Real Coffee with Scott Adams - October 06, 2021


Episode 1521 Scott Adams： Probably the Best Coffee With Scott Adams of All Time


Episode Stats

Length

57 minutes

Words per Minute

142.78697

Word Count

8,139

Sentence Count

686

Misogynist Sentences

9

Hate Speech Sentences

9


Summary

Scott Adams talks about a viral video of a school banning backpacks, a new Department of Justice policy on dealing with school officials, and the best and worst commercial ideas of the 21st century. Plus, a story about a school that banned backpacks.


Transcript

00:00:00.000 Good morning, everybody, and welcome to Coffee with Scott Adams, one of the highlights of
00:00:10.320 your day, and certainly mine.
00:00:12.880 And I don't know if you can feel it yet.
00:00:16.660 Do you feel every particle in your being start to get a little bit lighter, feel a little
00:00:22.600 better?
00:00:23.180 Things are starting to shape up, aren't they?
00:00:25.480 Aren't they?
00:00:26.320 Well, it's going to get even better.
00:00:28.060 It's going to get even better.
00:00:30.000 What would you need to do that?
00:00:31.320 Well, amazing content that's coming up, but also the simultaneous sip, and all you need
00:00:37.480 is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a canteen, a jug or a flask, a vessel of
00:00:41.880 any kind.
00:00:42.900 Fill it with your favorite liquid.
00:00:43.920 I like coffee.
00:00:45.600 And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes
00:00:51.400 everything better.
00:00:53.720 It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
00:00:56.240 Go.
00:01:00.880 The breathless anticipation of simultaneous swillage.
00:01:05.380 Well put.
00:01:06.340 Well put in the comments there.
00:01:07.700 Well, did you see the viral video of, there was some school, this might be fake news by
00:01:18.400 the way, but because it's fun, I'm going to treat it like it's real.
00:01:25.740 So I think it's fake news, but maybe, maybe not.
00:01:29.560 But, so allegedly there was some school that banned backpacks.
00:01:35.700 That's the sketchy part.
00:01:37.660 Was there really a school that banned backpacks?
00:01:40.920 All right.
00:01:41.140 So first of all, I don't believe the story at all.
00:01:42.820 But, the story goes that they banned backpacks and then the kids decided to take advantage
00:01:51.700 of the specificity of the rule to bring things that weren't backpacks, but could still transport
00:01:59.980 books.
00:02:00.400 For example, one kid brought in a, one of those outdoor trash bins, gigantic trash bin.
00:02:08.920 He just dragged that into school, filled with his books.
00:02:12.460 Another brought a, a baby stroller.
00:02:16.740 I think one had a dog cage on wheels or something.
00:02:21.780 Now, I'm going to say I don't believe it's a real story, but it was pretty funny.
00:02:26.480 If it, if it is real, let me know.
00:02:30.680 Here's a commercial failure, as in an advertising commercial.
00:02:35.600 Intel, the company Intel, not the, not the intelligent services, but Intel, the company
00:02:41.740 had a commercial.
00:02:43.380 And the, the gist of it was they had people come in and use their new computer, or a computer
00:02:49.880 with their chip in it, I'm not sure.
00:02:51.100 And the people were amazed and surprised to find out that what they thought was an excellent
00:02:59.500 Macintosh computer, or an Apple computer, was actually a PC.
00:03:06.620 And that was, that was the essence of the commercial.
00:03:10.260 The people who think Macintosh, or Apple, keep saying Macintosh.
00:03:14.100 The people who think that the Apple laptops are just the best, when they use this PC, the
00:03:21.940 PC was so good that they thought it was an Apple computer.
00:03:26.360 That was the commercial.
00:03:29.060 How'd they do?
00:03:31.240 Is that the worst idea for a commercial?
00:03:34.180 Let me tell you what teens really love.
00:03:39.120 And not just teens, but young adults as well.
00:03:42.860 You know what people really like?
00:03:45.860 They like to have the cheap imitation knockoff of high quality goods.
00:03:55.860 I'm pretty sure that Intel just told their customers that the good one is an Apple laptop.
00:04:03.280 Yeah, but if they want, they could, you know, if they could handle the embarrassment of not
00:04:08.460 having an Apple product, they can get something that works pretty well too.
00:04:12.860 Other people might not even know the difference.
00:04:17.680 So that's like the worst commercial idea I've ever seen, to tell people that their product
00:04:22.800 is almost as good as the competition.
00:04:24.480 Well, we've got a new Department of Justice policy in which the people are being reminded, the
00:04:39.580 public is being reminded not to get too aggressive with the school officials, because there's lots
00:04:46.000 of complaints about everything from mass to critical race theory being done in schools.
00:04:51.340 And I guess parents are getting pretty aggressive.
00:04:53.720 And so the Justice Department decided to weigh in and say, don't do that.
00:04:58.960 We'll put you in jail if you go too far.
00:05:03.220 Now, some people are saying, are they just using the power of the state to shut down dissent?
00:05:13.780 Well, I don't know.
00:05:17.600 I mean, it seems to me this could go either way, because who exactly approves of people getting
00:05:23.840 physical, for example, or threatening somebody at home?
00:05:28.580 I'm not sure I approve of that stuff.
00:05:31.560 And that stuff needs to probably be illegal at some point, right?
00:05:35.460 So I'm not sure there's anything to this story.
00:05:39.400 We imagine this is, it's always the slippery slope toward having parents not have any input
00:05:47.260 at all.
00:05:47.940 But I doubt it.
00:05:49.180 I imagine parents can have as much input as they want, as long as they don't push or threaten
00:05:53.460 people.
00:05:55.240 All right.
00:05:55.960 A lot of hallucinators coming after me today.
00:05:58.040 People who are declaring my idiocy in a hallucination that they had, and then criticizing me for their
00:06:08.800 hallucinations.
00:06:10.720 For example, if I say something about COVID or anything in that category, I get this comment
00:06:20.000 to me.
00:06:21.340 You don't understand the risks.
00:06:23.160 Well, shouldn't they be arguing with my argument?
00:06:29.580 Why are they arguing about some quality of me?
00:06:33.360 As soon as you see that, what does that signal?
00:06:36.100 What does it signal when somebody goes after the messenger and doesn't even touch the argument?
00:06:42.220 Cognitive dissonance, right?
00:06:44.020 It's cognitive dissonance.
00:06:45.280 Because if the argument was the problem, well, they would just go after the argument.
00:06:49.900 They'd just publish a link or say, well, that makes no sense because you haven't considered
00:06:54.700 X or Y.
00:06:56.160 But they can't.
00:06:57.320 The problem is that they don't know how to do that.
00:07:01.280 So anybody who has a counterargument that makes sense uses it.
00:07:06.860 You'll rarely find an exception.
00:07:08.740 People don't go after the personality of the person unless they have nothing to say.
00:07:17.120 Yeah.
00:07:17.600 So here's another one.
00:07:20.560 Somebody said to me, you don't understand that it's politicians that close the economy,
00:07:25.340 not viruses, because I was talking about the risk of coronavirus would be closing the economy.
00:07:31.460 Well, yes, I know that the politicians make the decision, but we haven't turned off the
00:07:36.920 laws of cause and effect.
00:07:39.060 Whatever made them to make the decision last time might make them cause it again.
00:07:44.800 You could argue all day long that they shouldn't close the economy.
00:07:49.760 But if we know it happens, it's part of the risk.
00:07:52.920 Right?
00:07:53.240 You can't turn off cause and effect just because you think it ought to be turned off.
00:07:58.180 And my favorite one is that I used to be smart and have good takes, but suddenly all my takes
00:08:04.480 are crap now.
00:08:05.220 What are the odds that I went from clever for decades to really dumb on just this one topic?
00:08:15.060 Possible.
00:08:16.220 Totally possible, right?
00:08:17.880 Somebody could be smart and general and dumb on one topic.
00:08:21.040 Probably see it a lot.
00:08:21.940 But it shouldn't be your first guess.
00:08:25.500 Play the odds.
00:08:27.580 Play the odds.
00:08:28.860 I probably didn't guess suddenly stupid.
00:08:31.840 There's probably just something that we differ in the data, we differ in what is logical.
00:08:37.960 Tell me what that is.
00:08:39.380 We'll see what we can do.
00:08:40.860 Somebody says it's the marijuana and I got stupider.
00:08:44.000 Well, you have no idea how much marijuana I smoked when I was younger.
00:08:46.840 Let's talk about that Facebook whistleblower.
00:08:52.460 So this is Hagen, I guess it is.
00:08:55.580 Hagen?
00:08:59.300 So apparently it's just a fact now that Instagram harms children, especially young girls.
00:09:09.060 Do we accept that as just a fact now?
00:09:11.320 Just a fact?
00:09:12.000 And so I asked this in a poll on Twitter.
00:09:18.140 I said, what do you think will harm the most teens in, say, the next year?
00:09:22.740 Vaccinations, Instagram, or fentanyl?
00:09:27.180 Which one of those things is the most dangerous to kids?
00:09:31.960 I feel like it's Instagram by a lot.
00:09:35.160 And in fact, that was the poll result.
00:09:37.640 You know, this is a highly unscientific poll.
00:09:39.500 But Instagram got 39%, and the vaccinations got 29%, and fentanyl got 31%.
00:09:46.260 So according to the unscientific poll, Instagram is more dangerous than fentanyl and vaccinations.
00:09:55.480 Joe Manchin is holding tight with, and mostly because of the data ceiling.
00:10:01.860 So Joe Manchin says that the $3.5 million would just be too much money.
00:10:08.900 Too much money.
00:10:10.620 How does Joe Manchin decide that?
00:10:14.340 What is the, what mechanism does Joe Manchin use to know how much debt is the right amount?
00:10:21.860 Did he talk to economists?
00:10:25.540 Because they don't know.
00:10:29.660 The economists don't know.
00:10:31.420 How much is the amount of debt that would crush us, and how much is it going to pay for itself, for example.
00:10:37.160 You know, Biden says it's going to pay for itself.
00:10:39.860 Now, he might be a businessman.
00:10:41.020 You know, I'm not saying he's dumb.
00:10:44.080 He seems like a high-functioning person.
00:10:47.040 But he's holding up the entire country.
00:10:51.440 And frankly, I'm glad he is.
00:10:53.880 You know, so I'm not anti-Joe Manchin, right?
00:10:56.640 So understand where I'm coming from.
00:10:58.820 I'm not anti-Joe Manchin.
00:11:00.240 And I'm kind of glad he's holding up the vote on the infrastructure thing.
00:11:05.580 But you have to ask the question, based on what?
00:11:08.580 What is his reasoning?
00:11:10.420 I like it.
00:11:12.240 But what's his reasoning?
00:11:14.660 He's not an economist, right?
00:11:17.460 And even the economists don't know how much is the right amount of debt.
00:11:22.000 So it's kind of a weird situation that we've got one person in charge of Congress.
00:11:26.720 And he is making decisions based on absolutely no expertise or knowledge.
00:11:34.940 I think he'd probably admit it.
00:11:37.100 If you ask them the direct question, what is the right amount of debt?
00:11:41.080 Because it's not zero, right?
00:11:43.380 If you say to me, Scott, the right amount of debt is zero.
00:11:46.420 No, it's not.
00:11:47.720 No, it's very much not zero.
00:11:50.080 It's some large number.
00:11:51.860 I just don't know at what point is the breaking point.
00:11:54.300 Yeah, I mean, debt is good if you use it right.
00:11:59.060 Debt is not bad universally.
00:12:01.700 Sometimes you need to invest in stuff.
00:12:06.160 Manchin is one of 52 senators, so you can't say he's holding it up.
00:12:09.460 Yeah, your point is taken.
00:12:10.960 He's one of 52 senators.
00:12:12.840 But he's the only one that matters.
00:12:16.240 Because for all the obvious reasons.
00:12:18.600 So you know what I'm saying.
00:12:20.180 But I get your point.
00:12:20.960 Paul Rubin writes in the Wall Street Journal that the woke, he calls the woke left's primitive
00:12:28.300 economics.
00:12:29.960 And his point is that the socialism kind of model works good in a tribal situation where
00:12:41.400 your amount of stuff is limited.
00:12:44.000 If you can only gather a limited amount of stuff or grow a limited amount of stuff or
00:12:49.200 hunt a limited amount of stuff, you kind of have to share it with the tribe.
00:12:54.360 Socialism.
00:12:56.060 But capitalism breaks that model.
00:12:59.460 And capitalism is where everybody gets more.
00:13:03.600 So instead of dividing what you have, you just make more, and then everybody gets a little.
00:13:08.380 And then the capitalist gets the most.
00:13:10.640 That's the incentive.
00:13:11.520 So do you buy that?
00:13:14.400 Do you buy that the main difference between the left and the right's views on economics
00:13:21.200 is that the right actually understands economics?
00:13:25.960 At least they understand supply and demand, and they understand human motivation.
00:13:32.580 Right?
00:13:33.060 The right understands human motivation, and they calculate it in all of their systems and
00:13:38.500 policies, and the left doesn't.
00:13:40.260 They act like it's not a variable, which is wrong every time.
00:13:45.420 It's never right.
00:13:47.160 As soon as you ignore human motivation, you're wrong every time.
00:13:50.820 Every time.
00:13:51.700 You're developing a policy or a system.
00:13:55.360 So do you buy that?
00:13:56.720 I would go so far as to say that both the left and the right get science wrong way too often.
00:14:04.520 It has nothing to do with being on the left or the right.
00:14:07.660 Getting science wrong just means that humans aren't really good at science.
00:14:11.820 And we think we are.
00:14:12.980 We can get the basics.
00:14:14.340 But then we're done after that.
00:14:16.220 So I think we're both wrong on the science on different things and different times.
00:14:21.920 But only one side gets the economics wrong.
00:14:26.400 Will you go with me on that?
00:14:28.420 Any human can get science wrong.
00:14:30.840 That's pretty easy, because we just don't quite have the brains that can grasp the higher level stuff.
00:14:35.980 But economics, conservatives understand that human motivation has got to be a top variable or nothing works.
00:14:44.800 They got that part right.
00:14:46.560 And the left doesn't.
00:14:48.480 So I'd say everybody's bad at science, but only the left is bad at economics.
00:14:54.300 Of course, these are gross generalizations, obviously.
00:14:58.180 All right.
00:14:58.540 I saw Viva Frye use the term experimental in a tweet today for the COVID vaccination.
00:15:07.080 I would like to suggest that anybody who uses the word experimental for the vaccination,
00:15:13.100 and of course, I know what you mean.
00:15:14.660 You know, everybody understands that it was, you know, a quick job and wasn't tested as long as other vaccinations and stuff.
00:15:22.560 And also new technology.
00:15:23.960 But calling it experimental, I would say, is word thinking.
00:15:29.440 Meaning, it's trying to win an argument with a word, and that's not how it works.
00:15:35.040 I mean, it can work, but that's not how you should win an argument, with a word.
00:15:39.200 You know, don't define a word and say you're done.
00:15:41.800 And I would argue that experimental might be cognitive dissonance.
00:15:45.920 It might be a tell for cognitive dissonance, if you're using that word.
00:15:50.760 It's perfectly reasonable to say all the following things.
00:15:55.980 We don't have as much of a track record.
00:15:58.540 And at least two of the vaccinations are a platform that we have less experience with.
00:16:04.640 Does that increase your risk?
00:16:06.660 Well, we don't know if it increases the actual risk, but it increases the perceived risk, which is what you make your decisions on.
00:16:12.760 So, I would argue that you don't want to use the word experimental.
00:16:21.180 It's sort of a tell that you're not thinking through.
00:16:25.200 Or let me put it this way.
00:16:27.160 The way I receive it, since I can't read your mind, I don't know what anybody's thinking when they say it.
00:16:33.220 But the way it's received is, oh, that's just a propaganda word.
00:16:37.620 And then I turn off the rest of the sentence.
00:16:40.520 So, persuasion advice to Viva, who I generally agree with on most things.
00:16:47.900 I can't even think of anything I disagree with them on.
00:16:50.060 But just a persuasion suggestion.
00:16:55.220 Don't use the word experimental.
00:16:56.700 And that really puts you in a category.
00:16:59.960 And I don't think you want to be there.
00:17:04.160 Here's my take.
00:17:07.760 See how much of this you agree with or disagree.
00:17:09.980 And I'll be watching the comments as I go.
00:17:11.900 I say, without being an expert on any of this stuff.
00:17:16.620 And by the way, you should watch Viva and Barnes.
00:17:19.000 It's a great, it was one of the best podcasts, in my opinion.
00:17:22.260 One of the best podcasts out there.
00:17:28.520 Let me see how much of this, the following you agree with.
00:17:32.300 Number one, that every vaccination is a different risk management decision.
00:17:38.740 By itself.
00:17:39.780 It has to be looked at by itself.
00:17:41.900 It has its own risk management.
00:17:43.980 Everybody agree with that so far?
00:17:46.300 Such that, let's say you had lots of experience with chickenpox vaccination.
00:17:53.280 What does it tell you about measles vaccinations?
00:17:57.460 A little bit, maybe.
00:17:59.760 But certainly no certainty.
00:18:01.740 Because they're different.
00:18:03.220 And the risk is different, etc.
00:18:05.280 Now, I've said that the risk of COVID is a risk to the economy.
00:18:11.040 Whereas those other ones are not.
00:18:15.360 Let me, I know I'm going to get a pushback on this.
00:18:18.140 So let me put that out there and see your comments.
00:18:21.100 COVID is a risk to the economy.
00:18:24.240 But the others were not.
00:18:25.580 Why?
00:18:26.140 Why?
00:18:26.580 Somebody says, why?
00:18:29.680 Is it because the data suggests that it's a risk to the economy?
00:18:33.720 It doesn't matter.
00:18:35.460 If you're thinking, Scott, Scott, Scott, we shouldn't have closed the economy, that's the wrong answer.
00:18:42.860 What we should or shouldn't do is irrelevant to your risk management decision.
00:18:48.380 What we would do is relevant.
00:18:51.460 What you should do is not part of the conversation.
00:18:55.600 Because we're not doing what we should.
00:18:58.300 We're doing what we're doing.
00:19:00.620 And everybody might have a different opinion of what we should do.
00:19:03.500 So should is a word that shouldn't be part of your calculation.
00:19:08.540 Just look at the cause and effect.
00:19:11.520 Given the government we have, and we can't change it, right?
00:19:15.860 The government we have, the public we have, the risks that we have.
00:19:19.280 If COVID started killing, you know, way more people than it is at the moment because we just opened everything up and dropped all the restrictions.
00:19:28.320 And I don't know if that would make a difference, but let's just say it does.
00:19:33.420 That would close the economy.
00:19:36.880 Maybe you disagree.
00:19:38.860 And maybe if you were in charge, you wouldn't close the economy.
00:19:42.420 That's irrelevant.
00:19:44.120 You're not in charge.
00:19:46.160 The people who are in charge will feel that they'll lose their jobs if too many people die.
00:19:52.420 So their incentive, as government officials, their incentive, unfortunately, doesn't align with yours.
00:19:59.120 Your incentive is to run your life with a risk management that you feel comfortable with.
00:20:04.960 That's not their incentive.
00:20:06.900 Their incentive is not for you to run your life with your own risk reward.
00:20:11.440 Their incentive is to have the fewest number of people die or get hospitalized.
00:20:16.300 Because that's how they keep their jobs.
00:20:19.000 So they're not about the same risk management calculation you're about.
00:20:22.720 You're not even on the same team.
00:20:24.360 Similar to drafting you for the war.
00:20:29.700 You getting drafted might be really bad for you, but that's not why they did it.
00:20:34.680 They didn't draft you for your benefit.
00:20:36.640 They drafted you to go in the war for the nation's benefit.
00:20:39.640 So the individual calculation and the government's calculation will always be different in this kind of situation.
00:20:46.980 And maybe it has to be.
00:20:48.540 Maybe it has to be.
00:20:50.440 And you can't change the fact that they will manage to the lowest number of deaths.
00:20:56.880 That's not going to change.
00:20:57.900 So if COVID went wild or wilder or was completely uncontrolled and there were, let's say, no vaccinations or anything else, would it close the economy?
00:21:10.880 Yeah, of course it would.
00:21:12.320 Of course it would.
00:21:13.220 Because it did before.
00:21:14.600 I think it would again.
00:21:16.440 The same forces would be at work.
00:21:18.660 You just have to get the death rate up to a certain level and then everything would close again.
00:21:22.580 Maybe differently.
00:21:24.520 We might be smarter about it, how we close things, but it's going to be a drag on the economy.
00:21:30.740 So here's my take.
00:21:32.900 The COVID vaccination did not have the same risk profile as any of the prior vaccinations.
00:21:39.100 If we had the luxury of waiting five to 15 years of watching the COVID vaccination before making it more mandatory, or at least requiring it for certain things, I suppose, we'd love to do that.
00:21:57.680 We all agree on that, right?
00:21:59.200 If we had the luxury to wait five or 15 years to just watch this COVID vaccination to feel really safe about it, we'd all love that.
00:22:09.680 But we don't.
00:22:11.080 That's not one of the choices.
00:22:13.260 One of the choices is you better do something pretty quick or you're in trouble.
00:22:17.380 So that risk profile is not like measles.
00:22:20.300 It's not like chickenpox.
00:22:22.120 So the moment you say, well, let's treat them like they're somehow this similar class of risk, completely wrong.
00:22:29.500 They might be a similar risk, but remember, your individual risk,
00:22:39.100 has nothing to do with what the government does, because they don't care about your individual risk.
00:22:44.220 They care about the group risk.
00:22:46.460 So you might say to yourself, well, I got a kid.
00:22:48.960 My kids, no way they're going to get COVID and die.
00:22:51.620 You know, so, you know, kids, of course, I think, have to be their own class for analysis.
00:22:58.580 So I agree with that.
00:22:59.660 I don't think you make one rule and it applies to kids and it applies to everybody, but we're not.
00:23:04.320 We are making different rules for different ages, as we should.
00:23:09.420 So group risk should include economics.
00:23:16.620 That is correct.
00:23:17.460 Group risk should include the economics.
00:23:20.960 So let's see if we can agree with the following statements.
00:23:25.660 Nobody, including our experts, are super good at evaluating risks.
00:23:33.920 True?
00:23:35.500 Nobody, including our experts, are super good at evaluating risks.
00:23:40.860 Who's on board with that so far?
00:23:43.780 We're all bad at it, even the experts, because there's a little bit of guessing going on, right?
00:23:48.880 But there are some things that you as an individual can make a decision on without knowing all the risks.
00:23:55.660 Such as your personal freedom, right?
00:24:00.580 Do you need to know everything about your risks to make a good decision about your own personal freedom?
00:24:07.540 Nope.
00:24:08.520 No.
00:24:09.220 You could be wrong.
00:24:11.540 It's your personal freedom.
00:24:13.820 Emphasis on personal.
00:24:15.520 You could be wrong about your risk.
00:24:17.840 It's your decision.
00:24:19.200 You get to make that decision unless the government tries to stop it.
00:24:23.080 So I think that comparing the vaccination to any other is bad thinking because the risk profiles are different and we should not expect that we would treat them the same.
00:24:38.840 If the risk of COVID is more immediate and affects the economy and maybe it's a bigger population of people who die, I don't know if that's true, but if you believe it is true, you would treat them differently.
00:24:51.340 And one of the things you might do is rush a vaccination.
00:24:56.480 Something you would never do if you had the luxury of waiting, but you don't.
00:25:01.040 All right.
00:25:03.940 FDA approved more rapid testing.
00:25:06.600 Looks like a big deal.
00:25:07.720 Cost as little as $10.
00:25:10.800 Already there are several companies that make them, but this new one, Akon, it's going to double the capacity and you'll get a, looks like it's a nasal swab and you get a, you get a answer in 15 minutes.
00:25:23.160 Somebody is going to win a Pulitzer Prize for figuring out why this hasn't already been done because here are the problems we didn't have.
00:25:35.180 We didn't have a problem with money, capacity, science, know-how, anything.
00:25:43.580 We didn't have any, we didn't have any, we didn't have any obstacles.
00:25:49.260 I mean, not, we didn't have any obstacles that would have stopped us from having the same availability as some European countries already have.
00:25:56.620 Right.
00:25:56.980 We had no more obstacles than they did and probably more resources.
00:26:01.320 So why did it take us so long?
00:26:04.200 It has to be corruption.
00:26:05.340 Now, I understand that Scott Gottlieb's book may attribute it to bureaucracy.
00:26:15.160 Not buying that for a second.
00:26:16.960 And I'm not sure he's talking about the same thing.
00:26:18.640 I didn't read it.
00:26:19.720 I just heard about it.
00:26:20.780 So I may be conflating two different stories.
00:26:23.260 I think I might be actually.
00:26:24.880 But the point is we don't know.
00:26:28.660 Does that bother you?
00:26:30.520 We don't know why this took so long.
00:26:33.060 And I don't buy the bureaucracy.
00:26:36.780 Because you know what also stopped, would have stopped vaccinations?
00:26:41.240 The bureaucracy.
00:26:42.480 Are you telling me that the bureaucracy approved super, let's say, provocative or controversial vaccinations on a, you know, compressed timeline?
00:26:56.720 You're telling me the bureaucracy got that done.
00:26:59.200 And they couldn't approve tests which would have essentially no risk.
00:27:05.660 They couldn't do that.
00:27:07.160 So the bureaucracy can approve the hardest thing you could possibly ever approve, rapid vaccinations.
00:27:13.340 And they couldn't approve a test that doesn't even affect your body.
00:27:20.080 Seriously.
00:27:21.900 That's not the bureaucracy.
00:27:23.360 Trust me, you know, there are a few people who appreciate the power of the bureaucracy more than the creator of Dilbert.
00:27:35.280 But this doesn't look like bureaucracy to me.
00:27:38.340 This looks like some kind of corruption.
00:27:40.580 I don't know who or where.
00:27:42.520 But it's some kind.
00:27:43.560 So somebody's going to get a Pulitzer Prize for digging into that and finding out who it was and what their benefit was for stopping it.
00:27:55.320 There's a, you know, the book Peril that everybody's talking about by Woodward.
00:28:01.420 John Dickerson of CBS News talks about, he says,
00:28:06.100 To which I say,
00:28:25.640 Was there really a transcript?
00:28:30.260 Is there an actual written transcript of an actual private conversation between Pelosi and Milley?
00:28:36.980 And a author of a book had access to it?
00:28:42.080 What?
00:28:43.780 Can somebody give me a fact check on that?
00:28:46.100 Is there an actual transcript?
00:28:48.660 Like it was recorded and then released?
00:28:52.780 That's not true, is it?
00:28:54.280 Oh, somebody says a FOIA.
00:28:55.640 Like, eh, maybe?
00:28:58.380 Yeah, I doubt it.
00:28:59.560 But, so we don't know the details of this story.
00:29:02.040 But let me add a generic.
00:29:04.820 Which is this.
00:29:06.640 Are you aware that when people are quoted in books,
00:29:10.820 it's rarely what the person actually said?
00:29:15.000 How many of you know that?
00:29:16.460 How many of you know that when you see somebody's exact words in quotes in an article or a book,
00:29:22.220 chances are, very high, like maybe 85%, that they didn't say that?
00:29:29.180 Did you know it was high as, you know, that's just my experience.
00:29:32.240 85% of the time it's a manufactured quote.
00:29:36.360 They're manufactured.
00:29:37.400 In other words, the journalist or writer talks to the subject for a long period of time
00:29:44.320 and then says to himself, well, he said three or four things about this topic,
00:29:50.060 but they were kind of long and they don't fit into a quote.
00:29:52.900 So I'm going to bake them into a little quote.
00:29:55.680 I'm going to put quotes around it because I feel like I've captured the essence of what he was trying to say.
00:30:01.560 And I'll just put a quote around it so it doesn't look like I'm saying it.
00:30:06.520 Super common.
00:30:08.160 Do you know how many times I've seen my own words with quotation marks around them in articles?
00:30:14.140 A lot.
00:30:15.220 Hundreds.
00:30:16.120 Hundreds and hundreds, many hundreds of times.
00:30:18.160 I've seen myself quoted in the news.
00:30:21.460 How many of those times did I actually say the actual sentence that's in the quote?
00:30:27.640 10, 20%.
00:30:28.960 That's it.
00:30:31.000 The rest are literally made up.
00:30:33.560 And as a consumer, if you don't know that,
00:30:36.440 you're really going to be confused about what's really happening.
00:30:40.480 All right.
00:30:41.980 Let's talk about the good news.
00:30:44.660 For the golden age.
00:30:45.800 You know the Adams Law of slow-moving disasters?
00:30:50.200 It says that if society can see a big problem coming for long enough,
00:30:54.620 we've got lots of warning, we always fix it.
00:30:58.240 We always do.
00:30:59.380 We didn't run out of food.
00:31:01.180 We didn't run out of oil.
00:31:03.320 And we closed the ozone hole.
00:31:06.420 We'll fix climate change.
00:31:09.000 That's my personal optimistic view.
00:31:10.960 Yeah.
00:31:11.440 Because we had enough time.
00:31:12.440 Even though it looks like we don't have enough time and we're rushing against the rising temperatures,
00:31:18.460 I think we have enough time.
00:31:20.240 But here are a few things that are happening.
00:31:22.420 Number one, a company called Dimensional Energy.
00:31:26.340 They're making jet fuel, which is the hardest thing to replace.
00:31:30.400 If you're trying to get to a low-carbon situation, it's hard to replace jet fuel
00:31:35.660 because you can't do it with a battery except for small planes.
00:31:39.380 But for a big jet, we don't yet have a battery capacity for that.
00:31:43.480 But this company, Dimensional Energy, sucks the CO2 out of the air,
00:31:47.940 puts it through a chemical process, and creates jet fuel out of the air.
00:31:54.760 They suck jet fuel out of the air.
00:31:59.840 Now, it's not jet fuel when they suck it out.
00:32:01.820 It's just CO2.
00:32:03.480 But they chemically translate it into jet fuel.
00:32:07.380 And apparently they are going to power this whole thing with the sun.
00:32:11.380 So they'll have a big sun factory out in the desert somewhere or someplace remote.
00:32:15.540 And the sun will burn down and create enough energy to translate this CO2
00:32:21.900 that they've sucked out of the air into jet fuel.
00:32:24.580 Now, jet fuel is one of the bigger contributors to climate change.
00:32:30.640 So it's a big deal.
00:32:32.460 And it's even better than you think.
00:32:35.000 They think that at a scale, once they build a bigger operation,
00:32:38.800 they can get the cost of a gallon of jet fuel down to a dollar.
00:32:42.220 Follow the money.
00:32:47.240 If the economics of this are accurate,
00:32:50.500 this is the only way we're going to make jet fuel.
00:32:53.500 We're not going to make jet fuel any other way,
00:32:55.620 if you can make it for a dollar a gallon.
00:32:58.220 I don't know what jet fuel costs,
00:32:59.940 but I'm sure it's as much or more than a tank of gas for your car
00:33:04.480 that's five bucks in California.
00:33:10.360 So that's good news.
00:33:11.500 And it's already working at a small scale,
00:33:14.820 so we don't have to wonder about the technology.
00:33:16.920 All we have to do is scale it up.
00:33:18.920 It's now an engineering problem.
00:33:22.740 Let me say that again.
00:33:24.440 The solution to climate change,
00:33:27.000 if this is true,
00:33:28.760 if you can actually do this as inexpensively as they claim,
00:33:32.880 if that's true,
00:33:35.320 we're done.
00:33:37.260 Climate change is just an engineering problem now.
00:33:41.960 It's not a political problem.
00:33:43.920 It's not a scientific problem.
00:33:46.360 It's just an engineering problem.
00:33:47.960 You get a bunch of engineers to build a bunch of these plants,
00:33:50.120 they suck it out of the air,
00:33:51.560 boom, we're done.
00:33:54.560 Here's another one.
00:33:55.680 Good news.
00:33:57.180 A company called...
00:33:58.260 I don't know the name of the company.
00:34:02.000 But they've built a gigantic warehouse,
00:34:05.460 like really gigantic,
00:34:06.940 using AI and robotics and stuff like that.
00:34:10.500 And apparently,
00:34:11.840 it's in the Appalachian Mountains.
00:34:14.040 And if you do it right,
00:34:16.140 and it's a high-tech operation,
00:34:18.580 you reduce the water use by something like 90%.
00:34:21.820 So we've got this gigantic water problem
00:34:24.760 and also a gigantic cost-of-living problem.
00:34:28.300 And they can substantially reduce the cost of food,
00:34:32.720 substantially reduce the use of water,
00:34:35.360 which is a big deal
00:34:36.100 because agriculture uses most of your water,
00:34:38.980 and probably bring down the cost of food
00:34:43.460 as well as the shipping costs.
00:34:46.220 Because in theory,
00:34:47.120 you could build one of these facilities or more
00:34:49.620 in every population center,
00:34:51.160 and then suddenly,
00:34:52.560 you don't have to ship it.
00:34:54.360 I mean, as far.
00:34:55.900 So, this is gigantic.
00:34:59.480 Are you worried about climate change
00:35:01.360 making it too hard to grow food?
00:35:03.840 Problem solved.
00:35:05.780 And again,
00:35:06.660 all this has to do is be economical.
00:35:09.820 And you're done.
00:35:11.100 We'll just build more of them.
00:35:12.920 Just keep building.
00:35:14.300 And I think this is part of the answer to housing
00:35:17.320 and just an inexpensive life
00:35:20.760 that doesn't break the bank.
00:35:23.680 This might be part of it.
00:35:25.960 Well, there's news that Dan Scavino
00:35:28.920 is missing in action,
00:35:32.160 and they can't serve him the subpoenas they want to
00:35:34.500 to have him testify about January 6th.
00:35:37.960 There's a rumor that Dan Scavino went hiking
00:35:41.720 in the Carlton Preserve.
00:35:45.520 Anybody?
00:35:46.960 Anybody?
00:35:48.900 There's a rumor that he went hiking
00:35:50.640 in the Carlton Preserve.
00:35:53.740 Some of you got that joke.
00:35:55.820 Some of you got that joke.
00:35:57.220 It's not true.
00:35:59.440 But I'm not even going to explain it.
00:36:03.520 Ask a friend.
00:36:06.060 If you didn't get that joke.
00:36:07.400 All right.
00:36:08.940 Let's talk about Taiwan and China.
00:36:12.040 So as you know,
00:36:12.880 China's sending a bunch of warships
00:36:14.520 flying over Taiwan.
00:36:18.320 And Jack Posobiec tweeted
00:36:21.820 about the Taiwan stuff.
00:36:23.800 He says it's heating up
00:36:25.000 more than people realize.
00:36:27.000 He says this isn't just posturing.
00:36:28.900 There are top Chinese generals
00:36:31.360 telling Xi
00:36:32.180 they want the green light
00:36:34.100 to attack Taiwan.
00:36:36.700 What's your interpretation of this story?
00:36:39.120 Let's take it as a given
00:36:40.540 that Jack Posobiec has good sources.
00:36:43.700 That's been my experience.
00:36:45.160 He has good sources.
00:36:46.480 So I'm going to take it as true
00:36:48.360 that we have some intel on this.
00:36:52.220 And he's heard it.
00:36:53.960 How do you interpret that?
00:36:55.400 Do you interpret it as,
00:36:56.360 oh my God,
00:36:57.200 war is going to break out in any moment?
00:36:59.320 Because the generals
00:37:00.040 are itching to do it?
00:37:02.340 I don't.
00:37:04.220 Here's my interpretation.
00:37:07.520 If you're a general,
00:37:09.520 you need to tell Xi
00:37:12.020 you're ready to go.
00:37:13.220 Give me the green light.
00:37:15.040 Isn't that just good generaling?
00:37:17.200 Generals being generals.
00:37:18.640 Don't we have an attack plan
00:37:20.180 for basically everything?
00:37:22.120 Don't our generals have a plan
00:37:23.780 for attacking just about anything,
00:37:25.780 including China?
00:37:27.280 Of course they do.
00:37:27.960 And don't those generals
00:37:29.680 probably tell their commander-in-chief
00:37:32.280 in the United States,
00:37:33.600 not on this topic,
00:37:34.660 but on other topics,
00:37:36.200 let us do it.
00:37:38.000 They said that in Afghanistan, right?
00:37:40.240 Yeah, let us stay.
00:37:41.920 Let's keep some people there forever.
00:37:43.360 The most ordinary thing in the world
00:37:46.840 bordering on nothing
00:37:50.000 is generals wanting to fight wars,
00:37:53.280 or at least telling the boss
00:37:54.440 they want to fight a war.
00:37:56.060 Telling the boss,
00:37:57.000 you know,
00:37:57.240 put us in the game
00:37:58.100 is just,
00:37:59.300 seems good politics.
00:38:00.360 I'm not sure I could go so far
00:38:03.020 as to say that that's telling us
00:38:04.480 they're ready to strike.
00:38:06.800 Because I can't imagine
00:38:08.060 that China would benefit from it.
00:38:11.260 I think their economy
00:38:12.160 would be crashed for 100 years.
00:38:14.880 And I think they'd know that.
00:38:18.420 CNN has a story that says
00:38:20.320 in several states,
00:38:21.940 Texas, Idaho, Alabama,
00:38:23.260 Georgia, Oklahoma,
00:38:24.120 Kentucky, Arkansas,
00:38:25.120 and North Carolina,
00:38:25.820 have 15% or less
00:38:28.020 of their ICU capacity available.
00:38:31.780 So ICU capacity
00:38:33.420 in those states I mentioned,
00:38:35.640 15% or less capacity.
00:38:40.500 Anybody?
00:38:41.840 In the comments?
00:38:43.020 In the comments,
00:38:43.960 why is that fake news?
00:38:45.980 Come on,
00:38:46.640 you're all trained.
00:38:47.400 You know this one.
00:38:48.560 You all know this one.
00:38:49.740 That's the normal amount
00:38:51.020 of capacity in an ICU.
00:38:54.680 15% of capacity
00:38:55.800 capacity is a lot, actually.
00:38:58.080 It's not tight.
00:39:00.220 That means that they
00:39:01.340 wish they had more.
00:39:03.480 Because the ICUs
00:39:04.500 try to operate
00:39:05.220 close to that level
00:39:06.740 because they're expensive.
00:39:09.360 So you want to utilize them
00:39:10.400 as much as possible.
00:39:11.760 So you build them
00:39:12.640 such that they're always
00:39:14.220 close to capacity.
00:39:17.140 So CNN reports this
00:39:18.300 without ever telling you
00:39:19.260 what the normal capacity
00:39:20.400 is for an ICU.
00:39:23.400 Yeah, somebody in the comments
00:39:24.660 says 90% is the goal.
00:39:27.420 This is the fakest
00:39:28.500 of fake news.
00:39:29.700 Now, I'm not telling you
00:39:31.400 that that's, you know,
00:39:32.760 that's enough capacity
00:39:34.260 because you could crash
00:39:35.340 that with a wave,
00:39:36.480 I guess, of COVID.
00:39:38.420 But they need to add
00:39:39.580 a little context here,
00:39:40.900 please.
00:39:42.600 All right,
00:39:42.860 Monica Lewinsky is,
00:39:44.160 I think there's some
00:39:45.160 documentary about
00:39:46.340 Monica Lewinsky now.
00:39:47.720 So she's in the news again.
00:39:48.720 And she says,
00:39:49.180 Bill Clinton's role
00:39:51.420 in the affair scandal
00:39:52.600 was wholly inappropriate.
00:39:55.140 I guess we all agree
00:39:55.960 with that,
00:39:57.180 as was hers.
00:39:58.580 And she says the same thing.
00:39:59.780 Her own role,
00:40:00.900 she's not defending.
00:40:02.840 But what about the part
00:40:05.860 about going public?
00:40:08.440 Those are two different crimes,
00:40:10.980 if I could use crime
00:40:12.020 in a generic sense,
00:40:13.000 not a technical sense.
00:40:14.040 Because Bill Clinton
00:40:16.600 made one bad mistake,
00:40:19.000 which was Monica Lewinsky.
00:40:21.920 Monica Lewinsky made
00:40:23.200 two bad mistakes.
00:40:25.260 One was getting involved
00:40:26.540 in the affair.
00:40:27.160 She was an adult.
00:40:28.560 Yes, I understand
00:40:29.400 the power differential
00:40:30.320 and all that,
00:40:30.820 but she was an adult.
00:40:32.460 We don't give adults a pass.
00:40:34.940 Right?
00:40:35.520 We don't give adults a pass.
00:40:37.300 Clinton lied,
00:40:38.160 and he should have.
00:40:38.960 I approve of his lie.
00:40:41.720 I approve of his lie.
00:40:44.040 For the country.
00:40:45.460 Was the country better off
00:40:46.580 if you found out
00:40:47.340 that the affair was real?
00:40:49.960 Did that help you
00:40:50.780 in some way?
00:40:51.900 No, it just caused us
00:40:53.160 to be caught up
00:40:54.120 in some impeachment drama.
00:40:56.260 It didn't help the country.
00:40:58.420 So, this is my opinion.
00:41:00.820 Bill Clinton, yes.
00:41:02.120 What he did,
00:41:02.720 he has to answer for,
00:41:03.560 and he has.
00:41:05.000 What Monica did
00:41:05.980 in terms of the affair,
00:41:06.900 she has to answer for,
00:41:07.820 and she has.
00:41:08.240 And she takes responsibility,
00:41:09.840 and I appreciate that.
00:41:11.600 But the real crime here
00:41:12.740 was the making it public.
00:41:15.660 Am I wrong?
00:41:17.120 That that was the bigger crime?
00:41:19.000 Because that's the part
00:41:19.760 that paralyzed the country.
00:41:21.840 They could have had sex
00:41:23.040 all day long
00:41:23.820 in the Oval Office
00:41:24.560 if they just didn't
00:41:25.320 tell us about it.
00:41:26.680 Still would be
00:41:27.360 wholly inappropriate,
00:41:29.080 but at least,
00:41:29.980 you know,
00:41:30.220 the commander-in-chief
00:41:31.040 would not be so tense.
00:41:35.060 Yeah.
00:41:35.460 So, her friend,
00:41:36.420 Linda Tripp,
00:41:37.080 who talked her into it,
00:41:39.060 you know,
00:41:40.280 certainly has
00:41:40.900 some responsibility
00:41:42.800 there, too.
00:41:45.100 But,
00:41:45.780 I can't give
00:41:46.740 Monica Lewinsky
00:41:47.960 a pass
00:41:48.620 for making this public.
00:41:50.420 That is one
00:41:51.080 of the worst things
00:41:51.820 any citizen
00:41:52.520 has done
00:41:52.940 to this country,
00:41:54.560 short of terrorism.
00:41:57.320 Is that hyperbole?
00:41:58.820 It's one of the worst things
00:41:59.820 a citizen
00:42:00.360 has done
00:42:00.820 to the country,
00:42:01.900 short of terrorism.
00:42:03.500 and, you know,
00:42:05.400 mass shootings and stuff.
00:42:07.820 Somebody says
00:42:08.320 not even close.
00:42:10.560 Their affair
00:42:11.280 was outed by Drudge.
00:42:14.380 That's not the way
00:42:15.200 I remember it.
00:42:17.060 Maybe I do need
00:42:17.900 a fact check on this,
00:42:19.040 but I remember it as
00:42:20.440 maybe Drudge outed it,
00:42:22.720 but it wouldn't have
00:42:23.280 been a thing
00:42:23.740 unless she admitted it,
00:42:24.700 right?
00:42:25.580 I think it was
00:42:26.360 the admitting it
00:42:27.180 that made it a thing.
00:42:28.780 Because presidents
00:42:29.560 being accused
00:42:30.200 of having affairs
00:42:30.980 is kind of,
00:42:32.340 you know,
00:42:32.600 one news cycle
00:42:34.620 and gone.
00:42:36.100 That's not really
00:42:36.960 the big problem,
00:42:38.360 just being accused.
00:42:39.420 It's the admitting it
00:42:40.220 that's the problem.
00:42:42.380 All right.
00:42:44.420 And I also think
00:42:45.480 that this whole thing
00:42:46.300 infantilizes women.
00:42:49.520 It infantilizes women.
00:42:52.480 Put your,
00:42:53.340 let's do the
00:42:54.180 Alan Dershowitz test,
00:42:55.420 okay?
00:42:56.240 Here's the
00:42:56.620 Alan Dershowitz test.
00:42:58.660 Imagine the affair
00:42:59.900 happened,
00:43:00.540 but the 22-year-old
00:43:01.780 in the story
00:43:02.320 was male.
00:43:04.960 Would we treat
00:43:05.960 a male 22-year-old
00:43:08.080 who had an affair,
00:43:09.100 let's say,
00:43:09.640 with,
00:43:10.020 I don't know,
00:43:10.960 Angela Merkel
00:43:11.640 or something,
00:43:12.780 would we treat
00:43:13.480 that 22-year-old
00:43:14.760 as like,
00:43:15.200 oh,
00:43:15.400 there was a power
00:43:16.040 differential?
00:43:17.100 Even though there
00:43:17.780 would be.
00:43:18.680 And even though
00:43:19.240 it does matter.
00:43:20.240 I'm certainly
00:43:20.720 agreeing it matters.
00:43:22.260 But would we
00:43:22.840 treat these situations
00:43:23.860 the same?
00:43:25.540 I'm going to say no.
00:43:28.140 I'm going to say no.
00:43:29.100 I think we're
00:43:30.100 infantilizing women
00:43:31.140 here.
00:43:32.240 I think it's
00:43:33.140 insanely sexist
00:43:35.440 to imagine that
00:43:36.300 Monica was just
00:43:37.180 a victim to the
00:43:38.080 power and the
00:43:39.400 situation.
00:43:40.820 I just don't think
00:43:42.000 a man would be
00:43:42.800 treated like this.
00:43:44.560 I think a man
00:43:45.240 would be treated
00:43:45.840 with more respect,
00:43:46.960 frankly.
00:43:47.920 And I don't think
00:43:48.680 that's cool.
00:43:50.140 All right.
00:43:51.140 Bill Gates is part
00:43:52.260 of fake news.
00:43:53.240 You probably,
00:43:53.920 some of you,
00:43:54.480 might have fallen
00:43:54.980 for this.
00:43:55.500 The story is
00:43:56.720 that in a 2010
00:43:57.600 TED Talk,
00:43:59.480 he talked about
00:44:00.580 using vaccinations
00:44:01.880 to reduce
00:44:02.780 population growth.
00:44:04.980 People interpreted
00:44:06.020 that as killing
00:44:07.360 people to reduce
00:44:09.300 the population.
00:44:10.920 No,
00:44:11.820 he didn't say
00:44:12.300 that.
00:44:13.020 He also did not
00:44:14.080 say we'll vaccinate
00:44:14.980 people to make
00:44:16.500 them unable to
00:44:17.440 have children.
00:44:19.180 No,
00:44:19.740 he didn't say
00:44:20.140 that.
00:44:20.720 The context
00:44:21.400 was that
00:44:23.200 vaccinated
00:44:24.740 societies do
00:44:26.320 better.
00:44:27.020 And when
00:44:27.280 countries do
00:44:27.920 better
00:44:28.280 economically,
00:44:30.700 their birth
00:44:32.600 rate goes down
00:44:33.140 automatically.
00:44:34.840 So what Bill
00:44:35.420 Gates said
00:44:35.880 was sort
00:44:37.920 of a big
00:44:38.280 nothing.
00:44:39.220 If you
00:44:39.660 vaccinate
00:44:40.260 better
00:44:40.760 these developing
00:44:42.120 countries,
00:44:43.240 they would be
00:44:43.940 part of a
00:44:44.680 package of
00:44:45.200 things that
00:44:45.620 make them do
00:44:46.160 better.
00:44:47.120 And as they
00:44:47.660 do better,
00:44:48.160 they have
00:44:48.440 fewer kids.
00:44:50.380 Is that
00:44:50.960 controversial?
00:44:53.160 Now,
00:44:53.640 you might say
00:44:54.160 we shouldn't
00:44:54.580 get vaccinations.
00:44:55.380 That's a
00:44:55.640 separate
00:44:55.840 question.
00:44:56.420 But it's
00:44:56.600 not really
00:44:56.900 controversial
00:44:57.500 to say that
00:44:58.760 the population
00:44:59.400 might self-regulate
00:45:00.820 if the country
00:45:01.980 does better.
00:45:05.440 All right.
00:45:08.840 Birth rate
00:45:09.460 goes down,
00:45:10.100 but infant
00:45:10.460 mortality
00:45:10.960 improves,
00:45:11.620 so does
00:45:11.920 wash.
00:45:12.360 I mean,
00:45:12.560 you could
00:45:12.780 argue that
00:45:13.240 he has
00:45:13.500 the math
00:45:13.860 wrong.
00:45:14.380 That's a
00:45:14.700 separate
00:45:14.960 question.
00:45:18.480 How much
00:45:19.180 market share
00:45:19.800 is Apple
00:45:20.340 versus Android?
00:45:21.600 Quit selling
00:45:22.280 Apple products
00:45:23.660 you sell
00:45:24.180 out a lot.
00:45:26.640 Now,
00:45:27.360 I'll say it
00:45:28.240 again,
00:45:29.100 as many
00:45:30.360 times as
00:45:30.780 it takes.
00:45:31.920 We can't
00:45:32.540 treat the
00:45:33.540 companies that
00:45:34.560 have established
00:45:35.280 business in
00:45:36.140 China the
00:45:36.640 same as a
00:45:37.760 company that's
00:45:38.260 planning to
00:45:38.960 go there.
00:45:40.120 That's just
00:45:40.720 not the same
00:45:41.200 analysis.
00:45:41.840 You have to
00:45:42.240 let the big
00:45:42.680 companies unwind
00:45:43.560 at their own
00:45:44.160 speed,
00:45:44.700 whatever makes
00:45:45.280 sense economically.
00:45:46.060 But I think
00:45:47.780 you can be
00:45:48.500 assured that
00:45:51.520 Apple and
00:45:53.600 their management
00:45:54.920 team,
00:45:55.520 they're looking
00:45:56.340 at alternatives
00:45:57.100 to China.
00:45:59.180 If you think
00:46:00.040 they're not
00:46:00.420 looking pretty
00:46:01.180 hard at
00:46:01.660 alternatives to
00:46:02.480 China just to
00:46:03.120 minimize their
00:46:03.640 own risk,
00:46:04.340 you're crazy.
00:46:06.020 But I'm just
00:46:06.560 saying that we
00:46:07.060 don't need to
00:46:07.540 make them
00:46:08.320 leave today.
00:46:10.120 It would be
00:46:10.740 enough to
00:46:12.740 just give them
00:46:13.440 their flexibility
00:46:15.240 to get out
00:46:16.360 at their own
00:46:16.880 speed.
00:46:19.280 A question
00:46:20.880 about Boo,
00:46:21.500 my cat.
00:46:22.020 I have only
00:46:22.460 bad news about
00:46:23.240 Boo,
00:46:23.520 unfortunately.
00:46:24.080 She's not
00:46:24.480 eating on her
00:46:25.020 own.
00:46:25.300 I thought she
00:46:25.640 did for a
00:46:26.660 day.
00:46:27.000 She was
00:46:27.200 licking some
00:46:27.720 food, but
00:46:28.180 she stopped.
00:46:30.340 It's not
00:46:30.900 looking good
00:46:31.380 for Boo,
00:46:31.760 the cat.
00:46:32.840 But that's
00:46:33.300 another story.
00:46:34.760 All right.
00:46:35.040 So let's
00:46:40.160 see.
00:46:43.440 I got some
00:46:44.900 pushback on
00:46:45.840 Twitter for
00:46:48.420 mentioning that
00:46:49.400 vaccine mandates
00:46:50.960 would not be
00:46:52.920 unique.
00:46:54.600 And the
00:46:55.600 problem is we
00:46:56.060 just got used
00:46:56.720 to it.
00:46:58.180 Everything you
00:46:58.980 do is mandated
00:46:59.940 in terms of
00:47:01.640 the guardrails of
00:47:03.580 what you can
00:47:04.020 and can't do.
00:47:05.400 And I used
00:47:06.180 seatbelts as
00:47:06.840 my example,
00:47:07.840 and everybody
00:47:08.380 did the
00:47:09.000 analogy thing,
00:47:10.540 where if you
00:47:11.420 say, oh,
00:47:12.000 Scott, that's a
00:47:12.580 bad analogy,
00:47:13.100 because here
00:47:13.980 are the
00:47:14.200 differences
00:47:14.600 between a
00:47:15.900 seatbelt and
00:47:16.940 a vaccination.
00:47:19.080 Now, did
00:47:20.220 anybody think I
00:47:20.840 didn't know that
00:47:21.460 seatbelts and
00:47:22.000 vaccinations were
00:47:22.720 actually different
00:47:23.280 things?
00:47:24.400 I will stipulate
00:47:25.680 that everything
00:47:27.080 about a
00:47:27.540 vaccination,
00:47:29.260 everything,
00:47:30.100 is different
00:47:30.620 from everything
00:47:31.580 about seatbelts,
00:47:33.860 except one
00:47:34.700 thing, which
00:47:35.540 was my point.
00:47:36.660 Just one
00:47:37.280 thing, the
00:47:38.060 government makes
00:47:38.600 you do it.
00:47:39.720 That's all.
00:47:40.860 That's all.
00:47:41.440 Well, I'm
00:47:42.060 not saying
00:47:42.400 they're the
00:47:42.780 same.
00:47:43.720 I'm just
00:47:44.300 saying you
00:47:44.660 live in a
00:47:45.060 world in
00:47:45.400 which the
00:47:45.680 government makes
00:47:46.240 you do all
00:47:46.680 kinds of
00:47:47.040 stuff that
00:47:48.280 maybe you
00:47:48.700 don't want
00:47:49.000 to do.
00:47:50.060 So if
00:47:51.080 your argument
00:47:51.980 is the
00:47:52.540 slippery slope,
00:47:54.340 well, you've
00:47:55.160 been sliding
00:47:55.640 that slippery
00:47:56.260 slope forever,
00:47:57.940 which doesn't
00:47:59.360 mean I'm in
00:47:59.800 favor of
00:48:00.200 mandates.
00:48:00.700 I'm opposed
00:48:01.380 to mandates.
00:48:03.280 Hear that
00:48:03.900 part.
00:48:04.180 I'm opposed
00:48:04.620 to mandates,
00:48:05.260 but I'm also
00:48:05.960 opposed to
00:48:06.440 bad arguments.
00:48:07.100 I'm opposed
00:48:08.880 to mandates
00:48:09.500 and bad
00:48:10.320 arguments.
00:48:11.340 We live in
00:48:11.760 a world in
00:48:12.280 which we
00:48:12.840 have willingly
00:48:13.420 given the
00:48:13.920 government all
00:48:14.520 kinds of
00:48:15.020 control over
00:48:15.640 our bodies,
00:48:16.760 and we just
00:48:18.100 got used to
00:48:18.620 it.
00:48:19.020 So we don't
00:48:19.440 notice it,
00:48:20.000 really, I
00:48:20.420 guess.
00:48:21.160 It's just
00:48:21.580 that when it
00:48:22.100 comes to
00:48:23.300 this, we
00:48:23.640 notice it.
00:48:24.240 Now, let me
00:48:24.640 ask you this.
00:48:26.020 Why is it
00:48:26.640 that we're
00:48:26.960 treating this
00:48:27.760 particular risk
00:48:28.800 and mandate
00:48:30.220 so different?
00:48:31.780 Don't our
00:48:34.060 other mandates
00:48:34.680 have a potential
00:48:36.320 to kill us
00:48:37.000 or make us
00:48:37.760 lose money
00:48:38.300 also?
00:48:39.700 This isn't
00:48:40.440 the only
00:48:40.800 mandate that
00:48:41.380 has a negative
00:48:41.960 impact on
00:48:42.660 people, is it?
00:48:44.100 For example,
00:48:45.400 instituting the
00:48:46.100 draft.
00:48:47.540 And that's a
00:48:48.120 pretty big impact
00:48:49.020 on people.
00:48:50.120 But we allow
00:48:50.920 that under
00:48:52.120 the right
00:48:52.400 conditions.
00:48:54.320 So I'm
00:48:55.520 going to make
00:48:55.940 a provocative
00:48:56.620 statement that
00:48:59.440 your opinion
00:49:00.200 on vaccinations
00:49:01.040 was probably
00:49:02.120 assigned to
00:49:03.800 you.
00:49:04.920 You don't
00:49:05.580 know it.
00:49:07.080 Your opinion
00:49:07.900 on vaccinations
00:49:08.780 was probably
00:49:09.880 assigned to
00:49:10.840 you by the
00:49:11.260 media.
00:49:11.680 Because that's
00:49:12.000 where our
00:49:12.300 opinions come
00:49:12.820 from.
00:49:13.660 If you have
00:49:14.360 an opinion
00:49:14.680 that doesn't
00:49:15.260 match anything
00:49:16.040 that you're
00:49:16.420 reading in
00:49:16.820 the media,
00:49:17.780 it might be
00:49:18.280 your own
00:49:18.600 opinion.
00:49:19.760 If your
00:49:20.340 opinion exactly
00:49:21.300 matches stuff
00:49:22.160 you're seeing
00:49:22.560 on social
00:49:23.040 media, it
00:49:24.300 could be
00:49:24.600 because you're
00:49:25.040 all smart.
00:49:26.640 I don't
00:49:27.200 think so.
00:49:28.680 I think it's
00:49:29.340 more because
00:49:30.160 your opinion
00:49:30.780 got assigned
00:49:31.400 to you and
00:49:31.860 you accepted
00:49:32.920 it.
00:49:34.000 So not only
00:49:34.820 are you
00:49:35.340 accepting
00:49:35.760 mandates,
00:49:37.080 it's worse.
00:49:38.700 You're
00:49:38.980 accepting
00:49:39.360 opinions.
00:49:41.240 You're
00:49:41.760 actually taking
00:49:42.500 the governments
00:49:43.140 or in some
00:49:44.080 cases some
00:49:45.260 other entity
00:49:45.820 like Fox
00:49:47.240 News or
00:49:47.860 whatever you're
00:49:48.360 reading and
00:49:49.520 you're letting
00:49:51.260 them give you
00:49:51.920 an opinion
00:49:52.360 that you
00:49:53.680 think is
00:49:54.080 your own
00:49:54.360 now.
00:49:56.040 I know.
00:49:56.760 You think
00:49:57.020 it's your
00:49:57.280 own opinion.
00:49:58.160 That's how
00:49:58.520 it works.
00:49:59.300 It always
00:49:59.560 feels like
00:50:00.080 it's your
00:50:00.320 own opinion.
00:50:01.260 But unless
00:50:01.740 it's unique,
00:50:03.180 you can't
00:50:03.700 tell.
00:50:05.940 Scott's
00:50:06.440 trying to
00:50:06.820 label people.
00:50:09.200 What?
00:50:10.980 What?
00:50:11.800 Where did I
00:50:12.440 just label
00:50:12.920 people?
00:50:18.700 South Korean
00:50:19.540 doctors on
00:50:20.200 YouTube are a
00:50:20.780 good source?
00:50:23.620 Oh,
00:50:24.160 I'm
00:50:24.540 asking,
00:50:24.760 do you
00:50:24.960 believe Hunter
00:50:25.480 is actually
00:50:25.980 painting the
00:50:26.660 pictures he
00:50:27.220 selling?
00:50:28.940 I don't
00:50:30.580 think you
00:50:30.940 can assume
00:50:31.440 it.
00:50:33.320 But I
00:50:33.920 don't think
00:50:34.260 that they're
00:50:34.700 so good
00:50:35.460 that I
00:50:36.620 would rule
00:50:37.000 it out.
00:50:40.340 How about
00:50:41.020 my opinion?
00:50:41.780 Is it a
00:50:42.140 sign?
00:50:42.600 Well, my
00:50:43.140 opinion, I
00:50:43.800 believe, does
00:50:44.520 not match to
00:50:45.240 any of the
00:50:45.680 major opinions.
00:50:48.760 My opinion
00:50:49.440 is that the
00:50:50.400 vaccination is
00:50:51.620 a good idea
00:50:52.340 for lots of
00:50:53.220 people.
00:50:53.460 And I'm
00:50:55.360 in that
00:50:55.640 category where
00:50:56.360 the risk
00:50:56.880 reward, based
00:50:58.720 on, you
00:50:59.200 know, incomplete
00:51:00.180 information, but
00:51:01.860 it looks like it
00:51:02.400 might be a good
00:51:03.140 decision for
00:51:03.760 people in my
00:51:04.340 category.
00:51:04.860 It might be a
00:51:05.240 bad decision for
00:51:05.960 somebody in some
00:51:06.580 other demographic.
00:51:08.680 But I don't
00:51:09.580 think we should
00:51:10.020 have mandates.
00:51:11.420 So I don't
00:51:12.140 know which side
00:51:12.780 is telling you
00:51:13.500 that the
00:51:15.540 vaccinations might
00:51:16.520 be a good
00:51:16.960 idea, but you
00:51:18.300 don't need
00:51:18.680 mandates.
00:51:21.080 So I suppose
00:51:22.200 there are plenty
00:51:22.600 of people with
00:51:23.040 that opinion,
00:51:23.540 too.
00:51:26.400 Scott's opinion
00:51:27.060 seems like
00:51:27.600 things we've
00:51:28.120 heard before.
00:51:31.000 I don't know
00:51:31.740 that you've
00:51:32.120 heard my
00:51:32.460 opinion breaking
00:51:33.160 down the
00:51:33.900 risk management
00:51:36.180 before.
00:51:36.620 I think I'm
00:51:37.240 the only one
00:51:37.660 talking about
00:51:38.180 it that way.
00:51:43.880 Yeah, you
00:51:44.520 know, the
00:51:45.640 government
00:51:46.000 tracking down
00:51:47.820 to $600
00:51:48.740 transactions in
00:51:50.040 your bank
00:51:50.400 account, that's
00:51:52.460 going to
00:51:53.580 change a lot
00:51:54.120 of behavior.
00:51:55.820 Because here's
00:51:56.540 the problem.
00:51:57.940 A huge part
00:51:58.700 of the American
00:51:59.160 economy is
00:51:59.940 criminal.
00:52:03.060 Small
00:52:03.580 business.
00:52:05.200 One of the
00:52:06.140 dark secrets of
00:52:07.320 small business is
00:52:08.220 that they're
00:52:08.660 mostly criminal
00:52:10.420 enterprises.
00:52:11.540 No matter what
00:52:12.340 they look like on
00:52:13.080 the surface,
00:52:14.180 they're almost
00:52:14.880 certainly cheating
00:52:15.560 on their taxes.
00:52:16.940 Sorry.
00:52:18.300 Almost.
00:52:19.060 Not all of them.
00:52:19.780 There could be
00:52:20.780 small businesses
00:52:21.580 that are just
00:52:22.120 playing it totally
00:52:22.800 straight.
00:52:24.000 But small
00:52:24.460 businesses have a
00:52:25.380 lot of
00:52:26.100 flexibility to
00:52:27.160 take cash.
00:52:29.760 Pretty much
00:52:30.420 all of them
00:52:30.880 do.
00:52:32.340 Pretty much
00:52:33.020 all of them
00:52:33.420 don't declare it.
00:52:34.580 But they've
00:52:35.180 got to put that
00:52:35.600 cash somewhere.
00:52:37.000 So they put it
00:52:37.460 in the bank.
00:52:38.340 So what's going
00:52:39.140 to happen with
00:52:39.740 this bank thing?
00:52:40.600 Let's make a
00:52:41.340 prediction.
00:52:42.460 What's going to
00:52:43.120 happen?
00:52:43.460 Will the small
00:52:44.360 businesses stop
00:52:45.240 taking cash or
00:52:47.960 just start paying
00:52:48.920 taxes on it?
00:52:49.980 Probably not.
00:52:51.520 Will they take
00:52:52.400 that money and
00:52:52.940 still put it in
00:52:53.540 the bank where
00:52:54.800 they will easily
00:52:55.600 be caught because
00:52:57.080 their deposits
00:52:58.780 outweigh their
00:52:59.780 income so it'll
00:53:01.120 raise the flag?
00:53:03.040 Probably not.
00:53:04.440 Here's what's
00:53:04.900 going to happen.
00:53:06.460 You're going to
00:53:06.880 create a secondary
00:53:07.980 market for cash.
00:53:10.420 And it won't be
00:53:11.340 banks.
00:53:12.960 You're going to
00:53:13.640 create this
00:53:14.060 underground cash
00:53:15.920 network where
00:53:17.380 people will be
00:53:18.220 laundering their
00:53:19.000 cash through
00:53:19.620 friends.
00:53:21.340 Let me give you
00:53:22.520 an example.
00:53:24.540 If I make a
00:53:25.540 let's say I made
00:53:27.660 a $5,000 cash
00:53:29.880 deposit in my
00:53:30.940 bank.
00:53:32.820 Would it raise
00:53:33.840 any flags?
00:53:35.920 Nope.
00:53:36.780 Nope.
00:53:37.360 Because the
00:53:38.220 amounts of my
00:53:39.040 transactions are
00:53:39.880 large-ish.
00:53:41.440 And even if I
00:53:42.280 have never made a
00:53:43.240 I don't think I've
00:53:44.020 ever made a $5,000
00:53:45.060 cash deposit.
00:53:46.140 But even if I
00:53:47.340 did people would
00:53:49.360 say that's within
00:53:50.940 the range of what
00:53:52.100 he does.
00:53:52.820 So I could
00:53:53.700 launder your
00:53:54.520 money.
00:53:55.580 You could come
00:53:56.340 to me and say
00:53:56.820 hey you know I
00:53:59.140 got this $5,000
00:54:00.100 can you put it in
00:54:01.380 your bank and
00:54:02.880 we'll trade
00:54:03.420 something that
00:54:03.980 can't be noticed.
00:54:06.040 I'd say sure
00:54:06.620 because I have no
00:54:08.300 problem depositing
00:54:09.000 it.
00:54:09.200 It just looks like
00:54:09.800 normal business
00:54:10.420 for me.
00:54:10.800 So you're
00:54:13.140 going to find
00:54:13.400 these money
00:54:14.460 laundering will
00:54:15.160 just be pervasive.
00:54:17.560 You know cash
00:54:18.420 laundering.
00:54:20.500 And then crypto
00:54:21.440 is probably part of
00:54:22.220 the answer.
00:54:22.640 Yeah I'm seeing
00:54:23.300 I'm being prompted
00:54:23.980 for that.
00:54:24.440 Crypto will have
00:54:25.520 some impact.
00:54:26.260 I don't know
00:54:26.560 exactly what that
00:54:27.660 will look like.
00:54:29.860 Look at Europe
00:54:30.520 to see where this
00:54:31.160 goes.
00:54:31.600 Don't try to
00:54:32.060 guess.
00:54:33.880 Interesting.
00:54:34.640 Somebody says
00:54:35.200 in Europe it's
00:54:35.840 already there.
00:54:36.260 so repeat
00:54:39.960 after me I
00:54:40.660 just sold my
00:54:41.260 boat.
00:54:43.240 Exactly.
00:54:44.600 But if you
00:54:46.240 sell your boat
00:54:46.800 every week
00:54:47.420 they're going
00:54:47.780 to notice.
00:54:48.780 See that's
00:54:49.100 why I could
00:54:50.360 put $5,000
00:54:52.040 in the bank
00:54:52.640 and say I
00:54:53.500 sold the
00:54:53.860 boat.
00:54:54.340 Nobody's going
00:54:54.780 to look at
00:54:56.600 it twice.
00:55:00.580 Yes the
00:55:01.260 Dilber calendars
00:55:02.100 are made in
00:55:02.740 China and
00:55:03.760 almost all of
00:55:04.520 the products I
00:55:05.140 use probably
00:55:05.680 are made in
00:55:06.140 China is for
00:55:07.880 those of you
00:55:08.500 who want to
00:55:09.120 do a gotcha
00:55:09.940 on me it
00:55:11.340 doesn't work
00:55:12.180 because I'm
00:55:14.320 telling you I'm
00:55:15.760 not going to
00:55:16.360 stop buying
00:55:16.960 Chinese products
00:55:17.820 if I need
00:55:18.460 them and it's
00:55:18.960 the only place
00:55:19.360 I can get
00:55:19.780 them or even
00:55:20.680 just convenience.
00:55:21.960 I'm telling you
00:55:22.700 that we have to
00:55:23.360 stop new business
00:55:24.160 going in that's
00:55:24.880 practical and
00:55:26.460 stopping buying
00:55:27.340 everything from
00:55:27.940 China is
00:55:28.380 impractical and
00:55:29.280 making all the
00:55:29.820 companies move
00:55:30.380 out right away
00:55:31.320 is impractical.
00:55:33.680 So I'm in
00:55:34.720 favor of
00:55:35.760 practical things
00:55:36.860 I realize that
00:55:39.400 this creates an
00:55:40.180 inconsistency
00:55:41.100 philosophically
00:55:42.040 but you're not
00:55:44.040 catching me I'm
00:55:45.400 telling you I'm
00:55:46.080 doing that.
00:55:47.220 There's no gotcha
00:55:47.980 here.
00:55:50.120 Yes Dilber products
00:55:51.700 are printed in
00:55:52.540 China.
00:55:53.220 I hate it.
00:55:54.600 It's not going to
00:55:55.260 change overnight.
00:55:57.800 Will I talk to my
00:55:58.880 publisher about it?
00:55:59.640 Of course.
00:56:00.760 Do they have
00:56:01.240 options?
00:56:01.760 Probably not.
00:56:02.460 All right.
00:56:07.640 Yeah.
00:56:08.340 I mean we can
00:56:09.080 be practical.
00:56:10.300 We don't have to
00:56:10.780 be absolutists.
00:56:12.980 All right.
00:56:13.560 That is all I
00:56:14.440 needed to say
00:56:15.060 today.
00:56:15.480 I'm pretty sure.
00:56:16.980 Yes it is.
00:56:18.140 And that means I've
00:56:19.100 got to go do
00:56:19.500 something else.
00:56:20.400 It's time.
00:56:21.620 Somebody says
00:56:22.140 that's a lame
00:56:22.720 excuse.
00:56:23.240 Is it?
00:56:26.080 Is it?
00:56:27.320 Is being
00:56:28.020 practical a lame
00:56:30.320 excuse?
00:56:30.660 No it isn't.
00:56:34.220 Being practical
00:56:35.080 is always
00:56:35.620 practical.
00:56:37.840 Anyway I'll
00:56:38.620 talk to you
00:56:38.940 later.
00:56:39.100 you sure is.
00:56:44.280 You
00:56:47.180 you
00:56:48.400 you
00:56:49.080 you
00:56:54.920 you
00:56:55.840 you
00:56:55.940 you
00:56:57.200 you
00:56:58.460 you