demand is collapsing around you. So
tarists didn't cause the collapse in demand. In that case,

(07:02):
it coincided with a collapse in demand. And that's what
the study shows. Tariffs, like any tax, reduce economic growth.
If you dramatically increase equipate tax or the income tax

(07:25):
or any tax, it will have similar effects. Economic growth
will go down, unemployment will go up, and prices at
the margin will go down because people will have less
money to spend. And I don't know, you know why,

(07:47):
I guess I don't know why. This is so hard, right, So, yeah,
tear us are bad. They're bad. They might not maybe

(08:08):
be bad for prices in the long run because they're
bad for other stuff that happens to reduce prices along
the way. But you just can't. You can't get them
on the fact that tariffs are taxes, and taxes reduce activity.
Whatever you tax you get less of. Here, you're taxing consumption,

(08:31):
you get less of that. Now, you know, maybe that's
a good thing for some of you. Maybe you think
that's a good thing. It's a good thing if it's
the only you know, if you can at the same
time reduce taxes on First of all, if you tax
all consumption, not just consumption that comes to overseas, thus

(08:54):
the study in the market. But if as you tax
tax consumption, I'm awful consumption if at the same time
you get rid of income taxes, but that is not happening,
will not happen. There's no way for that to happen.
The consumption tax needs to be fairly high, and it
can just be tariffs. It has to be on all goods.
And if they did on all goods, then yeah, okay,

(09:16):
I'm willing to replace the income tax with the sales tax.
I think that would actually have positive economic implications. But
then over the weekend, and really he's floated this before.
We've talked about this. Trump offered again he's so called
tariff dividend. I mean, he came out and said, he

(09:41):
literally said this on it for us. One, he said,
the tariff allows us to give a dividend if we
want to do that. We're going to be doing a
dividend which people will enjoy and spend and do what
they want. But we're also going to be reducing debt
very substantially. Reducing debt very substantially. By the way he promised,

(10:07):
this is a first term, and debt only increased dramatically
in his first term. But let's remind everybody, because you
probably need remind us, debt is increasing every single day.
It's increasing at an annual rate of one point eight
trillion dollars. One point eight trillion dollars just debt, which means,

(10:35):
you know, the current total debt that we have is
something like thirty seven thirty eight trillion. We're increasing that
about one point eight every year, and of course, because
we have to pay interest on that, that is likely
to increase. And there is no plan, no plan in Congress.
We know what Doge did, bub kiss nothing, as I predicted. Again,

(10:58):
as I predicted, did nothing. And the reality is that
we're seeing, you know that we're seeing that there's no
plan anyway to reduce spending or to increase taxes other
than tariffs. But the increase in taxes of tariffs, it's

(11:21):
not big enough. It's just not enough revenue. And the
reality is that the one point eight to to trillion
dollars is after you take into account the increased revenue
from tariffs. So it's complete fantasy. So that is not

(11:43):
being reduced at all at all. Never mind, as he says,
very substantially, it's not even reduced a little bit. Indeed,
that is increasing dramatically, substantially every single day, every single
moment that the government is opened, that the guvernment is
spending money. There's no tariffs, sour plus we raised taxes.

(12:06):
More revenue is coming into the government, but not enough
to close the deficit. David said, I should trademark to
to trillion. I think so too. That should be my
my thing to to trillion. Now, what happens if you
do two thousand dollars per person. I haven't run the

(12:28):
math on how much debt that would increase. But the
reality is that, you know, uh, maybe tariffs are three
hundred billion. So again, you know, one point nine trillion,
one point eight trillion, one point nine trillion, something like that,

(12:49):
to to a trillion, not any trillion, just to to
t a trillion. And he wants to then pass out
two thousand each And what will that do? A that
will increase the debt so that that will no longer
be one point eight trillion the deficit. The deficit will
now increase to one point eight trillion plus two thousand

(13:09):
dollars times. However, many people get a check which is
hundreds of billions of dollars, so it will be over
to trillion. And if you send everybody a check, if
you literally take on debt, borrow money and then give

(13:32):
people a check in the mail for them to go
on and spend the money on stuff, what do you get?
What did we learn during the COVID stimulus? That happens
when you send everybody a check, When you deposit money
in people's bank accounts to spend, you get price inflation,

(13:52):
You get increases and prices. People take that money and
they go consume. I mean the stupidity, Sorry, but the
stupid I'm just doing giving you a a what do
you call it? What do you call it a microaggression? Uh,

(14:13):
you know, warning, microaggression, warning you might be microaggressed. I
said years and years ago that this president's understanding of
economics is that of a five year old. And I've
been chided for that, and I've been told I shouldn't
do that, But you know, the reality is the reality

(14:33):
is that he reinforces that every single day. Every single day,
you hear something coming out of his mouth that is
unbelievably economically ignorant. And you know, he just has an
understanding of economic stud is of a five year old.

(14:55):
That's just the reality. People around him sell this souls
to stay around him because they know better. Did you
see the the Treasury Secretary Bessett go on television and
tell the American people that the reason beef prices are

(15:16):
going up is because illegal immigrants cross the border with
their diseased cows, and those diseased cows have infected American
cows and they're all dying, and as a consequence, there's
less beef, and as a consequence, prices are going up.

(15:37):
I didn't realize and maybe you didn't realize this, see
that that illegal immigrants are crossing in from the border
with cows. I mean, I mean, how absurd, ridiculous, stupid
is that. I mean they can barely make it across themselves,

(16:05):
and those cows are not deported. I mean he literally
said this. I saw the video of him saying this
on Fox. It's of course. So here's the point. Jd
Vance is going on TV telling you that home prices
are higher, that high home prices are the consequence of
illegal immigrants. Of course, crime is increasing somewhere, I guess

(16:31):
because of illegal immigrants. And of course you're paying higher
beef prices because of illegal immigrants. These people, I mean,
think we're stupid. First of all, they are sick, but

(16:52):
they think we're stupid. Every problem in America, which is
I guess, I guess we are stupid because the reality
is this is this is this is the campaign Donald
Trump brand in twenty fifteen, and and now every problem
in America can be can be it can be reduced

(17:15):
to one source. Every problem that you have in your
personal life. The fact that you don't have a job,
the fact that you cannot get health insurance, the fact
that you can't get a home, the fact that your
beef prices are going up, the fact, all these things
and more crime, everything, every problem in America today is
caused by yes, you guessed it, illegal immigrants. But we're not.

(17:43):
You know, we're not you know, phobica anything like that.
We just it's just it's just a fact, you know,
just look at the numbers. So yeah, this is this
is where we are. I mean, I mean, Besic really
said this. And he's smart, you know, he he I
think he sometimes gets into a corner during an interview

(18:03):
and he just doesn't know where to go with it,
and so he makes shit up. He just makes it
up on the spot. I can't imagine he thinks this
in advance. He just comes out and he's probably super
embarrassed afterwards. Yeah, somebody says, Ike says, it's the new Jews. Yes,
And I said this in twenty fifteen. I told you

(18:26):
this exactly, you know, I said, Trump's campaign is all
based on the idea that all your problems, every single
problem that you have, is caused by the other, the other.
And since it's not politically correct at least, it wasn't
in twenty fifteen to name the other as the Jew,

(18:47):
which is what they've done in Europe for hundreds of years,
will use illegal immigrants or immigrants more broadly as the cause,
or Chinese or whatever. Right, but immigrants, Yeah, I mean yes,
this has been evident now for nine years, ten well,
twenty twenty four, ten years, ten years. This has been

(19:09):
going out and he keeps doing it because it works politically,
because it's easy for the I guess throngs of mindless
Americans to say, yeah, yeah, illegal immigrants, they're the problem.
They're the ones, they're the ones harassed, you know, they're

(19:29):
the ones destroying our economy, destroying a world. It's not tariffs.
Couldn't be tariffs. There's no way it's tariffs that is
not destroying anything. One other thing that came out when

(19:56):
was this Friday or maybe earlier today, earlier today, is
about this reindustrialization of America. Remember that we were going
to reindustrialize. Tariffs were going to make things so expensive
we stop buying them, and there for companies would have
to start building them in America. So we would have
this huge increase in building factories and manufacturing, and we

(20:22):
would have a renaissance in manufacturing and a massive massive
growth in industrialization. Reindustrialization. Well, I mean, according to the
Southern Business and Development Project, the Southern Business Development you know,
I guess it's a newspaper, business publication. You know. Project

(20:45):
activity that is, activity of building manufacturing plans in twenty
twenty five has been the worst in its thirty one
years of covering manufacturing and plant expansion. It's actually construction.
It's actually construction of new manufacturing facilities. It doesn't include

(21:12):
AI because that's not manufacturing. Is that the lowest that's
been since they started measuring this thirty one years ago?
I don't know. I guess maybe maybe some of US
economists will write, maybe, I mean, I shouldn't call myself

(21:34):
an economist. Maybe some of those smart economists will write,
maybe economics has some use, some valid Sometimes that's right.
And on top of that, according to the ISM Manufacturing Index,

(21:58):
which is an index of manufacturing in the United States,
it has now fallen to forty eight point seven, which
is under fifty. Under fifty suggests contraction, that is manufacturing
is actually contracting. And indeed, it turns out the US

(22:23):
manufacturing sector has been in recession I eat contracting for
thirty four of the last thirty six months. So it
didn't start with Trump. It started with Biden. But manufacturing
shrinking in the United States. We're not reindustrializing, we're continuing

(22:47):
or accelerating the industrialization. Again, economists said that terrafts would
not result in reindustrialization. The terrafts don't lead to more industry.
I don't know those economists, pesky scientists. It's awful. It
really is terrible. It doesn't stop Mega, doesn't stop Trump.

(23:10):
It doesn't stop any of these people from continuing. But
really Trump knows this and his administration know this. Because
any sector where there's some trouble, or any sector that
might actually lead to economic growth in the United States,

(23:31):
what does Trump do cuts tariffs? I mean, you know,
think about think about the fact that when it comes
to AI, computers, electronics, phones, anything to do with tech,

(23:55):
that's all exam from traffs. It's all example. Why is
it example? Because house are harmful and we don't want
this industry to be harmed, so we exempt it. I mean,
we've exempted energy from Canada because we need energy and
we need to drive prices down not up, so we're
not tariffing it. I mean, god, eggs from Turkey exempt

(24:18):
for tariff's why because we want to lower cost for consumers.
And we know tariff increased costs, so we're going to
lower costs by exempting them. How about beef from Argentina,
same thing. How about as a Friday fertilizer from pretty
much anyway. Yeah, we need to help those farmers, so

(24:40):
we're not going to tariff the goods that they use,
and of course coffee and bananas and you know, stuff
that you would put in your grocery bag. And you're
complaining about cost of living going up. So they cut tariffs,
which suggest that it was that Taos we prices in

(25:01):
spite of the FED study. Here's a good quote, thanks
to President Trump for removing the tariffs President Trump placed
on these agricultural products. This is what winning looks like.
Placing tariffs, seeing costs rise, people upset, and then lowering

(25:26):
them to appease the people who got upset. I mean,
I think, you know, his his popularity numbers are dropping
like a rock, and I think or dropping. I mean
they were already low. By dropping, and so I think
people are starting to figure it out, starting to figure

(25:46):
out maybe maybe, I mean, I think this will require
the second coming. Maybe some of the people who criticized
me for criticizing Trump on tariffs will show up on
my chat one of these days and apologize, maybe but
probably not, probably not. And then on top of this,

(26:12):
the reality is the tariffs are just you know, this
is this is from an article I think by let
me just see. I think it's by Scott linscom No, well, no,
it's by an article in Politico, and it says business
from Wall Street to Main Street struggling to comply with

(26:33):
President Trump's byzantine teriff regime, driving up costs and counteracting
for some the benefits of the corporate tax cut Republicans
passed earlier this year. I'm reading for the article to
give an example. An industrial product that faces a monthly
uniform five percent tariff rate in the past would now

(26:53):
be taxed at fifteen percent if it comes from the
EU or Japan, twenty percent from Norway and the African countries,
twenty four to twenty five percent from countries in Southeast Asia,
and upwards a fifty percent from India, Brazil or China.
This has been an exhausting year, I'd say for most

(27:14):
CEOs in the country. This quoting Aco, the level of
executive time that's been put in into this into a
county foulders and dealing with it from a management perspective
as being enormous. So instead of focusing on innovation or
for example, growth, they're focusing on how they deal with tariffs.

(27:43):
Upping the pressure, the Justice Apartment has announced that it
intends to make the prosecution of customs fought one of
its top priorities. Now they're going to go see these companies,
go after these companies for customs fraud. The proliferation of
trade regulation and threat of intensified enforcement has driven many

(28:07):
companies to beef up their staff and spend what could
add up to tens of millions of dollars to ensure
that they are not running afoul of Trump's requirements. The
time and expense involved, combined with the tens of billions
of dollars in higher tariffs that companies are paying each
month to import goods, amount to a massive burden that
is weighing down industries traditionally reliance on imported products, and

(28:31):
it's denting for some the impact of the hundreds of
billions of dollars of tax cuts that companies will receive
over the next decade via the One Big Beautiful Bill
Act championed by the White House. Can I say it?
I think I should say it. I told you so.

(28:58):
I mean, tariffs are massive economic distortion. They misallocate labor,
they misallocate time, they misallocate thought, they distort prices, and
they were hidden or not so hidden tax on all Americans.

(29:22):
It's not good. It's really, really, really bad. And you know,
at some point people are gonna have to figure this out,
and maybe maybe there'll be growing pressure on this administration too.
I mean, if Trump really wants to help American consumers

(29:42):
and lower the cost of living for Americans and reduce costs,
it's actually you know, he could actually have a big impact.
Just eliminate all tariffs on all goods forever, zero them out, zero.
And I mean the economic boost that that would provide,

(30:07):
the economic boost that would provide to Americans would be
stunning and unprecedented. Right, But you know that will never happen.

(30:34):
You know that will never happen. All Right, Charles bud
just gifted ten memberships, and I just gifted five. I'm
gonna gift another five. What the hell today? We're generous today, right,
So we're going to gift another five. All right, So
we've added twenty members to our roster. That god, I mean,

(30:59):
that makes me you're guilty because I haven't done a
members only show in a while. But I'll do one.
I'll do one soon and and and we'll have twenty
new members who will be able to watch it. In
the meantime, you guys who are gifted membership should go
and check out all the old members only shows and

(31:19):
you can catch up on all of those and and
and enjoy those before I do it nixt one. All right,
So that's type of insanity. It's once a week. We're
going to have to cover that, or at least when
when you know, these idiots do new stupid things, we'll
have to cover it. The other show I want to

(31:41):
talk about this someone related to haves and generally related
to the economy, is I just want to put out
a warning out there, a wanting out there that there's
some real financial risks and that we should all just
be paying attention to. I don't like calling recessions, and

(32:01):
every time I do, I you know it's not successful
because you know, there hasn't been a recession in a
very long time, a very long time. I mean, we
had a recession kind of in COVID, but that was
artificially created. We haven't had really a recession recession, you know,
since the Great Financial Crisis. That's ridiculous, given the amount

(32:27):
of manipulation of economy, the inflation, the manipulation of interest rates,
the government spending, the bailouts, and we haven't really had
a financial crisis. We really haven't had a financial crisis
since two thousand and eight, and we do it's sixteen years.

(32:51):
I don't think there's cycles, but you know, every couple
of decades, suddenly every fifteen years or so, there seems
to be something, something happens. I don't think we've solved that.
I don't think we found the formula never to have
another financial crisis, so never have another recession. That is
not in the cards, although we have replaced volatility with
just slower economic growth. Economic economy is barely growing or

(33:14):
growing very slowly, but still. And there's just a lot
of stuff going on out there that I think you
just need, we all need to be just aware of
as we think about the future. And I'm not going
to tell you what to do about it, and I'm
not sure what to do about it. I'm not sure
what I am going to do about it other than
be aware and you know, consider how you want to

(33:42):
protect yourself. Here's the reality. The economy right now is
basically growing because of massive infrastructure spending into AI. Does
all the spending make sense? Spending is almost all funded
through debt? Is that debt going to be paid back?

(34:06):
How much of it? When some failures? How big are
they going to be? Is AI really as good as
they think it is? And is scaling the number of servers?

(34:28):
What is actually going to make it, you know, earth
shadowing completely changing the world in which we live. I mean,
it's already doing a lot, but is it just scaling
up the server is going to make it better? So
much better as to justify trillions and trillions of dollars?
And this is a trillions of dollars of new money

(34:52):
flowing into it. I mean, I saw a story today
about Peter t Or selling his in Nvidia investment and
getting out in Nvidia as some other big investment names.
I don't know. I don't know if it's the time
to get out. But are the valuations of these companies

(35:16):
do they make sense? Is it some point could the
mood in Wall Street change around AI? In its prospect
for the future, given that it's not clear where the
cash comes from, it how you make money, it's not
clear how you pay back all this debt. So there

(35:41):
is the whole AI bubble that people are talking about,
and I do think it's a bubble. Now, you could
take the Jetpizos approach, which I think is true, that
it's kind of a bubble that builds infrastructure and when
it boosts a lot of people will lose money, but
the infrastructure will be then will be used and it
will be valuable. Okay, but people will lose money, and

(36:01):
it's not clear who the people who lose the money
are who gets hoods. I mean it's primarily private equity
and big banks and that are jumping into funding all this.
Everybody's afraid to be left behind. And then of course
it's a stock market, which is that all time highs
historical valuations, I mean historical, maybe hysterical, I don't know,

(36:26):
but certainly historical valuations are they justified? Could we see
the market stock market go down ten twenty thirty percent,
It wouldn't be unusual. Stock markets often go down, well,
not often, but over you know, once every couple of decades. Certainly,
you know, thirty thirty five percent, is that possible? If

(36:49):
that happens. What happens. There's a lot of debt out
in the economy, private equity firms, it's in the banks,
it's actually private equity, massive amounts of debt. And to
at a wrinkle to that, there's a lot of there's

(37:10):
a lot of risk in places where they never used
to be, like insurance, insurance used to be. You know,
to pay off the insurance, you used to basically buy
bonds and maybe buy some stocks with buy bonds. Primarily
bonds are safe, you get paid, it's predictable. But there's

(37:33):
some argument that you know, in order to generate more returns,
as private equity have been buying insurance companies and off
showing a lot of the reinsurance has always been offshore
where there's less regulation. But the argument is that maybe
there's a lot of risk being taken on a lot
of unusual types of debt, a lot of unusual type

(37:56):
of security is being taken on that maybe we weren't
in the past because insurance was conservative and simple and predictable,
and now it's not. Could we see crisis coming from there?
It is hard to tell. Although a lot of financial

(38:20):
publications are warning against the insurance sector, warning about the
insurance sector and maybe taking on a lot of risk
in the insurance sector. Again, remember these are all regulated products,
these all regulated industries, and they're all the regulations create

(38:40):
distortions and provisions, and you know, who knows. It really
is hard to tell. It's not that insurance is bad
or evil or anything. It's just that it's a paque opaque.
A lot of people have annuities. I always recommend against

(39:02):
getting annuities, but people get annuities. I mean they rely
on the insurance company's remaining solvents and that the reinsurance
companies can back up the insurance company. And given the
kind of regulations and given the incentives, it's you know,
it's hard to be saying when in this financial world,
in the financial industry, that we have to be to fail.

(39:25):
You know, all kinds of bad incentives out there. So
I don't know. I mean, there really seems to be
a lot of pressure right now financial times. We'll see
journal others a Bloomberg emphasizing the risks that seem to
be it seems to be being accumulated in all these

(39:46):
different places and insurance. Do you remember we talked about Strategy,
the Bitcoin company of Salo's Bitcoin company company that basically
it buys bitcoin and then trades at many multiple of

(40:06):
the bitcoin price. Well, strategy is down like fifty percent
over the last few months. People have finally figured out
that it was ridiculous, didn't make any sense. And indeed,
bitcoin itself about just over a month after it reached

(40:28):
an all time high, bitcoins basically erased all its gains
for the year and it's flat for the year. And
the problem the thing about bitcoin right, the thing about
bitcoin is that as it declines, a lot of people
who use debt in order to finance bitcoin are going

(40:49):
to have to sell bitcoin to repay the debt, which
will place more downward pressure on it. Now, I don't know.
I'm not predicting bitcoin crisis generally today. I'm not predicting anything.
I'm just warning there are a lot of these warning
signs out there. There's a lot of risk in the system,

(41:09):
and our economy is not heading towards some Golden age
renaissance are booming boom. We're not heading towards three four
five percent GDP growth. If we get too were lucky.
So you know, I don't know. I am worried about

(41:31):
where we are. I'm worried about finances. I'm you know,
financial sector. I'm worried about the economy. Stable coins are gonna,
you know, increasing significantly, and they didn't become a big
chunk of the economy. I don't know that people really
thought through stable coins. I hope they have. I mean,
they can make a lot of sense, but they have implications.

(41:56):
It's a way to monetize our debt. It's a way
to turn debt government dad into money directly. It's money
that we will be using those coins. You'll be using
those coins. Yeah, we're in some interesting times and some

(42:16):
potentially troublesometimes. I don't want to be a feamong I
don't like feamal going. And I'm not predicting any I'm
not predicting recession, although I'm predicting slow economic growth if any.
And I'm just warning that there are a lot of
flashing red lights out there, lots of flashing red lights

(42:38):
out there. Okay, just a few smaller items we've got left.
We've got a bunch of them, but we've got some
of them, all right, let's start with let's start with,
uh the m not that? Not that all right? We

(42:59):
want to with Epstein, Epstein, Epstein, Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein, the
Jeffrey Epstein scandal that keeps on giving, it just doesn't
go away, disappeared. Well. Anyway, Congress is about to vote
on basically demanding that the Justice Department release all the

(43:20):
Epstein files. Over the weekend, it looked the Republicans clearly
had a majority or no. Democrats clearly had a majority
to vote on this, and it looked like significant number
of Republicans will go into bolt and go against Trump. Trump,
who's been trying not to release the files, demanding for

(43:41):
the files not to be released. It seemed like about
one hundred Republicans were going to vote to have them
released in spite of Donald Trump. This is the one thing,
the one issue that they're willing to go against Trump.
It's Epstein. Epstein is the one thing they will need
to go against Trump. Anyway, The vote is tomorrow, and
it looked like they were gonna bolt on him. So

(44:04):
Trump did what he often does after you know, a
weeks of trying to block the House vote, you know,
going after different Congress members, trying to argue with them,
trying to force them, twisting arms and everything. It's clear
now that he's going to lose the vote, so he

(44:26):
is pretending he's mean for it all along, which is
classic Trump, right. Uh. And you know he writes, as
I said on Friday night about Fox one, to the
fake news media, which he talks to all the time,
acause House Republicans should vote to release the Epstein files
because we have nothing to hide and it's time to
move on from this Democratic hoax perpetrated by radical left

(44:51):
lunatics in order to deflect the great success of the
Republican Party, including our recent victory on democratic shutdown. The
Department of Justice has already he turned over tens of
thousands of pages to the public. Epstein, remember he opposed
all of this. Are looking at various Democratic operatives. Bill Clinton,
Reid Hoffman, Larry Summers and their relationship to Epstein and

(45:13):
their House Oversight Committee can have whatever they are legally
entitled to. We'll get to that in a minute. I
don't care, he says. All I do care about is
that Republicans get back on point, which is the economy affordability,
which he is destroying where we are winning big Oh no,
you're losing, actually a victory and reducing inflation for the
highest level in history, in history. Take a moment to

(45:39):
laugh out loud on this one. If reducing it for
the highest level in history, maybe in the universe and
all the rest. So he goes on all the achievement,
all of us. He says, nobody cared about Jeffrey Epstein
when he was alive, and if the Democrats had anything,
they would have released it before the landslide victory landslide.

(46:01):
Some members of the publican body, are being used, and
we can't let that happen. Let's start talking about the
Republican Party success. Da da da da. All right, that's
what he came out of. And now he's backing the vote.
They will vote to release the files. But this is
the thing. They can't release them. And this is Trump's

(46:24):
you know, clever trickery. Right. So Trump realized he's going
to lose the House vote. See comes and says, yeah,
vote yes on this, release the files. But then he
tells that Justice Bumber start investigating Democrats based on those files.

(46:46):
So when Congress goes to Justice Barnument asks for the files.
The Justice devartmer is going to say, we can't release them.
We're in the middle of an investigation. And Trump can say, well,
I wanted to release It's not my fault. I'm there's
nothing there about me, so I don't care. So yes,

(47:12):
Trump has been avoiding the release of these forever. You know,
who knows why. You can use your imagination to figure
out why. But now he wants them released because he
thinks that by telling Justice Department to investigate that they

(47:32):
won't be able to release the stuff. Who knows. We
will see what happens in the meantime. He said, this
massive falling out with Marjorie Taylor Green, you know, the
lynchman of his coalition, the same you know, the sane, reasonable,
rational Marjorie Taylor Green. Jewish Space lays Marjorie Taylor Green,

(47:56):
who is now coming out and apologizing all over the
place for her toxic politics. She's criticizing Trump, primarily on
the Epstein files. This is what she cares about. She
said in an interview on CNN CNN humbly, I'm sorry

(48:20):
for taking part in the toxics, toxic politics. I'm committed
and I've been working on this a lot lately to
put down the knives in politics. I really just want
to see people be kind to one another. This is
Marjorie Taylor Green. This is the most toxic congress woman

(48:44):
out there on the right. There's a bunch of them
on the left. And of course she's being criticized by
Matt Walsh because we're probably gans on our toxic it's
Democrats that are toxic because Democrats killed Charlie Cook. Leftists right, leftists.

(49:05):
You know, not one many killed Charlie Cook. No leftists
killed him. Have we seen any proof that there was
more than one guy anything? Yeah, So, Anjie Taylor Green
is now presenting yourself as moderate, as nice, as friendly,

(49:29):
as wanting to bring the country together, as uniting us
all this complete nutcase, complete nutcase. So it's going to
be interesting. It's going to be interesting now that she
had a fight with Trump and that they are you know,

(49:55):
they're not on the same site. Does she even get reelected?
Is there primary challenge to her? Does somebody else take
her job? She's ready. There were some rumors that you
would run for senate. She's not running for senate. But
she couldn't win. Now that she's got Trump against her.
All right, let's do some farm policy stuff. You know,

(50:17):
we've got a Trump's peace deal in Gaza. We've were
waiting for Hamas to be disarmed and to be displaced
from leadership in the Gaza strip, but the reality is
that that's not happening. Hamas is stockpiling advanced weapons systems

(50:39):
in other countries, waiting for the opportunity to smuggle it
into Gaza, waiting for the Israelis to lower their focus
for a little bit and they will smuggle it into Gaza.
Hamas is actually more popular. Is popularity is rising in Gaza.

(51:00):
You know, they basically establishing rule, you know, h law
and oda. None of these gangs roaming around now. Ramas
is the you know, in gang warfare, this is what
happens with anarchy. One gang dominates and people are relieved
because gang warfare is worse than have one is worse

(51:21):
than having one orthobitarian gang. Every time we see a
place like Gaza, you get more proof that anarchy doesn't work.
And nobody wants to send troops into the except one country.
The only country that's willing to send troops into Gaza
is Turkey, and Israel's like uh uh no Turkish Turkish

(51:41):
troops in Gaza. We don't trust them. They are enemy.
We're not putting tucks into Gaza. Nobody else wants to
send troops in there because they know it's brutal. Hamas
doesn't want a disarm Hamas is no incentive to dism
It's not going to I just to give you a

(52:05):
sense of Palestinian public opinion. In the West Bank, fifty
one percent of guz And surveyed express positive views of
Rama's performance during the war outil the seventh and the
complete failure militarily during the war fifty one percent, and
that was forty three percent in May and thirty nine

(52:25):
percent a year ago. So they've only gotten better. So
I mean this Trumpeese deo has improved Ramas's political standing.
Forty one percent of guds And said they were aligned
with Ramas, which is up four points from five months
ago and the highest since December of twenty twenty three.

(52:50):
So Ramas is just Garz has been destroyed. But people
perceive somehow Ramas is Victoria because they're still around two years,
two plus years after the conflict started, Tramas is still there.
They still have weapons. They're still out in the streets,
They're still governing at least a portion of Gaza. They

(53:15):
have basically survived an onslaught by maybe the second best
military force in the world today, the Israelis, and they survived. Uh.
You know, Trump has this idea of his twenty point
piece plan that they're going to be disarmed, But everybody knows.

(53:37):
Everybody knows that they're not going to disarm. Then nobody
can force them to disarm except for one force that
is Israel, and Israel has been barred by Donald Trump
from doing that. So Trump is prevented the one force
in the world that could disarm Hamas from disarmy Commas,

(54:03):
We've got Hamas continuing to steal the aid and redistribute
it itself and make money. Thus we've got Hamas leadership
in katou and so on, still with lots of money,
I'm sure supported by the Qataris, buying weapons, storing them
in Yemen and other African countries, just waiting for the

(54:24):
opportunity to smuggle them in the to Gaza. I mean
roasts not being pacified. They have no intention to give
up control. They don't intend to go away and disappear
and maybe they'll change their name, but they're not going anywhere.

(54:46):
Israel didn't win this war. Now, I've said a lot
about the outcome, but Israel didn't win it. And the
Gazans know it, the Palestinians know it is You'll we'll
find out in the future when all this comes back
and bites them. And Trump, you know who knows. Trump's

(55:13):
one big from Posse success was this so called peace deal.
What's he gonna do well? The pressure is now for
Trump is to skip disarming Hamas and begin reconstruction. The
administration's moosey is pushing interim solutions, and Israel is pushing

(55:36):
back the earth. Wants to start building, start creating something,
you know, the the the what do you call it,
the reviera, the Garsen Revier, wants to create a Gozen Rivier,
wile Hamas is still there with arms. I mean, it's

(55:59):
just it's just it's just pathetic. It's sad. It's all
those people dying I'm talking about the Israelis for nothing.
And then and then people bemoaned the sixty or seventy
thousand Palestinians who have died, most of whom or at
least a large percentage of whom are Hamas members and supporters,

(56:20):
a small percentage of whom are completely innocent. And you know,
one of the smallest numbers of dead in urban word
for in all of history. Just pathetic and ridiculous, and

(56:42):
so yeah, you know, you might have been happy when
this peace deal was done and the hostages came back,
but it ain't over. It is not over anyway. In
the meantime, the crazy, crazy, messianic, really religious Jews in
the West Bank who think that they're above the law,

(57:05):
who think that they are some kind of superior being,
and who you know, if they represented all Jews, then yeah,
you know there's a reason to hate them, but they don't.
They small minority. But these Messianic Jews on the West
Bank are continuing to harass, but use violence against Palestinians,

(57:32):
and not just Palestinians, use violence against idea of Israeli
defense forces, soldiers, the writing in Palestinian villages. They're setting
fire to homes, they're burning cars, they're beating people up.
And again this includes not just Palestinians, but includes soldiers,

(57:56):
police port a police of these stay. These are irrational
religious fanatics that need to be shut down yesterday, years ago,
they should have been shut down. The problem is some
of their members sitting in Israeli government now. N'atagno finally

(58:21):
said something about all of this. He basically said that
you know, they're going to go after them, and they're
going to shut them down, and they're going to use
the full force of the law against them. But I
think most people in Israel think that he said this
before and they're waiting to see results. There was a

(58:47):
bulldozing of an illegal settlement that the army engaged in
I think over the weekend. But there's a lot to do.
There are people who need to be in jail for
being violent, for violating people's rights. Palestinians I have rights.

(59:11):
You can't just go and beat them up. You can't
kill them for no reason. You can't burn their homes,
you can't burn their cause. People need to be prosecuted
and put in jail. Otherwise Israel loses one of the
things that makes it a civilized place, which is the
rule of law. So it all needs to shape up

(59:33):
on this. It really is horrific that they're lending a
small minority of fanatics engage in violence and without consequences.
They need to be consequences. All right, Let's go through
a few other countries. Chile. Chile had an election over

(59:54):
the weekend and had an election kind of a first
round presidential election. You need fifty in the first round
to win the presidency. Nobody got that. The logist share
of the vote actually went to a communist. I know
it's hard to believe, but yeah, to a communist, uh,
you know Jarrah, I yes, uh, I think it's a she,

(01:00:17):
Jeanette Jennete Java, who literally was the candidate of the
Chilean Communist Party, And just give you a sense, twenty
six percent of Chilean's voted for candidate from the Communist Party.
She got the most votes. However, almost all of the

(01:00:41):
rest of the votes, seventy percent of the votes went
to members of the right, some kind of right. The
winner among those candidates is somebody called Jose Antonio cast
a populist ultra conservative lawyer who ran as the anti immigration,

(01:01:07):
anti crime, you know law and oda. He's an anti abortion,
he's those anti gay marriage, which he didn't emphasize you
in the campaign because he probably wouldn't have won if
he had. But he got twenty four percent of the vote,
and unfortunately all the other candidates split the rest. So

(01:01:27):
between the two the two leaders got fifty percent, and
yet everybody else got the rest of fifty percent. That included,
for example, you know a relative, a real free marketer,
a real free marketer by the name of I had
this name here and it's disappeared anyway, a real feam marketer,

(01:01:49):
you know, at the level of Melay type femalketer. Yes,
Johannes Kaiser, who I think is Axel Kaiser's brother. Exel
Kaiser runs a free market think tank in Chile. I
think this is his Johannis Kaisee, who got fourteen percent
of the vote. H and another conservative got thirteen percent
of the vote. You think they'd all they'd have one

(01:02:11):
candidate instead of splitting it up like this. They could
have won in the first round. So going into the
general the second round, the cast the ultra conservative lawyer
is clearly the favorite to win by a big margin.
He'll trunce the communist and this will be another country
that has shifted to the right, sadly, not the hose,

(01:02:34):
not that have you me lay right, but a conservative right,
a a ultra conservative right, a religious right, a statist right.
He says he'll deregulate and he'll do all these things.
But that's not his you know, primary you know, primary focus,

(01:02:57):
not a primary focus at all. His prime focuses the
social issues. Now it is, you know, Chile is seeing
is still one of the safest places in Latin America.
It's seeing an uptick on crime. It's seen an uptick
in illegal immigration, particularly from Venezuela, and those are the issues.

(01:03:20):
This is a guy who admires ne Bucele, the authoritarian
president of Osalvado. This is a guy who admires Trump.
But overall this is a pudiation of the left. It
is another country that has moved to the right. We

(01:03:42):
saw Bolivia moved to the right, you know, defeat a
socialist for the first time in over twenty years. We
are probably going to see Peru have an election in
which it defeats a right where you know, where the
right defeats the left. You're going to see a Columbia
and Peru's shift to the right, I mean, and then

(01:04:05):
hopefully you know, in Brazil we'll see that later. So overall,
the tendency in Latin America is moved to the right, sadly,
not the free market right, but a kind of a populist,
kind of a populist type right. One country that still
has a very left wing president is Mexico. Mexico saw

(01:04:27):
major riots in the streets of Mexico City on Saturday.
Several thousand people went to the streets and they attacked
the presidential palace, which was heavily guarded by riot police,
and for several hours they confronted. The police. Reports about
one hundred and twenty people who injured, one hundred of

(01:04:49):
them police officers, and you know, a few dozen people
were arrested. These are called gen Z protests and they're
spreading around the world. They took place in Nepal. We
talked about that, and now they've reached Mexico. These are
young people. They're fed up, they're pissed off, and the

(01:05:12):
main reason for being fed up is the dominance of
the cartels in Mexico, the power of the cartels in Mexico,
the fact that the cartels control big chunks of Mexico.
In Mexico is basically the Mexican central government is basically

(01:05:32):
seeded power, seated power to the cartels. They kill Mayas.
They basically kill journalists and politicians with no consequences. Nothing happens,
and young people in Mexico are fed up, and this

(01:05:56):
was the source of the gen Z protests. They believe
that the president Shannonbaum is basically a puppet of the cartels.
Now she has high approval ratings. I mean she won
by a big margin, and she dominates the legislature. So

(01:06:16):
these young people are now representative of uh, the white
a Mexican society. But they argue that she is just
a puppet of the cartels. Uh. We'll see how this
develops and whether she maintains her popularity as young people
rebel against her. Finally, the UK Labor Party has appointed

(01:06:46):
appointed a few weeks ago, appointed a new Home Secretary.
It's like interior secretario. I don't know what what the
equivalent would be. Her name is Shabana Mahmoud, so you
know by definition almost given that name, most likely she
is Muslim. Anyway, they've appointed to her, and she just

(01:07:09):
came out with a plan this week or I guess
today yesterday for major immigration reform in the UK, basically
making it much much more difficult for asylum seekers to
enter the country to stay in the country or to

(01:07:31):
get any kind of citizenship in the country. So a
real hardline set of rules for handling asylum seekers and
illegal immigrants. We're talking about taking illegal immigrants and deporting
them and telling countries that if they don't accept the

(01:07:55):
illegal immigrants that they're sending back, then the UK will
basically not grant the citizens any visas anymore. The Labor
Party in the UK is taking in this seriously because
it's the most important issue right now in the UK.
More important I think that even in the economy, which

(01:08:15):
is awful and it is seeing Farage and his political
party become the dominant party in England, that his polls
are showing that Farage would win in a landslide right now.
The Conservative Party has also made itself far more aggressive
about immigration, and now even the Labor Party, even the Left,

(01:08:39):
is coming down hard on both the silence seekers and
illegal immigrants. The Labor Party changes that it's going to
make tough on a silent policy is basically trying to
mimic the Danish system, which is basically reduced immigration to
Denmark dramatically. That system was also devised by a center

(01:09:03):
left government. It grants asylum. See because resident permit for
only one or two years no guarantee your permanent residency.
To gain permanent status, new arrivals must learn Danish and
find work. Since the rules were tightened in Denmark, the
number of people granted asylum in Denmark is plummeted. You know,
migrants that came in for severe rock Afghanistan all went

(01:09:26):
through Denmark straight to Sweden, where they used to get
welfare checks and free housing. Denmark doesn't provide that, and
the UK is trying to mimic that. So Denmark has
some of the toughest immigration policies in Western Europe, and
the United Kingdom is trying to is trying to mimic

(01:09:48):
it and trying to deport as many people as they
can who entered the country illegally, and tried to reduce
dramatically the number of people who are coming in and
requesting asylum. So all three parties, Nigel Faraz, the Conservatives
and Labor are kind of jocking to be tough on immigrants,

(01:10:12):
to be tough on immigration. And what's interesting about this is,
of course, uh, you know, but but but this is
this is Britain that you know, this is coming from
a Home secretary who herself is probably the daught of immigrants,
right and has a Muslim name if nothing else. And uh,
this is coming from a left wing party that up

(01:10:34):
until very recently was like let them in, anybody can
come in, no no standards, We'll give them all welfare.
And even this political party has now shifted away, shifted
away from that. Yeah, so we will see how this develops.
And uh, but but clearly Europe has become unequivocally anti immigrants,

(01:10:59):
and this is a throughout Europe. All right. I have
a hard stop at five, so I will try to
get through all the superchet questions. But if not, if
there are any leftover, then I will cover them in
on tomorrow's show. But let's try to get them all today.

(01:11:19):
I'll just remind you some of the of some of
our sponsors, where Michael Williams. If you want to find
out about Defenders of Capitalism, which I've being involved and
I teach for and the leadership program of the Rockies,
checkout Defenders of Capitalism dot com. Defenders of Capitalism dot
com check out that website. AARI has a European conference

(01:11:39):
on in April seventeenth and nineteenth if you would like.
If you're under thirty four, you qualify for a scholarship,
So apply for scholarship check out Iinman dot org slash
start here. If you're over thirty four, you can get
a discount which is twenty six ybs. Ten is the
discount code. Epstein is, you know, the most prominent advocate

(01:12:06):
for freedom in energy, and you should follow him. You'll
learn a lot, you'll become a better communicator, and you
can do that on Alex Epstein dot alex Epstein dot
substack dot com, alex Epstein dot substick dot com. All right,
let's jump into the questions. We've got three fifty dollars

(01:12:26):
questions from David. We'll start with them, and then we'll
go to the twenty dollars questions and then we'll do
the rest. And we are about one hundred and seventy
six dollars short of a goal for the second hour,
where we should be kind of the the the kind
of cost we need to cover for a two hour show.

(01:12:48):
So please, I know we've done really really well the
last few shows. Let's continue on that track by getting
to the five hundred. The best way to support the show, right,
now given the questions, is with a sticker? Mary Aleen,
thank you for the sticker. Nature Observer, thank you for
the sticker, and give it how many people we have,
and Ryan, thank you for the sticker. You can all
just do like a buck ninety nine or two ninety

(01:13:11):
nine or something like that, and there were enough of
you that we would get to our number. You know,
we will get to the amount of money anyway, So
please consider that value a trade value for value you
get a value by listening. Yeah, Lincoln, just at a sticker.
Thank you, Lincoln. That was your twentieth super Chat supersticker whateverever.

(01:13:32):
So YouTube, let me know about some of these numbers.
All right, David says, can you debunk cont categorical imperatives?
It seems like a good idea. Am I wrong? I
don't see what's so good about it? Joseph, thank you
for the sticker. You guys are doing two ninety nine,
four ninety nine. That's great. I don't know what's so
good about it. And that was Joseph's third Superstar. I

(01:13:53):
don't know what's good about it at all. I'm basically
a category imperative is an arbitrary statement. It basically says
that there are things that we know are aright. How
do we know them? We just do. You can't reason them,
You can't get them for reality because we have no
access to reality. They're not things that support human life

(01:14:17):
necessarily because that's not the standard of morality. They're just there.
You just know them. Now, there's nothing to rebuke there
because there's no there's nothing debunk there because there's no
argument being made. There's a sense in which this is
completely arbitrary. He pulls it out of nowhere. Now, I'm
sure that in contient form there's a long, convoluted attempt

(01:14:40):
at an explanation that doesn't make any sense. And I
am not a contient expert, so I'm not going to
untangle all of it. But at the end of the day,
I can't. So it's a good question to ask one
of our philosophers who maybe can give you a more
thorough But the essence of it is that the whole
point of category compotives are these are mall duties that
you have in your mind. You know them almost like

(01:15:02):
intuitions that are just there, and you should just follow them,
not because they lead to any kind of outcome, but
because it is your duty to follow them, not because
they're good for you, but because they were duty to
follow them. The whole point of carrygall kill imperatives is
to inculcate a duty based morality. You do it because

(01:15:24):
that is what the category competitor says, that's what's required,
that's what you must do, no matter the outcome, no
matter the motivation. I mean, indeed, concess. If your motivation
is self interest, if somehow doing this benefits you in
some way, then you're not doing it out a sense
of duty. Then it's not model what you're doing. Morality

(01:15:49):
implies that it's not in your self interest. Morality demands
that you do it not because you understand, not because
you agree, not because it's good for you, now because
there's some goal you want to achieve, but because that
is it. Now think about it, Think about it. The

(01:16:16):
you know, these duties, since they don't exist the auto
category of competitives, they're not there. Really somebody has to
fill in that gap. You have to figure out what
to do, what duties to fulfill. And this is part
of the link that you can see from that too.

(01:16:36):
On the one hand, a society ready to do its
duty at the command of the furor two. Well, we
all have different category competitives. The mind is maluable, it's
the mind is personal, so we all have different stuff.
So that's completely subjective because there's no standard. So you

(01:16:57):
get everything out of this kind of morality all the
way from a duty bound, you know, authoritarian morality to
a completely subjectivist anything goes morality. And you know, David,
the best analysis of this, the best explanation of this

(01:17:18):
can be found in The Ominous Parallels, Lena Pikoff's magnificent,
brilliant book about the rise of Nazi Germany and its
parallels in America. So The Ominous Parallels is a must read,
and there he goes into great detail, which i you know,
into content, categoric comparatives and how they lead to the Nazis.

(01:17:41):
Thank you David, Thank you, Paul, Thank you Maultien, and
Maltin just did his first super chat. Thank you Martin.
Really appreciate that. It's a U ninety nine. That is great.
If everybody did just that, we would blow through our
target easily. So please considered joining Martine and Paul and

(01:18:02):
the other stickers where you don't even have to ask
a question David asked us anyone thought to ask Nick
Foyntis to explain his mongrel, mixed breed nature, mixed concern,
not mine? And also that he seems to be gay. Again,
Nick's concern not mine. You know, I don't think so,

(01:18:23):
And I don't know why anybody would, because the reality is,
you know, who cares where he comes from, what his
genes are, where his orientation is or or his sexual
orientation is. And again, I don't know what he is.
I don't know if he's gay or not gay. I
don't care. I don't know if he's mixed breed or
not mixed breed. I don't care whatever he is. You know,

(01:18:49):
he's a antisemitic, racist, misogynist, irrational, you know, freak and
should be shunned. So nobody should actually ask him anything.
He's just a manipulative, evil little bastard who says two

(01:19:12):
things sometimes and leverages that into the horrors of what
he believes. And you know, so David says, but it
makes Nick a bit of a hypocrite. Yeah, but everybody's
a hypocrite. Oh, I shouldn't say everybody. Almost everybody's a hypocrite.
I mean, how many people live up to them all code.

(01:19:34):
How many people live up to their ideas ideals? How
many people actually do that? Very few, very few. I
don't think hypocrisy is that big of a deal. Everybody's
a hypocrite. Much more important is the share evil of
the ideas themselves. No matter whether this hypocrisy or not. Oh,

(01:20:00):
he will say he's not really racist, he only hates blacks,
it's not generally racism. And he wants the United States
to be a white national state. But Hispanics are white,
they have roots in Spain. Spain is European and thus white.

(01:20:20):
So I mean the whole thing is he will rationalize
his hypocrisy. So Chandlers has always heard, the hypocrisy is
the worst part. No, it's not the worst part is
the ideas. But every outrust in the world, which basically
means everybody pretty much, is a hypocrite. Because how many
of them really sacrifice so they fellow man? How many

(01:20:43):
of them really don't think about their own self interest?
Every content is a hypocrite. How many of them actually
follow their you know, their duty? How many actually follow
their categoric impetatives? They don't. They're all hypocrites. Hypocrisy is

(01:21:05):
the most common thing in the world. When you have
a world dominated by bad philosophy. Bad philosophy part of
its characteristics are you can't live it. I mean, some
people can take expense of others, but a majority of
people cannot actually live up to it, live down to it. Sorry,

(01:21:26):
not live up to it, live down to it. So
they don't, which is good, right, But that makes some hypocrites,
which is not their biggest sin. The biggest sin is
holding those evil ideas to begin with. Okay, David asks,
why is bitcoin different from gold? What makes gold so desirable?

(01:21:49):
Isn't bitcoin valuable just a matter of what a large
portion of population accepts as a store of value. Well, sure,
but this is the difference. You have to be convinced
that in the future, in some future, any future, other
people will be willing to buy it from you will

(01:22:09):
view it as continue to view it as a store value.
And with bitcoin, there's just no reason to assume that
that is the case. It's some you know, electronic bits
that have certain characteristics that are not that unique. You
could replicate it in other forms, and it's not clear

(01:22:34):
what its use is, particularly if the world goes to hell.
But what is gold? Gold is a metal. It's a
metal that can be used for all kinds of things.
It's a metal that people have used throughout history for
all kinds of things. It's shiny, it glitters or sparkles.

(01:22:57):
I don't know one or the other. So using gold
as jewelry for everything. Gold gets its value from jewelry.
And the reality is, and this is true of money.
Money has to be something that lots of people want
for its own sake, and therefore it becomes a common

(01:23:20):
medium of exchange because when you accept it in payment
for a real thing that you're giving somebody else, you
have such a confidence then you can turn around and
use it to pay somebody else that somebody else will
take it off of your hands. Because money, at the
end of the day, is not valuable other than in

(01:23:43):
the things that it can buy. It's the things that
are valuable, not the money in and of itself. So
you want to make sure that the money can be
used to buy stuff. We know throughout history gold has
mean something that people like to possess too. The problem
with silver is and silver could be used for smaller denominations,

(01:24:07):
and silver has always been used together with gold together
with sometimes even copper as smaller denomination money. So anything
that it has a use can be used as money.

(01:24:27):
But it also has to be you know, divisible, and
it has to be easy to carry in all these things.
And you know, gold in and of itself is not
particularly useful. What you really want is gold to be
stood somewhere, and gold just to be representative. And what
you want is paper money, which is what we evold
to that is backed by gold, or electronic money which

(01:24:50):
is backed by gold. You don't want to be lugging
around gold. The only reason today to buy gold is
if you believe that there's a probability kind of the
world ends, society collapses, it all crashes, and then you
can still buy guns, ammunition and food with the gold

(01:25:11):
that you have. And that's why you should have a
small denomination gold gold coins, not gold bars, because gold
bars are hard to move around and nobody's going to
give you change for the gold boss. But there's just
Bitcoin is just what people decide, but it has no use,
particularly if there's no electricity. But it has no use.

(01:25:34):
You know, people don't buy and sell stuff with it,
and you don't know what value it's going to have tomorrow. Now,
gold flunctuates somewhat, but within certain bounds, it doesn't flunctuate
anything like the way bitcoin flunctuates. So no, bitcoin and
gold not the same thing. We can talk more about

(01:25:58):
bitcoin sometime, Jamie. We should be able to think say
what we want. But when immigrants come to a country
and publicly admit they intend to bring about Sharia, should
they be deported? At a point must we choose survival
of the country over free speech. Well, I don't think

(01:26:19):
it's a conflict. I think, as I've said many times,
as a country, we need to decide that we have
certain enemies, that Islamism. Those who would bring Sharia to
our shows are the enemy, and they shouldn't be allowed in.
And this is an enemy ideology that we will not

(01:26:39):
let spread in our country because it is an enemy.
You know, people spouting this ideology are killing us. So
I think as such, it's not a violation of free speech.
If Islamists, those who advocate for global Sharia law viewed

(01:27:04):
and identified and categorized as an enemy, then it's a them.
Actively promoi Sharia is an active war and active treason,
and they can be arrested just like you're Nazis running
around America spouting Nazism during World War Two, they'd be arrested.

(01:27:24):
So the West has to be willing to identify its enemies,
declare them as such, make it clear that it will
not tolerate Islamism within its borders. Yeah, and then some
of these people spouting Sharia law need to be sent

(01:27:45):
back home put in prison, depending on their immigration status,
because you could have you could have you know, Muslims
that converted to Islam, who have you know deep you know,
blood roots in a country for many generations, and the
fact that they convert to Islam and then preach Sharia

(01:28:08):
and advocate for Islamic takeover country just the same. So
it's not just immigrants, it's anybody who preaches and argues
for an enemy ideology. But for that you have to
define the enemy. Jamie Monico has a live expectancy eighty
six point five. US is under eighty. There are thirty

(01:28:29):
countries higher than the United States or most with universal
health care. I believe private would be better, but a
little confused why such a gap? Thanks well, Monico is
a bunch of very very wealthy people. Only wealthy people
live in Monaco. The people who work for the wealthy
people in Monico live in France and they come into

(01:28:50):
Monaco every day to clean and to run the restaurants
and all of that. So Monico is a place of
very wealthy individuals who can afford the best health the world,
and we take care of you know, we have leisure
time to take care of themselves. You can't judge anything
by Monaco standards. But yeah, I mean, the United States
has very low life expectancy. And the question is why.

(01:29:14):
And if you visit the United States and you spend
a little bit of time here, you realize why, because
you know, Americans are fat. Obesity is probably the number
one cause of reduced life expectancy in the United States.
It has nothing to do with socialized medicine. When you
control for life habits, for culture, for obesity, for the

(01:29:41):
junk food, for the things that for the lack of exercise,
for all the bad behaviors Americans engage in, then life
expectancy in the United States is not that different than
other countries. It's the fact that we don't take care
of ourselves. It has nothing to do with our healthcare system.
It has everything to do do with personal responsibility Americans

(01:30:02):
is just not. You go to Europe, it was in Spain, Portugal, Italy,
people are much much thinner, much much thinner. So now
maybe GP one drugs will will change that and life
expectancy in the United States will rise and be the same.

(01:30:24):
So that's one lifestyle factors. Drug use in America is
much much higher. That's not a problem of socialized medicine.
The fact that Americans die of overdose of drugs. Americans
dye more of car accidents, Americans dying more from crime.
There's more crime, particularly fatal crime, in the United States

(01:30:44):
and other countries. All of those things drive up life
drive down life expectancy in the United States. If you
look at the life expectancy of Americans who reach the
age of seventy and the life expectancy of European who
reached the age of seventy, Americans do better than Europeans.

(01:31:08):
That's a measure of health care because if you're dying
over the age of seventy, it's probably an issue of
the healthcare quality you're getting and maybe how well you
took care of yourself up until that point. But if
you didn't, you probably died before seventy. So if you
take out the lifestyle issues, then there's not a big

(01:31:31):
gap between Europeans and Americans. And then add to that
the fact that Americans don't have a private healthcare system.
They have a highly socialized, highly distorted, highly perverted, worst
of all world's type of healthcare system. David Trump's blaming
everything on radical leftists reminds me of the Ministry of

(01:31:53):
Magic blaming everything on mass murderer. Serious Black. Oh this
is in the Heavy Potter. I don't quite remember that,
but yeah, it makes sense, right, Serious Black. Those are
good books. I enjoyed those all right. Andrews says, some
in your audience attribute evil to craziness, and you usually

(01:32:16):
insist that know it's evil. I do think evil can
lead to mental decay Tucker's Demons. But is your point
that the choice to be wantonly irrational is primary? Yes,
the primary is to choose not to think. If you
choose not to think, you're irrational by default because the

(01:32:41):
tool of rationality is not being engaged. So it is
the choice to think. That is the root of evil,
not mental health. And you know mental health can affect everything,
but that is not the core. That's not the essence
certainly not of you know, most people. I'm not saying

(01:33:04):
that some people are not born, you know, have such
a really crazy a real chemical imbalance or something, and yeah,
and therefore do crazy things. But the majority, it's about
thinking or lack of actually lack of thinking, Okay, Michael

(01:33:26):
Paul One, How was the worst of ghetto uprising so
effective against the power of the German willmarcht Even if
you're at a munition disadvantage, if you're armed with the
Maral high ground and write philosophy, you can successfully challenge
more powerful tyrannical governments. The second Amendment is a crucial
application of individuals. The ghetto Vasha was, in the end

(01:33:52):
not successful. The Vasha ghetto is destroyed, its inhabitants, most
of them sent to concentration camps. A few escaped into
the woods and survived or died later. But you can't
call Warsaw Ghetto a successful overpowering of a tyrannical government.

(01:34:19):
You know. The success was that it lasted a long time,
and it took the Germans a long time to put
it down. It took the Germans a long time to
kill everybody there, and most of the reasons for that
is have to do with the fact that the Germans
were busy. They had an Eastern front, they at a
western front, they had a war going on. They could
only allocate a certain number of troops to putting down

(01:34:41):
the Warsaw Ghetto, and they weren't gonna waste planes that
they were busy bombing different fronts to flatten the ghetto.
Their habit in the residents of the ghetto or so
new where the basements were, they could go to the
sewage canals from building to building. You know, they they

(01:35:05):
were gorilla wolf. It guerrilla wolf. It generally is very
difficult to beat, even even if the even them all
high ground is not with you communist gorillas, isis guerrillas,
Al Qaeda gorillas, I mean terrorist guerrillas. Gorilla wolf is
very very difficult to beat, and ultimately the Germans did
beat it. So I think you have an overly positive

(01:35:27):
view of what was achieved in ghetto, in the Warsaw Ghetto.
But also it has nothing to do with them all
high ground, because again it's the conviction that matters. But
whether you're right or good, you know, it's not the
determining factor. Because very evil ideologies where people really believed

(01:35:52):
in their cause can fight the good guys for a
very long time if if they're willing to engage in
the kind of combat. The ghetto, the Warsaw Ghetto, and
again the ghetto. Ultimately it was a huge failure. I
do not believe the Second Amendment is crucial application of
individual rights. I mean it is in a sense of
if you interpret it as self defense. But I don't

(01:36:15):
think that's the interpretation the funding fathers had in mind
as a way to prevent tyranny. It's not a good mechanism.
The reality is that Americans being armed is not going
to prevent dictatorship in America. If the dictatorship in America
is coming, you're not going to prevent it with your
with the guns you haven't hidden in your basement or

(01:36:37):
not hidden in your basement. What are you going to
do against F thirty five's what are you going to
do against? You know? M? Two tanks? Not much? Jamie.
Can't you talk about the Kansas experiment, the laugh of
Curve and leftist claims that Kansas experiment failed. So the

(01:37:00):
laugher cove is wrong. The laugh for Cove is the
idea that as you reduce taxes, revenue actually increases because
people declaim more, people work harder, And the Lafa cova
has been proven over and over and over again that
at least within a range, it definitely works. So I
don't think the laugha Covi in ande of itself is

(01:37:21):
much of a thing that I don't remember the details
of the Kansas experiment. Kansas lower taxes in some areas
and revenues plummeted, but I can't remember the details of it.
But all I can say is when you look at
the details and you look at people's analysis of it,
it did not refute the laugh for Cove. But look,

(01:37:42):
I'm not a I don't think the Lafa CoV is
that important. You know. I don't want to maximize government revenues.
I want to minimize government revenues, and I want to
minimize government expenses. I don't place any you know, none
of my ideas that dependent on the Lafa cove working.
But I don't think the Kansas experiment was an experiment
in the laugh of cove. But I cannot explain why

(01:38:04):
right now, because I looked at it twenty, you know,
fifteen years ago or ten years ago, whenever, and I
can't remember that. I can't remember what the details were.
Nate rephrasing my question from the other day. After an
activist hedge fund gains control of a company through a

(01:38:28):
hostile takeover, why did they typically then like to do
stock buybacks? Is this the pressure management? But again I
don't understand the question. When a hedge fund gains control
of a company, then there's no stock left, right, How
do you gain control of a company by buying a stock?

(01:38:50):
And you typically when you buy a stock, you have
to buy all of it through a tender offer. It's
not the case that hedge funds by fifty one percent
of a company. Now you know, let's say they do,
they only buy a certain percentage of it. One of
the reasons to do a stock buyback is to get

(01:39:12):
rid of all the cash that this company has maintained,
which cannot be invested because the company, these older companies
don't have good investment opportunities. The hedge fund or private
equity fund wants to return that cash to investors, to
the owners so that they can use that cash to invest,

(01:39:36):
but the company itself. The reason stock buybacks makes sense.
This is true of any company is when a company
doesn't have investment opportunities that are large enough, investment opportunities
that will return that are profitable enough to justify investing
in them. So they take that money and they return

(01:39:58):
it to shareholders. They could do it through a dividend,
but dividends are taxed at a relatively high rate. Or
they could do it through a stock buyback, which is
only taxed at capital gains rates, which is a significant
lower tax rate. So shareholders appreciated. So that's the best
I can do, given that I don't I don't think

(01:40:19):
you quite. I mean, give me an example would be good, right,
an example of a company that was taken over and
then did the stock buyback, And I'll I can dig
into something, Michael says, who invited you to the debate
in San Francisco? Did Christian groups reach out to you?
Do you find you're getting recognized more when you travel?

(01:40:44):
It was a a friend and objectivist in San Francisco
who reached out to this group suggested that I come.
They knew who I was, and they were eager to
do it. They you know, and this friend also helped
get them a really good sized audience. Uh, this is
the same guy who organized my event in San Francisco

(01:41:06):
a year ago. Uh So there was a collaboration between
this Christian group and an objectivist and a few objectivists,
you know, kind of the remnant the the basically the
Objective's club up there. And people do recognize me when
I travel, people do recognize me in this in this

(01:41:29):
thing in uh in San Francisco, people did recognize me.
People recognized me. Young people came up to me at
this socialism debate and they were on the left, they
were on the socialist side, but they said they knew
I was and they recognized me from YouTube, from from
the short videos they see when they scroll through YouTube.

(01:41:50):
So yeah, I mean, the wood is getting out. It's
just people are not agreeing with me necessarily, all right,
Lincoln says, lovely, I can't wait to work in a
factory in Trump's new many facturing based on America. I
looked at my grandfather working in a literal sheet metal
factory and said, that's what I want to make my career. Well,
I know Lincoln is being cynical here, but yeah, I mean,

(01:42:13):
don't worry, it's not happening. That's the good news. Michael
do you do. We only need ten percent of population
to be rational and productive to not have another duck ages.
How would objectivism even rise from the ashes of the
next one. I don't know what the exact number is,
but ten percent seems right. Maybe it's twenty percent, but

(01:42:35):
it's it's a minority of people. Objectivism will rise and
the ashes of the next one because somebody will read
Einman's books and they will be studied in secrets, in
basement secrets, and those ideas will slowly be reintroduced into
the culture, and it'll take off, take off, and dominate Lincoln.

(01:42:58):
I would say impeach Trump over care options, for his
crypto scheme, but then that would mean president Vance, which
as farwards. Yes, but he should be impeached just to
make a statement for the sake of justice. He should
be impeached for all the corruption. But he won't be
no way Republicans will do that. He is the most
corrupt president in American history. Lincoln, which was seventeen, which

(01:43:22):
was seventeen years ago. Anyone under thirty five hasn't been
a working adult during a recession, which is not good. Well,
I don't know if it's not good, it's good not
to have recessions, but given how manipulated our economy is,
maybe recession is a valuable because they get to weed
out excesses and inefficiencies and unproductiveness. Normative rand Roid, thank

(01:43:48):
you for the sticker. I think, I think to everybody else? No,
no anyway, apple Jack, Yeah, apple Jack think of the
stick I think is everybody else? I mahadvowish something like that?
How you on call me? M okay, I cherish your existence?

(01:44:09):
Thank you? M heard of ex Mosat chief Ycorn's book
sort of Freedom politics awful, mosad in sites great. Yeah,
I mean the Masade is a pretty amazing entity in
spite of its chiefs often having pretty bad politics and
being generally slightly left of center. Paul con I forgot

(01:44:32):
to give you the ten dollars I promised yesterday. Well
thank you for doing it now. Jamie, which political politician
is best option in your opinion for next president and
who not in politics currently? Would you like to see
one for others? Oh? I don't know, I know. I
mean people have mentioned Jamie Diamond. I think he could
run as a Democrat and I would be I'd vote

(01:44:54):
for him. People have talked about Democrats, like what's his name,
the governor of Pennsylvania, NA. I don't think he could win,
but but somebody like that on the Republican side, I
still like Nikki Haley. I'm sure there are others, you know,
the Jokins, the just termed out governor of Virginia, the

(01:45:20):
former governor of Georgia might be pretty good. Or the
governor is going to be termed out of Georgia might
be pretty good. Probably some you know, Republican governors. I'm
thinking of people who could win, not just random people.
I'm sure there's some business leaders who who I could

(01:45:41):
be supportive of. I'd like somebody who's very away from
MAGA and very away from the far left, with some
executive experience. Stephen Katz all environmentalists bad? Don't Some of
them just want to improve the environment. Well, I don't

(01:46:02):
know what their environment is. We can get into a
whole discussion about environment and what that even means. But no,
A lot of environmentalists, you know, are pazzis of the intellectuals.
They think they might be doing good. They care about
clean air and clean water, don't we all it's the
intellectuals who are really, really bad. They're the ones who

(01:46:25):
need to be condemned. So I don't condemn all people
who hold environmental views. It's the intellectuals, and it's the
people who lead the movement in one way or the other.
It's spokesman, it's funders, it's people like that. Hi on
what do you think this is against? Stephen Katz of SAT,
that test high school students have to take to qualify

(01:46:46):
for admission to most colleges. I mean, I wonder if
it's a good tast I don't know. Again, it would
be cool to see university is actually developing their own
tests and coming up something more creative than testing everybody's same.
And Michael, in a follow up question or comment says

(01:47:07):
SATs are actually just i Q test. There's a high
correlation between SATs and IQ tests, although SATs are more
topic related. Look, I'm not against testing. I'm not against
testing people's knowledge. I don't And I think there's a
high correlation between SAT scores and performance in college and
success in college, so maybe they're a good measure for

(01:47:31):
college attendance. But I think the whole educational system needs
to be rethought from scratch. Colleges needs to be different
high school needs to be different, and I think at
the end of the day, there'd be a lot less
testing in terms of conventional tests. All right, Jamie, Should
law abiding, mentally well people be allowed to carry a

(01:47:51):
sidearm in public for safety and own weapons at home?
And can armed population really stop tranny if government has
drones tanks. No, I don't think an unpopulation can stop tiranny.
I really don't think that that is the solution for tyranny.
Tyranny is a consequence of ideas, and again they have
drones and tanks and lots of things. It just becomes

(01:48:14):
a civil war, which can be incredibly bloody. You know.
Should they be allowed to do it? My general sense
is no. It makes the police job very, very difficult
to be able to differentiate between law abiding citizens who
are carrying a gun for self defense and criminals who

(01:48:35):
are carrying a gun because they want to do harm.
So I don't think carrying out in the open makes
any sense, you know. I think if you carry a
concealed weapon, fine, but even concealed weapons, you're taking a
risk by carrying it. If you use it, you're going

(01:48:56):
to have to justify its use. If you draw it
you're going to have to justify drawing it. If you
draw it, you're gonna have to accept that there's then
there's a risk the law enforcement will shoot you. Uh.
You know, I think guns are dangerous, right and and uh,
in the hands of a relatively irrational population, they are

(01:49:19):
super dangerous. So I would rather live in just a
peaceful place, you know. I'd rather live in a place
where I don't feel like I need a gun to
protect myself. I don't want to. I don't want to
own a gun. I don't want to awail a gun.
I don't want to carry a gun. I had a
concealed weapons permit in California. I don't want that permit.

(01:49:39):
I never carried because I don't want it. I don't
I don't want to risk, you know, any accidents, And
I just don't feel comfortable with the gun. A gun
is about killing people. I want to live in a
place where I'm comfortable traveling and going and doing all
this stuff without needing a gun. Linda says, Wyoming is

(01:50:04):
an open carry law, and we have a very low
crime rate. I would guess that even if Wyoming band
open carry, it would have a very low crime rate.
I'm just guessing, but I'm pretty sure it's true. So
I'm not big on guns generally, and I'm not and
I'm not big on carrying them all the time. I mean,
I would not want to live in a place. I mean,

(01:50:26):
I mean this is maybe I shouldn't live in Wiming.
I do not want to live in a place where
you need to carry a gun to make it safe. Now,
Wymerings already safe, so carrying a gun doesn't cost anything,
I guess. But it's not safe because of open carry law.
It's safe because of the thin population, the kind of

(01:50:48):
people who are there. You know, you could lots of
reasons why it's safe. Thoughts on Brian Johnson and they
don't dye movement, I mean, Brian Johnson my only thought.
I mean, he's a bit of a freak and it's
a little crazy what he's doing. But on the other hand,

(01:51:09):
let him do it. I'm eager to learn what works
and what doesn't. He's a guinea pig and I don't
know what the movement is. The idea of not dying,
I'm cool with that. I think that's great if it's achievable.
Let's learn from people like Brian Johnson, what works and
what doesn't, and then do it and apply it to

(01:51:30):
as many people as possible. So I think he's a
weird guy, and I've seen documentaries about him and stuff,
and he's kind of a weird guy. But he's doing
something that will benefit all of us, and he seems
to be enjoying it, seems to value it. So go
for it. Right, We've got eight minutes. We'll see. There
might be a few questions. I have to wait for tomorrow.
Michael says. Democrats in nineteen nineties there a big gouman

(01:51:52):
is over that was book Clinton. Democrats they free stuff
twenty twenty five. Yeah, but I don't know why you're
just saying Demo Republicans today free stuff twenty twenty five.
I mean, look at Trump, who wants to send us
all a check funded with debt for two thousand dollars
Reggie Tucker whitewash. Point is Trump whitewash Tucker? Trump is

(01:52:14):
irredeemably eviable after this, No good action of his will
change my verdict of Trump. That's been my verdict of
Trump for ten years. So I'm with you, Kim. Should
one go to New York City before and Donny ruins it. No,
I mean, I mean, sure, go to New York City,
But you're going to be fine in New York City
after mo'm Donnie's there as well. He's not going to

(01:52:36):
ruin it. New York City's not gonna be ruined quickly.
And my guess is a year into ma'm Donnie's reign
as mayor, you won't see much of a difference. Now.
I might be wrong. He might move very fast, and
he might he might ultimately defund the police, even though
that wasn't part of his agenda. But we'll see. I
wouldn't rush to do it. Go see New York Bogdan,

(01:53:02):
please answer the dilemma email paid for by PayPal. I'll
look for it. I don't remember seeing a dilemma email.
Maybe I did. God, my memory is so freaking bad.
I'll look for it. I apologize, all right, Rafel, very

(01:53:23):
good week in m and A. Got eight offers on
my first deal. Cheers you on congratulations. That's terrific, terrific, terrific.
You know, Rafel is going to be a gazillion you know,
gazillionaire one day, running a private equity fund, you know,
buying and selling companies, and he's going to become a big, big,
big time contributor to the run bookshop. All right, is

(01:53:48):
it necessary to understand the origin of your irrational emotions
to correct them? Can you just recognize why it is
irrational and act rationally? Well, something that you can act rationally.
The question is what you still feel the emotion? You
at least need to I don't know if you have
to identify, Probably not, But you have to really do

(01:54:10):
the work of undoing, of trying to figure out what
kind of conclusions led to it and trying to undo those,
so it takes real work. You shouldn't act based on
irrational emotions or emotions based on irrational ideas and emotions
and every irrational they just are right. They're based on
irrational conclusions, some of them. But you need to change

(01:54:34):
those conclusions one way or the other, and that takes work.
And then because what you want is not to be
confronted with those emotions. Lincoln, in my opinion, the prestigious
colleges would accept more people, but would be a lot
harder to finish once you get into Harvard and Stanford
is basically a cakewalk these days. I mean American universities

(01:54:57):
are easy. I mean, having come from the university, American
universities are generally easy. I don't know if Horbard and
Stafford are cakewalks, but they do have great inflation. Definitely,
I know that in Stanford, so yes, it should be
a lot harder. Okay, last question, I like numbers. If
we shouldn't rebel to fight tyranny, how can you then

(01:55:19):
say a people are responsible for their own deaths if
they let themselves live in tuny Oh. I didn't say
you shouldn't rebel. I just don't think you should expect
to be successful. I mean you should rebel because you
should fight for freedom, But the odds are that you
won't prevent freedom by fighting. This is why you should

(01:55:40):
fight the intellectual battle well before it gets to the
point where you have to use weapons. Weapons are a
last resort. Try to fight tyranny before the need for
weapons rises. So fight it intellectually, ideologically, before it becomes tuanny.

(01:56:01):
All right, thank you everybody. We basically reached our target
with five dollars off. Maybe someone can step in with
five dollars, but we basically reached our target. I appreciate that.
Thank you. Volsha reached my heart stop. I will see
you all tomorrow. By everybody,

All Episodes

Tariffs; Financial Risk; Epstein; MTG; Hamas; Settlers; Chile; Mexico; UK | Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Crime Junkie

Stuff You Should Know

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Tariffs; Financial Risk; Epstein; MTG; Hamas; Settlers; Chile; Mexico; UK | Yaron Brook Show