A Recession Worse Than 2008? - How To Survive & Thrive The Next Economic Crisis | Peter Schiff PT 1

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: A Recession Worse Than 2008? - How To Survive & Thrive The Next Economic Crisis | Peter Schiff PT 1

Podcast: Impact Theory
Host: Tom Bilyeu
Guest: Peter Schiff
Date: August 29, 2023

---

Overview

In this rich, sometimes provocative episode, Tom Bilyeu sits down with economist and outspoken financial commentator Peter Schiff to discuss the current state of the U.S. economy, monetary and fiscal policy, inflation, and the larger forces that shape recessions and depressions. Both challenge popular narratives around economic indicators and the role of government, offering listeners a bracing, alternative view on why America may already be in a recession—or even sowing the seeds of a coming depression worse than 2008. The conversation dives deep into the consequences of debt, inflation, government policy, and the psychology of economic behavior, with candid talk about capitalism, socialism, and even hot-button topics like discrimination and social welfare.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Are We Already in Recession—or Worse?

• Peter Schiff’s Thesis:
  Schiff argues the U.S. is already in recession, and possibly at the start of a prolonged depression. Key statistics—such as record credit card debt ($1 trillion+), plummeting savings rates, and increased multiple jobholders—point to declining living standards, despite government metrics suggesting growth.

  “I think the numbers we get from the government are not accurate by design. … We’re spending more, borrowing more, and going deeper into debt. … If we really had a growing economy, people would be getting out of debt.” (Peter Schiff, 01:41)

• The Government’s Popularity as a Barometer:
  Schiff points to President Biden’s low approval rating as a reflection of economic pain, rather than media “misperception.”

---

2. The Mechanics of Inflation and Quantitative Easing

• What Is Quantitative Easing (QE)?
  QE is described as “a euphemism for inflation." Schiff explains inflation as fundamentally an expansion of money supply, typically via government debt purchases by central banks.
• Government Printing as Short-term Fix, Long-term Disaster:
  Government efforts to “print their way out” of crises like 2008 or Covid provided immediate relief but compounded deeper issues.

  “When they print their way out of a short-term problem, they print their way into an even larger long-term problem.” (Peter Schiff, 10:07)

• Rigged Inflation Metrics:
  The way CPI (Consumer Price Index) is now calculated massively understates true inflation compared to 1970s methods; real inflation rates may be much higher than reported.

  “If you measured the prices that we saw, the increases in 2021, 2022, if you used the 1970s CPI ... that year that we had 9%, it was probably 18%.” (Peter Schiff, 16:30)

---

3. Inflation as Hidden Tax and the Government’s Incentives

• Schiff likens inflation to a stealth tax:

  “Inflation is a tax and people just don't realize it because the government blames it on greedy corporations, on Putin, on OPEC, on everybody but themselves.” (Peter Schiff, 13:47)

• Hiding Inflation in a Productive Economy:
  If productivity improvements are driving prices down, the government can inflate without people noticing because the expected fall in prices is never felt by consumers.
• Politicians’ Short-termism and Time Horizons:
  Both host and guest agree politicians act “for this game, not the season,” enacting policies that feel good short-term but have destructive long-term consequences.

---

4. Debunking the “Economy Runs on Spending” Narrative

• False Logic of 2% Inflation: Bilyeu and Schiff discuss why the idea of needing moderate, persistent inflation to “incentivize spending” is wrong:

  “Savings needs to be encouraged. Do without what you want. … What makes a real economy grow is savings. Because savings is what finances capital investment. … You don't have to encourage people to spend. Everybody wants to spend.” (Peter Schiff, 22:45)

• Falling Prices Fuel Economic Growth:
  Schiff uses examples like cell phones and TVs: as prices fall, more people buy, contradicting Keynesian fears that deflation would chill spending:

  “People buy things when they can afford them… The reason everybody has cell phones now is because they're so cheap. The price going down is what motivated more people to buy.” (Peter Schiff, 24:12)

---

5. Systemic Issues: U.S. as Reserve Currency and Unsustainable Debt

• Exporting Problems via Dollar Dominance:
  The U.S. has “conned the world” by exporting dollars in exchange for real goods, thanks to the dollar’s reserve status. When this ends, Americans will be forced to produce in proportion to their consumption.

  "We run this giant Ponzi scheme. We have a $33 trillion national debt … and we finance it like Bernie Madoff did." (Peter Schiff, 41:16)

• Comparison to the Decline of the Pound:
  Even the relatively “smooth” shift from pound to dollar as reserve currency left Britain a “shadow of what it used to be.” Schiff warns the U.S. is structurally worse off.

---

6. Gold Standards, Politicians, and Economic Accountability

• Why Politicians Hate Gold:
  Gold forces fiscal discipline; fiat allows for convenient money creation.

  “That's one of the reasons that politicians hate gold, is it forces them to be honest. And that's the last thing that a politician wants to be.” (Peter Schiff, 46:39)

• Alan Greenspan as a Case Study:
  Even staunch gold advocate Greenspan became a “sellout” as Fed Chair, illustrating how power bends personal principles.

---

7. Capitalism, Socialism, and Human Nature

On Capitalism’s Virtues and Public Misperceptions:

• Schiff passionately argues that capitalism is about voluntary exchange, rewarding those who improve others’ lives:

  “Capitalism is about freedom… If I want to hire somebody, I have to pay them more than anybody else is willing to pay them… We all get rewarded for making everybody else lives better.” (Peter Schiff, 56:51)

• Critique of Socialism:
  Schiff asserts socialism is about coercion—governments taking from some to give to others, creating dependency and inefficiency.
• The Issue of Economic Mobility and Wealth Concentration:
  While acknowledging declining mobility and rising inequality, Schiff asserts these are consequences of government intervention—taxes, regulation, minimum wage—not capitalism itself.

On Discrimination and Individual Rights:

• Controversial but Uncompromising Take:
  Schiff claims that private discrimination, while distasteful, should not be illegal—only government-mandated discrimination is a violation of freedom. He distinguishes “civil rights” from “individual rights,” opposing laws mandating accommodations (e.g., baking cakes for gay weddings).

  “If I own a bakery, I can decide if I want to turn down your business. I don't want your money, then get somebody else... If there's an anti-Semite, I'd rather that person tell me up front.” (Peter Schiff, 77:06)

---

8. The Inevitable Drift From Capitalism to Socialism

• Bilyeu suggests every successful capitalist society drifts toward socialism as people tire of suffering, seek safety nets, and lose track of second/third order consequences.
• Schiff responds the real culprit is democracy—politicians bribe voters with short-term benefits at long-term cost.

  "The inherent flaw isn't capitalism, it's democracy. ... The public doesn't get it, and they vote for this. But the capitalism itself is not creating the problem. It's creating the prosperity that enables the politicians..." (Peter Schiff, 84:04)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On CPI Rigging:
  “If steak gets too expensive… we'll just put hamburger in there … according to the government, that means there's no inflation. ... by that logic, if I have to give up hamburger and start eating dog food, ... there's no problem because I'm still eating.” (Peter Schiff, 18:54)
• On Politicians’ Short-Sightedness:
  “The reason you're happy they did it was because of the short term benefit of that mistake, but you don't perceive the actual long term consequences... They try to make us numb to the pain, and then we end up doing more damage.” (Peter Schiff, 38:28)
• On Private vs. Government Charity:
  “If you look at private charities, they raise a dollar and the poor get 90 cents. ... If you look at government, in order for a government to give the poor 10 cents, they have to take a dollar from everybody else.” (Peter Schiff, 72:00)
• On the Real Role of Discrimination Laws:
  “A lot of people who otherwise would not discriminate end up discriminating ... because the government has made it so easy to get sued.” (Peter Schiff, 86:52)
• On Individual Rights:
  “Everybody has rights because they're an individual, nobody has special privileges because they're a member of a group.” (Peter Schiff, 74:54)

---

Timestamps of Important Segments

• 01:41 – Schiff’s declaration: US is in recession; standard of living declining; data manipulation.
• 05:57 – Why today’s statistics may look back and call this the beginning of a depression.
• 10:07 – What is quantitative easing and why it’s just printing money/inflation.
• 13:47 – Inflation as an invisible tax; how government “steals” free market benefits.
• 16:30 – Government’s manipulation of CPI; real-world inflation much higher.
• 22:45 – Why inflation isn’t needed to “encourage” spending; the error of Keynesian logic.
• 41:16 – U.S. debt and the Ponzi scheme of rolling over bonds; reserve currency risks.
• 46:39 – Why politicians hate gold; Greenspan’s transformation at the Fed.
• 56:51 – Capitalism is about freedom and mutual benefit, not coercion.
• 72:00 – On why government charity perpetuates poverty.
• 77:06 – Private discrimination versus government-mandated discrimination.
• 84:04 – The drift from capitalism to socialism is a function of democracy, not market failure.

---

Overall Tone & Style

The episode is direct, provocative, and intellectually dense, blending Schiff’s uncompromising, free-market libertarian stance with Bilyeu’s probing, clarifying questions. It draws heavily on history, theory, and current events, with substantial time spent debunking mainstream economics and advocating personal responsibility and systemic change.

---

Final Takeaways

• The current U.S. economy masks deep structural problems with manipulated data, unsustainable debt, and stealth taxation via inflation.
• Government intervention—whether through monetary policy, welfare, or regulation—is blamed for most economic dysfunction.
• True, lasting solutions require embracing market forces, incentivizing savings and production, and questioning both the motives and methods of those in power.
• Social issues, including discrimination and wealth inequality, are cast as better addressed by voluntary action and market incentives than by coercive government action.

---

This summary captures the episode’s most pressing ideas, arguments, and distinctions—offering a valuable resource for those who want to understand Schiff’s worldview and the economic debates shaping our future.

Transcript

[A]

Now Audible gives you audiobooks, podcasts, Audible originals, and more all in one place. Whether you want to dive into a series, listen to a popular bestseller, or check out the latest episode of a great new podcast, Audible has you covered. Enjoy genres you love like motivation, mysteries and sci fi. Follow names you know in comedy or true crime podcasts, or discover the Audible exclusive. Everyone's talking about the Sandman. The new Audible is your playlist for life. Try it for 30 days on us. Visit audible.com 9 out of the 10 largest banks get it. They get advantagescore. The modern credit score is the leader in predictive power, improving mortgage default predictions and saving lenders billions. Better predictions. Better for your business with VantageScore.

[B]

You know, a lot of people say, oh, you know, we're leaving all this debt to our grandkids. The grandkids don't have to pay it. I mean, they can leave. People used to ask me, you know, where do you stand on a wall? And the main reason I was against it is I said, you know, if we build, that wall can be used to keep the Americans in. There's no way out, you know, until there's a violent revolution.

[A]

During periods of extreme economic uncertainty like the one that we're living through right now, I really think it's incumbent upon all of us as individuals to face the situation head on and develop a thesis for how to navigate that kind of period well. But most people get overwhelmed and they shut down. Do not let that be you. The intelligent path forward is always a combination of information and action. To that end, I bring you Peter Schiff, the man who believes the economy is headed towards a cliff, but has a plan for how we get off the bus before the inevitable crash. Are we headed towards a recession that's going to be worse than 2008?

[B]

I think so. In fact, I think we're actually in recession, although by the time they write the history books on this era, it may be considered a depression. I think that the numbers that we get from the government are not accurate by design. So I don't really think that the economy is growing in any real sense. I think that the way they compute the numbers, I think is deceiving. I think that for most Americans, their standard of living is declining. I don't think the economy is really getting bigger. I think we're spending more and we're borrowing more and going deeper into debt. We're paying more for everything we buy, and a lot of that consumption ends up feeding into the gdp, and so we get a bigger GDP number And we think, oh, that means the economy is growing. But I think it's all being distorted by the inflation and the debt. Meanwhile, individuals that are living in the economy are struggling. Their cost of living is going up. You have a record increase in the number of people holding multiple jobs, not just two jobs, but three jobs or more, and they still can't make ends meet. You've got record credit card debt, which is now over $1 trillion, first time ever. And we almost have 2 trillion in student loan debt. I mean, that has just exploded and all sorts of debt. If we really had a growing economy, people would be getting out of debt. That's what happens when, when you're doing well, you pay off your debt, you build up your savings. The savings rate has collapsed in the last couple of years. That's not a sign of economic strength, that's desperation. People are tapping into whatever savings they have left just to make ends meet. You know, if you look at Joe Biden's popularity, he's as unpopular as any sitting president since Jimmy Carter. So, you know, that's quite a feat. But if you remember when Jimmy Carter was president, things were pretty bad, right? You had, you know, the misery index, high inflation, high interest rates, high unemployment. You have to go back to that time period to find an incumbent president this unpopular. So what does that tell you? Because normally you vote your pocketbook. If the economy were really strong, voters wouldn't care if Biden was falling asleep at meetings or couldn't remember who he was married to or where he was giving his speech. If people were feeling good about themselves and their economy, they would credit Joe Biden. The fact that he's so unpopular is more a function of how bad the economy is. And no matter how much he wants to pretend that it's doing well, the poll numbers display the opposite and so does everything else with economic reality. But we have record budget deficits. If times were good, the government would be having running smaller deficits, they would be collecting more taxes, they wouldn't be spending as much on government assistance. Our trade deficits at record highs. If we had a booming economy, we'd be making more stuff, we'd be exporting that stuff, or we'd be importing less because we would just consume what we produced ourselves. But our economy is really shrinking and that's why we're on life support. We're dependent on foreigners for all the goods that we can't produce, and we have to pay for it on credit because we don't have the real incomes or the savings to afford it.

[A]

So I think that answer is going to be jarring for people because for a lot of them, things seem fine. In fact, one thing that I've heard people criticize you for is you've been saying for years now that we're going to get hyperinflation, but it hasn't come yet. And I think a lot of people are going to say depression. We're not in a depression yet for sure. So the economy works in a certain way. There are physics to it. So what is it that you see that makes a recession or depression either happening now or inevitable? What do you see that they're missing?

[B]

Yeah, first of all, I don't think we're in a depression now as far as the economic conditions, I said that by the time the historians look back on this time period, this could be the beginning of that depression. Because I think the depression is in our future, really not in our past. And the way we've been kind of holding back the tides of depression is through debt and inflation. And so we've been kicking the can down the road, but we're really sowing the seeds of the future depression that I believe the time period we're in now will just be lumped in with it. Right. Not like it's, you know, it's, this is the earlier stages of, of that prolonged period that is really going to coincide with, you know, having to come to terms with all the mistakes that we've made in the past. It's like the chickens coming home to roost because of bad monetary and fiscal policy that go back, you know, for decades. We're in a huge hole and it isn't going to be easy to get out of it. And the time period where we're going to get out of it, that's, you know, it's going to be hard times, you know, and the government is in a position to make those times a lot harder. So, you know, that's a wild card as to how the government is going to react to this unfolding crisis and how much worse they might make it be now as far as hyperinflation. Yeah, I was talking about a hyperinflation scenario back in the early days of the 2008 financial crisis based on the way the government reacted to that with quantitative easing. And I knew that the road that we were going down could lead to hyperinflation. Now I always said that that was a worst case scenario. I never said, hey, it's for sure. But of course, you know, the media, everybody picks up on my warnings of hyperinflation, I still think that that hasn't been taken off the table. And the odds of that are actually greater now than they were when I first started warning about it. But I always said that look, that's the worst case scenario. You destroy your currency completely. Where you're talking Weimar Republic, Zimbabwe. But what I did say was inevitable was very high inflation. And we've just started to experience that in, in recent years. And I don't think that's over. I mean, I think we're going to see higher inflation right now. The high watermark for year over year CPI was just over 9%. That's not going to cap this. We're going to go into the double digits and the first digit might not be a one. You know that. Now that still wouldn't be hyperinflation. Right. If we have 20% inflation, that's not hyperinflation. Right.

[A]

That's curl up in a fetal position and suck your thumb and cry yourself to sleep territory.

[B]

It's bad. But also if you compare what we have now, because everybody wants to say, look, it's not that bad because look how much worse it was in the 70s where we had inflation 10, 11, 12% for several years. What people don't understand is that you're comparing apples to oranges. Because the CPI that was in use in the 70s is not the same CPI that we use today.

[A]

Hold on one sec. Cause we're gonna have to start teasing this apart for people because there's, you have so much knowledge, I think that people don't necessarily understand the physics of the situation. So I want to talk about, you talked about the seeds of the depression. I think inflation is going to be one of those, maybe the most important. And so what I want to talk about is. So you mentioned quantitative easing. Quantitative easing. So we come into the 2008 financial crisis and not knowing that the government is just going to print its way out of this. I certainly didn't understand what the, the reaction was going to be. The same thing for me happened when we went into Covid. I didn't understand that the government was going to print their way out of this. Now as they what does it mean to quantitatively ease a situation? Why does that become problematic? And am I right that that is the most important seed that sows your destruction in terms of inflation?

[B]

Yeah. Well, first of all, when they print their way out of a short term problem, they print their way into an even larger long term problem, which is what they did. Now quantitative Easing is just a euphemism. It's a better sounding name for something that's really bad, which is inflation. So quantitative easing is when the government prints money and buys government bonds. Now, that's inflation by definition. By classic definition, inflation is when you expand the supply of money. How is the money supply expanded? By the purchase of debt. The central bank buys government debt and creates the money to pay for it. That's the mechanism in the United States where the money supply grows. And so that's just inflation. So quantitative easing was inflation. So when, when, when Ben Bernanke first launched quantitative easing in 2009 as a way to stimulate the economy, he really said, look, let's create a bunch of inflation to stimulate the economy. Now, he didn't want to say that because if he went out and told the public, our solution to this financial crisis is to create inflation, people would have said, but wait a minute, I don't want inflation. I don't want my cost of living to go up. That doesn't sound like a good solution. Is that all you got? You know, you got something else? So if basically they dress it up and they say, no, no, no, what we're doing is quantitative easing. See, that doesn't sound so bad. And so that's how they got the public to swallow more inflation, is that they wrapped it up in the trappings of quantitative easing, but that's all it was. Now, the reason that we didn't get real big increases in the CPI until really after Covid was that there were a lot of forces in the economy at that time that were pushing prices down. And had the government not unleashed all this inflation, we would have seen prices fall. I mean, they never actually fell during any year. But had the government not done that, I'm pretty sure that prices would have gone down and the cost of living would have, would have been lower. Now, a lot of these politicians or Keynesian economists say that's terrible. Oh, that's deflation. That's really a bad deal. We don't want that. That's, that's BS if prices go down, that is good for the consumer. That provides relief. Because now the cost of living is lower. You don't need as much money to buy food. You don't need as much money to, to buy energy. You have more money left over to buy other things. You don't have to go into debt to pay for things. And falling prices is even good for business. As long as their costs are falling in line with their prices, they maintain their margins. And now they can sell more. They make it up on volume, because when prices are lower, their customers can buy more stuff. So everybody wins from falling prices. But the government doesn't want that. And so it was able to stop that by. By unleashing inflation.

[A]

Can I say it a different way? I want to see if, if I'm understanding this right, the following statement would be true. The government actually does want falling prices because they want to tax that falling price in the form of inflation. But if they don't have the falling prices, when they do inflation, people will really feel it. So, for instance, if prices were actually going down by 2%, they inflate by 3%, they now get 5% inflation. But I only feel 3% of it. So now as the government, I'm able to really take advantage of those falling prices.

[B]

You know, you hit the nail on the head, and that's glad. I'm glad that you actually picked up on that, because inflation is a tax and people just don't realize it because the government blames it on greedy corporations, on Putin, on opec, on everybody but themselves. But it is a hidden tax. And the easiest way to hide it is if you have a productive economy that otherwise would reduce prices. Because if prices were going to go down, let's say by 5%, and they create, you know, 5% inflation so that prices remain the same, nobody realizes how much worse off they are because the government stole something that they never had. The free market was going to deliver that benefit, and the government took it. See, what everybody has to understand is every dime that the government spends must be paid for by the public one way or another. Now, the traditional way to pay for it is with taxes. The government wants to spend money on the military. They want to spend money on Social Security or Medicare or whatever they're doing. They need to collect taxes. Because the government doesn't have any real money. Because the government doesn't really produce anything. It only has the money it takes from the private sector, and then it takes that money from one person and gives it to somebody else. They have to take it first. Well, if they don't take it through taxation, how do they get it? Well, they print it. They sell bonds to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve buys those bonds and puts money into the government's checking account, and then the government just spends that. But when the government spends that money, what it does is it reduces the value of the money that already exists. So everybody's paycheck is diminished in value. Everybody's savings are diminished because now prices Go up because you have more money in the economy without new production to give that new money value. And that increase in price that is a result of this deficit spending and money printing is basically a tax. But. But the people don't realize they've been taxed. So the politicians love it because they can pretend that the voter is getting something for nothing, because the voter doesn't make the connection between the price hikes and if the economy is really, you know, booming so that prices are dropping, you don't even notice the price hikes. But now the problem is we've created so much money, especially after Covid and all the money we printed there, which was, you know, off the charts and, you know, crazy during those years. We now have so much money in the pipeline and the economy is now being, you know, crippled by more regulation and other things that are making it less productive. We're seeing much greater upward pressure on prices. But I tried to make the point earlier is that we would have even seen more movement in the CPI earlier if it wasn't rigged. I started to say that the CPI we had in the 70s is not the same CPI we have now, because in the 1990s they changed it all. They changed the methodology for computing price increases. And their goal was to have a lower CPI because they claimed that the CPI was overstating inflation. And so they decided to fix it. You know, they fixed it, you know, like you would rig, you know, a sporting event. You know, the fix is in. But. But if you measured the prices that we saw, the increases in 2021, 2022, if you use the 1970s CPI and then took the prices that we were living through, they were double digit. I mean, we were probably. The year that we had 9%, it was probably 18%. I mean, that year, God, that was probably. That was worse than any year of the 1970s or early 1980s. That's how bad it was.

[A]

All right, so really fast, I want people to understand. So cpi, Consumer Price Index. It's a basket of goods that economists look at and say these are representative of what things cost. Now if you change the items in that basket to ones that have gone down or stayed the same, you can make it seem like everything is okay. So you actually can go back and look at what was the 1970s basket of goods that they were using, use that exact same basket and do an apples to apples comparison. Is anybody doing that? Like, can I ghost somewhere online and see shadow stats?

[B]

Yeah, they've been doing that for a long time. That's the website. But when they change that, back in the 70s it was the same basket and they just said what did it cost last year? And what does all that exact same stuff cost this year? But now they don't do that. They change the basket. They take stuff out that's gone up. They put stuff in that didn't go up as much. They adjusted for so called quality improvements. Oh, that's a much higher quality than the one you bought last year. So let's make the price go down. But it's subjective, you know, is it really better? I mean, and a lot of times the quality goes down. I don't think they ever subtract for falling quality. It's like a one way street. They just assume everything is getting better when in many cases people are substituting lower quality ingredients, you know, or stuff that used to be included. A classic would be airline. People would buy an airline ticket and you know, they got their seat, they could get food, they could get a pillow, they could get a blanket, they, you know, they could carry on stuff. Now all of a sudden all that's extra. It's not part of the airfare anymore. You want to pick your own seat, that's extra. You want to check luggage, that's extra, you want, you want a blanket that costs more, you want, right. All this stuff now are add ons. You know, that's not part of the cpi. But I think if you look at some of the other measures, like where the government uses personal consumption expenditures, there you have lots of hedonics where they just basically say, oh, if hamburger gets, I mean, if steak gets too expensive, well we'll just kick out steak and we'll, we'll put hamburger in there because you know, we'll just assume people stop eating steak and they settle for hamburger. And so we can pretend that the price didn't go up, but the quality is going down. I want to, I want to eat steak. I can't afford it. And so I'm stuck with hamburger. And according to the government, that means there's no inflation. I mean, by that logic, if I have to give up hamburger and start eating dog food because I can't afford hamburger anymore, as far as the government's concerned, there's no problem because I'm still eating. But I don't like having to eat dog food. I'd rather eat people food. But this is how the whole thing is rigged. The government again, they're taxing us through inflation and so then they're lying to us about how bad it is. And the ultimate irony is all the years that the Fed was printing all this money, creating all this inflation, they were pointing to a rigged CPI that was less than 2%. And they said, we need it higher. We don't have enough inflation. And that was the justification for continuously creating more inflation, because they theoretically said we need to get up to 2%, when in reality we were already way above 2%. But there's nothing magical about 2%. 1% is better than 2%. If you have 1%, you don't try to get up to 2%, you try to go down to 0 or negative 1. Lower prices are better than rising prices. Only an idiot economist or a central banker, or maybe some of these Wall street people could believe that rising prices are good or that prices that go up by 2% every year constitute price stability. That's not stability. That's a continuous increase in price. Stable means the prices don't change.

[A]

It's interesting. So I can actually give you the logic. I know, because this is how I used to think of it, as to why people. Either there's a natural inclination to believe that 2% makes sense or that we're brainwashed to believe it. But my thinking used to be around. It's. It's a movement of money thing. Like you need to get velocity, you need to get people that are spending money. And I actually wrote this down as a question I wanted to ask you in the research. You ended up answering it, so I know what your punchline is. But my thinking was, well, wait a second. At 2% inflation, you are incentivizing people to spend their money. Now, you can say that that's actually a moral hazard and that you don't want to incentivize people to spend their money, that you actually want to incentivize them to save. But if our economy is built around people spending money, then knowing that my money is going to be worth a little bit less a year from now than it is today, it gets me to go in. It sort of greases the wheels and gets people spending money. Now, I know what the punchline is, but just so people hear it, why is that a fallacy? Why is it a fallacy to believe that if prices are going down, that people won't just turn into Scrooge McDuck, storing their money away and freezing up the economy?

[B]

So, first of all, the fact that we have an economy that is based on spending, that's the problem. That's part of the bubble. We have a bubble economy. A legitimate economy would not be Based on spending. It would be based on savings and production. You don't have to encourage people to spend. Everybody wants to spend. I mean, that's how we gratify ourselves. We want things. Everybody wants stuff. And so everybody would spend. I mean, I have young kids. I mean, they would spend constantly if I didn't stop them. I mean, they don't need encouragement. I mean, I have a wife. I don't have to encourage her to spend. I got to do everything I can to stop it. Right? So spending doesn't have to be encouraged, because that's delayed gratification. Savings needs to be encouraged. Do without what you want. Don't have it right now. Wait, delay your gratification. So you need to encourage that. And the market does that with interest and other ways of rewarding people for saving. But when interest rates were at zero, you know, and inflation was above zero, we were punishing people for saving. We were punishing people for doing exactly what they need to do. Because what makes a real economy grow is savings. Because savings is what finances capital investment. Capital investment is what leads to increasing productivity and higher living standards. So everybody wants to buy. That just comes naturally. We all want stuff, so we don't need to encourage that. But the idea that if prices fall, that people will stop spending and therefore prices need to rise to encourage spending is pure bs. People are going to spend anyway, but they're actually more likely to spend if prices are going down than if prices are going up. And here's why. What these Keynesians try to sell this nonsense that if I think the price is going to go down, I'm just not going to buy it. I'm going to wait to get it cheaper, and therefore no one's going to buy because we're all going to be sitting back waiting for a better deal. And that is nonsense. People buy things when they want them, and the proof of that is all around us. Cell phones. The first cell phone was probably two, $3,000 before. Well, they used to be a car phone. But when you. When you finally got a portable phone, if you remember from Wall Street, Gordon Gekko's got this huge thing that he's holding by his ear. Those things sold for like two or three thousand dollars a piece, and it was very expensive to use them. I remember when I finally got my first cell phone, I never wanted to use it because it was too expensive. I would say, hey, call me on the weekend. I can't talk. I'm on my cell phone. It's too expensive. Right? But the reason A lot of people didn't buy the first cell phones is because they were too expensive, they couldn't afford it. The reason everybody has cell phones now is because they're so cheap. The price going down is what motivated more people to buy. You buy things when you can afford them, and if you can't afford the current price, if the price just goes up, well then you really can't afford it. You know, same thing. The first television set probably costs the same as an automobile. Who bought the first television set? Some really rich guy. It was a novelty, but it was a gigantic piece of furniture with like a 2 inch screen and you probably had two channels and you had two or three hours a day where you could watch it. I mean, it was, you know, people bought televisions because they got cheaper. Now people buy televisions all the time. Everybody knows if I buy a television today, a year from now, I could buy a better one for less money. Everybody knows that, but they buy them anyway. The same thing with a computer or every piece of electronics that you buy. If you just don't buy it and buy it in a year or two, you'll get it cheaper. But people buy them anyway because they want to use them now. Like, I remember the first time I saw a high def television set years and years ago. It was in like a Best Buy or something. I walked in, I saw it and I was really amazed at the clarity. I mean, to me it was like looking, you know, looking through a window. I was like. It was because I had never seen high def before until I went into the store. I was just used to, you know, the old tubes that we had. And I really liked that television set, but I didn't buy one even though I liked it and I wanted it because it was like $10,000 back in the, back then that was, you know, I mean, I could have bought a nice car for that. And so I didn't buy it because it was too much money. But some guy that was a lot richer than me, he bought it and he, and he gave those companies money that they could use to figure out how to make them cheaper. And because the price went down, they're now so cheap. I got those things in every room in my house and so does everybody else. I mean, you got people now that are living on welfare that got high definition TVs, I mean, because the price came down. You know, if you own a business and you really want it, incentivize people to come in and shop. What do you do? You have a sale, you Lower the price. Hey, I'm lowering the price. 10% off, 20% off. Now people, you know, they want to shop. Like, why does everybody come to the stores on Black Friday? Because they lowered the price. Because they raised the price. So it's just complete BS that people will stop spending if prices go down. No, no, they'll spend more because they can afford to buy more. They'll buy more stuff at lower prices.

[C]

You never know where your next unforgettable experience will pop up. That's why bringing along an American Express card opens the door to rewards wherever you go. Morning coffee, run with an old friend. Earn cash back. Weekend getaway, Earn miles. Dinner at the hottest restaurant in town. You get the idea. No matter the place or the plan. Amex rewards your inner explorer. Learn about card [e-mail] terms apply when you manage procurement for multiple facilities. Every order matters. But when it's for a hospital system, they matter even more. Grainger gets it and knows there's no time for managing multiple suppliers and no room for shipping delays. That's why Grainger offers millions of products in fast, dependable delivery so you can keep your facility safe, stocked, safe and running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRAINGER click granger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.

[A]

Okay, I want to start putting all these pieces together because I the I never intended to get into financial content. If I'm honest, it was only when Covid kicked off and I got really worried about people that I knew and loved were going to get mowed over. And then the more I got into it, the more I realized that the what people think the economy is and what the economy actually is are wildly different and they're going to massively impact how you move in a time of high uncertainty like what we're living through right now. So I'm going to paint a narrative based on everything I've heard you say and what I know generally about the economy. Let me know if I get this right. Because if I get this right, it. It's a very worrisome about where we go from here and B it will certainly inform how people respond. So the economy seems to be something like this. Over time innovation is going to drive the price down. The government is always looking for ways to tax people to give them what they want because very much the government certainly a modern, certainly the US Government in modern times. I will, I will say that panders to the voters. In order to get re elected they have to get reelected every two years. So they want to give them things that feel good in the short term. Everybody's thinking in the economy is very immediate. It, it's what I want now. And a thing that might happen a year or a decade or two decades, I literally couldn't care less. I don't think about that. That doesn't factor into the way that I think of this. So the government goes, okay, cool, there's only so much that I can tax people. And by the way, taxing the 1% literally down to zero, they know won't drive revenues up. And B, they also know that even if they took every last dollar, it just wouldn't cover it. So you end up having to tax the middle class. And, and so I can't tax the middle class outright. They're not going to feel good about that. I'm not going to get reelected. So what I'm going to do, and I'll even assume that they have good intentions, but what I'm going to do is I'm going to use inflation to distribute money more and more evenly around to people and I'm going to leverage the fact that innovation is driving costs down so that I can get a bigger bite before people fail. Feel it. I'm going to train people. That 2%, that's a good number that you actually want. 2% inflation. So if costs, and obviously I'm swagging if costs are going down by 3% and I can get people to believe in 2% now, I can tax 5% every year just on that. And of course, there's still all the other taxes in the world, but I can leverage inflation to do that. Now, where inflation comes from is printing money, period. Now, one thing that I've heard you say, and I guarantee, even though you've touched on it here, people still think what drives inflation is rising costs. When the thing I've heard you say very pointedly is, no, inflation is increasing the money supply, and the echo of that is rising costs. But rising costs does not create inflation. It is a symptom of inflating the money supply. Okay, how close are we here?

[B]

Yeah, no, you're right. I mean, they've got the cart before the horse. When you're talking about costs causing inflation and the same thing as prices, sometimes they say, well, costs go up and that makes prices go up. They talk about the cost price push, but costs and prices are two words for the same thing. One person's cost is another person's price. Right. If I'm a business and I have to buy steel, well, what's my steel cost? Well, the steel, the guy that's selling me steel, my cost is the price he charges me. It's his price, it's my cost. So prices and costs are really the same thing. So why are they going up? What's making them go up when a free market would make them come down? That is the beauty of capitalism is it lowers costs.

[A]

In what way? How does it lower costs? Is it through innovation or is there another mechanism?

[B]

Yeah, through increasing productivity, I figure out cheaper ways to make stuff. We, you, you build a more productive mousetrap so that, you know, you can catch more mice for less money. Or you, you know, the, the cost of producing a cell phone today is much lower than it was 20 years ago. That's the reason they're so much cheaper. The free market figured out a better way to produce and they did that because the companies earn money from selling some very expensive cell phones. They take that money, they invest in research and development to figure out, you know, more efficient ways to produce. And of course, as they produce more at lower prices, they also create economies of scale. So that is the natural tendency of a market based economy. If you look at the US, if you look at the CPI in 1900 and then you look at it in 1800, 100 years earlier, prices are down about 50%. Prices are half what they were in 1900, that they were in 1800. The market cut the cost of living in half. We were on a gold standard for most of that time period, other than a few years of the Civil War where we really started printing money. But in that economy, prices went down. Now with technology, we should actually be enjoying even faster price declines in this century than they had in the 19th century. The reason we've been robbed of those benefits is because of government. And of course there is a lot more regulation now than they had then. I mean, the markets are not as free as they used to be, and therefore they're not as efficient as they used to be. And therefore prices are, aren't going down as much as they would if the government got out of the way and allowed entrepreneurs to be more effective instead of having to waste resources and time on government red tape. You know, they could have devoted those resources to becoming more, more productive. But there was another reason too, that they were able to keep the inflation rate low is we outsourced all of our production to China. And so we had all these Chinese workers that would do the work for a fraction of what Americans would. And in factories that didn't have to deal with all the regulations of American factories. And so we got all this stuff coming in from China that helped keep prices down. But the flip side of that was we lost a lot of good paying jobs and we ran massive trade deficits. And so now we have to deal with that problem that we created trying to kick the can down the road. Because you're right about politicians and their time horizon. They can only see as far as their own reelection, which in America in many cases is two years. And as you said, people want something for nothing. That is the inherent flaw of a democracy. And that's why the founding fathers established America as a republic, not a democracy. And they tried to protect the country from the evil forces of democracy, which they referred to as mobocracy. So we're not supposed to be a democracy for the very reasons that democracies create the type of problems that we now have.

[A]

Okay, so I think that's a really important point to zoom in on. So the, the thing that I think is, is potentially problematic in this is just the nature of the human mind. And so when I think about why this stuff starts deranging, it's that you really can get a free lunch for a while and if it didn't work in the short term, we wouldn't have these problems. But it, it really does work and it can work for a very long time. And so I think it's important for people to understand the US is a reserve currency, so we have privileges. This conversation only makes sense in the context of the U.S. economy. If you were to take this somewhere else where they can't print their way out of this, it would be a very different scenario. But right now the world is tied to the US dollar. And so the US dollar is able to create this inflation, actually export some of the negative effects of that inflation. And so this lets us give people a free lunch for a very long time. And it creates this thing where the first order consequence is awesome. So take Covid. I was legitimately worried that people were going to get obliterated by Covid. And they didn't. But they only didn't because of printing money. And so I actually felt good. I was like, oh man, thank God. Like the government stepped in, help people. The recent regional banking crisis, right with svb, I was like, thank God. The government's, I didn't have any money. I, I had very small exposure to that that I got out before the, the government stepped in. So for me, I had no skin in the game once the bank stepped in. But I was still glad they did it, but that's because first order consequences are positive. The second, third, fourth, fifth, ah, on and on and on. Consequences become not only hard to calculate, but they really get confusing. And so if you boil the frog slowly, not only do you get them used to the problem, but you confuse the shit out of them. As to what's causing the pain, does that all make sense?

[B]

Makes perfect sense. But everything that you're happy the government did was a mistake. Now, the reason you're happy they did it was because of the short term benefit of that mistake, but you don't perceive the actual long term consequences of doing that. It's like maybe let's say you're a football player, you're in a game and you injure your ankle and. And the coach is like, look, let me shoot you up with this so you can keep on playing because we want you in the game. And so he shoots you up with this medicine and you don't feel the pain. And so you keep running on your foot and you're able to finish that game. But because you did that, you screwed up your foot so bad, you're out for the rest of the season, right? But they were just thinking about one game. And so you ran on a foot that you shouldn't have run on. You got numb to the pain and, you know, your body was like, hey, don't run on me. Go rest, you know, ice me for a while, you know, but, you know, so that's what the government does. They try to make us numb to the pain, and then we end up doing more damage. And so what happened after Covid? I mean, that policy was horrific. And bailing out the banks, both in 2008 and now again with the bank bailouts we've had this year, all this is a mistake. But again, the politicians want to get reelected, right? They just want to win this game. They don't care about the season, it's this game. And so they're just doing whatever they can to numb us all to the pain. There's a saying, you talk about a free lunch, that there's no such thing as a free lunch. And that's because somebody's got to pay for that lunch. So if it's free to you, the question is, who's paying for it? Because the food didn't just magically appear, right? There is a cost. The government can print money, but it can't print stuff. The stuff has to be made. And that's why when you print money without any stuff being Made. All that happens is the price of that stuff goes up, right? Because if we could just print money and people could buy stuff, everybody would be rich. We just print up a bunch of money. Why not give everybody millions of dollars and we all be rich, right? No, the price of everything would just go up. Nobody would be rich. The only way we can all be richer is if we all produce more. Printing more money doesn't change anything. You know, you're rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. You need. You need a. You need a more stable boat, right? So we need to make more stuff. That's how we. We can satisfy more demand, is by creating more supply. If we just print money, we increase demand. Supply is the same. And so prices go up. And that. That's the inflation. But yes, what we were able to do is we were able to con the whole world, the Chinese and a lot of other people into taking the paper that we print for the stuff they produce, because the dollar is the reserve currency. So instead of actually having to make stuff that the Chinese wanted, we just printed money and said, hey, take this. And now they took all this stuff that they made in factories where they actually had to invest in them, and people had to do hard work, and maybe they were making pollution, whatever. But the Chinese economy expended real resources to produce all kinds of goods that are filling up the shelves in Walmart that Americans are driving home in their big SUVs. And what are they doing? How are we earning all this stuff? The Fed's just printing money and handing it out. What does that cost us? Next to nothing. And so in the short run, this is a great deal for Americans because we get something for nothing, and the Chinese get nothing for something, except they don't realize they're getting nothing. They think this paper has a lot of value, but in reality, it doesn't because it's an iou. It's a claim on US Production. But what if our production is going down? Eventually we're going to wipe all that out with massive inflation. When the world doesn't want our dollars anymore and they try to cash them in, when they try to buy stuff, it's like, well, what are you going to buy? We don't have our factories anymore. They're all in China. That money's no good. I mean, we run this giant Ponzi scheme. We have a $33 trillion national debt that continues to grow trillions of dollars a year, and we finance it like Bernie Madoff did, because we can't pay anybody back. So whenever a bond matures, we find some other sucker to buy it. And when we have to pay our interest, we find suckers to loan us that money too. But this only continues as long as the suckers are willing to keep lending. But when people want their money back, we don't have it. During the debt crisis, we even admitted that, that we said if we can't go deeper into debt, we're going to default because we're broke. So all this is going to collapse. The dollar is going to lose its reserve currency status. And then if Americans want to consume, they're going to have to produce. And that's much harder than printing. And that's going to mean a lot of people who are not productive are going to have to start working. And a lot of people who have jobs, they have non productive jobs, those jobs aren't going to cut it. In a society where we're no longer creating the reserve currency, they're going to have to go make something.

[A]

Okay, so let's look at historical examples because if, if I'm taking the flip side of this argument, I'm saying, look, it, it doesn't have to end in de dollarization. Even if it does end in de dollarization, it could happen. Well, like it did for the pound where the pound sort of slowly over time lost its juice. America rose up. Throw in a couple of world wars that confuse and discombobulate people and yeah, you come out the other side. There was no sort of excluding the wars. I want to be very clear that I don't discount the loss of life. Just looking at the economics that there was a relatively smooth transition from the US or sorry, the UK is the dominant global power reserve currency, to the US dollar as a dominant world power and currency.

[B]

It wasn't actually that smooth. And you know, if you look back at the days where the pound really dominated global trade, I mean, Britain was an empire. I mean, think about how much influence Britain had all around the world. It's just another country now, you know, I mean, it's like, so Britain is a shadow of what it used to be. So yeah, it doesn't have anywhere near the economic or military power that it once had when it had that position. So to say that oh, it was easy for Britain. I mean, imagine what happens when America is just another country. It's going to be a big difference. But I think that our economy structurally is more screwed up than the British economy was. So we're extremely dependent on the dollar status.

[A]

Now really fast. Are we in a Worse. Are we in a worse position because of the debt crisis? What, what makes it worse now?

[B]

Well, and the structure of our economy. We're so dependent this service sector economy that can't exist unless it's supplied from the, by the rest of the world. And when the pound was the dominant currency, it was backed by gold. I mean, it was a real money. They couldn't just print it like we've been doing. So the dollars, the reserve currency, even though it's backed by absolutely nothing really fast.

[A]

So Winston Churchill said the biggest mistake he ever made was reattaching their currency to gold. Out of curiosity, I'm gonna guess you think that was a dumb statement on his part. The reason that he said that, I think is because now seeing what, how much power it gives America to just print, print, print, print, print, print, print. And this is, this is like the thesis of my argument. You can get away with this shit for so long that the people that pay the price didn't create the problem. And so just emotionally, nobody has to go through. That's not quite true. You, you'll get increasingly agitated movements like Occupy Wall street, which we will almost certainly talk about later, because I know that you had a very interesting relationship with them, but you'll get increasingly sort of agitated movements like that until something happens and either it breaks or just the, the kids that end up taking over the government, they just end up doing things differently. But I think that's why he said that was like, oh my God, we really crippled ourselves and we made it impossible for ourselves to print our way out of this problem.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, that's one of the reasons that politicians hate gold, is it forces them to be honest. And that's the last thing that a politician wants to be. I mean, they don't get elected telling the truth. And if they've been in office for a long time, it's because they're very good liars, because that's how you get reelected. But the public wants gold because we want to keep the politicians honest.

[A]

I don't think the public understands gold.

[B]

No. Well, they don't because they've been deliberately confused about it by a government that doesn't want the public to understand it, because the government wants to be in charge of the money so that they can manipulate and tax us and try to tinker with, with the economy in ways that might make their reelection easier. And so we're not on, you know, a gold standard again. It's like kids at a high school prom. They don't want the chaperones, right, because they want to do a lot of things that the chaperones won't approve of, you know, so. But the parents want the chaperones because they don't want the kids doing that stuff. That's why they're there. So gold is like the chaperone to keep the politicians and the bankers honest, but that's not what they want. They want to be up to no good, and gold stands in their way. That's why, if you look at. Read, for example, Alan Greenspan's essay, Gold and Economic Freedom, and he wrote this years before he became Fed chairman, but he does a great job of explaining this concept. And gold and economic freedom go hand in hand. We want honest money, we want sound money. Money is supposed to have real value, not supposed to just be conjured into existence out of thin air by a central bank.

[A]

We'll get to that in a second. So if Alan Greenspan writes this thing and really understands gold and understands how a true, sound money that is tied to something that can't be faked, if he understands that, why, when he was Fed chair, did he not lobby to get us back on a gold standard?

[B]

He was a sellout. I mean, that's why, you know, and he thought, well, he was saying that he was as good as gold. He said he was trying to manage the dollar with the price of gold. In his mind, it was when Gold was at 400. So he used to say, if the gold price is above 400, then I know that I'm too easy. If it's below 400, I know I'm too tight. Well, look where we are now, 1900. So clearly the Fed has been too loose, based on the barometer that Greenspan had back then. But he had some arrogance once he got into power. He enjoyed being called the maestro. There's an old saying, Lord Acton, power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely. And so you get absolute power over the monetary system, and this is what happens. But I know that if I could have a private conversation with Alan Greenspan, he would very much like the country to go back to a gold standard. He's never repudiated a single word that he wrote in that essay, gold and Economic Freedom. In fact, I was speaking to Ron Paul about who had a birthday the other day, But Ron told me of a story where he was talking to Greenspan in the halls of Congress and he had the Atlas Shrugged book, or Capitalism, the New Owner, Capitalism, the Unknown ideal. And he asked Greenspan point blank, hey, I've got This book, your article is in here, Golden Economic Freedom. Do you want to retract any of that? Because now you're saying things. And he told Ron Paul, nope, I wouldn't change a word. So he still believed it, regardless of the public Persona, he still knew it. He believed it. That's why he was, in many ways a hypocrite. But as bad as Greenspan was, and of course, when I was forecasting the 2008 financial crisis, for years and years, for most of those years, Greenspan was Fed chairman. And so I always blamed the crisis on Greenspan, not necessarily Bernanke, because he inherited the bubble, but Greenspan inflated it. Now he was oblivious to it. And of course, everything Bernanke did in the aftermath of the financial crisis was a mistake, and we're paying for that mistake, and we're going to pay for that mistake. But Greenspan started it, you know, and, you know, so I said he was the ace, ace of spades in the, you know, deck of cards trying to figure out who caused the 2008 financial crisis. You know, I wanted to go to Congress and testify because they had a hearing on why we had a financial crisis. And I was like, you know, a kid in class. Ooh, ooh, pick me, pick me, right? Because I had been warning about. I wrote a book forecasting it. I mean, it basically happened the way I said it would for the exact reasons that I said it would. In fact, I even helped set up a hedge fund that was short the subprime market. I was, you know, got as many people as I could to short subprime in 2006, and then it blew up in 2007. But I knew exactly why we had a financial crisis. I knew exactly what caused it. And so I wanted to go to Congress and testify, but they wouldn't let me. Instead, they had a bunch of people that didn't predict the crisis, that had no idea that it was coming, that were completely blindsided by the crisis. And then they blamed it on the free market. They blamed it on a lack of regulation. They blamed it on everything that had nothing to do with it. It was the Fed, it was Fannie, it was Freddie, it was all these government agencies that caused the problem. That's how I knew it was coming. That's how I knew exactly the consequences, because I understood the mistakes that they were making. But the people who testified at that hearing made the mistakes. They had no idea why we actually had a crisis. But the real purpose of the hearing was not to find out why we had A crisis, but to blame it on private sector so that we could use that as an excuse to create even more power for the government and the Federal Reserve that collectively caused that crisis. And based on what they did in the aftermath, we're going to have an even worse one. But that was the impetus for the Occupy Wall street because if you remember, everybody was protesting all the bailouts and what was going on. And you had this group of people in New York that were mad at the private sector for getting bailed out, for taking, you know, and I wanted to go down there and say, you're mad at the wrong, you know, target. You should be down in Washington on Pennsylvania Avenue. You should be protesting the White House, Congress, the Fed. Don't protest the companies that took the bailouts. Protest the government that gave them the bailouts. I mean, who's not going to take a bailout if it's offered to you, right? It's like if, you know, if somebody offers your kid a bunch of candy and then your kid eats it, I mean, yeah, what kid's not going to eat candy? You blame the guy that gave him all that candy, you know, and so I said, you know, that's how I went down there to say, look, don't protest capitalism. Capitalism is the solution to the problems that you're worried about. Protest government, protest socialism. The central bankers, they're your enemy, not private businessmen.

[C]

With Vrbill's last minute deals, you can save over $50 on your spring getaway. So whether it's a mountain escape city break or a week at the beach, there's still time to get great discounts. Book your next day now. Average savings $72. Select homes only. When you manage procurement for multiple facilities, every order matters. But when it's for a hospital system, they matter even more. Grainger gets it and knows there's no time for managing multiple suppliers and no room for shipping delays. That's why Grainger offers millions of products in fast, dependable delivery so you can keep your facility stocked, safe and running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRAINGER click granger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.

[A]

Okay? Having seen you debate people down at Occupy Wall Street, I can say that at least people that were a part of that movement and probably people that are a part of that, a very similar vibe now would all disagree for one very simple reason. Capitalism is evil. It concentrates money in the hands of a very few who have, who have effectively stolen it from people either through back, you know, alley dealings back Government, I don't know if they'd use the word bribe, but like lobbying government, using official bribery channels and the like. And when I think about that argument, which I'll let you directly respond to, but to me the problem feels like you're, you are simply up against human nature. And human nature is such that I want you to give me something now. And I have a very hard time calculating the negative second and third order consequences. And when the second and third order consequences come, people probably, they may not even necessarily be lying, although I heard you about politicians. And they do well as they get better at lying. But even being generous and saying they're not lying, they just don't understand it because this stuff is very complicated. And I, my, unfortunately life has taught me the moment you're asking the masses to hold a sophisticated idea in their head that it, it is never going to work. And you, you will only if you ask the masses to hold a sophisticated idea in their head, they will only calculate first order consequences, period. And therefore anything that happens in second and third order, it, it is as if it doesn't exist. But then subsequent, either years or generations down the road, you get fucking obliterated. And Ray Dalio has clocked this. All of every empire that has ever existed, ever, every reserve currency that has ever existed, ever, they have all collapsed, but they all collapse for the same reason. And it's what we're living through right now. And that's why I'm like, what the fuck? Like, I don't see how this isn't inevitable.

[B]

Yeah, you know, human nature is one thing that doesn't change. I mean, we're more sophisticated now, we have a lot more technology now, but that hasn't changed. We haven't learned from the mistakes of the past. We just keep on repeating them in an endless loop. But yes, a lot of people believe that capitalism is evil, but capitalism is the least evil economic system that exists. I mean, this is probably because the teachers don't understand this either. And so we have a bunch of kids that learn bad things from teachers who don't get it in these government schools. But it's socialism that's inherently evil, not capitalism. Capitalism is about freedom. It's where individuals are free to transact with one another and pursue their interests, their self interest without government intervention. Now people think, well then people are just going to exploit other people and take advantage of them and screw them over. But that's not how it works. Because if I want to enrich myself in a system of voluntary interaction, I Can't force anybody to buy my products. If I want somebody's money, I have to earn their money. I can't force them, I'm not a government. I can't tax them, I can't take stuff from them against their will. I have to convince them that it's in their self interest to buy what I want to sell. If I want to hire somebody, I have to pay them more than anybody else is willing to pay them. Or I have to give them a combination of pay and benefits and a work environment where they voluntarily accept my offer of employment. I can't constrict them into service like the government on a draft. I can't force you to work for me. I have to give you a deal that you decide to take because it's better than somebody else's deal. And so everybody is acting with one another voluntarily. Capitalists. The way you get rich is I try to figure out, hey, what is something that would make everybody's life better? What do we need that a lot of people don't have and if they had it, their life would be better. And then I come up with something, or maybe I come up with something. You didn't even realize you wanted it until I showed it to you. And then when you saw it, oh my God, my life would be so much better if I had that. And then you buy it from me and I get rich because I made your life better. I'm getting rewarded for improving your life. That's capitalism. We all get rewarded for making everybody else lives better. And it's all about voluntary exchange and interacting. There's no coercion. Nobody is forced to do something that they don't want to do. Compare that to socialism or government. The government forces people to do stuff whether they want to do it or not. Here's this law. You have to abide by that. You can't do this, you must do that. You have to pay that. You can't do this. This is coercion, this is force. And the government can say, and we're going to take all this money away from you. We're going to, we don't have to earn your money, we're just taking it. And if you don't give it to us, we're going to put you in jail. You know, there's no businessman that can put you in jail if you don't buy their product or accept their employment offer. They have to, they have to entice you to buy their stuff. And so I want to live in a world where people have to win my business, right? Where they have to improve my life, not. Not where they can ruin my life and put me in jail if I don't, if I don't do what they tell them to do. So that's socialism. And you know, when people think, well, people are inherently evil, they're not going to, they're going to cheat, they're going to try to rip me off and give me, you know, poison food and, you know, shoddy merchandise. Some people will do that, right? Some people are going to cut corners and try to, you know, pull a fast one. And some people will commit fraud in the marketplace. They'll lie about something. But those people are not going to be hugely successful businessmen. The free market will, you know, will weed them out. They'll go out of business. People will, you know, tell their friends and they'll get bad reviews and eventually they're going to go away. They may make some money in the short run, but if you want to build a good reputation and have a lasting business, you don't do it by ripping off your customers. You do it by serving your customers so they keep coming back and they don't go to your competitor. But yes, there's going to be some bad apples in capitalism. But you know what? There's even more bad apples in socialism. Why? People think that businessmen are greedy, but they trust politicians. Those people in government are as greedy as anybody. They want to make money too. But now they have power over you. Now they can make money through corruption, through graft. And if you want to look at these socialist countries, who are the wealthiest people, the people that work for government? They have all the money, they have all the stuff. There's a huge divide. They say, oh, it's going to be, you know, equal. Everybody's going to be equal. Yeah, everybody is equally poor except the people who work for government. And they're rich. And they get rich by stealing money from the public. But in capitalism, people get rich by serving the public. And there's a much better distribution of wealth in capitalism than socialism because you have a middle class. I mean, capitalism created the American middle class. Without capitalism, there wouldn't have been a middle class, right? There just been a bunch of poor people and then some rich bureaucrats at the top that were sucking the lifeblood out of, out of everybody else.

[A]

For the average person today, that does not feel true. For the average person today who economic mobility has begun to decrease. And look, I doubt you know much about my background. I could not be a more die hard Capitalist. But I want to make sure that we steel man the flip side of that coin. So for somebody that's growing up now, call it just bad luck of timing. And boomers created a system that just drained the wealth. They've trapped it, and it's not getting back into the system. Whatever reasoning ends up being the right analysis in the final look at this. But nonetheless, economic mobility has scaled back. You get people like Ray Dalio, who I think has looked at this problem more closely than just about anybody, and he's like, look, we. We do need to make changes to the system. Otherwise you're just going to keep getting this massive divide. And for people familiar with the Ginny Coefficient, if you want people to fight, then have people that have massive wealth and people with no wealth be next to each other, because all you care about is what your neighbor has. And so that's what we're getting right now, right? So people are just like, this guy, like, he's got so much money, Elon Musk, he's making, you know, whatever he's worth $160 billion, he's hoarding that money. That's all money that. That would have gone to me, but now I'm not getting it because this asshole has all that money. And so I think they're. They have identified the wrong solution, but they're not wrong that there's a problem. Like, growing up in the 80s, I really felt like I could do anything. And now my life becomes proof that that's true. I did not grow up with money, but I have made a lot of money.

[B]

You don't get rich by hoarding your money, because if your money is hoarded, it doesn't grow. The way people get rich is, is by investing their money, by creating economic growth, by producing more products, providing more employment. So the last thing you want to do is take that wealth away from the rich, because they use it so productively. They're not just sitting on a pile of cash in their backyard. Their wealth is out there working and growing the economy. But, you know, the reason that we have so much less upward mobility than we could have is because of all the roadblocks that government has placed in people's paths that wouldn't be there but for government. I mean, it's very hard now for someone just to get a job because we've made it so difficult to employ people. If you want to go out and hire people, the government says, well, here's a minimum wage. You can't hire somebody if they have very low skills. And they're worth less than the minimum wage. So immediately you price a lot of people out of the labor market because they're not worth the minimum wage. You might hire them if you could do it at $4 an hour, but you won't do it at $9 an hour. Now you might say, well, why would somebody work at $4 an hour? Well, they have no skills, and they want to get some skills. And if you have no skills and you want to get some skills, the best way to get them is to get a job and learn them. And so in many cases, you're paying somebody $4 an hour to teach them how to do something. But once they learn how to do it, then you have to pay them more money or they're going to quit and they're going to go someplace else. But. But we also have all these employment taxes that increase employment costs, make it more expensive to hire people, Social Security, unemployment. And then we also empower workers where you can sue your boss eight ways from Sunday. I mean, one of the easiest things to do in America is sue your boss. And that means that people are reluctant to hire. Who the hell wants to get sued? And so a lot fewer people get hired because the employer doesn't want to risk a lawsuit. And this is particularly problematic for minorities, who may have a greater tendency to sue because they could bring up discrimination and stuff like that. It's so easy to claim, oh, I got fired because I'm African American, or I didn't get promoted because I'm a woman, or I was handicapped. I mean, there's different things you could say, or somebody insulted me at work. I mean, so employers want to reduce their legal liability, and they do that by hiring fewer people, by outsourcing to other countries, by automating where they might prefer a human, but, you know, the computer can't sue them. So the government has just made it very difficult for people to climb up the economic ladder, because in many cases, the first few rungs of that ladder have been destroyed by the government. And so if we could just have a free country. You know, when my grandfather came into this country, there was. They didn't have any of these laws. There was no minimum wage. There was no welfare. There was no unemployment. There was no Social Security. He came with nothing. He didn't even speak the language. He was like 12 or 13. But he got a job right away. And then eventually he had his own little business and he employed people. But he didn't have to do all this with his employees either. I Mean, I don't even think he kept track of how much money he made, because why keep track? There was no taxes to pay. It was a free country. You can concentrate on running your business, not figuring out how much you had to cut the government in on. The only taxes were sales taxes, which was easy.

[A]

This was your.

[B]

Somebody buys a product and pay a tax.

[A]

My grandfather, your grandfather, okay, my grandfather. There was no tax.

[B]

Not back. Well, they, they didn't have income taxes, they didn't have Social Security taxes. You know, all the only taxes you had, that was like a tariff. You didn't even see the tariffs. Right, because they were, they were embedded in the products. And the cities, the locals, they did have like sales tax, but that's it. That's all there was. Nobody had to fill out forms. Nobody had any money taken out of their paycheck. I mean, that's what America used to be like. And people weren't starving. People were dying for lack of medical care. If you didn't have money, doctors worked for nothing. I mean, we ran great. Government was tiny, you know, 100 years ago, you know, 1900, 1890, 1910, you know, that we didn't have as much technology then as we have now. But, you know, could you imagine if, if the government had stayed in the same relative size that it was in 1900, if we never had an income tax, corporate income tax, personal income tax. We never had all these government programs, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare. Right. If we had just stayed the same, you wouldn't even recognize America today. We would be so wealthy, it would be unrecognizable. The living standard of the average American would be unlike anything that we see today on earth. But we were robbed of all of those benefits because we gave up on capitalism and we went all in on almost on socialism. And we really transformed the nation. And we've all suffered, whether we realize it or not.

[A]

Okay, so I am hearing this as somebody who is very skeptical of capitalism. I'm thinking law of the jungle is the strong will do what they will and the weak will suffer as they must. And the whole idea behind a government is that you're going to protect the smaller person. You're going to create the environment where they can be successful. And what I hear you saying is that, oh, everybody is so magically kind that if we had a true capitalist society, doctors will take care of the sick for free. Nobody's going to die on the stair steps. Pregnant women are going to die in childbirth, in their homes, because they were Too poor to go to the hospital. They look around and they see a broken. They see us in late stage capitalism. We tried it, Peter, and it led to derangement. It led to evil behavior. If it wasn't for things like Obamacare, just the number of people that would be dying in the streets. This is crazy. You're just a rich guy speaking your book right now.

[B]

Yeah, that's just government lies. I mean, you know, the most, the freest period of time in American history really was from the end of the Civil War to the beginning of the First War, First World War. That was really when we were the freest. Right. No more slavery. So African Americans had been freed and we were on a very, very solid gold standard during that period of time. That was the Industrial Revolution. You've never seen a period of time where real incomes rose faster, where real GDP grew faster than, than during those years. And that's when we had the least amount of government really in history. Look, the conditions to achieve success exist naturally. All the government can do is diminish those conditions by imposing barriers. Now, it's not that I'm saying, hey, we shouldn't have any laws. Yeah. Local government. Yeah. Should it be illegal to defraud somebody? Yes. We shouldn't just, hey, you can commit crimes as long as you get away with it. No, because in a free market, you could do whatever you want. You just can't harm somebody else. So I can't deliberately steal your stuff, Right. Theft is wrong. I have to earn money. I can't steal your money, which means I can't defraud you out of your money. So that's still a crime. I still want to punish criminal behavior because everybody has to respect everybody else's rights. Like my freedom to move. My fist stops at your face. I can do whatever I want with my fist. I just can't hit you. The minute I hit you, I violated your rights. Right. So we have to leave each other alone. But that doesn't mean that if I see somebody starving on the street, I'm going to leave alone. I'm a human being, right? I'm going to care about my fellow man. See, I have no problem with voluntary charity. And we had plenty of that before the government took it over. I mean, you talk about doctors. Doctors did so much pro bono stuff for free when they didn't have to pay income taxes. They didn't have, you know, all these other, you know, paperwork and forms that they could actually be doctors instead of government bureaucrats. They had a lot more free Time and they didn't have to charge as much for their services. But people should be free to voluntarily donate money to people in need and help them out. What is wrong is when the government steals money from somebody because they claim somebody else needs it, that's wrong. Theft is immoral just because the government is doing the stealing. And if you rob from the rich and give to the poor, it's still wrong. Even if the poor need the money. The ends don't justify the means. The rich have to voluntarily donate to the poor, which they will. But here is the unfortunate reality of government running charity is every government has a huge bureaucracy. So in order for a government to give the poor 10 cents, they have to take a dollar from everybody else. It's very inefficient. But if you look at private charities, they raise a dollar and the poor get 90 cents. It's a much more efficient way to help people if you keep the government out of it. Plus, and this is probably the more important factor, the government wants to perpetuate poverty because they want to perpetuate their own existence. So if you're in charge of this anti poverty program, the last thing you want is to eliminate poverty because you're out of a job, right? Your job is, I want more poverty so I can get a bigger budget. And so they design these welfare systems that create dependency. But a private charity doesn't want the people to stay poor. It wants them to not need the charity anymore. It wants to, it wants to give them a hand up, not a handout. So you want the private sector to be doing these things. You don't want to turn over this function in government. There's a few things that I think government could do well, but charity is not one of them. Neither is education, neither is health care. Those are things where the government should stay completely out because all they do is screw it up.

[A]

Okay, so what do you say to the people that are choking to death on the idea that we were at our freest? And you use the word freest so I don't want to put words in your mouth to say we're at our best or anything like that, but that we were at our freest from post civil war to World War I because they're thinking, bro, we didn't even have civil rights. Like this is crazy. Like people were being abused in ways that by a modern standard we cannot fathom.

[B]

People we had. First of all, I don't believe in these civil rights. I believe in individual rights. Right? Everybody has rights because they're an individual, nobody has special privileges because they're a member of a group, right? So I mean, I'm, you know, I'm Jewish, I guess. I don't know. I mean, I don't have special rights because of my Judaism. I'm older Now, I'm 60. I don't have senior rights, right? I don't have different rights than I had when I was 40 or 30. But other people that fall into certain groups, I mean, if you're African American, you don't have special rights because you're African American. If you're homosexual, you don't get extra rights because you're homosexual. We all have the same rights. Doesn't matter which group we happen to fall into. We all have the same individual rights. But what people are trying to do is get special privileges from government because they're a member of, of a particular group. And that's wrong. That's like a, that's a faction. So I think we're, we're actually worse off now than we were before we had all these so called civil rights because what they really are are limitations on individual rights. Because what the government is saying is you can't do this. Like, for example, if I'm a religious person and I don't want to participate in a gay wedding, right, I don't want to, you know, bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding. And I'm just religious. The government says, no, you can't do that. You gotta bake that cake whether you want to or not. We don't give a damn about your own religious beliefs. You've gotta do something that you don't want to do. That's wrong. You're limiting individual rights. If I own a bakery, I can decide if I want to turn down your business. I don't want your money. Then get somebody else to bake your cake. There's plenty of people who will take the money. So I just think that we've all lost rights in the name of giving other people privileges so the country is less free now. You know, people say, oh, people shouldn't discriminate. Well, you know what? You have a right to discriminate. You know, it's not, you know, you can't tell me, hey, you can't discriminate against me. Well, yes you can. It's a free country. You could just, you know, you could do it. You can associate with whoever you want. You can hire whoever you want. I can't tell you that you can't discriminate against me. I mean, it's your business. You, you decide who your customers are gonna be, who your employees are gonna be. That's up to you. And if you can't, if you can survive in the marketplace that, well, then you survive. You know, that's life. That's how you live. In a civilization today, everybody wants to force everybody else to tolerate anything that they do, and that's wrong. And people don't wanna be offended. Oh, he said something that hurt my feelings. Huffing up. That's life, you know, I mean, you don't have a right not to have hurt feelings. People can express their opinion, even if that opinion causes you to feel bad about something. I mean, that's being an adult living in a society. We all have freedom of expression. We have free speech. That means we could say things that other people disagree with that other people think are offensive. And if you don't like that, then you gotta go someplace else.

[A]

I think people are gonna be more outraged by the idea that you have a right to discriminate than they will by you saying that the government is the root of all of our economic problems. So help me, help me understand. So my immediate reaction is, okay, discrimination can get pretty nasty. And there we have seen where people enshrine that in law, and it makes things as.

[B]

From my perspective, that's the difference. It can't be. It can't be in the law. So you're right. Like back prior to the Civil Rights act of 1964, you had Southern states where the governments were mandating discrimination. And that was absolutely wrong. Right. The government should never tell a business, you must have a white bathroom and a black bathroom. That's wrong. Now, if the business on its own decides that that's what I want to do, well, that's a different thing. But the big problem down south was not that businessmen wanted to discriminate. The government was forcing them to discriminate. It was government that caused all these problems, not capitalism. Because if you're a business, you're going to try to appease your customers. You're going to try to get as many customers as you want. You're not going to try to piss them off, even if you're a racist. Let's say I was down south, and whatever reason I don't like blacks, I still want them to shop in my store. I still want their money, you know, and so I'm, you know, so. But it was these, these government laws that were forcing discrimination that never would have existed. So, yes, I mean, in that respect, there was less freedom in that one aspect. But I would say that even though African Americans faced that type of discrimination down south because of government, not because of capitalism, on balance, they were still freer because a. There wasn't even that. They didn't. I mean, that wasn't even that big a problem. Back in 1780, 1790, 1900, you didn't have as big an issue, but they had no income tax, no irs, no Social Security. You know, I mean, they didn't have all these forms. They didn't have to keep all these records. You know, they had. If they wanted to start a business, they could just start it. They didn't need all these forms. They didn't need all these licenses. They didn't have all these bureaucrats. They didn't have to hire accountants. They didn't have to hire lawyers. So I think overall the level of freedom was higher. But yes, I am glad that we made it illegal for these southern states to force private businesses and private individuals to discriminate when they didn't want to. But that's different than having a private individual decide on their own if they want to discriminate. That's totally different. I mean, if you want to choose to do that, then you've got to suffer the consequences. Like the woman. I just meant an example. Somebody didn't want to bake the wedding cake for a gay wedding, okay? Now they lost out on the, on the money. They can't. They, you know, that's that business they turned down. I mean, there's plenty of bakers that'll. That'll. That don't care. That don't have any problem with, with gay marriage. I mean, if I ran a bakery, yeah, give me all the gay wedding cakes you want, I'll bake them all. You know, I mean, wedding cakes are like the holy grail of cakes. If you're a baker, you're waiting for an order for a wedding cake. You make a lot of money on those things. So the more gay weddings, the better if I'm making wedding cakes. But if somebody else has a moral problem with it, that's their business. And I would, you know, look, I'm Jewish. If I went into a, into a cake, I wanted to buy a cake for my kids bar mitzvah. And I went in there and I said, hey, I want you to bake a bar mitzvah cake. And the guy said, oh, I don't like to bake bar mitzvah cakes. I don't like Jews. I mean, I'm okay, I'm going to Go someplace else. I'm not going to care. I'm not going to sue the guy. In fact, if there's an anti Semite, I'd rather that person tell me up front that hey, I don't like Jews, so I go and take my business someplace else because what if he just took my money and then like spit in the cake or whatever? I mean, I'd rather have the anti Semite, you know, let me know right off the bat. So I don't, I don't work with them, but you know, but we make now, oh, I gotta file a lawsuit, I gotta force this guy to bake this cake. I mean, it's ridiculous.

[A]

It's interesting though, and I think it's a sign of the problem that I think we're really battling and that I'm trying to find the edges of in this conversation, which is what you are up against is human nature. You are up against people, you are up against the way that they think, the way that they act. And when you get them into large groups, you get these societal movements that either are moving in the right direction or meaning they help more people thrive, or they are moving in the wrong direction and they begin to curtail things, adding back in the complexity of first order consequence. Good. Like, I'll be honest, the first order consequences of all the things you just said, they sound awesome. Like civil rights, awesome. Making people. I don't know. I'd have to think about the cake one. I won't take a stance on that. But, but these things sound like it sounds right, like that somebody shouldn't discriminate, they shouldn't be unkind. And that brings me. I'm not, I hold on because I'm not justifying my position on that. I'm just saying that's my initial reaction is I like the idea of somebody being taken care of. The problem is where I start to worry about the state of the economy. And um, there are physics to the economy. It works in a certain way. This is all tied to individuals and how people are and what they act like when they come together in a collective. Is that right now and maybe always the thing that we're up against with a movement, I, I'll make a prediction. Every economy ever in the history of all time will, if they start as a capitalist economy, will move towards socialism. And the reason I think that that will happen in a loop is as things get better and capitalism pulls you out of difficulty and creates a thriving middle class and things going well and things are looking up and better than ever. You're the reserve currency.

[B]

Yay.

[A]

Like, things are awesome that you start going, ooh. But I don't want to see people suffer. I don't want to see tragedy.

[B]

The inherent flaw isn't capitalism, it's democracy. So if you have a democracy and capitalism, then you're going to have that. Because it's the voters that are falling, you know, victim to the politicians that say, hey, look at that. Guy's richer than you. That's not fair. You know, let's take some of his money. And then you're, you know, you're, you're, you're more deserving. Right? And the public doesn't get it, and they vote for this. But the capitalism itself is not creating the problem. It's creating the prosperity that enables the politicians to now play on people's greed and their envy and all the lowest common denominator. But I wanted to also, you know, just talk about discrimination because, you know, people shouldn't discriminate. It's bad. Look, everybody discriminates in their private lives. I mean, you discriminate on who your friends are going to be. I mean, you have certain characteristics that you look for in your friends. Not everybody is your friend. And you discriminate when you're dating, when you're marrying. I mean, there are all sorts of. I mean, I mean, I'm a straight guy, but I mean, there are all sorts of women that right off the bat, I'm not going to date you. I'm not going to date you. I'm not. Because you have tastes and you have certain, certain things that you prefer, and you discriminate against the women that don't have what you like as a man in a partner or whatever. So we all discriminate. Now the question is, well, if I can discriminate in my personal life, can I discriminate in my business life? And I don't make a distinction. If I decide to start a business, I don't surrender my rights because I have a business just like my customers. I mean, people. You can discriminate among businesses. Let's say I'm African American and I want to go to. I want to patronize a business that's owned by an African American. I could do that. If I don't buy, if I don't shop at some store owned by a white guy, he can't sue me and say, hey, you should have come to my store. Why did you go to this guy? I mean, he's black and I'm white and you're Just going over there, you're discriminating against me because I'm white. Yeah. I mean, look, there's people right now, there's businesses that want to help African Americans that are going out of their way to try to hire them, and now they're getting sued for that. It's like, look, if you want to do that your business, you can, you can decide that that's what you want to do. But you also have to accept the consequences if you discriminate for an irrational reason. Right. If I'm a businessman and I've just got a prejudice, and so I'm going to, I'm going to deliberately not hire people that are in particular groups because I just, whatever reason, don't like those groups, I'm not going to be as competitive as people who don't consider those factors. The companies that are going to be the most successful in a capitalist system are those that only discriminate on relevant characteristics, which would be competence and skill level and other characteristics, honesty, punctuality. I mean, you want to hire the right people and irrelevant characteristics. What gender they are, what race they are, what sex, you know. But now sometimes they may be, they may be a factor, you know, because there are some jobs that I might determine, hey, this job is going to be better performed by a man. Being a man actually, you know, maybe it's a physically challenging job or there's something about it that, you know, men are more likely some jobs, women, you know, are more likely to succeed as it, you know, so. But it's up to the businessman to decide and then live with the consequences because the people who are discriminating are not going to do as well and they'll go out of business. But you know what happens now with all these anti discrimination laws? A lot of people who otherwise would not discriminate end up discriminating. That, that's, that's the irony of all this, because the government has made it so easy to get sued. And I know this because I've spoken to businessmen, small business owners who are reluctant to hire African Americans or in some cases, women or somebody who's, you know, where they can tell that they're, that they're, that they're gay. They don't want to hire these people, not because they have any prejudices against them, they don't. But they're afraid of getting sued. They're afraid of what might happen if they don't work out and they have to terminate them. Or maybe one of their other employees says something that offends them. And then. So if you're running a very small business, you have three or four or five employees, the safest thing you could do is just hire white men. Then you're pretty much bulletproof, right? Straight white men, no one's going to sue you. I mean, I mean, it's possible, but it's very unlikely. Right?

[A]

And because they're the, you're saying they're the least protected group.

[B]

They're. They're the ones. It's very hard to say he fired me because I'm a white man. I mean, most. No one's going to buy that. I mean, it's like. Or he fired me because I'm straight. I mean, it's just so businessmen look at somebody coming for a job interview, and if they're one of these groups that can sue you easily because they can claim you discriminated against them, there's like a big flashing sign on their head, you know, don't hire me. Don't hire me. Or you've got to be so good that it's worth the risk to the employer of hiring you. Right, because they think, okay, this guy's not gonna sue me. But, you know, nobody. It's so expensive. And these lawyers will sue you. These, you know, they take the cases on contingency, they shake you down. I mean, some people, when it comes to the disabled, that's where it's the worst. You know, it was much easier for the disabled to get jobs before the Americans with Disabilities Act. Now it's so much harder. Unemployment is a lot higher now because that act made it so expensive and risky to hire the disabled that people stopped doing it. But before that, yeah, people would go out of their way to accommodate the disabled without the law. But the law came in and now they can't afford it. So the government just screws everything up. They don't make anything better. People just think, oh, yes, oh, it's terrible if somebody discriminates against me. You know what? Just go out there and prove to the world if somebody, you know, that you could do it. And if someone doesn't like you because of your religion or your sexual orientation, it's their problem. You know, they're the ones that got a problem, not you, and just ignore it and just go on and succeed because you're going to do it. I mean, people now been trained to think, the reason I can't succeed is because of racism or sexism or. That's not why you can't succeed either, because the government is making it difficult or because you're just buying into this nonsense that the deck is stacked against you when you can succeed. And in fact, if you look at a lot of African Americans, you look at the immigrants that come in from Nigeria, they're the same color as everybody else, yet they succeed. Their incomes I think are maybe even higher than whites because they don't buy into that nonsense, say, well, discrimination is my enemy. They just work harder. That's what you do. You don't rely on the government to give you a crutch and think, well, I need this government crutch because then they cripple you so you always need that crutch. I'm gonna walk on my own two feet and I'm gonna go out there and I'm gonna succeed. And you will without all this, the government bureaucracy getting in your way and these laws, these well intentioned laws that actually backfire and make it harder for you.