0:00

Alright. I decided to come up

0:02

with a solution for Taiwan. You've

0:05

been waiting for this avenue. I know

0:07

a lot of you every day like,

0:09

Scott, where's your

0:11

solution for Taiwan? You

0:13

solve so many other problems? Well,

0:16

I have a solution for Taiwan. You

0:18

ready for it? And

0:20

it depends on the following thing.

0:25

It depends on China being

0:27

as dumb as the people who responded

0:30

to me on Twitter. And I think

0:32

I can count on that being true. Alright?

0:35

Now I'm gonna I'm gonna set an NPC

0:37

trap for you. I'm

0:40

I'm telling you advanced, this is NPC

0:42

trap. I'm gonna trap you into

0:44

saying the most obvious thing about

0:46

this topic. And then I'm gonna

0:48

tell you that that's what I'm making the Chinese think

0:51

to and you fell for it.

0:53

and it's not it's nonsense. Right?

0:56

So here's my idea and then watch for somebody

0:59

to say the most obvious thing

1:01

and that's my trick. So

1:03

here's the idea. Taiwan should

1:06

announce that they're they've decided

1:08

to merge with China. So

1:10

Taiwan should say it first. We've

1:12

decided to merge with China and become one

1:14

country. Here's how we're gonna

1:16

do it. we're gonna become

1:19

one country in spirit right

1:21

away. So that we'll say

1:23

all Chinese people, we

1:25

are one.

1:26

But we

1:28

will wait one hundred years, one

1:30

hundred years, and then we

1:32

will merge systems.

1:36

but now for a hundred years. And

1:38

then we'll see what makes sense

1:40

for system because everything will change in a hundred

1:42

years. and then we'll implement the one that

1:44

makes sense in one hundred years.

1:47

Go.

1:49

NPC is way in.

1:54

There we go. First NPC

1:57

in Hong Kong. Yes. That is

1:59

the NPC trick I was trying to

2:01

get you to say because you just

2:03

said to yourself, Scott, didn't

2:05

work in Hong Kong, did it.

2:08

the Chinese just waited and then they just

2:10

took over Hong Kong. How

2:12

about that? That's

2:14

exactly what you're supposed to

2:16

think. because

2:19

everybody who thinks that analogies predict,

2:24

nope, What you want

2:26

is that China will incorrectly predict

2:30

just like you did. So

2:32

you said, My analogy is

2:34

Hong Kong. Hong Kong didn't work. This

2:36

is like Hong Kong. This won't work. That's

2:39

what I want China to think. And

2:41

I can even say it out loud and they'll still think

2:43

it. But here's

2:45

the trick. What's different

2:48

this time? Well, analogies

2:50

are always there's always differences in the analogies.

2:53

Here's the big difference. In

2:56

a hundred years, nothing's

2:59

predictable. The

3:02

odds that China will even exist

3:04

as a state like you know it really

3:06

not that high in a hundred years. because

3:09

in a hundred years, we're going to be past the singularity

3:12

where computers are intelligent.

3:15

AI will have changed everything. Right?

3:18

Technology will have changed everything. It's

3:21

perfectly possible that in a hundred years

3:23

Mainland China will say, you know

3:25

this Taiwan system work better

3:27

than ours? Let's do

3:29

that. Now,

3:33

what happens if a hundred years goes by,

3:36

and Taiwan is bristling

3:38

with self defensive weapons. because

3:41

it could be. It would just keep going on

3:43

as as gone before. There's

3:45

just the same odds of China attacking.

3:48

except you bought yourself a hundred years.

3:51

So if you could buy yourself a hundred years

3:53

of China not attacking Taiwan, wouldn't

3:55

you take it? At the end of

3:57

a hundred years, everything's gonna be just

3:59

a jumble.

4:01

Now, would they have said the same

4:03

thing about Hong Kong? a

4:06

hundred years before Hong Kong transferred,

4:09

would would people have said the same, hey,

4:11

everything's gonna be different that's in a hundred years?

4:14

No. because things did not

4:16

change quickly as

4:18

quickly as they changed now. So

4:20

the rate of change for

4:23

hundreds of years was You know,

4:25

there's definitely change, but

4:27

you could kind of you could a

4:29

little bit more straight line the change.

4:31

and say, alright. Hong Kong is still

4:34

gonna look like Hong Kong. The buildings will be

4:36

better. Hong Kong will still

4:38

have streets but instead of

4:40

horses, maybe their cars. Right?

4:42

But basically, you could straight line that one for

4:44

a hundred years. There's

4:46

nothing you can straight line for a hundred years

4:48

now. Nothing. There's

4:51

nothing that can be straight line for a hundred

4:53

years. So if you say we'll

4:55

give you our country in a hundred years,

4:57

what have you promised? Nothing.

5:00

the odds that both of

5:02

them will both be countries are

5:05

actually low. I mean,

5:07

there's something will happen long before

5:09

that. climate change

5:11

or mass immigration or

5:13

somebody who's got a nuke, you know,

5:15

nuke somebody or a World War

5:17

three or aliens will invade

5:20

or the AI will change

5:22

everything, robots will be

5:24

running everything. Maybe we've decoupled

5:26

from China There won't

5:28

be anything that's the same. What

5:30

about weapons? At

5:32

the moment, Taiwan has so many weapons.

5:34

It almost looks like they could hold

5:37

off China. What kind of

5:39

weapons are they gonna have in a hundred years?

5:41

In a hundred years, everybody will have

5:43

mutual issuer destruction. In

5:45

a hundred years, Taiwan will be able to

5:47

destroy all of China as

5:50

quickly as China can

5:52

can can destroy all of Taiwan. There won't

5:54

even be a difference. in a hundred

5:56

years. Right?

5:58

Now,

6:00

did

6:02

I sell anybody?

6:06

It's not bad, is it? It's

6:12

not bad. It's not bad.

6:14

Now keep in mind that nobody else has an

6:16

idea. Am I right? Is

6:19

it true that literally no

6:21

one has an idea. And if

6:24

we continue with just nobody has

6:26

an idea, my prediction

6:28

is that China will take over Taiwan.

6:31

Do you know why? because

6:33

this is China and this

6:35

little jingle berry hanging off the end is

6:37

Taiwan and I'm sorry. real

6:40

estate is just important. There's

6:42

just no way that the situation lasts

6:44

forever. But In

6:47

a hundred years, all bets

6:49

were off. Cuba, we've

6:51

never tried to annex Cuba. Alright.

6:55

So that's a bad example.

6:56

Alright. Well,

7:00

I was surprised that

7:02

I did I sell that better than I thought

7:04

I would? because I was I'm looking for

7:06

some pushback here. I'm not really getting it.

7:09

And and maybe it just has to do with the fact that

7:11

literally there's no other idea. Now,

7:13

I told you my idea of attacking

7:17

Mexico and occupying

7:20

it and using a base there

7:22

to destroy the

7:24

cartels for as long as it takes.

7:27

permanent. Doesn't matter. Alright. Now,

7:31

do you remember how radical that sounded the

7:33

first time you heard it?

7:37

And do you notice how it doesn't sound

7:39

as radical anymore? I'm

7:42

doing that. I'm doing that to

7:44

you. I'm making you get used to

7:46

it. Because the and

7:48

the persuasion principles that you can get used

7:50

to anything, So no matter how radical

7:53

something sends, it sounds the first time you hear it. If you

7:55

just keep hearing it, it becomes

7:57

less radical. So I'm just

7:59

gonna make sure that people

7:59

keep hearing it. and it

8:01

will become less radical. I'll

8:03

even go further. A

8:06

military attack by the United

8:08

States on Mexico is

8:10

not optional. Only

8:12

the timing is. The

8:15

only thing that's optional is the timing. We're

8:17

definitely gonna invade Mexico. There's

8:20

no way around it because just because the

8:22

danger coming through is just too great.

8:25

There's no way we don't do it. Sometime

8:27

in the next twenty years, for

8:29

sure. So I might

8:31

as well get it over with, do it while it's

8:33

easy. Let's

8:36

see what else is going on. Blood

8:39

and Greenwald had a tweet today

8:42

as often he does that just

8:44

sort of captures everything. He

8:46

says, I can't stress this enough.

8:48

At his core, Democratic

8:50

politics is about criminalizing

8:52

opposition to their party and ideology.

8:55

Disensing ideas are disinformation

8:57

that must be censored by Big Tech.

9:00

And that and that Trump

9:02

voters are inherently criminal

9:05

insurrectionists and should be imprisoned.

9:07

I think this is exactly

9:09

right. You know, I'm you

9:11

you know, I never jump on the, you

9:14

know, globalists, conspiracy

9:16

theories and stuff like that. I'm not I'm not into

9:18

the conspiracy theory too

9:20

much. III

9:24

just have to there was a there was a

9:26

comedian that was just watching on a real, and I

9:28

wish I remembered his name, maybe

9:30

somebody knows him. not one of

9:32

the well known comedians,

9:34

but he was a a black

9:36

man comedian comedian, so

9:38

I very recognized and here was his joke,

9:40

and I'll paraphrase it. And

9:42

he goes, oh, I

9:44

wish I could do a better job. Here's

9:46

his battery goes. You know, a lot a

9:48

lot of you believe in conspiracy

9:51

theories, and some of you think

9:53

that all the conspiracy

9:55

theories are are false.

9:58

And he says, really?

9:59

the The

10:01

government. You think the government

10:03

has a thousand

10:05

percent he's batting a thousand

10:07

in inspiracy theories. None

10:09

of them are true. And

10:12

when he says it that way, really,

10:14

your government is is

10:16

is batting a thousand. Every

10:19

single conspiracy theory, not

10:21

true. It's just what he says

10:23

it like that. I just laugh for, like, ten

10:25

minutes. Okay. when you put it that

10:27

way. Yeah. There must

10:29

there must be some of them there too.

10:31

But

10:31

but This

10:33

isn't a conspiracy theory.

10:35

This is more about describing the

10:38

frame that they see things. And

10:41

I've I've described it as shooting the

10:43

messenger. You

10:45

know, that Republicans think

10:47

Democrats have bad plans.

10:50

and Democrats think republicans are

10:53

bad people. And I

10:55

think Glen Greenwald captured this

10:57

perfectly. that they're trying to criminalize

10:59

the other side. And it's

11:01

everywhere. So if there were

11:03

one thing, you say, well, and that's just that

11:05

one thing. but they do seem to

11:07

be criminalizing and and

11:09

censoring in every way they can the other

11:11

side. So I think politics

11:13

now is about shutting

11:15

up the other side, more

11:17

than voting and whatnot.

11:23

How many of you think there's gonna be a

11:25

civil war in the United States? Spoiler,

11:29

there's not gonna be. there

11:32

won't be. There's

11:34

an obvious reason for

11:37

it. Somebody said it on Twitter. And

11:39

I guess I realized that, but until

11:41

I heard somebody say it directly,

11:44

we're too mixed. We're

11:47

too mixed. Households have

11:50

Democrats and Republicans on them.

11:52

Households. There's no

11:54

there's no way you can It

11:57

just wouldn't work. Yeah.

11:59

There's no

11:59

way.

12:00

And here's the other thing. All of

12:03

this political big victory. is

12:06

largely theater.

12:12

It's ninety percent theater. So

12:15

when people especially Republicans

12:17

when they talk about getting their guns and,

12:19

you know, overthrowing the government if

12:21

the government raises their taxes or

12:23

whatever they're talking about. It's just stuff you

12:25

talk about because it's fun to talk about and act

12:27

tough. It's not real. If

12:29

you think it's real, you're you're not a

12:31

whole different planet than I am.

12:33

It's a show. It's just part of

12:36

the show. And part of talking

12:38

about politics, very connected

12:40

with talk talking about it, is a lot of

12:42

people like to essentially

12:44

inhabit a character and say,

12:46

I'm talking about it and I'm living in it,

12:48

but I'll play this character who's really

12:51

tough and It's gonna shoot anybody who

12:53

gets in the way and stuff like that.

12:56

So, no, we're not gonna have a civil

12:58

war. We're not in nowhere close. we're

13:00

not going to divide up our states. You

13:02

know why we won't divide up the

13:04

states? Because it would

13:06

make us all weaker. And

13:09

no American is gonna say, oh, let's take

13:11

our national strength and divided in

13:14

half. If you

13:16

divide our strength in half, then China

13:18

wins. There's no way. It's

13:20

more likely that we would annex

13:22

another country than divide.

13:25

Let me put it this way. there's a greater chance

13:27

we'll annex Mexico than have a

13:29

civil war. And I don't think either one's

13:31

gonna happen, but there's a greater

13:33

chance we would anticipate to

13:35

go. Alright. Somebody

13:38

on Twitter actually said this

13:40

to me, that

13:42

belief in a merit based system is, you

13:44

know, basically, you're a piece of shit.

13:46

If you believe in in

13:48

that we should have a merit based

13:50

system. Basically, that's

13:52

just cruel and awful and fascist

13:56

merit based system. And I

13:59

thought to myself,

13:59

oh, you know, it

14:02

is

14:02

a cruel system, and

14:05

it is unfair. Amera

14:07

based system is really unfair. You

14:09

get that right. Amera

14:12

based system is super unfair.

14:15

Why? Well,

14:17

apparently, some people are born with

14:19

whatever capability they need to succeed,

14:21

whatever drive they need, and

14:23

others are not. I mean,

14:25

most of your performances, you were

14:27

born with whatever capability, probably

14:29

at least sixty percent of it, maybe

14:31

more eighty percent And

14:35

so Emera Bay system is always going

14:37

to be unfair. It is,

14:39

however, the only one that works.

14:42

So

14:44

what option do you have? Oh,

14:46

let's use the one that's fair.

14:48

Well, that one doesn't work.

14:51

Like, it'll the whole everything will

14:53

fall apart. We'll all die. Yeah.

14:55

But

14:55

it's fair. Yeah.

14:58

Fair is good.

15:00

If we could get fair for free, I'd

15:02

want some. But

15:04

no. I'd

15:07

rather have a system that

15:09

works That's unfair

15:11

to somebody sometimes. That's

15:14

the best you can do. The best you can

15:16

do is an unfair system that

15:18

works most of the time. That's it.

15:20

That's all you got.

15:22

Alright. Let me tell you

15:25

Oh,

15:25

let's talk about Russia. So

15:29

I'm getting mixed reports about what

15:31

the mood is in Russia, the

15:33

actual Russian people. Some

15:35

are suggesting that this new mobilization

15:38

and movement of troops is

15:40

touching and our families that there's going

15:42

to be some internal dissent.

15:44

And you see some people seem they they're

15:46

leaving the country I don't think in

15:48

big numbers yet, but some people are

15:51

living in the country. And

15:55

so some speculate that prudent's

15:57

in trouble because his population

15:59

will see all these people being mobilized. You

16:01

can't miss them. There's so many of them. And then

16:03

it will get the public involved in a

16:05

bad way. the But

16:10

I've talked to some

16:12

folks. and one

16:14

was a Russian citizen with

16:16

parents in Russia. And I I told you I

16:18

got the one

16:21

person's opinion. that the older

16:23

generation is pro Putin because he's

16:25

been brainwashing them for decades.

16:28

And that the younger generation is a

16:30

little more open to any kind

16:32

of change, but they always are. Right?

16:34

So I think that's the situation. I think the

16:36

older people are actually solidly on the

16:38

Putin side. At the moment, I don't

16:40

think Russian Russian

16:44

citizens look like they're ready

16:46

to revolt. Now

16:49

let's talk about Iran. So Iran's

16:51

having these big protests. I don't think they're gonna

16:53

go anywhere. could

16:55

be surprised, but doesn't look like

16:57

it's going to grow outside of its cultural

17:01

part of the revolution. And

17:03

so I don't think China's gonna have a revolution,

17:05

Iran's gonna have a revolution, or Russia,

17:07

but we like talking about it.

17:09

Alright. I

17:11

figured out why we can't do

17:13

anything about fentanyl and

17:16

we're gonna go to the whiteboard. And

17:18

I don't know if this is fixable. I

17:21

I thought that, like, if everybody got

17:24

informed and we

17:26

could find some way to move forward.

17:29

But there is a real

17:31

roadblock here that I did

17:33

not anticipate. and

17:35

I'll show you. And it's psychological.

17:37

But I don't know any way around it.

17:42

So here are the the fentanyl illusions.

17:45

As long as these illusions control

17:49

the public, they can't

17:51

act. And nothing's gonna

17:53

and nothing's gonna change that. So

17:55

right now, people believe that demand

17:57

could be reduced. that

17:59

you don't need to have to go after the supplier is a

18:02

fentanyl, because if you did, the

18:04

supplier would just move somewhere else.

18:06

Right? If you took out

18:08

the Chinese suppliers, it's

18:10

already being moved to India. So India

18:12

is actually picking up

18:14

a fentanyl precursor business.

18:17

And if you stopped it in India,

18:19

we'll go somewhere else.

18:21

Right? So there is that argument.

18:24

Now, So people say,

18:26

well, if you can't stop it at the supply

18:28

side, it's really impossible. At least

18:30

you can get people to do less

18:32

of it. and create the demand. How many of you

18:34

agree with the statement that

18:36

demand for fentanyl could be reduced

18:38

if we did if we did the right

18:41

thing? How many think

18:43

that?

18:47

Right. So it's an illusion. Everybody

18:50

who has had an addict in the family

18:52

knows there is nothing you can do.

18:54

People believe there's a program.

18:57

like there's a program, although take care of your,

18:59

you know, you could have your team removed from your

19:01

house like forcibly and and then

19:03

they work hard on some dude ranch until

19:05

they're good people. No, that

19:08

doesn't exist. That literally

19:10

doesn't exist. But everybody

19:12

I talked to has heard of somebody who has been in

19:14

that program. that doesn't

19:16

exist. There are

19:19

even people who are naming the program.

19:21

The program you're naming is

19:23

not available. It's

19:25

not not. Not in California anyway.

19:27

You can't you can't you can't kidnap

19:29

somebody out of their bed in California.

19:31

I don't know about your state, but

19:34

most not most. A hundred percent

19:36

of the things you think work

19:38

Don't

19:38

work. And there's no

19:40

not to work. Alright? So

19:42

do you think that you can push somebody

19:45

in rehab and cure their

19:47

addiction. How many people think rehab will

19:49

cure people's addiction?

19:52

I don't think

19:55

any experts like it.

19:58

They think that people who have decided

19:59

to quit and quit. That's

20:03

it. So you take

20:05

somebody who has decided to quit and you put

20:07

them in any kind of program and they'll

20:09

probably do okay. because they've decided to

20:11

quit. You take somebody who has

20:13

not decided to quit and there's nothing you can

20:15

do. There's nothing you can

20:17

do. You can't force them. and

20:20

there you can't persuade them.

20:22

There's nothing. Absolutely

20:24

nothing. And nobody nobody even has

20:26

a suggestion. by the

20:27

way.

20:28

Now some of you can say but but

20:31

but, you know, I heard about ketamine.

20:33

Great. If

20:34

you're a parent, good luck

20:37

putting your kid on a ketamine

20:39

treatment. That's not gonna

20:41

happen. That's not gonna

20:44

happen anywhere. Like, you could do something illegal. Sure.

20:46

But not really. There there's just nothing

20:48

you can do. Alright? So you

20:50

have to lose the illusion

20:52

that you can work on the demand side.

20:55

Now you might say to me, Scott,

20:57

you need to lose the

20:59

illusion. And let me

21:01

explain this in a more direct way.

21:03

If I were trying

21:05

to convince you of something,

21:07

I would talk to your brain. Right?

21:10

I I would say things that would go into your

21:12

ears, that become part part of your thinking,

21:14

and they may or may not persuade you.

21:16

That's a normal way you persuade something. Addicts

21:20

don't have a brain.

21:23

Addicts have addiction. addiction

21:25

becomes the brain. And

21:27

so the illusion is that the addict is

21:29

somebody who has a brain plus

21:32

an addiction on top. conceptually,

21:37

yes. But in a practical sense,

21:40

no. There's no brain

21:42

there. Here's me

21:45

negotiating with an

21:47

addict. You should get

21:49

some treatment.

21:50

What? No

21:54

response? fentanyl will

21:57

kill you. I don't know why this

21:59

isn't either says

21:59

working. This this

22:01

thing is not going into rehab.

22:03

I don't know why not.

22:06

Is it not using his free will?

22:08

There is fentanyl in the

22:10

products you're using that you don't know, so you

22:12

could be killed. What is

22:15

wrong? Why is it

22:17

not getting in rehab? Why

22:19

is it still buying fentanyl?

22:23

because it doesn't have a brain.

22:25

You can't talk to this. I

22:27

can't convince us to do anything. If

22:30

you believe you can talk to

22:32

an addict, and reason with

22:34

them? I'm sorry.

22:36

No, you've never met it out

22:38

if you think that. So

22:41

No. You can't do anything to reduce demand.

22:43

You can't reason with them. You can't

22:45

do anything. What about

22:48

that Portugal experiment? where

22:50

they legalized drugs and they tried to help

22:52

them with treatment and stuff like that. That

22:56

didn't work. It didn't

22:58

work.

22:59

Sorry. It

23:00

didn't work. If

23:02

you wanna know, just just

23:05

just Google, Portugal, drug

23:08

experience. Just look for yourself.

23:10

You had mixed

23:13

experience. Do you know why that

23:15

Portugal experience hasn't been spread to

23:17

everywhere? because it

23:19

didn't work. Alright. Add mixed

23:21

results. Now, the mixed results they say they

23:23

got more people into rehab. Is

23:27

that good? If you got more people

23:29

into rehab, are you

23:31

ahead?

23:35

No.

23:35

Didn't know

23:36

why? because the

23:38

only people in rehab that are gonna get better are

23:40

the ones that decided to.

23:42

If you double the number of people

23:44

in there, But number who have decided to get

23:46

better is exactly the same because they're the

23:48

ones who went themselves. You get

23:50

the same result. You triple

23:53

it. Same result. They

23:55

only get three people three people get

23:57

better. Now let's do it

23:59

times a hundred. hundred times more

24:01

into rehab. Still just three get

24:03

better because they were the three who had

24:05

decided. Right?

24:07

So a lot of this stuff that looks like

24:09

just common sense, you'd

24:11

say obviously that works. Obviously

24:14

rehab works. Nope.

24:17

Nope. Now, only for the people have decided, and you

24:19

can't make somebody decide.

24:21

You have no control. There's no

24:24

free will none of that is involved

24:26

with an an addict. It's like, you know, you're

24:28

talking to a pencil. So,

24:31

addicts don't have free will. They don't have

24:34

the the whole take personal

24:36

responsibility. Doesn't mean anything.

24:38

Those words don't even mean anything

24:40

to an addict. addict is just

24:43

an addict. They just need a fix. That's all.

24:45

And and people

24:49

think that addicts

24:51

could just learn to do something

24:53

instead of fentanyl. You know,

24:55

still get high, you know, but use

24:57

heroin or something that's not gonna kill

24:59

you as often. And the answer is

25:02

no, that can't be done. Can't do

25:04

that either. because they don't know they're

25:06

getting fentanyl. That's the whole problem. the ones

25:08

who are buying fentanyl directly, which

25:10

does happen, they

25:12

don't die

25:13

as often. because

25:15

they know what they're getting. So they make sure that

25:17

they're, you know, monitoring it and

25:19

doing all the right stuff. The people who are

25:21

dying are the ones who thought they bought Paz

25:23

and they got federal, right,

25:26

the kids. So

25:28

the reason that fentanyl can't

25:30

be solved is that I can't

25:33

even talk the people that follow me

25:35

into dropping these illusions. Right?

25:39

And let me test it. How

25:41

many of you believe that you could work on demand?

25:44

Watch this. How many people

25:46

still think that demand is something

25:48

you could reduce?

25:50

You see,

25:53

you're just being shy. I know you

25:55

think that it works. I

25:58

know some of you think it works. Right?

26:00

But would you agree that this is

26:03

our problem? Who

26:05

who is gonna who is gonna

26:08

approve of attacking the

26:10

cartels if they think

26:12

that the real the real answer is

26:14

personal responsibility. I

26:16

wouldn't if I believe that personal

26:19

responsibility would work or

26:21

that rehab would work, I

26:23

would not be in favor of attacking another

26:26

country. That'd be the last thing I'd wanna

26:28

do. But

26:30

I do wanna do it because it's the last thing

26:32

I wanna do. Now to the question

26:34

of, would

26:35

would the

26:37

fentanyl production just go to another

26:40

place? Here's

26:42

the answer.

26:42

answer Why is

26:44

it not already being made in the United

26:47

States? Because it's

26:50

hard. The only reason it's not

26:52

being made in the United States because it's

26:54

hard to make it in the United States for whatever

26:56

reason. Too easy

26:58

to catch or I don't know.

27:01

too hard to get the precursors in. I'm not sure.

27:04

But keep in

27:06

mind, and here's another advantage of having an

27:08

economics degree. Would

27:10

everybody who has business and economic

27:13

degrees who's watching, back me

27:15

up on

27:16

this? I

27:16

don't know the economics of

27:19

fentanyl, but given it's

27:21

wildly profitable compared

27:23

to how much the ingredients cost, Everybody's

27:25

on board so far. It's

27:27

wildly profitable for a very

27:29

small expense. Suppose

27:32

that making it in the United States,

27:35

cost twenty times

27:37

more.

27:37

It would be

27:40

everywhere in the United States. because

27:42

twenty times more expense

27:44

wouldn't even matter. Because

27:46

twenty times more than that tiny expense is

27:48

still fine and tiny. versus

27:51

a huge profit. If

27:54

it were true

27:56

that cutting off the overseas

27:59

sources of

27:59

fentanyl made

28:01

no difference because we would just bake it in the United

28:03

States, it already would be here.

28:06

There would be no Chinese

28:09

cartel India fentanyl.

28:13

if it were possible and practical

28:15

to make it in the United States.

28:20

everybody with a business degree just

28:22

just agreed with me. Right?

28:24

because the economics are just very clear.

28:27

If you could make it in the United States in your

28:29

bathroom, you would already be doing it. It

28:31

would be hugely profitable. But

28:33

there's some reason you don't, I don't know

28:35

what it is.

28:43

Alright.

28:45

So I don't know what to do about

28:48

that. Now here's a question for

28:50

you. Have you ever wondered why

28:52

we're not refilling the

28:54

national oil reserves Does

28:56

that bother you?

28:59

I understand the part where

29:01

we're taking oil out because we have a,

29:03

you know, short term need that's pretty

29:05

important. I mean, you could argue it's a national emergency.

29:09

But is the reason

29:11

we're not refilling it because the cost of

29:13

oil is too expensive?

29:15

But wouldn't we

29:18

be

29:19

the well,

29:22

let me

29:22

ask you this. So let's say

29:24

you went to somebody who's well

29:27

is closed for

29:30

whatever reasons. and

29:32

you say to them, the only way you're gonna sell this oil is

29:34

to the government at a good

29:36

price. And under those conditions, we'll

29:38

let you open up the well

29:41

otherwise, we're gonna go

29:43

green so this well can't be

29:45

opened. You don't think we

29:47

could make an offer the government don't

29:49

think the government could find a

29:51

producer who would be willing to

29:53

sell an entire reserve

29:55

full of oil. That's a lot.

29:58

that entire reserve. You don't think he could

30:00

get an American producer to give you a

30:02

super discount on that.

30:05

I think you could because the cost

30:07

of producing didn't stop, didn't

30:10

change, just the market value that you can

30:12

sell before change. because they wouldn't have a

30:14

choice of selling it on the open market. If they

30:16

did, then, of course, price would be

30:18

higher. But if you said the only way

30:20

you can produce is if you produce the

30:22

US government and then you have to shut down

30:24

again. I think you can find

30:26

that easily. So I don't

30:28

understand exactly Maybe we

30:30

are, actually. Maybe they are filling you up, but I don't

30:32

know. That's possible.

30:36

Let

30:36

me tell you

30:39

something

30:39

about globalist conspiracies.

30:43

I hear stuff like the globalist. I

30:45

heard one today that the globalist

30:48

want poor

30:50

people to stay poor. so

30:52

they have lots of employees, that

30:55

the rich people have lots of employees.

30:57

Do you believe

30:59

that? To me, that

31:01

sounds ridiculous. because

31:04

robots will take over anyway.

31:06

So let me

31:09

tell you this. So you've heard lots

31:11

of, like, conspiracy theories and stuff.

31:13

But I've spent enough

31:15

time behind the curtain, like,

31:17

you know, in the room where the people actually

31:19

know how things work. that

31:22

I've never seen it.

31:25

To me behind the

31:27

curtain is a bunch of individual

31:29

interests fighting for their own

31:31

for their own little fifteenth,

31:33

like billionaires just looking out for

31:36

themselves, basically. Now,

31:39

I know some of you are like, oh my god.

31:41

How could you miss it?

31:44

Where is it? Yeah. The whole

31:45

thing is basically Klaus

31:48

Schwab quotes taken in a context

31:50

as far as I can tell.

31:53

You know, the the the one that got most

31:55

people confused is you won't own anything

31:57

and you like it.

31:59

That's

31:59

the world we're

32:01

already in. I

32:05

don't own the Uber car and

32:07

I like it. I don't

32:09

own the Internet but I like I could

32:11

use it. I don't own

32:14

the cable to my house, but

32:16

I'm glad I could watch TV.

32:20

You know, the

32:23

the the whole fact that you would be afraid of this,

32:25

you won't own it, but you'll like it.

32:29

Your suit. you're completely wrong about

32:31

that. It's just

32:33

the most ordinary statement

32:35

of how the economy is likely to

32:38

develop. There's just nothing there.

32:42

Now, I do think it's true

32:44

that the people who want to save

32:46

the planet from climate

32:48

change according to them. I do

32:50

think that they want to push fossil

32:54

fuels into failure. So that but

32:57

that's not really a conspiracy theory. That's

32:59

that's pretty much on the surface, isn't

33:01

it? Right?

33:04

And I wouldn't call that a conspiracy because

33:06

we can all see it.

33:08

Alright.

33:10

the

33:13

You won't even own

33:14

the AC in your car.

33:20

You know, you

33:23

don't own the video games that you paid for, you don't

33:25

like it. Yeah. I don't know.

33:27

I'd rather rent anything that needs to

33:29

be upgraded. That's

33:31

my take. And

33:34

I'm pretty sure

33:36

I hit all of my

33:39

incredible,

33:39

incredible content.

33:44

Easily, the

33:44

best livestream you've ever

33:47

seen. Alright. Anything I

33:49

missed? Any stories?

33:51

Big stories happening that

33:54

happened? Yeah. I looked well

33:56

prepared because I didn't sleep last

33:58

night. I just decided to ask

34:00

her, I'll just get up.

34:07

Alright.

34:07

You're supposed to say

34:08

was they what

34:10

what? Tragic

34:12

bogey exit? Ira

34:14

Maktin. I'm not gonna

34:16

talk about Ira Maktin. Oh, god. Yeah.

34:21

Again, people are sending me all the bad studies

34:23

about Ira Maxim. Is there anybody here

34:25

who doesn't know

34:28

why Meta Meta studies are not

34:30

valid. Meta analysis. You know

34:32

what a meta analysis is. You look at a bunch

34:34

of studies. They're a

34:36

low quality. But

34:38

then you say, well, if most of them are still pointing in the same

34:41

direction, maybe some of these errors

34:43

sort of cancel each

34:46

other out. Right? But

34:48

here's why it doesn't work. Two main

34:50

reasons. One is there could be one

34:52

big study that has

34:55

too much So there might be one, you know, with

34:57

fifty thousand participants and a whole bunch

35:00

of little ones with, you know, a

35:02

hundred each.

35:04

The big one is gonna just overwhelm the other ones.

35:06

But, you know, if there's no reason

35:08

it should, it just would.

35:10

The other thing is that

35:13

When you do a meta analysis, you really don't

35:15

include every study. You do

35:18

throw throw away ones that you know

35:20

are bad. which means

35:22

it's subjective.

35:24

So one person might throw away

35:26

one study, another person doing the

35:28

same analysis with throw away another study,

35:31

So it's not math. It's just

35:33

an opinion. So when the

35:35

meta analysis is done, you can shape it

35:37

in either direction. by what

35:39

you put in or out. For example, you could

35:41

say the big study that's

35:44

distorting everything is

35:46

either in, or is

35:48

out. And either one of those would

35:50

be valid as a matter of analysis,

35:52

except the answers would

35:54

be opposite. One would tell you do it. One would tell you don't do

35:56

it. And it's the same analysis. They're both

35:58

a meta analysis. And both of them would

35:59

be reasonable. because

36:02

it would be reasonable to take it out, and it would be reasonable

36:04

to keep it in. They're both

36:06

reasonable, but they'll give you opposite

36:09

answers because of math. Right?

36:12

So when you're looking at the IFramectin studies,

36:14

you'll find that the randomized controlled

36:18

trials are either

36:20

poorly done or whatever.

36:22

And all they have is the

36:24

meta analysis and the meta analysis

36:27

has been debunked. Italian elections.

36:30

I'm not really following

36:32

you too much, but there's some

36:35

right wing candidates. over

36:38

there. I don't know if that's a

36:40

trend or just an

36:42

Italian thing. The

36:46

largest wholesale fresh produce market in the world is on fire

36:50

in Paris. garage

36:54

door brand for you.

37:00

Not really.

37:01

her All

37:02

right. I think we've done

37:05

it, haven't we? All right.

37:08

Google, thanks

37:10

for joining. I'll talk

37:13

to you tomorrow.