← GoodFellows: Conversations on Economics, History & Geopolitics
GoodFellows: Conversations on Economics, History & Geopolitics
Viewer Mail: War & Peace, Reading & Writing, Why Babies Are Good, and Thanksgiving Memories | GoodFellows | Hoover Institution
01:01:28
Loading summary
Transcript135 lines
- [00:00]
John Cochran
Foreign.
- [00:12]
Bill Whalen
It's Tuesday, November 25, 2025. And welcome back to Goodfellows, a Hoover Institution broadcast examining matters of history and current events, economics and geopolitics. I'm Bill Whalen. I'm a distinguished policy fellow here at the Hoover Institution. I'll be your moderator today, joined by our full fleet, our full complement of good fellows, as we jokingly refer to them. And, and I am referring, of course, to the historian Sir Neil Ferguson, the economist John Cochran, and former presidential national security advisor, Lieutenant General H.R. mcMaster. Good to see you guys. So, fellows, today we're going to answer viewer mails. We've been badgering our listeners for weeks now to send in questions, and I want to thank everybody who bothered to do so. It's a reminder of the scope of this show. We receive questions from no less than six continents in numerous countries. Smart questions, I would add. And if your question did not get answered this round, I apologize. Simply too many to get to in this limited amount of time. So, gentlemen, let's get to it. And our first question comes from Edward in Brigantine, New Jersey. He writes, is the proposed Trump Putin agreement on Ukraine's fate more like Chamberlain Hitler deciding on Czechoslovakia, 1938, or Stalin Hitler on Poland in 1939? I would note that as we record this on Tuesday morning here right now, the 27 point, I believe, has been slimmed down to 19 points. Ukraine reportedly has agreed to core terms of this deal. Neil, what do you make of it?
- [01:36]
Sir Neil Ferguson
It's not like either of those things. For very obvious reason that in 1938, a part of Czechoslovakia was handed over without a fight, and then the rest of it was swallowed up without a fight. And in 1939, Poland was partitioned very rapidly indeed by Nazi Germany and Stalin Soviet Union. Whereas what is happening here is that a compromise peace is being negotiated after nearly four years of conflict in which Ukraine has inflicted huge losses on the Russian army and prevented the Russian army from achieving its objective, which was, of course, to take Kyiv and overthrow Ukraine, Ukraine's independent democratic government. So I think this analogy from the late 1930s is deeply unhelpful here. And I would suggest to you instead, considering the end of the Korean War situation, though our involvement was much more direct in Korea than it's been in Ukraine. But the negotiation of a compromise peace is something that is preferable to Russia grinding out victory, which is something conceivable. It's hard for me to imagine Ukraine winning this war after nearly four years. So compromise peace is a good outcome. And One that we should pray for.
- [03:00]
Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster
I would just say, hey, well, the analogy doesn't work perfectly for Molotov Ribbentrop. I'm glad the viewer brought it up because I think the original version of that 28 point plan was throwing Ukraine under the bus. It was odious, in my view, to present that as a US Plan when it was clearly authored in Moscow. Now, what's happened since then, I think is quite wise by members of the Trump administration. I would put Secretary Rubio at the, maybe at the top of that list, which is to agree with it kind of generally in principle, make a few modifications, and then make clear again, once again, that the, the intransigent party is Moscow, the aggressor in this war. And so I, I think that, you know, what we'll see at this point is, is, is, is Moscow reject, you know, the, the, the proposal, and we'll be pretty much back to where we were a week ago.
- [03:52]
John Cochran
I think this one makes 1938 look good. I went back to look it up. Remember that time Poland and Hungary were in on it, too. They wanted bits of Czechoslovakia. Britain did not have the means to do anything about it. If, if Hitler did want to invade Czechoslovakia, it was not written by Germany. It was not same old, same old, completely unacceptable, like no troops, no NATO, you get to have extra territory. And quickly walked back. Clearly an unserious plan. And I also read the beautiful, Churchill's beautiful eulogy for Chamberlain where he pointed out this was a good man thinking hard, trying to save us from horrible things who happen to be wrong in a good and sensible process. That's like, it's worth rereading yes or.
- [04:47]
Bill Whalen
No question for you guys. Will there be peace in Ukraine, Russia in 2026?
- [04:52]
Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster
No. No, there won't be. And then the reason there won't be is even if there's a ceasefire, Russia will continue the war through subversion and other means, use of unconventional forces. Remember, you know, Putin started on Ukraine by poisoning and permanently disfiguring a presidential candidate in Ukraine in 2004. Right. So, so this war, already in the hot war, has gone on since 2014. Putin will not stop until he's physically stopped or concludes that he cannot continue his aggression at an acceptable cost and risk. And I think the sooner we recognize that, the better.
- [05:27]
John Cochran
I'll go with no. There may be a ceasefire. The Ukrainians want their country. They want to be part of Europe. They want to be part of the civilized world. They're not going to give up on that quickly. And neither Is Putin going to give up? Putin cannot survive an end to this war. So he has every reason to keep it going as well. Europeans may well stand up. This is now the Europeans war.
- [05:48]
Sir Neil Ferguson
I'm going to disagree respectfully with my colleagues. I think you would. I think you haven't read the 28 point plan closely enough because the media misrepresented it wildly. In reality, if it were Russian authored, we don't know. It contains remarkable concessions by Putin, a NATO like guarantee, security guarantee by the United States of Ukraine, a 600,000 strong Ukrainian army in peacetime. The Russians previously talked about 85,000 and above all the prospect of reconstruction of Ukraine with part of the frozen Russian assets. This is the real story that the Russians are moving. And they're moving because of the pain being inflicted on them by Ukraine's deep strikes against their oil infrastructure and the threat of secondary sanctions which is causing Russia's oil exports to India through its gray fleet to dry up. I think this has been very badly misreported in the media. It's a highly significant shift. I think HR you're right that Putin probably disavows it. I think the modified 19 point plan, which we haven't yet seen, will probably be rejected by Putin. But I think this represents the beginning of the end of the war because the cost to Putin of continuing this war is starting to look dauntingly high. And remember, he's also awakened the sleeping giant of Germany which is now rearming. So I think there will be peace next year, certainly not this week or this year. I think it will be a compromise peace. I think there will be many parts of it that will be painful for Ukraine to accept. It will be hard to be entirely compatible with Ukraine's dignity, to quote President Zelenskyy. But Ukraine needs peace, it needs a security guarantee and it needs an agreement that upholds its sovereignty. And all of these things now seem to be on the negotiating table. So I'm more positive than you gentlemen.
- [07:57]
John Cochran
Is a, if the security guarantee, with no troops in the country, if the US is not willing and Europe is not willing to fight now, what possible good is a security guarantee? If pain is working, why would it not inflicting a little bit more pain work better? And is not the cost of ending it high for Putin as well? You know, hundreds of thousands of soldiers come home and say, my God, what a waste this all was.
- [08:20]
Sir Neil Ferguson
It's been obvious for some time that NATO membership is not happening. This is a NATO like security guarantee that that language is used in the draft 28 point document. That is a pretty significant win for Ukraine, for the United States, for the Trump administration to contemplate that, for Vice President Vance to be willing to lend his name to it, that tells me there's also some significant movement happening in Washington. So the best, as I said in social media, the best is the enemy of the good here. Ukraine is not going to get all that it wants because in the end, Russia still occupies 20% of its country and has superior economic and manpower capabilities. So the compromise pieces, I think is now visible. The outlines are visible. It will take, I suspect, many weeks and months to negotiate a final armistice agreement. But I think it's now doable in a way that I haven't thought for a long time.
- [09:14]
Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster
Real quick, Bill, I'm sorry, I know you want to move on. I agree with Neil that there are provisions in this, you know, the original 28 point plan that are not negative. You know, 600,000 troops, for example, that's not negative. How do you define those troops are the reserves. Ukraine can probably only sustain a 500, 000 person, you know, active force anyway, so it's not all bad. Okay, but, but I do want to say that there will not be peace because Russia, even if it, even if it signs onto agreement, will continue the war much like it did after the Minsk agreements as well. So I just think it depends on how you define peace. If you define peace as just signing a document, maybe that will happen. But I don't think Russia will stop in its various forms of aggression, maybe forms of aggression that fall below the threshold of what might elicit a concerted response against them in violation of the agreement. Okay, sorry.
- [10:08]
Bill Whalen
That's okay. Moving on, a question from John in Lakewood, Ohio, who writes, I used to think the phrase free minds and free markets meant that political freedom and economic freedom could not exist one without the other as the success of Chinese economic development while continuing to suppress political freedom and validate this. John, why don't you take that?
- [10:24]
John Cochran
Well, I'll start with that one. That needs historians and military minds too. You know, just wait a while. There's plenty of examples of well run autocracies for a while. Singapore, there's nothing as good as a good king and there's nothing as bad as a bad king. So many of our ancestors spent entire lives waiting for the king to die. So I think it's not as quick as some optimists had said, but I think it remains true that in the long run, you cannot be prosperous without freedom, both political and Economic.
- [10:58]
Sir Neil Ferguson
Oh, that's an easy one to agree with. And I think it will become increasingly apparent in the next 10 years that an economic system that is predicated on one party rule, a party that's above the law, no private property rights that the party respects, no representative government, no accountability, has to and will fail. The way it fails we can already begin to discern in the collapsing property market, the collapsing fertility rate, the excessive debt burden, and the increasingly manic efforts of the regime to keep the show on the road by mass producing manufacturing and dumping it on the rest of the world. So I can see a kind of 10 year path to zero growth. The deflationary process is already at work now. One shouldn't mistake the shiny successes of China's economic system for underlying health any more than the successes of Magnitogorsk in the 1930s Soviet Union were a sign that the economic future had arrived and Stalin had built it.
- [12:08]
Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster
I agree with Neil completely. Not much more to say except I would add, you know, the demographic time bomb. That is a large measure, a result of the one child policy.
- [12:17]
John Cochran
We talked about.
- [12:18]
Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster
China.
- [12:18]
John Cochran
If we start losing our political and economic freedoms, we will also stagnate. So there's a great temptation to go that direction. Let us not fall into that temptation.
- [12:29]
Bill Whalen
Demographics and fertility rate are a nice segue to. Our next question comes from Tomas in Prague, Czech Republic. He writes, when I talk to my 20 year old students, many say they don't want to have children because of climate change. What brief but compelling message would we give them to change their minds? I'd love to hear all three fellows perspectives on this. I would add that at least two of you are grand grandparents with kids in their twenties. Actually all three of you are kids.
- [12:50]
Sir Neil Ferguson
Nope, I just became a grandparents.
- [12:54]
Bill Whalen
We have news.
- [12:54]
Sir Neil Ferguson
First grandchild, my granddaughter Romy yesterday. And I have to say, and my eldest son couldn't agree more. This is the best thing you can do in your life. The most fulfilling thing you can do is to be a parent. I struggle to understand why so many members of his generation are holding back, but I'm very proud of him for having followed my example. He's become a father just around the same age as I was when I became a father and he was my first child. God bless them. And Tomas, you know, just tell people, tell young people this is the most fulfilling thing that life has to offer.
- [13:35]
John Cochran
Get on with it. I'll, I'll say one, read the IPCC reports. If you don't have time, read our, our excellent colleagues, Steve Koonin and Bjorn Lomborg who summarized the actual science There is nothing in the actual science that says the climate is going to burn Western, the earth's going to burn, the oceans will will boil, Western civilization will end. The the issue is will we be three times better off than today or 2.9 times better off than today? Just read the actual facts. There's plenty to worry about climate' but it is not a civilization ending problem. Second, go have children and have children young and if you do, you will discover there are things far more important in life than doom. Scrolling what your fellows say on social media.
- [14:21]
Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster
Hey, I would just say I would add to that, you know, hey, also call for education reform so that we're not teaching young people about, you know, you know, about this sort of impending catastrophe and then, and then robbing them of agency and the belief that they can be authors of their future and build a better future for their children and grandchildren.
- [14:42]
Bill Whalen
All right, we have a question from Gadi in Milan, Italy, who writes in the Anglosphere, the term antifa is increasingly used by pundits on the right as a slur towards the extreme left. While leftists describe Trump, Musk and others as fascists. Do the goodfellows think there is a danger in losing the historical and cultural awareness of what fascism and anti fascism really were? Or are we Italians too obsessed with the memory of these terms? P.S. warm congrats to Neil for his excellent taste in cities and food.
- [15:07]
Sir Neil Ferguson
Yeah, it drives me crazy to hear fascism being misused as a term. All too often it gets leveled at people who are conservatives. Even classical liberals these days get smeared this way. And it's important to remember what the true nature of fascist regimes was and is because they do exist today. I think Russia has one. One characteristic feature of fascism is of course there isn't a rule of law. Cases don't get decided in courts. There is no judicial process. There are camps, there is internment. Basic civil rights are eroded as well as political rights. The political opposition is interned, locked up. And the other, I think, defining characteristic of fascism is that it militariz society, that the ultimate goal of society becomes preparation for war and then ultimately fighting war. These are the defining characteristics, which is why I say we can see what fascism looks like by looking at Russia today.
- [16:14]
Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster
Hey, as, as, as our viewer mentioned, you know, fascism, the term really came into vogue during, you know, during Mussolini's rule. It's exactly as, as, as Neil described. And I think it occurs on the far left and the far right, you know, when I, when I look at some of these far left progressive regimes, especially that of Maduro, for example. I think you could describe that as fascist as well.
- [16:39]
John Cochran
I think the pointer to be historically aware, I think is a good one because the terms are now used in ways that are completely different from what the actual Systems in the 1920s and 30s in Italy and Germany were like. Actually, there's a current in Italy that is a little bit nostalgic for fascism. And let's not forget how many Italians thought Mussolini was pretty good and the trains did run on time. And so what about that other stuff? It's more tempting than it seems. We just instantly think, how terrible. And the P.S. i'm sorry, Neil, how can a reader possibly prize your taste in cities and food greater than my love for Firenze and a good Ribollita? La Toscana.
- [17:23]
Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster
Hey, just, hey, one last thing too. You know, there are elements on the far right in the US that fetishize Vladimir Putin for the same kind of reasons that John brought up. But it just blows my mind, you know, about how many people talk about how Russia works so well and, or see Putin as a anti woke warrior on horseback. This is why Russia is offering cultural visas to Americans who want to go, who want to enjoy, you know, the benefits of, of living in Russia. It's just insane.
- [17:53]
Sir Neil Ferguson
Gadi, can I ask, can I add one small point, which I meant to say? Antifa, anti fascist as a term has become something of a cover for the most intolerant, illiberal, downright violent elements on the radical left, and shout out here for the journalist Andy Ngo, who's been pretty bravely tracking the activities of these so called antifa groups. They are a menace. And there's only one comparable menace on the right, and that's the far, far right that we now see trying to resuscitate antisemitism as the basis and racism as the basis for their politics. So, yeah, I mean, the tragedy is that there are people who are willing to revive the terms, the ideologies of the 1930s. It's incredible that anybody could wish to do that after what they led to in the 1940s. But part of our job as scholars as well as public intellectuals is to keep reminding people where those toxic ideologies lead. It is the path to hell.
- [19:07]
John Cochran
And let me just add, the use of antifa, anti fascism ought to bring us the memories of the incredibly courageous people who stood up against fascism in Italy and Germany in the 1930s. And they were not people out throwing bombs on the streets. They Were people really putting their lives in danger and usually losing them for a very difficult principle?
- [19:34]
Bill Whalen
Speaking of angry words, the word sedition is being thrown around Washington, D.C. these days. I'm curious as to your thoughts, briefly, just on the President's use of this in response to Democratic lawmakers telling members of the military they don't necessarily have to answer to the President when it comes to orders, but also, perhaps you could explain what the protocol is for officers when it comes to taking orders from the President.
- [19:54]
Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster
Well, hey, first of all, the actions of those, those six congressmen, I think was deplorable. You can refuse illegal orders.
- [20:03]
Sir Neil Ferguson
You can refuse illegal orders.
- [20:05]
Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster
You must refuse illegal orders. Because really, the subject text of that was, hey, you can disobey the commander in chief. And they couldn't even, they didn't give an example of what they meant by an unlawful order. So what they were suggesting on almost the 250th anniversary of our founding is that the military should be a check on executive power. And guess what? That's what the founders feared more than anything else. And we have imbued into our military this professional military ethic that puts a bold line between the military and partisan politics. We owe it to the commander in chief to give our best advice. Hey, Mr. President, I don't think this is a good idea. Mr. Secretary, I don't think this is a good idea. But it's not our role to cross the line between advice and advocacy for certain policies. You know why? Because generals and admirals don't get elected and sovereignty lies with the people. So this was extraordinarily irresponsible. And actually it ceded the high ground to President Trump, who, of course, in his reaction, his overreaction to it, encouraged, in my view, political violence. It was terrible to say, you know, this is sedition, that, you know, maybe he could say that. But then to say, well, and it should, you know, the punishable by sedition is punishable by death. So, I mean, come on. So why, why, why don't we just demand of political leaders on both sides that they do their jobs and stop compromising confidence in our institutions, in our military, in this case, to score partisan political points, which is what these grandstanding six congressmen are doing. Hey, guess where the check on executive authority exists in Congress in Article 1, so do your damn job.
- [21:48]
John Cochran
But, HR a military person is supposed to refuse an illegal order. Is that correct?
- [21:53]
Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster
That's obvious. We all know that. We all know.
- [21:56]
John Cochran
It's not obvious to everybody.
- [21:58]
Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster
They said it. I mean, the context for this was.
- [22:00]
John Cochran
Not in this context.
- [22:01]
Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster
Yeah, right, the insinuation. But, but also, you know, that's only in really extreme circumstances. You know, I mean if somebody tells you, hey, shoot this civilian or something, of course you're going to disobey that order. You know, so. And the standard for declaring an order unlawful on your own, you know, as a subordinate in a military organization is pretty darn high. You know, what you don't want is in combat to be issuing orders and then have people debating its legality, you know, because I mean, so anyway, you're right, John, but, but the way that, that just wanted to give you forward was meant I think to grandstand and to undercut, undercut the President.
- [22:43]
Bill Whalen
Neil, anything you want to add?
- [22:44]
Sir Neil Ferguson
I couldn't agree with HR more.
- [22:47]
Bill Whalen
Easy enough. We had a lot of questions directed to you individually. Let's begin with hr. David and Fernandina Beach, Florida writes question for hr. Are tanks obsolete?
- [22:56]
Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster
Hell no, they're not obsolete. And again, try to think of a problem you can't solve with a tank. You can't? No. So I actually I've written about this in the great who Drones. One strategic and, and really you have to think about the function for a tank. The function for a tank is mobile protected firepower. And you always need that, right? Because in close combat that you have a choice of either having mobile protective firepower or just like wearing your, your body armor or your flak vest. Right. I mean, so a tank does, as Oddball said, you know, in Kelly's Heroes, it does give you a nice edge, but it has to be used in combination with other capabilities like tiered and layered air defense. Because there is the drone threat. You're going to see more top oriented armor on armored vehicles. You're going to see directed energy laser capabilities on armored vehicles that can identify and shoot down drones. So again, this is the continuous evolution that you see in the development of military capabilities. You know, machine gun, tank, tank, anti tank, missile, you know, tank drone. And you're going to see a whole range of countermeasures to these latest developments which make it difficult to sustain mounted offensive operations. That's what's different I think about in Ukraine. And there's going to be an effort to restore mobility to the battlefield and the tank mobile protected firepower will be a critical element of that.
- [24:17]
Bill Whalen
We also got a question for Lionel Columbus, Georgia who writes many in the military have a nickname, for example Storm and Norman Mad Dog Raising Cane. What was, what is HR Master's nickname?
- [24:26]
Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster
You know, I didn't I didn't really have one at least that I knew of. You know of course soldiers always have nicknames but, but, but you know, in just in Desert Storm they started calling me Heat Round because of HR and, and, and I had a tendency when I, when we identified in. In a. An enemy what we thought was an enemy object in the distance, I would roll forward in my tank and just put a Heat round into it to help discern, you know, really what it was. So that was the only one I really had that was a transitory nickname, Heat Round.
- [24:55]
Sir Neil Ferguson
That is the best thing I've learned today.
- [24:58]
Bill Whalen
All right, Neil Ferguson, what's your nickname? Keep in mind it's the family show.
- [25:06]
Sir Neil Ferguson
I was gonna say I gotta watch what I say here. Well, no, I'm Papa because you have to decide what you're going to be called as a grandparent. My mother's father, I always call Papa and I much prefer that to grandpa. So I guess my new nickname is Papa.
- [25:24]
Bill Whalen
Papa John nickname.
- [25:26]
John Cochran
Well, there's two. My, my glider nickname is Bravo. Bravo because that's the call sign on my glider from my. My granddaughter named me blah blah. Somehow that's how grand.
- [25:38]
Sir Neil Ferguson
So I think we're all blah blah.
- [25:40]
Bill Whalen
Something I reflection for watching this show.
- [25:44]
Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster
Hey Neil, I'm Papa also. Good name.
- [25:48]
Sir Neil Ferguson
Good. It has a good ring to it.
- [25:51]
Bill Whalen
John, let's stick with you. A question from Athena in Boston, Massachusetts. Athena writes, is there such a thing as an ideal interest rate? Should rates be left alone, perhaps even at zero, letting the economy self correct through brief downturns? Or does sound economic policy require active rate adjustments based on unemployment and inflation? Does lazy for economics apply to interest rates or do they need constant fine tuning?
- [26:12]
John Cochran
That is a great and smart questions. She is absolutely right that your free.
- [26:20]
Bill Whalen
Market.
- [26:23]
John Cochran
Sensibilities ought to be offended by the idea that there's a government agency that sets a price. Our government can't figure out the price of strawberries relative to blueberries. How can it figure out the most important price of all? Today's consumption versus tomorrow's consumption. That's the interest rate. But as long as we're using a government provided money and let's not go down the libertarian fantasy hole for a moment on alternatives. Someone's got to set the value of that money and it would be nice for that to be automatic and let interest rates do what they want. And that's what we had a gold standard for. Well, we'll just, you know, it's so many bars of gold done. But that didn't really work or what? Milton Friedman's idea, we'll just control the money supply. It goes 4% a year. We didn't do it. Done that didn't work either. So we are kind of stuck right now. Sort of the way institutions evolve with the central bank nudging up and down interest rates and that's highly unsatisfactory. I've been thinking about this. I think there are better ways. I'll pitch the idea of targeting the inflation expectations directly so that the difference between inflation protected and non protected interest rates is always whatever you want at 2% and then the level can go up or down. So some way to let the market determine the level of interest rates would be great. But that's on the long, long run. Ideas to be worked out yet. So I don't know if I got to a good answer, but at least you know why the question is so hard.
- [27:50]
Bill Whalen
John we also got a question from Kathleen in Sarasota, Florida, who's obviously a viewer and not a listener because she writes. John Carkin, please share with me who the artist is of those amazing portraits I see on the wall behind you during your Zoom session.
- [28:02]
John Cochran
These are all from Sally Fama Cochran. Look her up on Instagram or her website and you can see all sorts of wonderful paintings.
- [28:10]
Bill Whalen
Neil, you're a musician. Are there artists in the Ferguson clan in the painting medium?
- [28:16]
Sir Neil Ferguson
Certainly are. My daughter, Freya Douglas Ferguson is an artist who works in all kinds of media. Her website reveals some startling jewelry, extraordinary designs that she's come up with. So yes, we have an artist in the family. All families should have one hr.
- [28:35]
Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster
Well, my uncle Chester was, was a, this was, my grandfather's brother was a, a fantastic actor and musician. And my cousin Bobby Sickinger was a, was a, a a a Broadway director and, and producer. But, but none of that, none of that was transferred to me. I guess. I, I am a huge fan of art and artists and music but, but have a real dearth of talent in that area.
- [29:05]
Bill Whalen
Yeah, I know. John, I don't see any price tags on the art behind you.
- [29:09]
John Cochran
These ones will you'll have to fight us for. But Sally does take commissions. You just have to promise to pay her twice what she asks because though she's the daughter of an economist, I can't get her to raise the prices enough.
- [29:19]
Bill Whalen
Okay, sir. Neil, you're up. Two questions for you. First one comes from Mark in Northbrook, Illinois, who writes and bear with me, this is a little lengthy. In Cold War one, the US and USSR had military parity. But not economic par. When Reagan announced that he intended to break the military parody, the USSR collapsed because it didn't have the economy to meet the challenge. In tua, we almost have economic parity, but not military parity. My questions are one, if China intends to reach military parity with the US Will it have enough economic resources to do so? Question two, Sir Neil, what should the US be doing to avoid the situation when the two superpowers have both economic and military parity?
- [29:55]
Sir Neil Ferguson
Break questions. I think it's not quite true that there was military parity in Cold War one because the Soviets only caught up in terms of nuclear capability in the 1970s and then overtook the United States. They always had a superior conventional forces, which had to be offset by the technological superiority of US And Allied forces. So military parity is a stretch, I think. But what's certainly true is that the Soviet Union never got close to having an economy the same size as the US Whereas China has got close on a purchasing power parity adjusted basis. It's got a larger economy. I think most of us regard the current dollar measure of gross domestic product as more telling. And on that basis, the US still has the largest economy and China's is about, oh, I don't know, 70%, roughly speaking, on a current dollar basis. Parity is something that the Chinese are striving for in the military domain. There's a fantastic book, Arsenal of Democracy coming out or just out, co authored by a Hoover fellow, Ike Freeman, showing all the different ways in which China has closed the military gap or is in the process of closing it. China's still way behind in nuclear weapons, but building them at a frantic rate. It has numerically a larger navy. But here's the key, and I'm probably talking HR's book here. The quality difference is huge because of the lack of experience of China's armed forces compared with the very considerable experience that the US Armed forces have. And I think that would be a decisive factor in any conflict. What can we do? What should we do? Well, that's actually quite straightforward. The United States has to make sure that it doesn't allow its defense budget to be squandered on legacy technologies and continues to maintain a technological edge in armaments. I think that's the critical thing. In order to do that, of course, we have to do all the things that John talks about. We have to have growth. We have to prevent our debt becoming too large. It already is too large. We have to do something about that. But yeah, that's the best thing we can do to maintain the lead that I think in qualitative terms, we still have over China.
- [32:27]
John Cochran
I want to chime in on the economic half of that question. The other thing we can do is let our economy surge. And there's some contrary temptations. Today's Wall Street Journal had a great one on how China is using AI to get rid of workers in factories and have their manufacturing be even better and cheaper. And they're ahead of us in all sorts of manufacturing. The US's temptation is to protect, to have manufacturing jobs and to protect manufacturing, make it less efficient and less productive. Remember, if you do more of anything, you have to do less of something else. So the more we do industrial policy kinds of things that force us to do things in efficiency, the less we can do of other things. So we have to maintain our innovative, competitive free market economy and not give in to the temptations.
- [33:20]
Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster
Yeah, I'll just add to this. You know, there's a huge financial aspect of this in terms of the defense budget, which is at historic lows. We're spending less on defense now than we have at any point since the 1930s as a percentage of GDP. Bing west has an essay out on this recently as well as Ike's book is very good on this as well. So as China's surging forward, we're reducing defense spending at a time when we do, as Neil alluded to, we have a bow wave of deferred modernization. And we also, though, lack depth in a lot of our military capabilities. Depth in terms of the size of our forces, but then also depth in our industrial base and the resilience of our supply chains. So we have a really serious situation, but we're not acting seriously about it, especially when we have continuing resolutions which prevent a lot of the investment in the new capabilities to which Neil referred.
- [34:18]
Bill Whalen
Neil, we had a question for you from Ed in Dallas, Texas, who writes as an Anglican with an interest in history. I have a question for Sunil about whether his philosophy of history was affected by his becoming a Christian. Atheists and many others throughout history have taken the position that there is no God directing history to any particular end. Christians take the view that God does indeed direct history to a specific end. What is his view? And did that change with his becoming Anglican?
- [34:41]
Sir Neil Ferguson
That's a great question. I think I had always studied the history of the 20th century with a keen awareness that evil was abroad in the world in the mid 20th century and took many hideous forms. So even before I became a Christian, I thought a good deal about the evil that arose in the Soviet Union, in Hitler's Germany and elsewhere. That's really one of the ideas that lies behind the book War of the World. I don't think a good historian would simply throw aside any concerns about causation and say, well, it's all God's will. I'm not sure that would be a particularly helpful intellectual contribution. But I do think that as one writes history, one is inevitably engaged with morality as well as with causation. That was a point made by the great German historian Friedrich Meineke in a brilliant essay. So in a way, I think becoming a Christian has aligned my historical practice rather better than was previously the case with my own personal philosophy.
- [35:54]
Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster
Hey, Neil, now we've just got to get you back into GK Chesterton and see if we can get you converted to Roman Catholicism then.
- [36:02]
Bill Whalen
That.
- [36:02]
Sir Neil Ferguson
That is, as they say, a red line in the Ferguson family.
- [36:06]
Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster
I bet it is. I bet it is. That be. That would be a stretch for Sir Neil.
- [36:11]
Sir Neil Ferguson
I don't want my grandfathers to come back, come back down from heaven to, to, to haunt me.
- [36:18]
John Cochran
I'll hold that as the remaining atheist on the show at least. Don't you know you can pray to God to choose your football team, but don't count on divine intervention for the future of our country. Count on human agency.
- [36:32]
Bill Whalen
I just pray that our WI fi holds up. In the 60 minutes that we do this show, we had two reading related questions from you three gentlemen. The first from Thomas in Massachusetts who writes, I am always impressed by the volume of information and books purportedly read by the Goodfellows. My question is, do you have a disciplined schedule of time set aside for the reading of books, articles, papers? Approximately how much time do you set aside to read on a regular basis? And this ties into a question from Dean in Australia who writes, can each of the Goodfellows share their most influential books on any subject, fiction or nonfiction, they have read?
- [37:04]
Sir Neil Ferguson
Well, I'll go first, having just written an essay recently on the extraordinary importance of literacy and the written word for our civilization. I don't just purport to read a lot. I do read a lot. I read every night without fail. But I also have a set of books that I want to read piled up. And I will try to get myself through that pile, even if it means sitting down and setting aside, what, three hours? Some books are tremendous page turners. It wasn't hard to read Andrew Ross Sorkin's 1929. Other books are harder going, but they're good for you. So you get through them. I think the key to sanity as well as to civilization is to make sure you're reading a passive every day and setting targets, having a list of books that you want to read, buying them, and then, of course, filling your house with them, which I'm afraid I do. As for which book has been the most influential on me, it'd be hard to pick just one, but. But I've recently talked quite a bit about War and Peace and its influence on me, and it's a book that somehow resonates today in this time of war in Eastern Europe. I think it's one of the greatest works of literature, but it's also the reason I became a historian.
- [38:30]
Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster
Hey, I'll just say that, hey, I used to be a lot more disciplined about it because I was a contributing editor to Survival magazine and did the book reviews for War, Politics and the Military. But now what I have is this huge stack like Neil does, and I try to get through it as quickly as I can. And then at times when I'm frustrated with how far behind I am, I allocate several hours. When I'm writing, actually is when I'm more disciplined, because I'll write until I can't write effectively anymore because I'm kind of tired, and then read a book or parts of a book that's relevant to what I'm writing to kind of generate ideas. But. But I'll tell you that in terms of the books that I enjoy most, it's sort of synthetic works of history that still move you through the book and that move between human experience and the highest levels of political discourse or diplomacy or strategy. And I'm thinking of Don Higginbotham's War of American Independence or Gerhard Weinberg's magisterial World at arms. Gosh. Or McPherson's battle cry of Freedom on the Civil War or Michael Howard's War in European History or, you know, these kinds of works that impart so much historical knowledge, but do it in a way that.
- [39:43]
Bill Whalen
That.
- [39:44]
Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster
That is entertaining and moves you through it and tells stories that you will remember and illuminate some of the themes in the book. For books that are. That I'm reading for just like a. A practical purpose. I think it's really important to know how to break a book. And you break a book by reading the introduction, the conclusion, the first and last paragraph of every chapter. And then when you go back, you can read purposely through the book with the questions you have in mind that you want to answer. And, you know, some sentences are More important than others, like the first and last sentence in each paragraph and so you can get through a book in a couple hours that way if it's a well organized, well written book.
- [40:20]
John Cochran
I aspire to be Neil Ferguson or HR McMaster. My reading is unbelievably undisciplined. I read when I'm bored to fill the time to procrastinate. I pick up whatever's around. My wife despairs of books brought up to the bathtub where they inevitably fall in, even though I promise that'll never happen again. But that's just the way it is. I'll try to be more disciplined in the future, like Neil. Maybe I should get Neil's reading list and plow through it, but I've always been that way. When I grew up, my house, my.
- [40:53]
Bill Whalen
Parents house, was full of books.
- [40:54]
John Cochran
I would just pick whatever was on the shelves. What's been most influential here? I'm supposed to display my great erudition and sophistication. But you know what's most influential is what you ran into as a very young man. So it's not, not very deep. But they had a big effect on me and I'll just name three. Hayek's Road to Serfdom was very important, along with a deep discussion with my father who was a historian, who really impressed on me how much everybody believed in planning at the time and how much of a bombshell it was. Orwell's 1984, kind of obvious, but I'm interested also how much our current progressives regard that as an instruction manual rather than a warning. And Bertrand Russell's why I'm Not a Christian, which set me on my opposite path Discovery to Neil Ferguson's from a father was a historian of Italy who had read the minutes of the Council of Trent in Latin to the atheist I am today. But it was a very formative experience and perhaps we'll talk about that subject someday.
- [41:52]
Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster
Hey, just quickly if I can put in a plug Bill. I should have added John Lewis Gaddis in his work on Cold War history. And what a great interview by Peter Robinson on uncommon Knowledge with Gaddis in the latest episode. So our viewers ought to tune into that.
- [42:09]
Bill Whalen
Okay, On a related note, you all write. How long does it take you typically to punch out a thousand word op ed? Neil, John Atra.
- [42:17]
Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster
Hey for deal? I mean, I don't know, man, I wish I could write like that guy. I mean he just cracks it out and it's so darn good for me, you know, it depends on the topic. But, you know, I'll tell you, I have to wrestle with it for a while, you know, and I'm about to finish this essay on what every undergraduate should know about American military history. And I thought I had a really clear idea and I was just going to knock it out. Well, a couple months later, I'm still working on it. I'm closing in on it. But I wish I could write like Neil, basically.
- [42:45]
Sir Neil Ferguson
Well, I don't have any mysterious secret. The key is, in fact, the. The homework, the research you do, and everything I write in the way of journalism takes at least three or four hours, nearly all of which is researching and working out the argument. Once you've worked it out, then it's. It's always been easy for me to write it up, just as it would be easy to talk it out if I had to talk it out. But the key to writing is research and thinking, planning and then write. I've been trying to teach undergraduates that for years. If you try and write before you've thought it through, it'll take ages and seem like a really hard thing to do. But that's just because you left out the thinking part or the research part.
- [43:33]
Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster
And there's also the sitting part. You have to sit in your chair and get the damn thing done.
- [43:37]
Sir Neil Ferguson
Yes, you can also stand. I recommend standing out. Maybe that's part of my secret recipe for mass production, John.
- [43:46]
John Cochran
I have to get. I wish I were more like Neil. I have to think when I write because it's only clear to me how dumb the idea was when I write it. And then I get rid of it. When there's a clear concept, I'm just like Neil, a clear concept. Assert a structure. Boom, boom, boom, there it goes. And then, you know, half a day to edit it. When there isn't a clear concept. Oh my God, it's. I got it. And then, especially if I turned it, I've promised to do something. Here it comes. I think I need to check my email again.
- [44:12]
Bill Whalen
Oh, no.
- [44:12]
John Cochran
Maybe there's something on Twitter. Honey, could I. Could I wash the dog for you or something? Anything to do this all except impatient with any interruption until finally it happens at the end of the day. Writing is hard. Good writing is all good editing. Recognizing how silly the things you wrote the first time around are. Sometimes it goes well, sometimes it takes forever.
- [44:32]
Bill Whalen
Exactly. All right, A question from Richard in London, uk. It's a question for Neil, actually. He writes. So Neil Ferguson has flip flopped a fair bit on Brexit. First, Neil was against it, then he was in favor of it, but now he wants it overturned. But having all the original fears about Brexit been proven untrue. In fact, Neil was right the second time.
- [44:48]
Sir Neil Ferguson
Sir Neil this is a false calumny. Richard. I have not flip flopped. I was against Brexit not because I love the European Union, but for two reasons. First, I thought it would be enormously economically costly for the British economy. And secondly, I doubted that the British state would be able to take advantage of it in the way that was promised by its proponents. After the referendum of 2016, gosh, nine years ago was lost, I, like a good sport, said, well, we lost, that's the end of that and now we must make the best of it. That's not flip flopping, that's what you do when you've lost something, you don't relitigate it or ask for a do over. And I don't think I've asked for it to be overturned, at least I'm not aware of having done that. My view is that you can't really overturn something like that. And Britain has been in the situation of Switzerland really ever since the referendum in a permanent negotiation with the European Union that will just go on and on and on indefinitely. Last point I'll make is that if you look at our colleague at Stanford, Nick Bloom's new paper, you'll see that the economic costs of Brexit are pretty much what people like me warned about back in 2016. It's been extremely bad for the UK economy, it's affected investment and you only need to look around you in Britain today to see how little growth there has been since the referendum. It's a somewhat depressing spectacle. So I'm sorry, Richard, I've actually been very consistent on this and consistently. Right.
- [46:32]
John Cochran
I'd like to ask Neil about Brexit. I was of two minds when it came through. Half of me said stay in, fix it, not Brexit. The European Union had all sorts of problems. It needed to move from articles of confederation to constitution. And now the Brits have gone and they are, they are hurting themselves more and more. The other half of me said, you know, Singapore on Thames, here's your chance to ditch the ninny bureaucrats from, from Brussels and, and turn back to Her Majesty's free trade, entrepreneurial, wonderful uk. Now it turns out that the UK took this opportunity to impose on itself more rules and regulations than even the EU treaties allowed. To some extent those costs seem to me self imposed as opposed to simply the effects of trade. Had the UK tried the Singapore on Thames, the Anglosphere, the Great Free Trade Agreement with Canada, Australia, New Zealand at least even if we would not join along, that would seem to me have been a wonderful opportunity squandered not because of Brexit, but because of what the UK chose to do with it.
- [47:37]
Sir Neil Ferguson
Well, that was the proposal. That was the selling point point that attracted some of my friends to support Brexit. But I was always skeptical that there really would be a path to Singapore. I don't think Singapore is a particularly attractive role model. Let's be more Hong Kong.
- [47:53]
John Cochran
The markets, not the politics of Singapore. The market.
- [47:55]
Sir Neil Ferguson
Free market. Let maybe Javier Malaise Argentina. Yeah, but. But there was never the slightest chance that the, the British civil service and political class would take advantage of that opportunity. And my observation, which was a closer observation than yours, Richard, of the British political class, I observed them closely when I was at Oxford with them, was that they really wouldn't be able to capitalize on the opportunity. And actually blaming Europe for problems that were in fact to do with the British state was a pathology that went on for years before 2016. And it turned out that after Brexit all the problems were still there because they weren't really that much to do with Brussels. I'll leave it there, but I welcome tough questions, Richard, but I hope you accept my equally robust answer.
- [48:49]
Bill Whalen
I'd point out that in February we're doing a show that's going to be devoted to British politics. We have somebody very high up in the UK who will be on our show, so stay tuned for that. Listeners, we have a question from AL in Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin. HR I want you to answer this. AL writes, I meet with a friend once a month or more for lunch. We're both in our upper 70s and recognize we won't be around to see what the future holds for our grandchildren here in the US we seriously worry about what is ahead for them and the future of this country. Particularly after watching the decline of things like a strong work ethic, good manners and pride in America. What has happened to us? Are we too pessimistic?
- [49:21]
Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster
You know, I think we are too pessimistic. And as we've talked many times on the show, we've used the 1970s analogy. You know, we have a great capacity for self improvement in this, in this nation. As we approach the 250th anniversary, we've got to remember what our founders said, you know, that they knew our republic required constant nurturing, you know, and so let's nurture it, you know, and instill in, in our young people, reinstall in our young people a sense of agency that they can work together to build a better future. This is what the big problem I've got with these postmodernist, neo Marxist, you know, critical theories is that they leave young people with just this toxic combination of anger and resignation. So there are a lot of good people working on this. I'm thinking of like Ian Rowe at Vertex Academy, who does a tremendous job with his students, you know, who, who recite the poem Invictus every morning, you know, which, which gets you going in, in the, in the, in the direction of positivity. So hey, I know these two gentlemen will do that for their, for their grandchildren.
- [50:23]
John Cochran
You know, in the chaos of contemporary America, you can also see great potential for reform, for change, for seeing that things didn't work out and trying something different. We may be trying something wrong different again, but that capacity for self renewal is still there.
- [50:41]
Bill Whalen
All right, Alan. Sturgeon Bay might be having lunch with Curtis in Sturgeon Bay because Curtis sent us a note too. He wrote recently, Ford's CEO said his company couldn't find mechanics for jobs that pay $120,000 a year. Media such as the Wall Street Journal have weighed in bemoaning the lack of technical colleges, arguing young people today are steered toward college even though they may be better off in a trade. My question is this. Are we looking at a culture change that has perhaps since the 1960s, looked down upon the trades and those skilled to work with their hands? I'm curious what perspective the goodfellows have on this. John.
- [51:12]
John Cochran
Oh man, this is a fun one. I always look first to incentives and second to culture. There was this interesting thing that happened in the 1980s. We had the skill premium that people who knew how to work with computers got better salaries than others and economists noticed. Oh, people who go to college make more money. But is that causal or is it people who play polo make more money?
- [51:35]
Bill Whalen
Well, whatever.
- [51:36]
John Cochran
Our government soaked all sorts of money into sending people to college, many of them to get junk degrees. And now here we are that they're unhappy in voting for Mamnami. And if you had simply gone to learn how to be a machinist, you could be earning a lot of money. So that's, I guess, part of the self correction problem. Be careful what you wish for, you might get it. I think that premium for any old college degree is gone. But let's not focus too much on what we provide people People make choices. And so now it's a good time to make that choice to go become a machinist.
- [52:10]
Sir Neil Ferguson
Neil HR well, I took a slight double take when my 13 year old son was studying metalwork and woodwork at school. They call it design technology, but that's really what it is. But before I objected, I stopped myself and thought actually given what artificial intelligence and large language models in particular are doing to the kind of work that sometimes gets called white collar work. And we're seeing already very major impacts in the law, in financial services, in all kinds of different areas. Maybe the metalwork and the woodwork will turn out to be the most important subject that he studies because the robots are not ready for prime time, particularly when it comes to very, very fine motor skills. And therefore it seems reasonable to think that this could be a glorious time for people who really good with their hands before the robots catch up.
- [53:22]
Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster
Yeah, I think there are a lot of good models out there. For example, like the German and Swiss apprentice models. I mean, I think those work. There is a movement to, to create more vocational schools. I think it is important because we do have to make more things in this country because of the vulnerabilities associated with China controlling so many of the critical supply chains for national defense and just for the security of our economy. And we need that skilled labor force. So yeah, I mean, I'm not an economist or economic historian, but I hope that we are developing those kinds of skills that are relevant to the need for increased industrial production in the United States.
- [54:04]
John Cochran
But I was just talking about jobs. Bring back shop class, please. I love shop class in school. And they got rid of it because everybody was supposed to go to college. How else are you supposed to learn to use a power saw properly? You know, even normal people and, and even our economy needs not just people to operate machines. It needs people to know how to put things together who, who have, who think that's, that's fun. So that's an important skill for everybody to learn bring back.
- [54:31]
Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster
Hey John, one great way to do that is join the army or the Air Force or the Navy. I mean, I'll tell you, the training you get as a mechanic, you know, is, is fantastic.
- [54:43]
John Cochran
And the army would like it if people came in knowing how to use a screwdriver. But you know, how are you going to learn that?
- [54:50]
Bill Whalen
Grandparents is the answer. Grandparents. All right, one final question. John in Dallas, Texas writes, you did an episode of September 28, 2021 in which you mention opinion about COVID vaccines. I'm curious to know if any of you have changed your thoughts on vaccines.
- [55:03]
Sir Neil Ferguson
Since I have not.
- [55:07]
John Cochran
Well, unlike Neil, I can't remember what I used to say, so I'll just say what I think is right. The first Covid vaccines were wonder and operation warp speed was one of the greatest things Trump did in part by, in part by promising that they were going to pay for things ahead of time. That was brilliant. And getting rid of all sports, of various of regulations. It allowed us individually to get back to work. The vaccines did not stop transmission and there were some side effects. So forcing people to take the vaccines as if they stopped transmission was a huge public policy blunder and one of the big blunders that we are still, you know, the reputation of the CDC is in tatters over this sort of thing. So it was great but then was one of the biggest blunders wonders.
- [55:51]
Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster
Yeah, I agree with John.
- [55:54]
Bill Whalen
Finally, it's Thanksgiving here in the United States this week. So let's end with this question from David in Beverly Hills, California who writes what's your favorite Thanksgiving memory or tradition and why?
- [56:03]
Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster
Hey, it's, it's moving from my grandmother's house where I grew up in Philadelphia. My backyard adjoined my, my grandparents house and then one block over was my aunt's house. So we just ate our way through Thanksgiving, starting at my grandmother's house, then over to our house and then over to my Aunt Terry's house and of course all the great food memories. I mean my mom did these great sweet potato dish that I always remember. My aunt had these sausage ball appetizers and these incredible cookies that she would do. So anyway, being in the neighborhood with my family and my cousins and eating my way through, you know, kind of a progressive Thanksgiving dinner before Neil tells.
- [56:50]
John Cochran
Us about his haggis, famous Thanksgiving haggis growing up in Scotland minor come from my mother who had a strong Thanksgiving tradition. And I'll just mention three things. One, we would start the dinner with the plates. Well, I had it with her with the plates with three beans in them. It was set with just three dry beans to remind us of the lean years. And the second was in, in memory of how the original pilgrims had joined with the Indians. She would always insist that we have not just family, but invite people who, you know, might not have somewhere to go. And, and in our community that meant, you know, a lot of foreign graduate students and sort of strange people. We, we called them Indians, which I think was politically incorrect, but this was a long time ago. And third, on occasion we would actually Read the Mayflower Compact, which was, you know, the first sort of constitution in the US And a good reminder of who these people were and why they came here.
- [57:50]
Bill Whalen
All right, Neil, take us on.
- [57:51]
Sir Neil Ferguson
Thanksgiving is much more meaningful if you've spent much of your life without it. And an immigrant like me discovered what he'd been missing when finally he got in November, this wonderful celebration of gratitude and of family. I have very happy memories of introducing my mother and father to Thanksgiving and having them come to us in New England and discover Thanksgiving. So imagine, all you American listeners, life without Thanksgiving. And you know what it's like. Like to be me before I became an American. And it's kind of miserable late November in England without the prospects of any turkey until Christmas. So the solution. The solution is find some fellow Americans. And that's what we'll be doing this week. Sriram Krishnan's in town with his wife Aarti, like me and Ayaan immigrants. And so we're gonna have kind of English, expat Americans Thanksgiving. And I'm really thankful for Thanksgiving. Everyone should have Thanksgiving. Europeans, Britons, just.
- [59:10]
John Cochran
Just.
- [59:11]
Sir Neil Ferguson
This is one American tradition that's really worth copying.
- [59:14]
Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster
So, Neil, you're like Miles Standish, you know, without the. The top hat and the big belt buckle, you know.
- [59:21]
Sir Neil Ferguson
Exactly, exactly.
- [59:24]
Bill Whalen
I think a very clever production, people. I think I have an idea what they're going to be putting on the next screen for Goodfellas. This time, let me point out, I podcast for Hoover called Matters of Policy and Politics. And I think Neil was back in 2018 or 2019, you came on the podcast and we talked about Thanksgiving. It was right after you become a citizen, so it was just a very, very fun talk about you giving thanks.
- [59:44]
Sir Neil Ferguson
Yeah, no, there's. There's something to be said for it. And because there are no gifts and there's no commercialization, and Thanksgiving is. Is a kind of austere celebration, despite all the eating. It's terribly meaningful when you come to it late in life. I. I can't emphasize how. How wonderful it is. And our sons, Thomas and Campbell, are quite indignant that they're going to be deprived of Thanksgiving. And yet again, for the second year running, we'll make it up to you boys, I promise.
- [60:14]
Bill Whalen
I'm. I'm concerned about Thanksgiving. I'm here in South Carolina right now. That's why I have the different backdrop. And you drive around the neighborhoods here. Christmas decorations are up. Christmas is run over Thanksgiving living now.
- [60:23]
Sir Neil Ferguson
That's so wrong. That's so wrong. Honestly, premature Christmas decorations that should be a criminal offense before nothing before Advent and certainly nothing before Thanksgiving.
- [60:36]
Bill Whalen
All right gentlemen, well thank you for a very fun spirited conversation. Thank you for answering our viewers questions and we'll be doing another mailbag in a few months from now. We again appreciate your questions. Sending comments anytime you want to about the show, positive, negative notes if you want to, guests you want to see and so forth. We read your comments because we appreciate your patronage on the show. On behalf of the Goodfellows, Sir Neil Ferguson, John Cochran, HR McMaster, all of us here at the Hoover Institution, we wish you a happy Thanksgiving and until next time, take care. Thanks again for watching.
- [61:06]
Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster
Hey, thankful for all you guys. Happy Thanksgiving.
- [61:09]
John Cochran
Thank you for listening and your great questions. This podcast is a production of the Hoover Institution where we generate and promote ideas advancing freedom. For more information about our work work. To hear more of our podcasts or view our video content please visit hoover.org.