Government Efficiency

Europeans are confused with what's going on across the Atlantic. Is Trump really as bad as people make him out to be? Aren't businessmen the best people to put into office? How can we make sense of recent events using business administration management theory? In this episode we dip our toe into the quagmire that is current American politics.

Support the show

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
To solve , uh, inefficiency in the state.
Isn't it a good idea?

Speaker 2 (00:06):
Uh , no. .

Speaker 1 (00:08):
Okay .

Speaker 2 (00:08):
Yeah, because , all right , well first off,

Speaker 3 (00:13):
People

Speaker 2 (00:13):
Have been asking me to make sense of what's been
going on lately. So I invitethem down to the studio and we
sit down and they get to say ,I'm going to ask you a bunch of
questions, and I want themanswered

Speaker 3 (00:24):
Immediately. Give these people air , give these
people air, come on

Speaker 2 (00:36):
Co . Hagan , give these people air .

Speaker 1 (00:40):
My name is Mitri .
And today I wanted to speakabout one topic that's quite
popular among quite a lot ofpeople around the world. This
topic is Trump.

Speaker 2 (00:50):
Yeah. .

Speaker 1 (00:52):
So the question is , uh, is very simple. I just hear
quite a lot of news and I hearother people speak about what
is happening in the world. Now,a lot of people say that Trump
is doing quite a lot of badthings to the world and to the
economy and to his own country.
At the same time, I see quite alot of things. Well, it's been

(01:13):
how many, two or three weekssince he was , uh, inaugurated.
Right . And I see quite a lotof action, or at least I see
it. I don't really know what ishappening. But I see quite a
lot of action. And I think itis positive because how many
years before, a lot of peopletried to achieve quite a lot of
things. Mm-hmm .

(01:33):
But nothing was reallyachieved. A lot of discussions,
a lot of concerns anddiscussions, and again,
concerns. And now the guy comesinto his second , uh, term and
he's , uh, doing quite a lot ofthings. So why is that ?

Speaker 2 (01:49):
Well, I mean, I guess we have to ask , uh, from
what perspective are we talkingabout ? Because if you're an
American citizen or if you havea stake in America, that's
gonna be one answer. If you'rea European citizen, I'm gonna
have a different answer. And ifyou're a Russian citizen, I'll
have like a complete different,so if you're asking about why
is he bad for Russia, that'llbe a different thing. I'm going

(02:10):
to say that . Is it , why is hebad for America? So like, which
perspective? Or do you wantmultiple perspectives or what?

Speaker 1 (02:18):
Yeah, that's a very good question. Let's start with
American perspective. Sowhatever he's doing right now,
is it bad for America andAmericans?

Speaker 2 (02:25):
The short answer, yeah. Obviously it's bad. And
generally almost everythinghe's doing is bad. Now, of
course, there are some thingsif you wanna look at it , uh,
well , not if you want to, Iguess, because you should be
looking at this kind of, from aneutral perspective without too
many biases. There are somethings that he's doing maybe in
a very unorthodox way, but Iwould say like are legitimately

(02:48):
good. But of course, I hate tobring, you know , 'cause
everyone like brings Hitler tothis, but it's basically like,
okay, like , likeHitler made Volkswagen

Speaker 1 (02:56):
On the second, the second minute. And , uh,

Speaker 2 (02:58):
Yeah , yeah , exactly . Now my , everyone
talks about Hitler 'cause it'ssuch an easy thing to bring to
it. It immediately crystallizesthe thoughts. So like, okay,
Hitler brought Volkswagen,right? He made Volkswagen and
Volkswagen's a really goodcompany. So objectively that's
a good thing that Hitler did.
But the question is, is itworth all the bad things that
he did to make Volkswagen? Oris there another way where he

(03:19):
can make Volkswagen without allthe nasty stuff? So when I
caveat things to say , evenwhen I'm talking about, okay,
there are some things if I'mtrying to be very neutral and
objective that he's doing thatare maybe good, is it worth all
the bad things that he's doing?
So there's always that subtextto it. So I guess obviously
he's done a lot of things. I I, I wanna push back 'cause he
hasn't done a lot of action.

(03:41):
He's done a lot of noise. Veryfew of the things that he's
done is actually actioned,well, I shouldn't say that e
either because they haven'tbeen materialized yet. 'cause
obviously it won't been twoweeks. And the danger is they
are going to be actionable. Butyeah, he's, he's done a lot of
noise and there's a lot ofmoving and shaking whether
that's going to result inconcrete action. That's to be
determined. But Sure. I mean ,uh, yeah, he's done a lot of

(04:03):
things. So like whatspecifically do you wanna talk
about or what general things?
And then we could like talkabout it.

Speaker 1 (04:08):
Okay. I expected this , uh, with this kind of
answer because of course it isquite early to , to assess two
weeks. Yeah . Or

Speaker 2 (04:14):
The beginning. Yeah.
But like to your credit, likewhen Hitler was doing ,
everybody hit up , because thething is like when Hitler was
doing all this in , uh, was itlike 1932 or 1933? When was the
enabling act? Uh, that was likeafter, wait , the restock fire
was, was that 32? I forget. Butbasically, yeah, he's doing a
lot of things in 34 and you'relike, oh, is this gonna be ,

(04:37):
uh, you know, a problem? Like,not that that's the time to
analyze it. You don't wannawait till 1939 when Germany's
already off the deep end. So toyour point, yeah, it's good to
analyze it now before itbecomes 1939 Germany .

Speaker 1 (04:49):
Okay. I agree with you. There is quite a lot of
noise. But let's, instead ofspeaking about actions, because
there is no action so far,let's consider this noise as
intentions.

Speaker 2 (04:59):
Yeah, sure. Yeah , no , that's fair.

Speaker 1 (05:01):
So if for example, if we could have , uh, somebody
else being the president of theUnited States or any other
president, there would havebeen like first hundred of days
of preparation, another coupleof years of doing a lot of
measurements and discussionsand and so on and so forth. So

(05:22):
from this perspective, thedifference for me as a
foreigner to the US is thatthere is a person who knows,
well, he came prepared first ofall.

Speaker 2 (05:33):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (05:34):
He knows what he's going to do.

Speaker 2 (05:36):
Yes.

Speaker 1 (05:38):
Uh , yeah . First I should have done the
disclaimer. I'm not hissupporter. I'm just Sure, sure.
I need to understand how itworks.

Speaker 2 (05:43):
Yeah, of course. So

Speaker 1 (05:45):
He knows what he needs to do. Mm-hmm
. He knows whatis good, I hope for his country
and probably even he knows whatis good for rest of the world,
for like Greenland, Europe. And, uh, again, that's what I
feel. I mean, the guy has anagenda. Yeah. So the first good

(06:05):
thing, let's go step by step .
The first good thing is that ifit were somebody else, we could
have spent like couple of yearsjust for preparation. Now he
just, he steps in and he tttyou know, doing whatever he
wants to do. Yeah. Isn't itgood or isn't bad?

Speaker 2 (06:21):
No. Okay. I , I , I agree with you. Okay. So the
thing is, or we say he knowswhat he needs to do, we have to
like remember that. Yeah. Inhis mind, he knows what he
needs to do. That means likesomeone listening from the
outside looking and it's like,okay, this guy's clearly an
idiot and he's wrong. Okay,fine, fair, that's fine. But
all we can look at it from hismind is he has an idea, however

(06:43):
stupid or Right. It is. Andhe's saying, okay, I'm going do
an action on it and I'm goingto do it. And to your point,
yes, he's good at that. 'causehe's just coming in, he's not
waiting around for this likefirst a hundred days bs he's
like basically first a hundredminutes, you know, with that
whole like, scene of thesigning a ton of , uh,
executive orders. So, and partof the problem with in America

(07:06):
is the frustration of theelectorate is that the
government is not doing enough.
And there's, there's a lot ofinaction. There's a lot of
hemming and hawing. Now ,that's my design, I think
because of , uh, some of thepartisan bickering. But to
Trump's credit, you know, I ,you know , I try to be like, as
fair as possible. Yeah. He asbad , again, personally, I

(07:27):
think it's bad disastrousagenda. But to his credit, as
bad as disastrous as I think itis, he came in and says , I'm
gonna enact this agenda. Andhe's moving along with it. So,
yeah, you're right. And , andthat assuming if it was a good
agenda that I would support, Iwould say yes, that's a good
thing. So I'd have to holdmyself to be honest and say yes
by itself without looking atthe actual agenda. Yes. It's a

(07:51):
good thing. 'cause he's actionand , and America needs an
action. 'cause we've beenfloundering since the nineties.

Speaker 1 (07:55):
Okay. So first we realized that it is good to
have a plan. Right. The secondthing I was thinking of is we
don't know the full agenda,because I just , uh, remember
the news from, I think it wasyesterday when he was with
Netanyahu and he wanted to moveall of the people from Gaza.
And ,

Speaker 2 (08:15):
And did you see his expression? He's like,
.

Speaker 1 (08:19):
I , I , yes, I've seen it , but we don't
know the full picture. Mm-hmm . Because
probably only couple of peoplein the world knows that. So
maybe he doesn't even know whathe's going to speak about in
the next couple of minutes.

Speaker 2 (08:32):
I think that's the more accurate statement . Yeah.

Speaker 1 (08:34):
Which I, to be honest, I don't really believe
in because when you are , howold is he? Like, almost 80 or
over?

Speaker 2 (08:41):
Yeah. I think he's like 82.

Speaker 1 (08:43):
82. So you should be super stupid if you don't know
what you're going to say in thenext couple of minutes when you
are 80. So you have, the guyhas experience. But again ,
let's take a couple of secondsbefore we , we get there. The
second thing, he has agenda andwhatever he, he has made so
far, his first intention is tothink about America first. I

(09:04):
mean, he wants to make Americagreat again. Again. I

Speaker 2 (09:07):
At least that's what he says. Yeah , yeah ,

Speaker 1 (09:08):
Exactly. Exactly. In general, is it a bad thing? I
mean, no . Yeah . The presidentis thinking about America and ,
uh, he's not thinking about howto make the world better and
this so and so forth .

Speaker 2 (09:19):
Well, I mean, at the surface level of your statement
or question, yeah. It's , it isa good thing. But of course you
have to analyze the saying is ,is what he doing a is it for,
is it actually for makingAmerica great? And b, is what
he's doing actually going tomake America great? And those
two things, I would answer tothe contrary.

Speaker 1 (09:39):
And to be honest, I don't know what, what was the
definition of great and what isthe definition of making
America great and why, again, Imean, those are the, all of the
questions I think all the restof the world is asking mm-hmm
. But at leastthe second point that he's
making is that he's making hiscountry better. Again, we're
looking into the, the rule ofother presidents mm-hmm

(10:03):
. Who wanted togo to different countries to
invade this , this and that. Uh, he's at least what he says,
he's focusing on his owncountry. He doesn't care about
everything else. Again, atleast what he says is the
second thing. The third thingis that he hires, and this is ,
I I , I wanted to to speakabout that as well. He hires

(10:24):
the top richest man in theworld and the most efficient
person in the world as hethinks

Speaker 2 (10:30):
Allegedly.

Speaker 1 (10:31):
Yes. Allegedly to solve , uh, inefficiency in the
state. Again, isn't it a goodidea?

Speaker 2 (10:38):
Uh, no

Speaker 1 (10:40):
Okay.

Speaker 2 (10:40):
Yeah, because all right , well first off, being
rich doesn't necessarily , uh,make you qualified for
anything. And that , that'slike, that , that's one of my
biggest problems with all ofthis, is that people tend to
listen to rich people justbecause they're rich. And
that's not, I'm saying there'sa difference between rich and
successful. If you'resuccessful and you also happen

(11:03):
to be rich, obviously let'slisten to you and , and let's
listen to you in the field thatyou're, you know, you became
successful in. But the thingis, with Musk, I'm assuming
that's who you're talkingabout, right? Yes, sir . Is
that okay? Uh, I describe this, I wanna get around,
I'm gonna sidestep that for asecond because I don't even

(11:24):
know how to formulate that. Butthe thing is, making the
government efficient is notwhat you want to do. A business
person is the last person youwant to be in the government,
because a government and abusiness are basically two
sides of a different coin. Buthe's not in

Speaker 1 (11:39):
The government, per se. Well , he is hired, he's
external per , he's acontractor working for, for as

Speaker 2 (11:47):
Far as I know. Well , that makes it even worse
'cause he has not beholden toanything or anyone. Well,

Speaker 1 (11:52):
He has some interests. I don't know what ,
what exactly.

Speaker 2 (11:55):
No , we know what his interests are. His

Speaker 1 (11:58):
Okay. Yes. Yeah . So again, I'm a president. Yeah.
I'm in inheriting thatinefficient machine with
thousands and tens andthousands of bureaucracy,
people pushing the paper fromone table to another. Okay. And
I see that I need to dosomething with that. So if I'm
using the old methods mm-hmm . That my

(12:19):
predecessors were using, I , Iwouldn't be successful in a
couple years. And , uh, I thinkTrump has only four years for
to , to achieve whatever hewants to achieve. Okay . So
he's hiring somebody Yeah . Whois absolutely like an external
consultant. Mm-hmm . Who is , uh,
really focused on doing whathe's doing and regardless of

(12:41):
his interest, he has his plan ,how to optimize things . Right.

Speaker 2 (12:44):
You know ? Okay.
Well then there's three thingsI want to answer to that. Well,
first off, as you know, withconsultants, right, you want a
consultant that doesn't haveany stake in the , uh, in the
situation, right? You don't ,you don't want conflicts of
interest, correct? No . Okay.
So if you wanna hire this guy,okay, fine. Just forget about
the government for a second. Ifyou hire a consultant for your

(13:05):
business and they have likestocks or whatever in a
competitor, would you trustwhat the consultant is saying?

Speaker 1 (13:12):
Not necessarily.

Speaker 2 (13:13):
Not necessarily. Or no, .

Speaker 1 (13:16):
Well, I believe that , uh, they, they didn't have
any other person, the betterperson to choose from. So I ,

Speaker 2 (13:23):
I know population of 360 million or whatever, you
don't have,

Speaker 1 (13:27):
That was the choice.
Well ,

Speaker 2 (13:29):
That was his choice, but there's multiple choice .

Speaker 1 (13:31):
Yeah , true, true, true. For good or bad reasons.
Yeah . But I still want tofocus on, on Trump. So he's
hiring somebody even with someside interest that is likely
possible, but he's hiringsomebody who is external and
who is committed to bringing anefficiency . Well,

Speaker 2 (13:47):
No , I would push back there 'cause he's not
external.

Speaker 1 (13:49):
Okay.

Speaker 2 (13:50):
Okay. Because I , I mean, I understand where you're
coming from, thinking like he'sexternally, he's not in the
government. Yeah. But the factthat he has government
contracts and the fact that hisportfolio is reliant on what
the gov actions of thegovernment are, he is strict
definition of what external isand what most people are like
telling about external, he is100% not external at all. He
has a vested interest in movingthe levers of government in a

(14:13):
specific way that enricheshimself. And even if you're
saying, oh no, it's not there ,religion himself, well fine,
but he has like clear conflictof interest there, which under
normal circumstances wouldrequire someone to recuse
themselves from doing it. Inindustries that have
professional ethics or even inlaw there you have ethical
obligations where you wouldhave to recuse yourself. So

(14:33):
that, and again, he's 100%absolutely not external in any
way because he wealth comesfrom what actions the
government takes. So from thevery beginning, I would say
that's a ill-formed question orstatement because he's
absolutely not external.

Speaker 1 (14:50):
Okay. Let's forget about this external part of the
question. There is somebody whois committed to do optimization
in your government. So you areinviting somebody who, okay,
not external, he's part of thesystem, but he knows what needs
to be done.

Speaker 2 (15:06):
Does he ?

Speaker 1 (15:07):
Uh , that's a question. I'm still holding my
role and I'm, I'm definitelyexternal person and not
American and looking from, fromoutside. Alright .

Speaker 2 (15:14):
Okay. So there's two things that here that I want to
discuss. First is whatoptimization, efficiency, and
also who actually does theoptimization efficiency. So
make sure I I touch on both ofthose things. Okay. So the
first thing is, my problem withbusiness people working in the
government is that they don'tunderstand what the role of the
government is. A business Yes.
Has to be efficient. Becausethe point is you wanna maximize

(15:38):
your profit so that you havemore resources to , uh, create
the goods and services that islike classic , uh, economics,
right? So the more efficient,the more lean you are, the more
of an opportunity you have touse the resource that you
garner to , uh, make more stuffso you can make more profit.
Right? And even if you're not acapitalist, you can look at
other economic systems. Butagain, the point is you wanna

(15:59):
be efficient so that you enrichyourself some way or somehow
even if you're a communist,okay? You wanna be efficient
because it's each to their ,uh, was it each according to
their , uh, means and needs .
Needs . Yeah . Yeah . The firstpart . Yeah . Right? Yeah,
exactly. Each , each accordingto their , uh, means and each
according to their needs orhowever the expression goes,

(16:20):
right ? So you want to beefficient with that. So do you
only do what you're able to doand you only give enough for
people's needs, right? So alleconomic systems are all about
efficiency. Governments are notsupposed to be efficient,
they're supposed to beresilience or robust because
business can fail. If abusiness fails, you can make a
new business, right? It's not abig problem. But a government,

(16:42):
it needs to be able to standagainst stresses. And if you're
efficient and lean, that meansyou don't have any backup or
resiliency where something badhappens that the government,
the system can progress.

Speaker 1 (16:55):
So you wanna say that government cannot be
efficient,

Speaker 2 (16:59):
Not only cannot be, it should not be. And here's
the distinction here, becausewhat I think a lot of people
confuse is that, okay, well thegovernment is inefficient in
its processes, okay? Processes,yes, absolutely should be
efficient, but systems shouldnot, and this is something that
we like, do like in themilitary, because you don't
want a military to beefficient, right? Because for
example, I mean if you wannatalk about like, you know, the

(17:20):
Ukraine invasion, Russia wassuper efficient with its three
day special military operation.
Putin provided only the bareminimum amount of people forces
to go and capture , uh, kyiv.
And , uh, and supposedly thatshould have been enough for
Ukraine to capitulate. But ofcourse, because there was

(17:40):
resistance and everything likethat, and because he provided
such an efficient force at thefirst sign of distress, the
entire invasion collapsed. Andthen now we're in year three.
Whereas with, you know,Americans or the West, usually
when they commit to a militaryaction, second Iraq war ,
notwithstanding, again , that'sa whole entire different
discussion, you overcommit yourforces so that they can

(18:02):
withstand the pressure of theenemy, right? Because , you
know, I could say in themilitary, with any plan
strategy that you have, theenemy has a vote as well. So
you want to be able to , uh,weather the storm of any
complication. And that bydefinition is not efficient.

Speaker 1 (18:20):
Let's come back to the government. We just
realized that we cannot definegovernment in terms of
efficiency, right? That's what

Speaker 2 (18:25):
Well , no, you could define them as , uh, in terms
of efficiency. But the thingis, if a government is
efficient, then by definitionthen they're not resilient.
They're not robust, which meansthey're prone to collapse. And
governments, that's what keepssocieties basically together.
And they need to be resilient.
They need to be weathered . Thestress and the storm of things.
Class example is, you know, ourold people, they're a drain on

(18:45):
the economy, you know, if youwill, because you know, they're
not contributing to theeconomy. And if anything, we're
giving them money with socialsecurity and all this other
stuff. So technically they'renot efficient. So maybe are we
gonna do like Eskimo and put'em on a iceberg and let them
flow out into the ocean anddie? No, we take care of 'em
because that's what the socialcontract requires of us to do.
And that's not, that's notefficient, but it's robust and

(19:07):
resilient because it allowspeople to say, Hey, I'm going
to stay within this countrybecause I know as I get older
I'm gonna be taken care of.
Right? And these are thesystems of the government. But
the thing is, sure, when you'reactually doing , uh,
undertaking a system or abureaucracy or whatever like
that, the processes within thesystem or the processes in the,
in the bureaucracy, those canbe inefficient. And that

(19:29):
should, yes, those should befixed, but that's not something
you go into the budget and say,oh, I'm gonna cut the money
from all that. Those are publicpolicy things. Those are not
economic or financialdecisions. And I think that's
what people confuse, because intheir mind they're thinking,
okay, why does it take 27documents for me to change my
driver's license when it shouldonly take like one document,

(19:50):
right? That's a inefficiency inthe process. But the ability to
be able to transfer a driver'slicense from one country to
another, that's a system thatshould be implemented and
cutting it out and saying , no,that's like inefficient.
Everyone should just have only, uh, go through the, you know,
your country's driver's licenseprocedure. And we don't want

(20:12):
other, we don't want the , uh,inefficiencies of trying to
integrate other people's, othercountry's driver's , licensees.
You could make that argument,but that's not a good argument
because you want people to cometo your country. You want
immigrants, right? High scale ,high skilled people, and you
want them to be able to easilytransfer their driver's
license. You know, that's likea specific example. So there's
a difference between havingsystem efficiencies and process

(20:34):
efficiencies. Okay. Now,

Speaker 1 (20:37):
So sorry for interrupting you . No ,

Speaker 2 (20:38):
Go

Speaker 1 (20:38):
Ahead . How efficient America right now in
terms of this , in terms ofsystem efficiency and process
efficiency?

Speaker 2 (20:46):
No, no , that , that's a very fair point. There
are a lot of quoteinefficiencies in the
government. There's a lot ofprocess inefficiencies, okay ?
Right. And sure, there might besystem inefficiencies too. But
the point here is that that'snot what Musk is doing. That's
not what Donald Trump is doing.
Because you can't go to thebudget, the national budget and
say, oh, these things areinefficient and I'm gonna get

(21:08):
rid of 'em . 'cause thatdoesn't address the
inefficiency. Finance has nosay in finance is the outcome
of inefficiency's, the resultof inefficiency. It's not the
the input for inefficiency. Soyou can't just say, oh, I'm
gonna remove this , uh, thefunding for this system that I
don't like because it'sinefficient. No, first off,
with the government, there's adecision, like through

(21:31):
democracy , it's through the,you know , will of the people
and through autocracies,through the will of the
autocrat. But either way, it'sthe will of the government, of
the country, of the state, ofthe sovereign to say, we need
to have the system. And withthat, we're going to fund the
system so that it can operateby removing the funding of that
system. You're not making itefficient or inefficient,
you're just going against thewill of the state. You know,

(21:52):
whether it's, again, is throughthe people or the autocratic
doesn't matter, right? Thepoint is the government has
made decision, this systemshould be in place and
therefore we should fund it.
Now you can argue that, okay,the system that you put in
place is not efficient, good,but the financial decisions of
funding that system has nothingto do with it. That's a public
policy thing. That's where you,like, you pass laws or pass

(22:14):
regulations and say, okay, Iwanna make the system efficient
and it make some public policydecision. Finance has no
bearing on it at all. Andthat's the issue here. So what
Musk and Trump are doing bycutting off the slashing lines
from the budget, first of all,it's completely illegal, which
we'll get back to, but toaddress your point here, you're
not addressing anyinefficiency. You're just
cutting it out and you're goingagainst the will of the state

Speaker 1 (22:37):
Fair points . And I was thinking about that as well
to me , uh, and again, maybeit's , uh, false thinking, but
to me, running the governmentis very close to running an
enterprise.

Speaker 2 (22:48):
I I wouldn't say it's the complete opposite.

Speaker 1 (22:50):
And this is what I probably, if again, I told in
the beginning that I'll beasking very stupid questions.
No, no ,

Speaker 2 (22:55):
No , no, please , no , no , no .

Speaker 1 (22:56):
Uh , I've spent like last , uh, 20 years in the
enterprises, right ? And I knowquite a lot of, quite a lot of
things about democracy . Oh,sorry, democracy. Yeah .
bureaucracy. ,that's a nice one. Bureaucracy
in the enterprise. Yeah . So,and I think this is where we
see things differently. And ifby the end of the conversation

(23:17):
I'm understanding the answer tothis question, I I'll be super
happy . Yeah,

Speaker 2 (23:20):
Sure.

Speaker 1 (23:21):
Now, I truly believe that when we have a huge
enterprise, there is , uh, youknow, tens and thousands, well,
hundreds and thousands ofpeople, yeah , you need to,
even though there is some , uh,some profit that you need to
deliver, even if it's privatecompany or not private
corporate , it doesn't matter.
But you have to maintain thishundreds, thousands of people.

(23:44):
Somehow you need to providesome policies, you need to
provide some motivation and soon and so forth. Now, the same
I think is happening to thegovernment because you have,
okay, instead of 200,000people, you have 300 million
people. Okay? This is one ofthe differences. But also you
have the same people. You haveto motivate them. You have to
give them means to work, tomaintain their lives, to bring

(24:07):
the profit to the government,to bring it back to the
country. So, and for me, again,I understand the country
doesn't have any concretegoals. You just need to live on
and prosperity and so on and soforth. But for me, running a
country and running theenterprise to some extent, not
fully, but to some extent isthe same thing. You need to
take care about the people. Youneed to take care about the

(24:29):
processes you need to , to takecare about the resilience. As
you mentioned. I , I agree withyou, you need to take care
about the bureaucracy becauseit exists here and there. And
in this regard , optimizing theboth is basically the same
task. So there is a guy, andI'm coming back to that. There
is a guy who knew CEO coming torun the huge enterprise who

(24:51):
says, okay, I'm the smartestone here, so I probably will
make mistakes, but we'll gothere maybe. And what you
mentioned just a couple ofminutes ago that they are doing
something, he's doing somethingthat has not been voted for. So
prob first, some of the thingsare legal. Second, those tasks
have not been voted for, if Iunderstand correctly. So it is

(25:14):
just purely his own will. Now,he might make his mistakes. And
of course, and this is the roleof, of the country , uh, of
course quite a lot of peoplewill be against that. And he
will receive , uh, immediatefeedback, of course. So he will
repeat himself and again andagain, again. And in the end,
it should be okay again, if I'munderstanding this process ,

Speaker 2 (25:36):
Uh , I'm lost. I understand .

Speaker 1 (25:38):
Okay. So he, the , the guy is running his country
and he has a agenda . He wantsto optimize quite a lot of
things to run things smoothly.
He has, he's doing that infront of everybody, so
everybody can give himfeedback.

Speaker 2 (25:52):
Okay? But notice what you just said, he wants to
optimize things that can runthrough smoothly. Yes . So that
your question or your statementimplies that there's a system
in place and you're trying tooptimize the process behind
that system, right? Yes. That'snot what Musk and Trump are
doing because they're nottrying to optimize the system.
They're just removing theentire system all together. The

(26:14):
process and calling thatefficiency, it sounds like I'm
being nitpicky here, but thisis the fundamental, this is
like the crux of the issuehere. It's like you have to
distinguish between efficientsystems and efficient
processes.

Speaker 1 (26:27):
Okay? So let me ask you straight, sorry for
interruption, for cutting yourshort . Do you understand what
they want to achieve?

Speaker 2 (26:32):
Yeah, of course. And everyone knows, I mean, it's
project 2025, and it isbasically just like Hitler did,
mind confide and he explainedeverything there. The
Republicans and Trump speci ,you know , and his team, they
wrote everything down inproject 2025. They literally
just wrote everything there.
And that's exactly what they'reexecuting. So again, when we
initially started this line ,uh, a line of conversation,

(26:52):
yeah, I have to commend them onthe fact that they came in with
a plan, a bad plan, obviously,I think, but they have a whole
book and they're going to do itjust like Hitler. He had a
whole book and he said, this iswhat I'm gonna do. And yeah,
sure he did it. Obviously it's,it's a plan, but, you know,
yeah. But so we , we know whathe's going to do, and you know
what he's planning on doing,it's all written right there.

(27:12):
So let's

Speaker 1 (27:13):
Pretend I don't know this plan, could you please
elaborate a bit about

Speaker 2 (27:16):
It ? I mean , it's like got 800 pages or whatever
it is, so it's kind hard to do.
But, but

Speaker 1 (27:20):
There is a core idea about that, so,

Speaker 2 (27:23):
Well, yeah. The core ideas is, if I'm being very
generous to them, is that theywant to run the government like
a business and basically makeit completely lean, which
basically would mean adisastrous end to the country
because okay, you were talkingabout, okay, if a CEO comes in
and he wants to make thingsefficient in the business, it's

(27:44):
like, okay, yeah . What abusiness does is they're trying
to gain resources, right? Andthen basically whatever is
efficient, whatever'sprofitable, that's what they're
going to do. So they're notgonna go work in a unprofitable
sector. And in fact, like, youknow, with private equity and
leveraged buyouts and thingslike that, you know , like the
Bain guys, you know, BCG types,those people, you know, what

(28:05):
they do is they come into acompany, right? They buy it
out, right ? And say, oh, thiscompany is inefficient, and
what do they do? They firepeople and they slash some
business sectors and say, thismarket's no longer profitable,
so we're not gonna go work withthat. We're gonna work on this
super lucrative thing. And alot of times they end up
cannibalizing the IP andselling it out because they
don't realize all the, thevalue chain. But that's a

(28:26):
different story in entirely.
But the point is, they slash awhole bunch of things, they've
removed systems, right? Andmake a super efficient lean or
essentially super profitable,and then they sell it at a
profit, right? And that's whata good quote , good businessman
does. Okay? But if you're agovernment though, you don't
want to do that because ifyou're running Russia, running

(28:47):
things in Moscow and St .
Petersburg might be prettyefficient because it's a big
city and there's a lot ofpeople. So it is very efficient
and like things can be verycheap. But the service that you
provide in Moscow, you alsohave to provide it in, you
know, I don't know , KetterGreenberg , gimme another, like
really out there city, all Iknow is the Kettering Berg , no
, yeah, Nova severe , right?
But the thing is, providing theservices to Nova risk is not

(29:11):
efficient at all because it'sway out there. It's hard to get
there. There's only a couplepeople there to service, right?
So if I'm going from a CEObusiness mentality, I'm just be
like, oh, forget Nova severe ,I don't really care about them
and just let them flounderbecause it's not very
profitable, it's not veryefficient. I'm only gonna focus
on Moscow and St. Petersburg,right? But if you do that,

(29:33):
what's the point of thecountry? And, you know, you can
lead to like other problems andriots and everything like that.
The thing is, a governmentdoesn't have the option to say,
okay, let's divest from thissector. It's like, no, you have
to, you have to provideservices to everyone, and you
have to provide for thelifecycle of whatever system
that you're trying to give. Soif you're going to provide food

(29:54):
to Nova for the citizens andNova bearers , you also have to
worry about the sanitation. Youcan't just be a businesses give
'em like , Hey , whateverhappens afterwards, that's not
my problem. It's like, no,everything, the entire life
cycle from the cradle to thegrave is all your problem. You
have to work on it. And a lotof these things may not be
efficient, may not beprofitable, and , and this
specifically, I mean, I I'msaying Nova Spirits because

(30:15):
like , you're Russian , buteven for like Americans, right?
America, I mean theRepublicans, they always say,
oh, look, it , it's a RedAmerica with just a couple of
blue dots. But yeah, well,those little tiny blue dots,
that's geographically, that'swhere all the population is.
But to their point, most ofAmerica is pretty much empty
land. But the thing is, likewhen we run the postal service
Yeah. Running the postal .
Sorry ,

Speaker 1 (30:34):
When you say land , what do you mean? What do ,

Speaker 2 (30:37):
When you say empty land , like it's hardly anyone
lives there. Like you look inthe middle of Texas, outside of
like Dallas, Austin, Houston,whatever, there's like hardly
anyone there. So if you're ,like, for example, if I'm
running the postal service orI'm running electricity mm-hmm
. Yeah. It'ssuper efficient and super
profitable to provideelectricity or postal service
to people in Austin or New YorkCity or Los Angeles, right? But

(30:58):
the government doesn't have anoption to only work with those
people. I mean, matter of fact,the whole point of the , the
system of the United Statesfrom the constitution, when
they were arguing even beforethe constitution, the
Declaration of Independence,there's the question of, okay,
should we secede from GreatBritain or not? And then , you
know, all the northern states,because they were very
industrial, like yeah, youknow, the king, right? Like the

(31:20):
hounds in the game of throats, . But then , but , but
like all the southern stateswere more agrarian. They're
like, no, no, we don't wanna dothat because, you know, they
had different wants anddifferent needs. And also,
again, an agrarian placeseveryone's spread out,
providing services to thesepeople is not efficient at all.
And it's not quote profitable.
So you can't have a businessCEO come in and be like, okay,

(31:41):
I'm gonna run the country andI'm gonna cut out all these
services. Right? I mean ,that's like essentially what's
going on with France right now.
You know, like Macron, he'slike, oh , I'm , you know ,
business and everything likethat. I'm like really good at
all this stuff. And he is like,oh , I'm gonna cut out all
these social services and thenwhat , what's happening? And
everyone's off at him. Well, ofcourse people him , because you
can't run a government like abusiness. You have to provide
service to everyone, whetherit's profitable or not. Profit

(32:03):
or efficiency, again, from thesystem level is irrelevant.
Whatever the will of thegovernment is, whether it's the
people or the , the sovereign,you know, depending on what
type of government it is,that's the will of the state.
And you must enact the will ofthe state. Again, processes
sure can be efficient. If youwanna find a more efficient way
to bring mail or electricity tosomeone out in Nova , severe

(32:25):
score , you know , Aho ,Arizona, that's fine. But you
still have to provide theservices. You don't have an
option to divest like, like abusinessman does. That's the
main issue. And again, even ifI'm wrong, which I'm, you know,
obviously I'm not, but , but the thing is like
trying to addressinefficiencies, you can't go to
the balance sheet, right. Orthe income statement and just

(32:47):
cross things out and claimthat's sufficiency. That's not,

Speaker 1 (32:50):
That's that's clear.
Yeah . I , I understand. I'mcoming back to my question.
Yeah. Uh , you mentioned that800 pages , uh, yeah , yeah ,
yeah . Code of conduct orwhatever it's called, you are
saying that they definitelyknow what they want to achieve
mm-hmm . But fromthe outside or somebody from
outside of the , of the us theonly thing which is seen, and

(33:11):
again, I'm , IM talking aboutabsolutely stupid person who
hasn't read all of that. Butwhat we can see is that , uh,
he is trying to achieve thebest for , uh, majority of the
people in the US again, asseen.

Speaker 2 (33:24):
Yeah, well that's the propaganda that you saying
. Sure . Exactly.

Speaker 1 (33:27):
Exactly, exactly. I totally understand that. Yeah .
Uh , I totally understand thatthis is the reason for this
kind of conversations because , what I wanted
to hear, and this is what Ipartially received already, for
which people in the US it isbecoming better from whatever
he's doing. I hope it is notjust two people in in the US
that are profiting from what isbeing done.

Speaker 2 (33:46):
There's a lot of people probably, okay , there's
a whole organization behindthat project, 2025

Speaker 1 (33:50):
And , uh, who is , uh, going to lose 'cause of all
of the changes that are goingto be done.

Speaker 2 (33:57):
Well, most people are gonna lose from it because
if , okay, if I'm beinggenerous to these people, yes,
I'm gonna say is that they'renot evil, they're just
misinformed. Again, if I'mtrying to be like super
generous to these type people ,there's this erroneous belief
that hey, if you strip down theservices of the government, the
sizes of the government, right?
Then, you know, they don't haveto spend so much money on, on

(34:19):
services or whatever. And sotherefore all that will be
money savings, which means thennow you could like lower taxes
and if you to lower the taxes,then there's more money for
them, right? And that'sultimately what they wanna do,
is they don't want to paytaxes. I mean , we literally
were born because we didn'twant to pay taxes, right? In
know our country, right? Sothere's a big like anti-tax

(34:39):
thing, which is, you know, it'sfine. And like who, who the
hell wants to pay taxes? Butthe point is you're basically
sacrificing the government,right? The executive branch. So
that again, to be generous tothem, they're logical . Hey ,
if we make it so that thegovernment doesn't provide any
of these services, then thegovernment doesn't need to
collect the taxes from us topay for these services. So

(35:00):
let's just cut out all theseservices and we can keep, we ,
we don't have to pay taxes. Wekeep more of our money and let
the free quote, free marketprovide all these services to
people, right? But of course,we just explained that the free
market can't provide all theseservices, which, because again,
the free market might be ableto do it in like, you know, New
York or la but they're notgonna be able to do it for the

(35:20):
rest of the country. Andtherefore, and if you don't
have the rest of the countrythere, the agrarian and the
rural areas, well then thecountry will collapse because
the whole country is based offthe interaction of the rural
and the urban areas. Again, I'mbeing super, super generous and
it's all about cutting thegovernment to the bare minimum
so that we don't get taxed somuch or more like they don't

(35:41):
get taxed so much.

Speaker 1 (35:42):
Maybe I'm not seeing quite a lot of other things,
but , uh, so far we havediscussed that he's going to
cut well lines in the balancesheet. Yeah . Um, is there
anything else that he's tryingto do or probably doing behind
the scenes from, again, fromthe person from outside, I see
that he wants to take overGreenland.

Speaker 2 (36:02):
Yeah, those are, I mean , he's trying to do a lot
of different random things ,but that goes back to your
original question of like,okay, he wants to make America
great . Well , first of all ,he doesn't want , he wants to
make himself great again. Butyou know, that's neither here
nor there. You're saying, okay,you wanna make America great
again. And in his mind, whatmakes America great is
expanding the land. 'cause hewants to get Greenlands, he

(36:24):
wants to get Panama Canal. Hewants the what ? You don't
agree. I

Speaker 1 (36:28):
I see differently.
What,

Speaker 2 (36:29):
How do you see it?

Speaker 1 (36:29):
I see it as , uh, he doesn't want to get Panama O
okay, let's start withGreenland. He doesn't want to
get Greenland as such. He wantsto use it for some reasons,
which will serve back toAmerica. He doesn't want Canada
per se. Yeah . He wants to useCanada for some reasons that he
just says like , uh, be our 50stake , for example, right.

Speaker 4 (36:51):
To have access to Arctic

Speaker 1 (36:54):
Actually Exactly what? To have access to Arctic.
So, yeah . Uh , he doesn't wantland as such. If you can be our
partner, trusted partner thatwe can have everything without
ruling everything, that will beperfect. I don't see that he
wants to expand . I he wants touse , uh, external territories
for the sake of the,

Speaker 2 (37:14):
Okay, so first of all , that's wrong because he
absolutely wants to use 'em forthose things. But again, to be
generous, the things we alreadyhave access to the Arctic A, we
have Alaska and you say, oh,well that's not enough. We need
to have a Canada and Greenland.
Well, first off, we alreadyhave an agreement with
Greenland where we already havetroops there. We basically
we're in charge of their, thedefense of Greenland. And if we

(37:37):
wanna put more troops inGreenland, Denmark is like,
yeah, sure you can do that.
They're like, there's no upsideright now of buying Greenland.
If anything, there's a downsidebecause now all the costs are
on you right Now we have liketo use Trump's like word. We
have the best deal withGreenland because we get to put
our troops there foressentially for free for
nothing. And Denmark pays forit. Like he always talks about,

(38:00):
oh, we're America's beingscrewed 'cause we're doing this
and no one's paying for allthis. Like, other people should
pay for it. That's exactly whatwe have at Greenland. Denmark's
paying has all the problem ,all the costs associated with
Greenland, and we get to putour troops there for free. Now
, one of the reasons why theywanna do this is because
there's a lot of minerals andlike , uh, oil and gas, you
know, nearby the exclusiveeconomic zone, the EZ around

(38:22):
Greenland. And that's the main, the main reason why they want
to do that. But again, ifyou're a capitalist, which I'm
assuming Americans are, again,maybe you're not a capitalist,
you don't agree with this, butwe're talking about Trump and
you know, the quote Trump, theMaga Americans, you know, they
would say, oh yeah, I'm acapitalist. communism. Right?
Okay, well if you're acapitalist, then why would you
want Greenland? Because thewhole point of capitalism is

(38:43):
like to do trading and expandlike goods and services and use
the profit motive so that youcan enrich yourself. So if we
do more free trade withGreenland, Greenland, and by
extension Denmark becomes morepowerful, more rich, which
means we make do more trade andmore back and forth , uh, we
can enrich ourselves and wecan, all of us can make more
and more profit. So as acapitalist, there's no sense in

(39:05):
buying Greenland to do thatbecause we can just as easily
to trade with Denmark and, andenrich ourselves from that. And
same with the thing withCanada, for example. I mean
obviously, you know, likeNorad, right? That was like the
, the thorn in the Soviet Unionside is that we have, obviously
we have a ridiculously goodrelationship with Canada. And

(39:26):
since the days of like when ,um, when Soviet Union launched
their first intercontinentalballistic missile, we've
developed a system of NORADwhere we can use Canada,
Americans can use Canada tomonitor , uh, what's going on
in Russia in the Soviet Union.
And also we have access to allthe resources that , uh, Canada
like our military can go in andoperate in Canada. And we can

(39:47):
monitor, for example, thesubmarine activity around the
Arctic circle and all thatstuff. So we already have
access to , to the Arctic. Noneof this is necessary. And
you're saying, oh, well, again,back to your original point ,
okay, well, well we want to getCanada and uh, Greenland
because we wanna expand ourterritory 'cause that's what's
gonna make America great. It'slike, okay, fine. From a very
narrow perspective, that mightbe true. But the thing is, the

(40:10):
whole hegemony of America isbased on the fact that we have
this , this new rules-basedinternational order where
basically we're not gonna gotry to like do wars of conquest
and everything like that andeverything is gonna be trade.
'cause again, Americans we'relike the evil capitalist pig
dogs , right? As the SovietUnion would say. So for us is
we don't want wars of conquest'cause that's bad for business.

(40:33):
Soviet Union doesn't existanymore. Yeah, well ask Putin
that actually. Yeah , to befair, he cares about the
Russian Empire, right? Butyeah, but the thing is, yeah,
so it's like as the quote evilcapitalist that we are, you
know , America, we don't wantwars. 'cause wars are bad for
business. And if anything, wedon't want to buy or conquer
Greenland in Canada because allthat does is give incentive to

(40:55):
our enemies like Russia andChina and Iran to destabilize
and fight and like try toconquer other lands, which
again is ultimately it's badfor business, it's bad for
capitalism. So from a verynaive and narrow perspective,
sure, in the short term itmight be good to grab all this
stuff, but all that does isupend the international
rules-based order, where noweverything's back to before

(41:18):
World War ii , where hey, we'reall like balanced of power and
we're all fighting to get moreand more land, which is
obviously bad for business, badfor capitalism, and America's
power is based our major power,you know, source is business.
So is he

Speaker 1 (41:32):
Stupid or shortsighted? No, no.

Speaker 2 (41:34):
He , he both, again , like I , the things a lot of
people think like, oh, well howdo you know? You know, you
don't know him or like , butno, but the thing is, like, I
specifically myself, I'm a NewYorker, okay? I grew up in New
York City and in the eightiesand the nineties, I would
listen to the , the morningradio. I don't know how it is
in like in Russia or even inFrance right now, but like
usually in the morning radioyou have like the top 40 music,

(41:56):
but then you also have the DJthere and they're usually funny
and they have like interviewsand talks and everything like
that, right? So, and one of thethings is like Donald Trump
would love to come in and liketalk, right? 'cause he was like
the New York businessman.
Everyone knows him. And hewould come in and he was like
freaking hilarious. 'cause he,he , he's hilarious 'cause he's
stupid. But, but we all lovedhim because like, he's a moron,

(42:17):
but he's funny and he has anopinion on everything. And
because it's like, you know,funny morning talk show. We
just listened to him and hesays like, Hey, he's an idiot,
but he's our idiot. So

Speaker 1 (42:28):
That's why America elected him last year.

Speaker 2 (42:30):
Yeah, exactly. But , but like New Yorkers were like,
what ? Yeah , I, we acknowledgethat . Yeah, he's funny, but
he's an idiot. Like he's greatto be on a , on a radio talk
show, but he is absolutely notthe person you want to, you
know, be running in charge ofanything, not just the
business. 'cause again, all hisbusinesses failed, but, but
more importantly, the freakinggovernments. But

Speaker 1 (42:50):
I guess Democrats also would listen to his
podcast, right? Uh ,

Speaker 2 (42:53):
Yeah , everyone.
'cause he was , 'cause backthen he was considered a
Democrat. So why

Speaker 1 (42:56):
Didn't they find somebody to oppose him?

Speaker 2 (42:58):
Well, well, yeah, exactly. That's a good thing.
And that goes back to yourpoint here is like, yeah, like
what Trump was doing is thathey , he has this plan and he
is like in , you know, he'sdoing everything he can to
enact it within the first likea hundred minutes rather than a
hundred days. And I thinkthat's comes to the point of ,
uh, the broader point forAmerica is that Americas have
been frustrated that since the1990s when we were considered

(43:20):
like the top of the world, youknow, end of history , Soviet
Union collapse , America'snumber one now. And then we've
been solely declining. Andthey're saying like , why isn't
anyone doing anything to , tohelp us? And the Republicans
were like, you know, obviouslythey didn't care 'cause they
wanted , they had their ownobjectives. But the point was
the democratic party wassupposed to be the party that
was supposed to stop this andlike actually move things and

(43:41):
do things. And they haven'tdone that. And people have been
frustrated and sure you can seeand you go look at, obviously I
don't support him , but yeah,I'm impressed with the amount
of action or noise that he'sbeen doing. Right? And that
speaks to a lot of thefrustration of Americans is
that okay , things, somethingshould be happening. The
government should be doingsomething, but they're not
doing it. And the main reasonfor that is because the

(44:05):
Republicans have been purposelyhampering the abilities of the
government and shoestring handtying whatever the government
so that they can't do it. Sotherefore the government now is
inept because it doesn't havethe power to actually do the
things that it's supposed todo. And right now what's
changed with Trump is that thegovernment still doesn't have
the power to do anythingbecause again, like most of the
stuff he's saying is noise. Buthe's doing this boisterous

(44:27):
stuff that's making a lot ofnews press . So people thi a,
they think that something'sgoing on, even though it's not
happening and the things thatare going on are absolutely
100% illegal. Like if you don'tcare about the legality of
things, yeah, of course youcould do whatever the hell you
want.

Speaker 1 (44:41):
So in the end, there will be no harm for that
because , uh, you saying

Speaker 2 (44:44):
No , no , there will be harm because eventually the
system is going to breakbecause after so many
challenges, were going to bemissing things. And then sooner
or later the dam is going tobreak and there's going to be
the acceptance of a , uh, theillegality of his actions are
going to be considered normalor

Speaker 1 (44:59):
Legal . But hold on , uh, if it's illegal , uh,
there is a great court whichcan , uh, stop it or Well ,
there brought

Speaker 2 (45:05):
Back . Yeah . Yeah.
But as you saw, like, what wasit two years ago where they
said if the president does it,it's not illegal, which all the
lawyers are the entire, likeAmerican Bar Association was
completely bewildered.

Speaker 1 (45:16):
So the whole system of checks and balance doesn't
work in the US right now. Yeah,

Speaker 2 (45:19):
It is gone.

Speaker 1 (45:20):
Okay. Because of, and that's

Speaker 2 (45:22):
The danger because of the, I mean, I would say
since, since the days ofReagan, the continual erosion
of the state by the Republicanparty.

Speaker 1 (45:31):
Okay? So whatever happens with Trump is basically
the natural

Speaker 2 (45:35):
Yeah. Of making the government quote more
efficient. Yeah . Right .
Because the government is nolonger robust, no longer more
resilient. It doesn't have theability to protect itself.
Yeah. And going back to thedeficiency thing, right? When
you get sick, right? Is yourbody being efficient by raising
its temperature and likeputting out all these white
blood cells and everything likethat? You know, a lot of people

(45:55):
when they get sick, they loseweight. That's literally
inefficiency. You're burningall these calories that are
being stored up, not efficient,but that inefficiency allows
your body to fight theinfection and recover. Right ?

Speaker 1 (46:07):
I , I , I disagree.
Um , I respectfully disagreebecause uh , if you speak about
, uh, getting sick and , uh,raising the , the count , the
temperature, the objective ofthe body is to get , uh, get
recovered.

Speaker 2 (46:17):
Right? But that's not efficient though. Why?
Well, you're literally creatingheat. Heat, ah , heat . Heat
scientifically is the measureof inefficiency.

Speaker 1 (46:27):
Well, depending on the metrics. So you want to get
recovered and that's whyspending energy is efficient.

Speaker 2 (46:34):
That's the system.
But the process, the process ofheating up the defeat the
virus, that itself isefficient. But yes , when
you're looking at the pureconcept of efficiency of the
human body, when you burncalories, you wanna burn the
minimum . If feel like you'retalking about you wanna be
super efficient, you wanna burnthe least amount of calories,
but by definition, by fightingan infection, you're burning

(46:55):
more calories than you'dnormally do. So by the strict
definition, that's notefficient. Now the fact that
you're saying that's aridiculous statement, what you
just said, even though it's100% true, it's still
ridiculous. Right. And that'sexactly what I'm trying to say
here. You're absolutely rightto say that's a ridiculous
statement. And what I'm tryingto show you is that with the
government, that's also , it'sequally a ridiculous statement.

(47:15):
The point is, you don't wantthe body to be quote efficient
when you're fighting affection.
'cause it needs to be resilientand robust to survive. And you
don't want a government to beefficient either the , the
systems that is because youwant it to be able to survive.
And by slashing the government,what the Republicans have doing
since the days of Reagan isthat the government no longer
has the means to be able tofight against, you know, this

(47:37):
undermining of itself of theConstitution. And now we're
starting to see the beginningsof the failure.

Speaker 1 (47:43):
We don't have much time left, I believe, but now I
understand you

Speaker 5 (47:46):
Can say that something like, oh , this
cheerful note ,

Speaker 1 (47:49):
But now I understand why Alex Friedman is spending
five hours just to do theadverts of a drink. Uh ,
because basically after onehour, you're just getting into
the feeling of , uh, the notionof the conversation, the , the
, the meaning of theconversation. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (48:04):
And we haven't even discussed the concept of the
Absolutely. The legislativeversus executive and what that
mean exactly. Because there's adifference between Europeans. I
mean, should we just continueuntil we get kicked out
?

Speaker 5 (48:15):
No , I need some sort of closure

Speaker 1 (48:16):
Remarks. I definitely have , uh, my
opinion on the closure. So ,uh, first of all, thanks very
much for , uh, spending thistime. Yeah , of course. I, it
was a surprise for me and I, Inever discussed it with anyone
that, I never pronounced it,that running the state and
running the enterprise in myhead were absolutely common

(48:38):
things. I mean , uh, in , interms of efficiency. Now you
brought the seed of , uh, I'mnot quite sure about that right
now, so I I'll have to rethink

Speaker 2 (48:46):
It. Yeah , of course. Sorry , afterwards,

Speaker 1 (48:48):
First, second you mentioned that 800 pages, which
I will definitely have to atleast scan through just to
understand , uh, what is itabout. Yeah . And the third
thing is that we definitelyneed to continue this
conversation because we haven't, uh, touched base on quite a
lot of things.

Speaker 2 (49:03):
Yeah, absolutely. So forth . And next time on, give
these people air . Ifyou would like to comment on
this podcast or on the topicscovered within it, or you'd
like us to raise a new topic inour next episode, please feel
free to leave us a message orvoicemail on www.co bsm.com .

(49:25):
That's charlie oscar deltabravo sierra mike.com . Thank
you for listening and see youat the potty, Rick ,

Speaker 3 (49:32):
The .