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

Length

58 minutes

Words per Minute

152.82152

Word Count

8,880

Sentence Count

703

Misogynist Sentences

2

Hate Speech Sentences

12


Summary


Transcript

00:00:00.000 Bum-ba-dum-bum-bum. Wow. Hello, everybody, and good morning, and welcome to the best thing that
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
00:35:05.960 sooner. All right. Congratulations on that solution. Let's talk about the race filter. You know,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 ...