Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1571 Scott Adams： Lawyers, Criminals, Politicians, and Other Weasels Are In My Target Zone Today

00:00:00.000 Bum-ba-dum-bum-bum. Wow. Hello, everybody, and good morning, and welcome to the best thing that 1.00

00:00:07.120 ever happened in the history of the cosmos. Every single universe, metaverse, and simulation,

00:00:13.800 the best thing ever. And you made it here on time, if you're watching this live.

00:00:20.200 For those of you who are watching this not live, well, you've lost 20% of the sparkle.

00:00:26.940 Next time, get up earlier, arrange your schedule, and get here live. And also hit the subscribe

00:00:33.120 button if you're on YouTube, because that would be a way that you can repay me without paying me

00:00:39.100 anything, in case you feel like you need to repay me for anything. I guess that was a little

00:00:44.860 presumptuous, so forget I even said that. Let's instead do the simultaneous sip, but all you need

00:00:51.200 is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any

00:00:56.640 kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid I like. That's right, coffee. And join me now

00:01:02.680 for the unparalleled pleasure. It's the dopamine here of the day, the thing that makes everything

00:01:08.200 better. Yeah, except lawyers. It's called the simultaneous sip, and it's happening now. Go.

00:01:14.680 Mmm. This is the only situation in which slurping is accepted. Don't do it with your bowl of rice.

00:01:27.120 Don't do it with your soup. Don't do it with your beverages in general. But when you're doing the

00:01:33.080 simultaneous sip, yeah, show some passion. Put a slurp on that thing. All right, Rasmussen had a

00:01:42.160 fascinating little poll here that shows us something about our world. It asked how many people thought

00:01:48.880 the media coverage on the Rittenhouse trial was prejudiced for Rittenhouse versus prejudiced against

00:01:58.400 Rittenhouse? What do you think people said? Most of you saw the clips and coverage from the Rittenhouse

00:02:03.720 trial. How many of you think that it was prejudiced against Rittenhouse? I'm talking about the news in

00:02:10.220 general. How many say prejudiced against? Okay, lots of people think prejudiced against. Okay.

00:02:19.320 Um, here's how the poll came out. Uh, 47% of the, uh, of the polled public said that it was prejudiced

00:02:30.140 against Rittenhouse, but, uh, only 15% said it was prejudiced for him. That is a huge difference. 47% said it was

00:02:40.520 against him, with only 15% said it was for him. But it gets even worse when you look at the, uh, political breakdown.

00:02:48.000 Uh, the GOP, Republicans, 69% of those watching, 69% said it was prejudiced against him.

00:02:59.840 But what about the Dems? They were watching exactly the same stuff, right? Weren't the Democrats watching

00:03:05.440 the same footage, same trial? So what did the Democrats see? 69% of Republicans saw prejudiced

00:03:13.140 against, the coverage would be against him. Only 22% of Democrats saw that. Three times as many

00:03:21.540 Republicans saw reality clearly than Democrats. Now, on some things, I would say, hey, you know,

00:03:30.180 reality is subjective. Uh, you know, everybody's opinion is about equally weighted. Your religion,

00:03:36.520 my religion, you know, there's no favored one. Usually I tell you stuff like that, right?

00:03:41.240 But not this time. This was actually, uh, adjudicated in a court of law, and we know the facts.

00:03:51.960 We know that the video shows no crime. All right? That, uh, a jury decided that unanimously.

00:03:57.880 And still, and I've said before that this case, the Rittenhouse case, is like the Rosetta Stone

00:04:05.520 that opens up the awareness of Democrats. Like, Democrats were walking around in this fog,

00:04:12.060 not understanding the world, not understanding why Republicans had different opinions exactly.

00:04:18.820 You know, maybe the Republicans are just all dumb. Maybe the Republicans are all just evil.

00:04:24.660 Maybe they're all just racist. Like, none of their theories of reality made any sense, right?

00:04:30.680 And they were trying to figure out why their observations of reality isn't matching their

00:04:35.240 understanding of reality. And I think the Rittenhouse trial finally explained it to them.

00:04:42.200 It's because your understanding of reality, the ones you see, you know, what you observe with your own

00:04:47.840 eyes, is completely different from what the news is telling you, because the news is fake.

00:04:52.760 So, I think the Rittenhouse trial is where a huge number of Democrats finally learned,

00:05:00.620 wait a minute, are you telling me it's not just Fox News? You know, from their point of view.

00:05:07.600 I would still argue that Fox News has the most accurate news.

00:05:12.440 Now, I've also called out Fox News for having stories that I don't think are true,

00:05:17.840 or at least opinion pieces. Usually the news people are right on. I can't think of an example

00:05:23.660 offhand. Can anybody else? Can you think of an example where the news people, not the opinion

00:05:29.640 people, but the news people had something seriously wrong on Fox News? I'm sure that's happened, right?

00:05:36.620 Can you give me an example? Calling Arizona earlier? Well, I don't know, but they were right

00:05:47.380 on the Arizona call. They went with the Russia hoax. I don't think they did. I don't think they did.

00:05:55.540 I think they reported it. Chris Wallace was all in on Trump collusion. Is Chris Wallace a news or

00:06:06.920 opinion guy? I don't know what he is, actually. Hannity was into weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

00:06:15.340 Okay, that's a good example. Chris Wallace is news. I guess you could say that. The interview ones

00:06:28.160 seem a little different than regular news. I'm not sure I would call him news. I think he's a hybrid. 0.99

00:06:36.780 Yeah, it's Mike Wallace. Sorry. Or Chris Wallace, right? All right. So anyway, here's the point.

00:06:53.660 Do you think that the problem is that the media is different or the Democrats are wired differently?

00:06:58.700 What do you think is happening? Do you think the Democrats just have different brains? So when

00:07:04.160 they're looking at the same material, it just looks different? Or do you think they're not looking

00:07:09.320 at the same material because they're looking through the media's lens and the media is just lying like

00:07:14.080 crazy? I think it's both. Yeah. But I think in this case, it's the media lens. The media tells them

00:07:21.320 what to think and then they just do. Here's an experiment for you. Find a Democrat who has an opinion

00:07:27.840 that's different from the media's narrative. Find a Republican. Find a Democrat or a Republican, somebody

00:07:37.580 who's actually registered that way, who has an explanation of the world that differs from the media's

00:07:44.100 narrative. It's really rare. Yeah, Tulsi, Manchin, those would be good examples. All right.

00:07:52.580 But I'm not talking about the politicians. I'm talking about voters. Well, I'm not a registered

00:07:59.040 anything. So I'm not a Republican or a Democrat. In fact, I did the ground news test, I tweeted,

00:08:07.380 where you can see if you're consuming more left news or right news. And mine's almost perfectly

00:08:13.300 balanced. If you look at the news sources that I consume, it's about equal left and right.

00:08:18.120 And I would argue that that keeps me, it protects me from cognitive dissonance, but not completely.

00:08:28.480 Because nobody's, nobody can be completely clear of it. But I think if you look at both sides, you have

00:08:34.160 at least a chance of knowing what's happening. All right. There was a study on intermittent fasting,

00:08:40.280 which I must tell you, I have never tried. How many of you have tried intermittent fasting?

00:08:46.560 The reason I've never tried it is because it looked like bullshit to me.

00:08:54.780 And now a study says it doesn't make much difference. So a study of a bunch of obese people,

00:09:02.120 there was a difference, actually. The fasters lost, 18% of them lost weight versus 15% of the

00:09:10.000 non-fasters. So not a gigantic difference, but a difference, a difference. So here's how I

00:09:16.540 would put it. This is what we learned in hypnosis class. Did you know that hypnosis doesn't work

00:09:23.740 for quitting smoking or for overeating? And yet it's one of the main things that people go to a

00:09:30.400 hypnotist for. It doesn't work at all. And when I say it doesn't work at all, what I mean is it works

00:09:36.940 sometimes? Just like everything else. No matter what you try to lose weight, and no matter what you try

00:09:44.900 to quit smoking, something like 20% of people succeed. You know, give or take. Do you know why 20% of people

00:09:55.140 succeed at losing weight or quitting smoking? No matter what technique they use, hypnosis,

00:10:00.540 willpower, go to a program. Do you know why? Because that's exactly the number who decided

00:10:07.500 to lose weight. And that's exactly the number who decided to quit. And I've told you a million times

00:10:14.840 this difference between wanting something and deciding. But the more you see the examples of it,

00:10:20.960 the more you see it as a valid filter on what's really happening in the world.

00:10:24.020 The people who decided to lose weight, it didn't matter what method they used,

00:10:29.780 because they decided. So whatever technique they used worked for them, because it gave them a fake

00:10:35.300 because. Oh, I'm losing weight because I got hypnotized. Or I'm losing weight because I'm fasting.

00:10:42.720 I'm losing weight because I'm watching my carbs. You need a because, because that keeps you motivated

00:10:49.200 that you're doing something right. But the because is random. It could be any because.

00:10:54.980 Oh, I changed my favorite color. That's why I'm losing weight. That would work with about 20% of

00:11:00.860 people. Now, that's a ridiculous example, but you get the point. 20%, it's going to work no matter

00:11:06.760 what you do. All right. So I'm not a believer in intermittent fasting, but I can be convinced if

00:11:13.020 there's, you know, someday if there's some better science or something. To me, it looks like a lot of pain

00:11:18.380 for not enough gain. So the Merck COVID pill is being analyzed and we could have it soon. I don't

00:11:26.660 know, maybe by the end of the year or something. So how good is the Merck COVID pill? Well, let's put

00:11:34.600 it this way. Out of 762 participants in a trial, you know, half were given the placebo, half were given

00:11:42.300 the real pill. And after a month went by, 45% of people who received the placebo were hospitalized.

00:11:50.940 Doesn't that seem like a lot out of 762 participants? Where do you find 762 people

00:11:58.260 in which 45 of them would end up in the hospital? How do you even do that? In a month?

00:12:06.080 Is there something wrong with that? Now, again, yeah, maybe they took, oh, nurses? I don't

00:12:14.360 know. Yeah, they must have found some kind of group that they knew was likely to get infected

00:12:18.820 a lot. I don't know where they find these. So here's my first impulse is you couldn't possibly

00:12:27.240 study this. I'm not saying that they studied it wrong. I'm saying, I don't know this could

00:12:34.080 ever work. Could it? How do you get 762 participants and end up with 45 people hospitalized

00:12:41.500 in a month? In a month? Something's going on here. We're not talking about infections.

00:12:49.280 I would understand that. You know, if you're in a high infection area, a lot of people get

00:12:54.080 infected. But how do 45 people end up hospitalized out of 762 in one month? So here's my first

00:13:01.840 comment. The study looks like bullshit to me, without knowing what the explanation for

00:13:09.720 that is. It looks like not enough people, and it looks like bullshit. Now, I'm an optimist,

00:13:17.460 so I'm going to say that it does work. So the optimist in me is working against the observation.

00:13:23.200 Here's one of the things I've told you to look for as a red flag to what's not true.

00:13:30.620 When science says something's true, and then you see it in the real world as acting exactly the way

00:13:36.440 science says it should act, probably true. Cigarettes, for example. Science at the moment says

00:13:42.880 cigarettes will give you lung cancer. And sure enough, when you hear somebody you know who has

00:13:48.440 lung cancer, nine out of ten times, there are cigarette smokers. So the world and the science

00:13:54.260 are together. But I don't know. There's 762 people. This whole trial just looks like,

00:14:04.700 doesn't make sense to me, in any world which I observe. I observe no world that looks like this

00:14:10.800 study. So there's a red flag there for me, or a yellow flag at least. But here's the shocking

00:14:17.940 news. Let's be optimistic and say this pill works. Because there's lots of background that

00:14:22.040 suggests it actually does. So I do think it probably works. I don't know if this study is

00:14:25.960 valid exactly. But among the group that received the drug, half as many were hospitalized. Still

00:14:32.940 an alarming number. 28 out of 762 in one month were hospitalized. And that's the people who are on

00:14:41.560 the drug. So I don't get these numbers. That doesn't make any sense to me. But there were nine

00:14:47.640 people who died who didn't take the drug. Nine of them died in a 762, which seems like a lot,

00:14:53.840 again, for one month. Right? If you took 762 people randomly from the population, you wouldn't expect

00:15:03.460 nine of them to die that month, would you? Somebody says it's a nursing home study? Maybe, but I would

00:15:10.800 think a nursing home study would be the wrong kind of study. Because it would only tell you if it works

00:15:15.980 in a nursing home. Right? Am I wrong about that? I mean, a nursing home study would be excellent to

00:15:21.920 have. But I don't know if it would tell you enough about the rest of the population in terms of the

00:15:26.620 risk reward. But anyway, I was taking the long road here to get to the shocking number that the number

00:15:34.400 of people who took the pill and died was zero. Zero. None. Nobody who took the pill died. And nine

00:15:45.660 people died in the control group out of just 762. If these numbers are valid, and I got a big question

00:15:54.180 about it, this would be the end of the pandemic. Because when it talks about hospitalizations,

00:16:02.480 it doesn't specify ICU, or how critical it became. Because even the hospitalizations might have been,

00:16:09.400 you know, the milder hospitalization types is a little unclear. But if you took the number of people

00:16:15.260 who died down to zero, or anything close to it, we're done. Get your rapid test. If you have a symptom,

00:16:24.600 you take the pill, whether you're sure it's COVID or not. And nobody dies. We're done. So we might be

00:16:32.120 that close. I don't give investment advice. But I'm going to be looking at investments in which the end of

00:16:43.520 the pandemic would really make a difference. Like if you really knew it was ended. Now, I don't know

00:16:48.680 that this pill will be the end. There could be another, you know, variant that makes everything

00:16:52.380 different. Who knows? But on a risk reward basis, I'll probably make a, I'm going to place a bet. I'm

00:17:00.060 not going to tell you ahead of time what it is. I'll tell you after the fact. But I'm probably going to

00:17:05.220 place a bet on at least one industry that would make a big difference if this pill works. Yeah,

00:17:12.000 the travel industry. But I won't tell you specifically how well I'll play that. Now,

00:17:16.780 again, this is very much not, not, not advice. It's not an investment advice. The only reason you

00:17:24.360 should make an investment of this type is if you're already rich. And it's, you know, your play money.

00:17:30.940 But don't, don't invest in this if you don't have money to burn, basically. All right.

00:17:37.200 One of the reasons I make investments like that is to see if I can predict because I can afford it.

00:17:46.700 So if I, you know, throw some small number of dollars at a bet, part of it is to make sure I

00:17:55.360 remember I predicted it. Because you know how you forget things you predicted wrong? I'm not immune

00:18:00.800 from that. I'll remember all the ones I got right. Don't remember the ones I got wrong. But man,

00:18:06.200 you put money on your bet. You'll remember that. You'll remember that. All right. Michael Cohen thinks

00:18:13.000 Trump won't run in 2024. And his reasons were that his fragile ego won't let him risk losing twice.

00:18:21.200 What do you think of that reasoning? That Trump's fragile ego won't allow him to lose twice.

00:18:28.440 You know, he's leading in the polls, right? This is the worst analysis I've ever seen.

00:18:35.960 I'm starting to think that all lawyers are dumb or criminal. Now, I know it's really because the

00:18:43.240 sample we're seeing in the news is all the worst lawyers in the world. We're going to talk about

00:18:47.980 some lawyers who are even worse than this. But how is it that you become a fixer, as Michael Cohen was

00:18:54.220 called for Trump? How is it you get the job of being a fixer? What's the way? What's the path to

00:19:01.000 becoming somebody's fixer? I think the path is through being a bad lawyer, isn't it? Do you get

00:19:08.160 the job of the fixer if you're a good lawyer? Because I think if you're a good lawyer, you go work for

00:19:14.300 yourself and make a lot of money. I think you have to be a terrible lawyer to find yourself as some

00:19:20.240 billionaire's fixer. Anyway, if I had to analyze Trump's fragile ego, as it's called, I would say,

00:19:29.700 number one, he has the strongest ego I've ever seen. All right? So my first statement is, it's the

00:19:38.140 opposite of a fragile ego. It's the strongest ego I've ever seen. Trump has taken more criticism

00:19:44.600 than anybody I've ever seen. And he knows it. He puts himself in situations where the

00:19:50.580 criticism will be brutal. You don't think he would change his hairstyle if he was concerned

00:19:57.080 about criticism? How hard would it be for him to, you know, just change his hairstyle?

00:20:01.940 Right? I've got a feeling that Trump, and if you look at the way he ran for office, he said the

00:20:09.580 most provocative things that would guarantee people would call him terrible names, and then he kept

00:20:13.460 saying it. Well after you knew that if you keep saying these things, people are going to be calling

00:20:19.500 you the worst things in the world, he kept saying it. Trump, every action that Trump takes is the

00:20:25.800 opposite of somebody who has a fragile ego. But, suppose you put a different frame on it.

00:20:33.540 Instead of saying he has a fragile ego, what if you just framed it differently and said he's

00:20:38.240 competitive? Would it look different? Would it look different if you simply said he's super

00:20:44.740 competitive? It would look exactly the same. Right? He would say it was unfair when he lost,

00:20:52.040 because he would believe it true. He would act exactly the same. So this is a media narrative.

00:20:59.640 Don't fall for the fragile ego thing. All evidence suggests the opposite. All evidence suggests that

00:21:05.820 his ego is incredibly strong. In fact, maybe stronger than I've ever seen. Imagine thinking you could be

00:21:13.840 president without practice. He had no practice being a politician. And he thought, you know, maybe I can be

00:21:21.820 the president of the country. That's the biggest ego you've ever seen in your life. They can't call

00:21:28.680 him a narcissist and then also say he has a fragile ego. Well, I guess you can. Technically, you could do

00:21:34.180 that. But I think that would be a definitional issue. All right. Ridley Scott was complaining because his

00:21:41.300 bad movie didn't do well. And he's saying that, I'm just guessing it's a bad movie. I haven't seen it.

00:21:47.100 But it looks like it would be bad. You know, you look at the stills. You go, oh, that looks bad.

00:21:55.800 Don't you make your decision about a movie in the first, is it just the first second? You know,

00:22:01.880 the first picture you see, you go, oh, that looks pretty bad. Anyway, I guess he did a movie called

00:22:09.720 The Last Duel and didn't do well in the box office. And he says the problem is that the young 0.99

00:22:15.840 people basically are using their cell phones for their entertainment and they've trained themselves

00:22:20.720 not to watch movies. Is that what happened? Do you agree? Do you think that the young have trained

00:22:28.140 themselves to watch the movies on their phones and stuff and therefore movies in general are not

00:22:34.360 so good? Well, that's part of it. It's part of the story. It's definitely part of the story.

00:22:42.660 Here's the rest of the story. Movies are terrible. How about that? How about movies used to be good

00:22:52.100 and now they're terrible? That's the whole story. The reason people don't go to movies is because

00:23:00.100 they're terrible. Let me give you my impression of me watching a modern movie. Okay. A man loves his

00:23:10.080 wife. So something bad is going to happen to the wife, probably the kids. Okay. So you're kissing 0.74

00:23:15.720 your wife. I get it. You love your wife. Now you're talking in this movie, sweet talk stuff that makes

00:23:21.740 me want to vomit to prove that you really, really love your wife. I get it. Something bad is going to

00:23:27.000 happen to happen to the wife. Okay. You have established that you and the wife have a close

00:23:32.240 relationship. You're really in love. I get it. Okay. Now they're talking some more to show us that

00:23:38.360 they're still very much in love. We get it. You're in love. Get, you know, shoe somebody. Can you do

00:23:46.200 something? Okay. They're still in love. Now they're kissing because they really need to show that they're,

00:23:52.980 now they're making love. Now they're having sex to show us that they really, really, really,

00:23:58.720 really, really care about us. And only the slow class doesn't get it yet.

00:24:06.260 Now compare that to a YouTube clip. Five minute clip. Boom. Jumps right into the topic,

00:24:13.820 gives you something good, and then gets the hell out of your life. 10 minutes. 0.59

00:24:18.480 The reason movies don't work is that they suck. They are no longer tuned to the modern mindset.

00:24:27.800 Now when there was no entertainment in the world, which wasn't that long ago, going to a movie was

00:24:33.320 a big deal. And also seeing things on the big screen was really exciting. Is anybody old enough to

00:24:40.800 remember the first Star Wars movie? You wouldn't want to watch Star Wars on a little screen, right?

00:24:46.760 But if the new Star Wars movie comes out, let's imagine that they still made good ones. If you

00:24:54.860 imagined a good Star Wars movie came out, I would still be tempted to watch that on my phone.

00:25:01.160 And the reason is, they all look the same. Have you seen a car chase lately? Do you remember that

00:25:10.060 car chase with the really innovative? No, I don't either. I mean, they do do a really good job of trying

00:25:16.500 to add variety into car chases. And I'm impressed at how much variety they can add into something

00:25:21.920 that's basically the same scene. But here's me watching a car chase scene.

00:25:26.320 Okay, now they're chasing in the car. I'll see what's on Twitter until the car chase is over.

00:25:34.860 Car chase, car chase, still chasing the car. Let's see. Still chasing the car. Chasing the car.

00:25:44.260 Okay, the car chase is done. I'll watch some dialogue. All right, all right, all right. Oh,

00:25:48.640 God, now they tied a guy to a chair. They tied a guy to a chair. He's going to be tortured.

00:25:52.860 Back to Twitter. Guy tied to a chair. He's going to be tortured, but he's a good guy,

00:25:58.880 so he doesn't fold. Somehow escapes from the chair with the help of a confederate or possibly

00:26:04.160 smuggles something in his hand. Cutting the ropes now, killing his captors. Guy tied in the chair.

00:26:12.320 All right, done with that scene. What else is next? Tell me I'm wrong, right? Isn't that how you watch

00:26:19.640 movies? You see what they want to tell you, and then you say, can you get past it? Can we get past

00:26:26.060 this scene, please? All right, that's what you're feeling about this live stream right now.

00:26:31.160 Well, apparently there's a spacecraft set to launch from NASA to knock an asteroid off course.

00:26:37.960 It's not heading for the Earth. So let me say that up front. The asteroid they're testing on to see if

00:26:46.560 they can knock an asteroid off course is not heading toward the Earth. They're seeing if they

00:26:52.500 have the technology to change an asteroid early on if it's first detected. So if we think there's

00:26:58.700 one that might come to the Earth, maybe we could nudge it. So the one that they're testing on is

00:27:04.000 absolutely not heading toward the Earth. I need you to know that. At least until they nudge it.

00:27:13.420 Because I'm not sure they have the nudging technology nailed yet. Now, obviously, it would

00:27:20.040 be a tremendous coincidence if the way they nudged it incorrectly made it hit Earth. But we do live in

00:27:27.800 a simulation where the least likely thing seems to happen all the time. So I'd be a little careful

00:27:33.820 about which side you nudge that asteroid on. That's all I'm saying. But I love the fact

00:27:37.920 that we're thinking so far ahead that we're nudging asteroids. All right. I'm going to give

00:27:44.440 the biggest compliment I've ever given to the Biden administration. And I'm not going to listen

00:27:49.280 to any criticism of it. Of course I will. But I'm trying to set you up here. All right. I'm going

00:27:55.900 to tell you something that the Biden administration did right. That's really, really good.

00:28:00.880 And I think Trump might have done it too. So I'm not going to say, you know, nobody else

00:28:06.440 could have done it or anything. But this is one of the best pieces of management I've ever

00:28:12.080 seen. Are you ready for this? The supply chain problem. The Biden administration formed a

00:28:21.720 task force. They decided to impose these $100 per container fines, which after nine days,

00:28:28.760 you know, $100 per container, you say, well, that's not that much. And then they increased

00:28:33.580 it by $100 every day. And as soon as they announced the fines, things cleared out very

00:28:41.360 quickly. In other words, when I guess the container problem has fallen by 33%, which is why it's

00:28:48.240 not been in the news. And it's not because of the penalties. It's because of the threat of

00:28:53.280 the penalties. And because the threat of the penalties works so well, they're holding back

00:28:57.280 on the penalties. Now, here is why this is the best piece of management I've seen from

00:29:04.340 our government. Maybe ever. Honestly, this is one of the best pieces of management you'll

00:29:09.180 ever see. Here's what they did. And I'll take a fact check on this. Because if I'm over analyzing

00:29:17.280 or over interpreting this, it's possible. So give me a fact check on this if you think

00:29:21.360 I went too far. When everybody, all the experts looked at the ports, what did people come away

00:29:27.760 with as the problem? Now, you know about Ryan Peterson having a good take on the fact that

00:29:34.620 there wasn't enough room for all the containers. So there was just a physical convention problem.

00:29:40.360 But on top of that, there were a number of, I guess, regulations that were keeping them

00:29:47.340 from doing some common sense stuff. And some of those got changed pretty quickly. So that

00:29:51.300 was good. That was local government. But it was good. But here's what happened. It didn't

00:30:00.120 look like anybody was making the changes they needed to, because it didn't look like they

00:30:04.300 had the economic incentive to solve a problem that wasn't one big problem. It was 1,000 little

00:30:12.520 things that needed to be tweaked. But nobody had an economic incentive to do it. So they gave them

00:30:19.320 an economic incentive. And they didn't solve the problem for them. This is the brilliant part.

00:30:25.540 If the Biden administration had gone and said, here's what you need to do, pile these up in this

00:30:30.120 place. Or get a train and take them all to this field. If they had been that specific, it would

00:30:36.820 have been a disaster. Because it would be people who don't know about containers and shipping telling

00:30:42.360 the people who do know about it how to do their job. How well would that work, right? Unlikely that's

00:30:48.600 going to work. But instead, they said, I'll tell you what we're going to do. We think all you motherfuckers

00:30:55.780 are lying. This is my interpretation. Can't read minds, remember? But here's how I'm interpreting

00:31:00.900 it. I think the Biden administration looked into it and said, I think all you fuckers are just lying

00:31:06.400 to us. I think you're all just fucking lying. Here's what we're going to do. We're going to put a boot

00:31:11.780 on your head. And we're going to squeeze your fucking head until you solve the problem that you're lying 0.98

00:31:17.360 to us about. And then they put the fines on, which was like the boot on the head. And they said,

00:31:23.280 all right, we're going to start to squeeze. And then watch you solve the problem that you said

00:31:27.300 can't be solved. And then they solved the problem that they said couldn't be solved.

00:31:33.820 This was good management. I can't tell you how many times in corporate America I've seen

00:31:40.060 this scene unfold. It's sort of like the Star Trek captain scene, where Scotty says,

00:31:47.060 I cannot give you warp four, captain. The ship was not meant to do warp four for 10 more minutes.

00:31:53.280 And the captain says, make it happen, Scotty. And he's like, we can't do it. And then he does it.

00:31:59.140 Now, that's the ridiculous cartoon version of management. But in the real world, I used to do

00:32:06.000 budgets. And I would collect the budgets of each of the departments and take it to the head. And

00:32:13.100 then it would be way over the total budget that he could get approved. So I'd say, well,

00:32:19.580 we should go back and cut the projects that don't look so good. We'll keep all the good stuff. But

00:32:26.280 we'll go back and cut the projects that aren't good. And the vice president, or AVP, I think it was,

00:32:32.800 said, no, just tell everybody to cut 10%. And I said, you can't do that. Because some of these groups

00:32:40.640 really need all the money. Some of them probably asked for too much. You really need to go in there

00:32:45.440 with a scalpel, not a sledgehammer. You can't go in there and just say everybody 10%. Now, keep in

00:32:52.120 mind, I was very young. And this executive was very experienced. So this experienced person was

00:32:59.100 telling me something that sounded batshit crazy to me. Just tell everybody to cut 10%. I didn't see how

00:33:05.120 that was a good idea. But it was my job. So I went back and told everybody to cut 10%. How do you think

00:33:12.380 it worked out? Fine. What problems did it cause? Zero. None. Not a single problem. Because what the

00:33:23.040 executive knew with his experience, that I didn't know, as a young 20-something, is that they were all

00:33:30.520 lying. He knew everybody was lying. He knew that if he put the screws on them and said, well, you'll be

00:33:37.600 fired if you don't cut 10%, that everybody could do it. They just had to figure out their own way to do

00:33:42.900 it. He couldn't specify how to do it. But he could tell them it had to be done. And you're fired if you

00:33:48.400 don't do it. And then it gets done. So it's very much like the Adams law of slow-moving disasters.

00:33:53.820 Once it's obvious that you have to fix this problem, we're pretty good at fixing stuff. You just can't

00:33:59.740 guess in advance exactly how it'll happen. Because you've got to A, B, test your way to it. So standing

00:34:06.940 ovation to the Biden-Harris supply chain disruptions task force. And you have to give Biden the credit.

00:34:16.000 Now, I don't think he should be your president, just to be clear. Not a big Biden supporter. But when he does

00:34:22.820 something right, or his administration does, this was very right. So Buttigieg is good now. Somebody

00:34:29.760 says, I don't know if Buttigieg was involved with the task force. But if it was, it would show some

00:34:34.460 experience and some good judgment. It took too long, maybe. Maybe. You know, do you know what else

00:34:42.420 takes too long? Everything. Do you know what you should have started sooner? Everything good.

00:34:52.000 Everything good. So do you know what is the worst criticism in the world? Should have done it

00:34:57.640 sooner. That's what your spouse says to you. Oh, you cleaned up the garage? Should have done it 1.00

00:35:05.960 sooner. All right. Congratulations on that solution. Let's talk about the race filter. You know, 0.51

00:35:14.500 the Democrats can only see race in everything. But they will also try to hide it when it doesn't

00:35:21.600 work in their favor. So you're watching the story about the gentleman who ran over a bunch of people

00:35:29.180 in Wisconsin, was it? Waukesha? Apparently, he ran over the woman that allegedly is the mother of his

00:35:38.140 child with the same red SUV before he ran over the people in the crowd. So in a whole separate

00:35:44.980 incident, he already ran over a woman with the same vehicle. And then he ran over some more people.

00:35:51.220 And the mainstream press told us that he was probably escaping from some other thing,

00:35:56.560 for which there's no evidence. Now, he happens to be black. And in our highly racial-charged world,

00:36:05.700 people say that matters. Now, it doesn't matter to the story in any way that I can tell,

00:36:11.400 because there doesn't seem to be a racial component to anything he did.

00:36:17.280 Well, even if he's a black nationalist, it doesn't mean there's a racial component to what he did.

00:36:21.680 So we don't know why he did what he did. Is that true? He hasn't said why he did what he did, right?

00:36:30.220 So I wouldn't make an assumption one way or the other. I would just say that the mainstream media

00:36:38.040 seem to be, let's say, downplaying his race because they didn't want it to be part of the story.

00:36:43.300 But we're very racially conscious, so it looks like it will be.

00:36:52.440 But the initial interpretation that he was fleeing the scene of another crime seems to be BS, BS.

00:36:58.900 Now, let's talk about the Amoud Arbery case, which I had not been following closely.

00:37:04.580 I try to ignore individual crime stories, because I just feel like we make too much of them.

00:37:11.660 But some of them you can't ignore, like Rittenhouse, of course, couldn't ignore that.

00:37:18.880 But Amoud Arbery, this is a really interesting case, because the situation was there was a neighborhood

00:37:25.060 that there had been some burglaries, and somebody described as apparently a black male

00:37:31.700 was thought to be one of the suspects.

00:37:33.920 And then a man who was jogging through the neighborhood, Amoud Arbery, was seen looking

00:37:40.940 through, I think, a construction site.

00:37:43.540 So on video, it looked like he was trespassing.

00:37:46.220 But he was just looking around, didn't take anything, went back to his jogging.

00:37:50.740 And some white citizens, you need to know they're white, you need to know he's black,

00:37:55.760 tracked him down, and they had guns with him.

00:37:58.800 And they decided to do a citizen's arrest.

00:38:03.120 And in the course of that citizen's arrest, apparently Amoud tried to grab the gun,

00:38:09.200 and then it turned into potentially a self-defense case.

00:38:12.720 That's debatable.

00:38:14.560 And the gun went off.

00:38:15.760 Well, not, didn't go off.

00:38:17.120 The person with the gun pulled the trigger, killed Amoud Arbery.

00:38:21.320 And now the question is, the defense rests on two things.

00:38:27.460 Number one, that a citizen's arrest was legal at the time.

00:38:32.580 Apparently, it's not legal anymore.

00:38:34.000 They changed that because of this.

00:38:35.820 But at the time, it was totally legal to do a citizen's arrest.

00:38:39.680 So that part's not illegal.

00:38:41.420 And it's also totally legal to do self-defense, if it can be proven that's what it was.

00:38:47.840 So that's the defense.

00:38:49.000 Now, how would you know that it was that?

00:38:54.980 It was really just, they really thought he was a suspect.

00:38:59.020 They didn't know.

00:39:00.940 But he fit the description.

00:39:03.040 And so they thought they would detain him long enough to determine whether he was that person

00:39:07.620 that maybe was on video somewhere.

00:39:10.900 Was that legal?

00:39:15.300 It was.

00:39:16.420 At the time, it was totally legal.

00:39:18.000 Even if he wasn't guilty.

00:39:21.280 Right?

00:39:21.660 Now, apparently, he had a criminal record from before that.

00:39:25.260 But it is legal to do a citizen's arrest, or it was.

00:39:29.140 It's not legal now in that state.

00:39:33.120 But do you think that the defendants will be charged

00:39:37.420 because the thing that they did was legal was so bad that it was made illegal after they did it?

00:39:45.240 I think they might go to jail for doing something completely legal

00:39:49.720 because people thought, you know, now that we see it in action, we should make that illegal.

00:39:54.120 And here's my main point on this.

00:40:00.340 There is no way to convict these men, that I can see, unless you believe you can read their minds.

00:40:07.220 Because you would have to read their mind to know that racial motive was not in there.

00:40:13.880 Because there's no objective evidence of racial motive.

00:40:17.760 Am I wrong?

00:40:18.600 Somebody do a fact check for me.

00:40:20.640 There's nobody, there's no objective evidence.

00:40:22.720 Is there, like, somebody testifying that somebody thought this way or said something?

00:40:30.900 But they were also racist.

00:40:32.560 That could be true.

00:40:34.060 That could be true that they were also racist.

00:40:36.560 But you would have to see in their mind to know if that's the reason they stopped Ahmoud Arbery.

00:40:42.840 So, how do you convict somebody if the only way you could convict them, Scott's ignorant.

00:40:54.660 Nicholas Fleming writes in all caps, Scott's ignorant.

00:40:59.120 Well, Nicholas, let me pause for a moment to talk to Nicholas.

00:41:04.300 Here's some advice.

00:41:06.380 When you call somebody, let's say you accuse somebody of not being a genius.

00:41:12.840 If you spell genius, G-N-U-S, as in Scott's no genus, well, you didn't do well. 0.99

00:41:21.740 Because that reflects poorly on you.

00:41:25.820 When you type in all caps, Scott's ignorant, and you forget to put the apostrophe before the S on Scott's,

00:41:37.480 that does not make me look as ignorant as the person who made the comment.

00:41:42.020 Now, if you wanted to tell me what I got wrong, given that I'm literally fucking asking people to fact check me as I go,

00:41:52.720 very welcome.

00:41:54.600 But if you would like to misspell things in the service of calling me ignorant,

00:42:00.340 let me suggest that that might be the most useful thing you've ever done,

00:42:04.160 because you look like a fucking idiot who probably can't do anything right. 0.99

00:42:08.320 So you might not want to jump right into the public displays of your ignorance.

00:42:16.660 Now I'm seeing people on YouTube misspelling ignorant intentionally.

00:42:20.460 All right.

00:42:23.800 So that's my bottom line.

00:42:26.000 I don't see any way that these two people can be convicted unless you believe you could read their minds,

00:42:31.380 because it is completely legal.

00:42:34.420 And again, check me if I'm wrong.

00:42:37.380 Is it completely legal to be a racist in your mind while you're doing things that are completely legal?

00:42:43.640 Is there anything wrong with that?

00:42:45.780 Well, there's something wrong with having a racist brain, I suppose.

00:42:50.060 But it's not illegal.

00:42:52.660 It's not illegal to think terrible thoughts, as long as you don't break the actual law.

00:42:58.200 So it could be that these three people were horrible racists.

00:43:01.700 I don't have any evidence of that.

00:43:03.020 Maybe somebody else does.

00:43:04.300 It's irrelevant.

00:43:07.160 Somebody says you're misinterpreting the law.

00:43:09.480 Which law?

00:43:09.980 Which law?

00:43:13.120 The self-defense or the citizen's arrest?

00:43:16.560 Hate crimes?

00:43:18.240 How could it be a hate crime if you don't know the intention of the people?

00:43:22.760 You would have to know the intention to make it a hate crime.

00:43:25.740 And I don't think there's any objective evidence of intention, is there?

00:43:31.460 Hate crimes aren't real, somebody says.

00:43:33.360 Oh, I think they are.

00:43:34.780 I think hate crimes are real.

00:43:37.860 All right.

00:43:38.200 Yeah, thanks for reminding me.

00:43:40.340 I will remember that.

00:43:41.940 All right.

00:43:42.340 You want to hear the most disturbing story I've heard this year?

00:43:46.680 And there have been a lot of disturbing stories this year.

00:43:49.600 You want to hear the worst one?

00:43:52.020 Kyle Rittenhouse told Tucker Carlson that his first set of lawyers that were later fired,

00:43:58.580 Linwood and John Pierce,

00:43:59.860 kept him in jail from September until November to raise money for themselves.

00:44:11.840 In other words, to pay for the defense.

00:44:13.640 And they could have let him out in September.

00:44:20.580 Don't you feel like you're hearing that wrong?

00:44:23.820 He was a 17-year-old at the time, literally a minor.

00:44:27.500 And these two lawyers, allegedly, according to Kyle, kept him in jail for two months, a 17-year-old,

00:44:36.700 for a crime he didn't commit when he didn't need to,

00:44:40.920 because they could make more money if he stayed in jail.

00:44:43.120 Now, normally, I would be cursing up a storm.

00:44:49.380 But this is so bad, so bad,

00:44:53.200 these lawyers should be dead.

00:44:56.860 Now, I'm not suggesting any violence.

00:44:59.500 But if you were to come up with a proper penalty for this crime,

00:45:05.600 which apparently isn't a crime,

00:45:07.340 because they just talked him into agreeing to it, I guess,

00:45:10.420 what would be the proper penalty?

00:45:12.060 I think death.

00:45:14.500 This looks like a death penalty crime

00:45:16.640 without maybe any crime actually being committed.

00:45:22.320 Now, what good is the Bar Association if these guys are still practicing?

00:45:27.340 If Lin Wood is still practicing,

00:45:30.660 does disbarment mean anything?

00:45:33.280 I mean, it doesn't mean anything if he's still practicing,

00:45:35.420 assuming this is true.

00:45:36.860 Now, of course, these are allegations.

00:45:38.940 You have to hear the other side.

00:45:39.960 All right.

00:45:43.400 Are the J6 hearings being live-streamed?

00:45:46.600 Because I haven't seen any.

00:45:48.260 I assume maybe.

00:45:50.380 Can you tell me?

00:45:51.740 The January 6th committee that's looking into that,

00:45:54.800 is it being live-streamed?

00:45:55.980 No?

00:45:57.200 Damn it.

00:45:58.280 Because the new news is that Roger Stone and Alex Jones have been subpoenaed.

00:46:02.140 Is there any way we can get that video?

00:46:07.480 Because I think both of them would be way more entertaining

00:46:09.960 if they knew it was being televised.

00:46:12.280 I think it is a crime to the public

00:46:14.880 if this doesn't get televised just for the entertainment value.

00:46:18.880 Say what you will about your Roger Stones and your Alex Joneses,

00:46:23.460 and people do.

00:46:25.200 People do.

00:46:26.200 I don't think either of them have been accused of being accurate all the time,

00:46:30.400 if you know what I mean.

00:46:31.980 I think Roger Stone was once described by,

00:46:36.320 remind me who said this, independent journalist,

00:46:40.020 a fabulist.

00:46:41.320 Roger Stone is a fabulist.

00:46:44.260 Somebody who makes up stories.

00:46:45.700 Anyway, that's just happening,

00:46:49.000 and I think that that's marvelous,

00:46:50.540 and I wish we could watch it.

00:46:52.820 All right.

00:46:54.380 So the big Build Back Better thing

00:46:57.280 apparently has this part of it

00:46:59.280 that would give some kind of legal status

00:47:00.880 to illegal immigrants.

00:47:04.600 Now, it doesn't give them citizenship.

00:47:06.400 It just gives them some kind of work permit status, etc.

00:47:09.420 And only 21% of likely Arizona voters approve of it.

00:47:15.700 21%.

00:47:16.860 Now, Arizona is one of those states

00:47:20.180 that you need to win to win the presidency,

00:47:22.700 or at least it's helpful.

00:47:25.680 And they are so against this Democrat plan,

00:47:29.080 it's rare that you see this many people against something.

00:47:35.400 And here's my question.

00:47:36.720 What do the economists say

00:47:37.900 about the immigrant legal status provision?

00:47:40.080 Forget about fairness.

00:47:42.560 Forget about America first.

00:47:44.240 I mean, obviously, you care about all those things.

00:47:47.080 But if you were just looking at this

00:47:48.340 from an economic standpoint,

00:47:51.000 and not about the economics of any specific individual,

00:47:54.780 but in general, the GDP,

00:47:57.400 would economists say that

00:47:58.900 giving these workers some work status

00:48:02.500 would make any difference economically?

00:48:04.520 Because I don't know how that would work exactly.

00:48:08.080 And I'm not sure we'd believe any economics on that anyway.

00:48:11.740 All right, forget about that.

00:48:14.460 I saw in the BBC

00:48:15.460 that Israel seems to be quite preparing

00:48:18.480 to attack Iran's nuclear sites.

00:48:20.880 Now, some say it would be easier for them

00:48:22.660 to just keep assassinating their nuclear scientists,

00:48:25.480 which apparently they're doing with great efficiency.

00:48:27.660 But I read this one fact,

00:48:30.420 and I thought, okay, it's game on.

00:48:32.500 Apparently, Israel has allocated $1.5 billion

00:48:35.700 to prepare the Israeli armed forces

00:48:38.580 for a potential strike against Iranian nuclear sites.

00:48:43.180 And they're talking about it nonstop,

00:48:46.260 and they say there's no way

00:48:47.260 that the Iranians are going to get a nuclear weapon. 0.70

00:48:50.980 Doesn't it look like they're preparing to attack?

00:48:53.440 If you had to guess,

00:48:54.540 do you think that Israel's going to bomb?

00:48:58.220 And apparently American bunker busters are part of that.

00:49:01.040 Because I don't know that Biden

00:49:02.120 would ever give the green light for that.

00:49:04.640 And it looks like they would need

00:49:06.240 American bunker busters to get it done. 0.51

00:49:11.480 So it looks like Biden could stop this from happening.

00:49:14.540 What do you think?

00:49:16.580 Yeah, somebody says Israel has no choice,

00:49:19.060 but would they do the mission

00:49:20.220 if they didn't have our bunker buster aircraft,

00:49:22.860 or do they have their own?

00:49:24.540 Maybe they have their own by now.

00:49:26.220 I mean, it makes sense that they'd have their own.

00:49:28.720 All right, I'm going to say,

00:49:30.080 I think game on.

00:49:34.360 So this isn't one of my 99% confidence predictions.

00:49:38.820 I'm going to give this a 60%.

00:49:41.780 I say 60% likely Israel will attack Iran 0.98

00:49:46.580 in the next 12 months.

00:49:47.880 All right, there's a controversial conspiracy chart

00:49:52.280 by Abby Richards.

00:49:53.440 It's a triangle that shows, you know,

00:49:56.660 the various things that people believe

00:49:58.140 and which ones are maybe kind of true

00:49:59.800 and which ones are ridiculous.

00:50:02.100 And it turns out a lot of people

00:50:04.100 had their favorite conspiracy theories challenged in this.

00:50:07.800 Now, I'm not saying that Abby Richards

00:50:09.400 is the authority on what's a real conspiracy theory

00:50:12.960 and what isn't.

00:50:13.520 But it was a real good chart.

00:50:16.040 So I love visual representations that really clarify stuff.

00:50:20.780 And this was a good one.

00:50:21.880 But there were two things that people disagreed with

00:50:23.880 that she called conspiracies.

00:50:26.840 One of them was George Soros

00:50:29.200 and the other was the deep state.

00:50:30.600 So Abby put them both in the total conspiracy category,

00:50:34.960 no doubt about it.

00:50:36.440 What do you think?

00:50:37.060 Are the George Soros conspiracy theories

00:50:40.980 and the deep state conspiracy theories fake?

00:50:44.940 What would you say?

00:50:47.520 Well, I think this is a definition thing.

00:50:50.100 That's what I think.

00:50:51.040 I do think it's biased

00:50:52.260 because how could it not be?

00:50:54.620 It's made by one person.

00:50:56.500 But so here's my take on both of those things.

00:50:59.520 I think both of them depend on how you define it.

00:51:02.620 You could define them both as true

00:51:04.540 and you could define them both as not true.

00:51:07.580 Am I right?

00:51:09.400 I think you could go either way.

00:51:11.580 So here's how you would define the Soros thing as true.

00:51:14.820 Does George Soros give a lot of money

00:51:16.680 to groups that are doing things

00:51:19.440 that apparently will destroy the United States?

00:51:23.480 Yes.

00:51:24.980 Yes.

00:51:26.140 George Soros gives lots of money to groups

00:51:29.100 that you could easily imagine

00:51:30.840 if they got their way it would destroy the United States.

00:51:33.580 I don't think that's a conspiracy theory.

00:51:36.500 That part's public, right?

00:51:38.540 That part I don't think anybody even questions.

00:51:41.240 And he also has some open borders

00:51:43.040 kind of thoughts that if they became the standard,

00:51:46.820 it would destroy the country for sure.

00:51:49.040 So I would say that's true as far as those things go.

00:51:54.140 But if you believe the next level,

00:51:58.480 that George Soros is intentionally wanting

00:52:00.820 to destroy the United States,

00:52:03.240 I don't know that that's in evidence.

00:52:05.500 Could be.

00:52:06.600 Maybe.

00:52:07.760 But I feel like there's a level to this that's not true,

00:52:11.560 even though there's a base to it that we can all observe.

00:52:14.720 It's observably true that he funds things

00:52:17.040 that you think would destroy the country.

00:52:19.680 That's observably true.

00:52:20.860 Now, how about the deep state?

00:52:23.120 Deep state exists?

00:52:25.240 Again, it depends how you define it.

00:52:28.280 If you define the deep state as all the people

00:52:30.560 who colluded on the Steele dossier,

00:52:35.400 yeah, it totally exists.

00:52:38.100 That's about as clearly in existence

00:52:41.020 as anything could possibly be.

00:52:42.960 Those 17 intel agencies who all lied?

00:52:45.580 If you can get 17 intel agencies

00:52:48.680 and the head of the CIA, ex-head of the CIA,

00:52:51.740 to lie to you directly,

00:52:54.800 that's the deep state.

00:52:56.980 Yeah.

00:52:57.240 And they're doing it to support one political party?

00:52:59.580 Yeah, that's the deep state.

00:53:01.580 Yeah.

00:53:01.980 So I would say the deep state is unambiguously true.

00:53:04.740 But like the George Soros thing,

00:53:06.980 there's also a level you could take it to

00:53:08.980 that probably would lose your credibility.

00:53:12.820 All right.

00:53:17.680 I promised the people on Locals

00:53:19.720 that I would, if I had time,

00:53:22.260 I would talk about crypto and inflation

00:53:24.340 and the metaverse and inflation.

00:53:30.040 What does crypto do to the money supply?

00:53:35.700 Let me ask you.

00:53:37.160 What does it do to the money supply,

00:53:38.600 the regular money supply?

00:53:40.100 What does it do to the money supply?

00:53:42.800 Nothing.

00:53:43.960 Martin says, nothing.

00:53:46.460 Well, it stabilizes it.

00:53:51.620 Does it take money off the table

00:53:53.360 because people will buy crypto and hold it?

00:53:57.860 I don't think so

00:53:58.900 because they bought it from somebody

00:54:00.360 so that money is still in the system, right?

00:54:02.140 It expands the money supply.

00:54:06.920 Okay, what happens if somebody buys crypto

00:54:09.780 and then they use the crypto to buy something

00:54:13.660 instead of buying cash?

00:54:18.120 It's kind of complicated, isn't it?

00:54:23.300 Bitcoin does not expand the money supply.

00:54:26.360 Does it change it at all?

00:54:27.400 Does crypto change the velocity

00:54:31.100 or anything about the regular money supply?

00:54:38.060 I'm not sure we know.

00:54:40.420 So I'm going to put a question mark on this one.

00:54:44.400 I would say that I don't see

00:54:46.120 how it would change inflation

00:54:47.480 but it's such a big effect.

00:54:50.780 I feel like there might be an indirect way

00:54:53.020 it's pushing something around.

00:54:54.480 That's sort of an instinct that I have

00:54:57.080 just from sort of living in the world

00:54:58.520 but I don't want to see the direct effect.

00:55:05.780 There's a gel man effect with you.

00:55:07.520 Every time you talk about something I know about

00:55:09.220 I see that you're wrong.

00:55:14.200 How do you know it's me that's wrong?

00:55:16.700 If I talk about something that you know

00:55:18.960 and it's wrong, give me an example.

00:55:22.560 Give me one example of that.

00:55:23.920 I'm not sure I'll see it

00:55:24.980 because I'm going to be looking away for a moment.

00:55:27.200 All right.

00:55:30.220 Now what about the metaverse?

00:55:32.500 Will the metaverse change inflation?

00:55:37.040 Suppose you are spending a bunch of money

00:55:39.340 in the real world

00:55:40.180 and enjoying yourself

00:55:42.500 but then the metaverse comes along

00:55:44.740 and you put on your VR goggles

00:55:45.900 and you can spend all day in the metaverse

00:55:47.540 and you're making money in the metaverse

00:55:50.520 but it's crypto.

00:55:51.920 So you do something in the metaverse

00:55:54.280 that makes you some money in the metaverse

00:55:55.680 and then you spend that money

00:55:56.800 that you made in the metaverse

00:55:58.040 on metaverse stuff.

00:56:00.200 So maybe you're buying some furniture

00:56:01.580 for your metaverse house

00:56:03.540 and you're spending some time in there.

00:56:06.740 Can you imagine that people

00:56:08.240 would shift their spending

00:56:09.580 from real money

00:56:11.240 to metaverse crypto

00:56:15.480 because they're spending more time

00:56:18.320 in the non-real world

00:56:19.460 and that's the money they use in there.

00:56:21.120 They earn it in there

00:56:22.160 and they spend it in there.

00:56:23.480 Now you could also bring it

00:56:24.320 from the outside into it, of course.

00:56:26.920 But

00:56:27.200 could people spend so much money

00:56:30.300 on the metaverse

00:56:31.080 that they don't spend as much

00:56:32.860 entertaining themselves, for example,

00:56:35.060 or even furnishing their helm.

00:56:37.560 Imagine if you thought to yourself,

00:56:39.320 well, I could buy a new chair for my house

00:56:41.020 or I could buy a mansion in the metaverse

00:56:43.780 for the same amount of money.

00:56:46.200 Which one are you going to do?

00:56:48.860 So

00:56:49.140 what is the metaverse?

00:56:52.520 The metaverse is the digital simulated world

00:56:55.440 that Facebook is promoting

00:56:58.180 and others are

00:56:58.860 in which you'll put on virtual reality goggles

00:57:01.440 and live in a world that doesn't exist.

00:57:03.300 But it'll be a full world

00:57:05.220 with other characters

00:57:06.460 and scenery and stuff.

00:57:10.200 If you live in that world

00:57:11.520 and it's compelling enough,

00:57:13.000 it should reduce spending

00:57:14.540 in the regular world.

00:57:16.640 Unless

00:57:17.080 the metaverse itself

00:57:18.040 costs money

00:57:18.660 from the regular world

00:57:19.680 in which all bets are off.

00:57:21.720 So I guess there are two things going on.

00:57:23.260 One is crypto

00:57:23.760 and one is the metaverse

00:57:24.740 and I wonder if

00:57:25.860 there's going to be some way

00:57:27.100 that they interfere.

00:57:29.280 And I don't know exactly

00:57:30.180 the answer to that

00:57:30.960 but it's a provocative question.

00:57:33.300 Yeah, NFTs are going to be huge

00:57:36.360 in the metaverse.

00:57:38.100 They will be huge.

00:57:40.100 Alright,

00:57:40.760 I've got to do some other things

00:57:42.240 and I'll talk to you

00:57:43.240 tomorrow.

00:57:45.740 Bye for now, YouTube.

00:57:46.640 YouTube

00:57:46.800 I'll see you guys around this one.

00:57:52.140 Thanks for listening.

00:57:52.300 б

00:57:52.800 ...

00:57:53.100 I'll see you next time

00:57:54.500 here.

00:57:57.300 Bye.

00:57:59.840 Bye.

00:58:03.740 Woo Ł w

00:58:05.520 !

00:58:05.580 Y

00:58:06.160 ...

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - November 23, 2021

Episode 1571 Scott Adams： Lawyers, Criminals, Politicians, and Other Weasels Are In My Target Zone Today

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript