So radical fundamental principles of freedom, rational self interest, and individual rights. This is the Ran Book Show. Oh right, everybody, welco up to your own book show on this Friday.
May second. We will be covering the news.
I hope everybody's having a great Uh had a great week, looking for the great weekend. We will be back on the Run Book Show tomorrow Saturday and probably Sunday as well. Probably do a show on Saturday and on Sunday. Topics to be determined. We will let I will let you you guys know, let's let's jump in. Unemployment numbers came out today. Uh, number of jobs created exceeded expectations, so it was higher than what was expected by several tens of thousands of jobs. So this was a good news.
The market went up quite a bit today as a consequence of that, stocks did well and generally I think people, I guess the market is hopeful that maybe the the negative GDP number that came out the other day is is not real. Of course, the numbers, the employment numbers are really pre the impact of of of tariffs, pre impacted Liberation Day. Everything is pre in particular Liberation Day.
So I'm not sure there's too much to celebrate. But you know, do you see enemy as always is resilient and you know, seem to be able to withstand even the dumbest or the the the most harmful of economic policies. So yeah, so we we do have we employment numbers were better than expected. Markets up hopefully for one K
reflects that. And generally you know, the S and P five hundreds have been up for days now and uh, and we're seeing equity markets recover, I think partially also because the market at least into Trump is saying that he is going to reduce tabs in China and he's gonna compromise and he's going to be nice to Chinese
and all of that. We still haven't seen anything specific, anything in action, but at least the market is pricing tariffs not to have a too big of an impact on the US and for the Trump administration actually significantly moderate its views on tariffs in the days and weeks to come. And again, the employment number, which is really much more important in a sense than GDP because it reflects the number of jobs available to people, and that is the basis on which a standup living quality of
life is based. That is a good sign that it hasn't that it's that it's was better than expected. It's still positive growth. I don't know if that will last.
We will see.
I still think there's the potential for thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of small to medium sized businesses to shut down.
Here because of tariffs.
But you know, we'll say, maybe maybe Trump will reverse it, reverse the worst of the tariffs in the in the next few days and will avoid the worst impact of the tariffs on the American economy. Certainly, the market seems to believe that. Certainly the market seems to believe that, and markets, it's hard to argue with markets. People are putting their money where their mouth is. So we'll keep monitoring and keep seeing how things evolve and how things developed.
By the way, yesterday we did an interview with Phil magnus and and really good on tariffs and trade, and you guys should watch it. He's he knows a lot about the history, and we talked a lot about the history.
And since there's a lot of.
False information out there about the history of Taos and trade in US history, I think you should you should watch the interview from yesterday to give you a good introduction to the history of US economy in at least from this perspective.
So that was that unemployment number.
There was one other story I wanted to cover before we got rolling with the stuff I had listed.
But we're just going to jump in.
Uh bou Kelly is a really interesting story in the New York Times a couple of days ago. Uh that about bu Keley and about you know, all these prisoners that the US has deported to the Al Salvadorian jail. Uh So the Times that was reporting about negotiations that Bookelly had with the United States.
Now I remember who bu Kelly is.
Bou Kelly is A is the president of Al Salvado. He came to power and really had pretty unremarkable first couple of years until he decided to basically do everything he could to clamp down on on violence. Initially, when he came into power, he negotiated deals with the gangs to reduce violence in Olsavado. When he realized that was not working, he basically indorsed the plant the base that that went out there, sent out the military and the
police and arrested anybody who had drug related tattoos. Tens of thousands of people who were arrested. He also built massive prisons. Everybody is arrested, and then they had these mass trials to try to figure out who was and who wasn't. In the meantime, everybody was incarcerated.
There was no innocent until proven guilty anything like that.
He literally arrested huge numbers of elseo Adoian citizens and put them in jail. Uh, and and then kind of try to sort it out after the fact. And again, proof of membership in a gang was tattoos. Is that familiar to anybody? Familiar? Yeah, this is the policy that Donald Trump is mimicking. In order to do this, he declared a state of emergency, put the put the troops out into the streets, and incarcerated again, tens of thousands
of people, many of them innocent. And uh, you know, for what it seems like is going to be very long periods of time.
Uh. The consequence of this is predictable.
If you take the male population of any of any country and you incarcerate a significant proportion of them, you will see a decline in violent crime. Violent crime is a male phenomena. Women do not, you know, generally commit violent crimes. Violent crimes are primarily male committed by men. You know, I don't know what the percentage is, but it's it's large. So if you lock men up, violent
crime goes down. Indeed, in El Salvado it went from the most the highest murder rate in the world to like a you know, a pretty bad US city, but just a US city, so not that bad, you know. As a consequence, Bukella became unbelievably popular. He then, in spite of the constitution limiting his term of president in Losovado to only one term, he then ran for a second term.
Does that sound familiar.
I've seen Trump is selling these Trump twenty and twenty eight hats already, so you know, Trump is learning from Bukela. Anyway, he ran anyone in a landslide because he had made Alsovado much safer. He is also, you know, out there blaming higher prices on grocery departments. He is in athirbitarian when it comes to the economy. He is a central planner. He is an a real athbitarian in Lsovado. The people so far love him because the reduction in crimeates, but
he's also far, far far from being a capitalist. For a while, people raved about him because he embraced a bitcoin and made it legal tender in the country. But the reality is that the Alsavadoran economy is not doing well, has not done well even under his rule, and therefore they needed a large loan for a large loan in order to keep the country going. And in order to do that, the IMF required that he, you know, he basically was send legal tender status from bitcoin, which he did a.
Couple of months ago.
Anyway, Becaulay is a statist authoritarian whoa is nothing for individuals or individual rights, bet who has been able to achieve certain level of a reduction or significant level of reduction in crime in Alsavado, and he gets a lot of credit for that. Anyway, he has.
Built these massive jails. They have some spare space.
So the Trump the Trump administration went down to negotiate with Bukele in order to send depotees from the United States UH to Arsvado. What was interesting is that Bukele, when when the Trump advisors approached him, was was worried. You know, he he he, you know, he really wanted, uh, he really wanted to make sure that the people being sent down were actually criminals. Uh, that they were actually convicted,
they were actually gang members. Surprisingly, he did not want to take Americans who or American illegal immigrants, you know, whose only crime was being in the United States illegally. Uh, he said, all jail convicted criminal, but not not just illegals.
And part of that was a worry of how we would look at home.
A lot of el Salvadors, Salvadorians have relatives who are illegal immigrants in the United States, and they don't want to see their relatives, and they don't view going to America illegally as a crime justifying being in a Salvadorian horrific high security jail. I guess only Americans think that being in illegal in America justify such treatment, as Salvadorians don't. So he couldn't really convince his own people that it was in their self interest for the United States to
be dumping US deputees in his jails. So he told the Americans that he really wanted if he was willing to do it, but only if they should improve that these people were actually gang members and convicted a criminal. He wanted evidence. Of course, once they started deporting people into the jails, the use officials had problems gathering the evidence. For one, most of the people who were sent to Al Salvado, to the Al Salvadot jail were not not
convicted criminals. So they came up with a scorecard that the Homeland Security Department created which assigned kind of points for different attributes. So you kind of if you have a lot of tattoos, you got four points. If if you had other you know, what do you call it, attributes that linked you somehow to gang membership, you got
other points. If you scored more than four, more than eight points, more than any points the tattoos plus something else like somebody said or somebody who reported you as then you were considered.
The gang member.
That and then they promised him an invitation to the White House to have a visit with Trump, And those two things seemed to have convinced Bukeller to take on the deputies and to accept them in spite of the fact that they are not convicted criminals. He was willing because the US labeled them violent criminals. In this way, he could stay, you know, he could stay.
Close to Trumps.
Even though at the meeting with Trump in front of the reporters, Boo Keller took a very tough stance. He's not returning anybody, you know, He's happy to take the deputees. These are violent criminals, and so on and so forth. He himself had some real doubts about all of this. Now, I imagine a world in which a dictator of a small Central American country who has extra jail space has doubts about the people that the United States is imprisoning
in his jails. But the United States, the American administration responsible for protection of the rights of people who reside in America, has no problem with it, has no problem with it. So yep, it's impractical to give twenty one million people a trial. So what, let's just shoot them? What the hell, let's just shoot them they are human beings, because we can't give them a trial. They're just overwhelming
us with numbers. So we're going to send them to a now Salvadorian jail instead, you know, shooting them as a little brutal or Salvadorian jails. That's a much better environment for them, That's okay. It's just unbelievable the disregard so many Americans now have for the lives of individual people, for the lives of people who want to live in America, who risk their lives and much of their fortune to come and live in America.
So what the hell they.
Hear illeally, Oh my god, this is one of the biggest criminal activities one can engage in entering the United States without a visa.
And therefore, you know, can't shoot them.
We'd like to shoot them, can't shoot them, so we'll send them to a brutal in Salvadorian jail. It really is pretty pathetic that this is the state of America. I can understand, you know, Okay, they boke the law, just like everybody else breaks the law. You put him in front of a judge, and you tried them, and you know the penalties. The penalties are not that big. You know, you deport them, you don't put them in
a jail. But we now, because of what's happened over the last two ten years, because over the last ten years, led by Trump, intellectuals on the right have basically dehumanized illegal immigrants. There now not fully human. They certainly have
no individual rights, they have no rights. Now it's okay to just round them up, round them up and send them to jails or deport them to countries where where where they're going to be treated horrifically, or back in jail, send them back to place like Venezuela, which is which is a socialist hell hole. What the hell, they're not human, That's what kind of the Trump and the Rights new
rhetoric basically suggests all of us so really horrific. It's it's just it's just disgusting, Uh, the way we are treating human beings and so on American so so so on Americans, so the opposite of what you would expect Americans to be. So they yeah, they've lost this status as individuals because they're illegal. We treat we treat criminals in America better than we do them, because criminals in America get a trial. Immigration is the topic.
That, Yeah, it's it's it's so it's so upsetting because.
Because we're talking about human beings, and we're talking about human beings. So if you're uicies and you have rights, and if you're not a US you don't have rights. If you ever read the Declaration of Independence, We'll get to Donald Trump's intoation of dectoration independence in a minute, but if you've ever ever read the Declaration of advantage. It says all men are created equal, all men. It
doesn't say citizens. It says they're all endowed with inalienable rights, the right to life liberty in the pursuit of happiness. Know where there is a citizen, Know way there to say American, Know whay there to say any of that. It says all men are created equal, all of them. But to expect anybody to take the declaration in advantage seriously, it it is just bizarre. They're inside the United States.
As soon as you step into the United States. The job of the US government, the only frigging job of the US government, is to protect your rights, whether you leg illegal otherwise. Now you can be then accused of violating laws and you know, brought in front of a court or whatever. But you don't lose your right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Because you cross the border.
You don't lose your right to life liberty in the pursuit of happiness because you're illegal.
You're a human being.
And if you'd actually look at some of these human beings, if you actually look at why they come to the United States, what they went through in order to get to the United States. You would be if you were if you were a human being, you would be ashamed of your attitude.
Around illegal immigrants because.
I mean, what would you do if you were born in an El Salvadorian hellhole?
Would you not.
Try to get into the United States? And given that it's impossible for you to get in legally, do not get in illegally? And what would your moral status be if you didn't try? Like it's almost like you could say, I could say, it's almost like it would be a model not to try to get into the United States I legally, because then you're not pursuing.
Your life.
But you who are the beneficiaries, some of you who are the beneficiaries of living in the United States by accident of birth, you can sit here and oh, very illegal. They should be sent to jail in Lsalvado. All right, the chat has gone crazy? God, what's going on?
All right? Quickly? In Ukraine Russia?
So you know, we talked yesterday about the mineral deal that was signed a couple of days ago, and today we got the announcement that the US is formally pulling out of attempting to coordinate a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia. So no more whitcough running around the world speaking to Putin and others and to try to get people,
try to put pressure on Zelenski and so on. So the US Department, it used to State Department, announced that it will be withdrawing from and will no longer mediate peace between Ukraine and Russia after Russian President Putin refused to sign a set peace settlement ending his full scale illegal invasion of Ukraine. I don't know if they said
illegal invasion of Ukraine. It's now up to, according to State Department, up to the two parties to present concrete ideas about how the conflict is going to end, and they should be directly to end the war. So it's going to be interesting to see what happens at this point. And it's it's going to be interesting to see if Trump changes it attitude towards Putin or towards Zelensky, whether the attitude changes. But this should go under the big heading.
We should have a document ready and the title of the heading should be Trump fails and we should start listing all the Trump failures in this document. And certainly this was one that he promised, I mean he didn't just promise once.
He repeated this many many times.
During the campaign and a little bit during actually after he won the presidency that he would solve the Ukrainian Russian War within.
Twenty four hours. Twenty four hours.
Now maybe he exaggerated twenty four days, twenty four twenty four days. Now he's given up in twenty four months. So just listed as a Trump failure among the many that have already happened. I'd say most of his presidency so far has been a failure, and the failure is to come. But you know, as I as I've said in the past, Yeah, this is a massive Trump failure. You know I I've said, I guess that. You know, Trump is the worst as in American history, or we'll
go down as the worst president in Meerican history. So I'm reading a little bit about American history and I'm going through kind of the period of Woodrow Wilson, And I got to tell you, Woodrow Wilson was probably in terms of violating the Constitution, violating individual rights, probably worse than Trump. It was worse than Trump in particularly given how much freedom still existed.
Back then.
Right in that part of that period of American history, so you know, nineteen thirteen to nineteen seventeen, so I mean the amount of violations the Woodwrow Wilson engaged in his four years as president. I mean, freedom of speech was really gone, massive interventions in the economy which were unprecedented before that, you know, just just violations of constitution left and right, partially in the name of entering. Of course, he entered World War One, which was an unmitigated disaster.
Under Wilson, we got a FED, we got the income tax, and we got raising of the income taxes dramatically. Initially, I don't know if you know this, but initially the income tax was very low, I think eight percent, and only under very, very very wealthy. So most most overwhelming majority of Americas didn't pay income tax. And that's how it was sold to the American people. You won't ever pay it. It's just a wealthy will paid. And then the rates went way up and everybody started paying it.
So within the Wilson administration, so Wilson, Yeah, Wilson was worse and was much more of an ideologue. That's the other difference. Wilson was an idea lugue. He was the first fully come admitted progressive and the one who really shifted progressivism to become a democratic thing. You know, where it had been progressivesm was really republican. It was it was Teddy Roosevelt who was a progressive, the progressive president again. But Teddy didn't get much done. Woodrow Wilson got a
lot done. You read the history, it's it's actually quite shocking and surprising that America did as well as it did during that entire period. All right, just to remind you that the Democrats are still crazy.
I found this story.
It's it's kind of bouncing around, it's it's it's this is insane.
But this is right at the.
Heart of the Democratic Party. Are we not streaming? Are you not seeing this? You guys can see the video and audio right, everything's good. Yep, yep, still streaming. I So Democratic Party is trying to figure out what it stands for. And while I'm sure there's some moderate Democrats who are going to come to the forefront and and try to capture the party, ultimately, so far the party is pretty dominated by you know, the kind of nutty left.
The nutty left is more motivated, it's more passionate, it's more organized.
I mean, moderates don't organize.
What do you organize under a ban of oh, we're all organized, we're all moderates.
Let's get passionate about being a moderate. Let's get passionate about.
Not being as woke as those people are. I mean, you don't get that the woke people really passionate. You're seeing AOC rallying large groups around with Bernie Sanders. And she is going to run I think for president. I don't know.
I didn't know if she was old enough.
To run, but people are talking about who running in twenty twenty eight. I thought she had to be older than that. But anyway, so she's going to run. Maybe I don't think she can win. I don't think the Democratic Party or the American people want AOC as president. But even in the actual Democratic Party, you know kind of organization, you're seeing the crazy left, you know, dominate the process.
And you can see that.
In in the election of what do you call it, the leadership elections to the d n C. So the vice chair is a guy named David Hogg who's pretty far left and and and known as a gun control advocate, but pretty far left on a lot of different issues, and he became vice chair of the Democratic Party. Anyway, he beat a woman called Kaylee Kaylin Free, a Native American attorney and a Democrat, you know, a Native American attorney, and he beat her. Now she is challenging her defeat.
She's claiming the vote undermined minority candidates. I'm quoting by failing to distinguish between gender categories in a meaningful way. The DNC process violated its own charter and by laws, undermining both fairness and gender diversity.
This is the complaint. Did she vote.
So, you know she's a You know, I guess that the voting should have provided a different waiting.
For people who are who are.
Different, you know, I don't know diverse or whatever. I don't know exactly how they how she thinks this works. Maybe democracy really means that if you're.
If you're in.
The intersectionality hierarchy, if you're part of the exploited group, you get two votes or three votes or five votes. Maybe you get votes based on your intersectionality score. Uh So, anyway, this is crazy stuff. Uh and uh this is evidence kind of that the woke, crazy left has not gone away. They're still dominant. They're quiet because they were a little afraid of Trump. There's no question they were a little afraid of Trump and whops, what's going on here?
And you know, even the.
Even the people who are getting elected to senior positions within the Democratic Party are pretty far left. And you know, this is the challenge that the Democrats are going to
have when they run even in twenty twenty six. Right now, Trump is very unpopular, and there is a lot of reason to believe that in twenty twenty six the Democrats are going to just crush Republicans in the House elections, in the election for the House of Representatives, as midterm elections usually go against the party in power, and then if the president is particularly you know, unpopular, you know, the midium elections can really be pretty questioning. They were
for Trump in twenty eighteen. The challenge here is that if the Democratic Party remains kind of the party of the nutcases, of the crazies, of the woke, then it's not going to be successful. They're not going to be able to capture the votes. People will continue to reject
the woke craziness. We will see if a more even if slightly more rational, Democratic Party is able to rise from the ashes of this latest election and win over the American people, because it's clear that America's rejected woke. It's clear that the America rejected the fall left when they elected Trump. I think they would reject Trump if they had an alternative. They'd reject MAGA if they had an alternative. But are they going to get an alternative?
Is anybody going to provide an alternative? Not clear at all. Okay, everybody wants me to subscribe, subscribe, subscribe.
All right.
We are now the House of Representatives of Senate in the process of actually now working through an actual budget bill actually figure out allocating money the departments and stuff. The Senate is doing the same thing. This is the great, big, beautiful, massive bill. The House is supposedly committed to cutting four hundred four trillion dollars over the next ten years. Now the way government does accounting. What that means is cut from the rate of growth that exists. Now that it's
not a real cut. It's not an actual cut. It's grow less by ten trillion than we would have if a Democrat was in power. Something like that. The Senate was only willing to commit to cutting like a few billion dollars, and now they have to figure out what
they're actually going to cut. If anything, the Trumpet administration is submitted and outlined for budget to Congress, like Trump's priorities, A part of that involves cutting one hundred and sixty three billion dollars from the twenty twenty six federal budget, from that part of the budget that is not defense and discretionary. Remember, unless you reform Medicare, Medicaid and SOID security, you can't cut them. They're a discretionary they are, you know,
part of the thing. Now, some of what these cuts involve is a lot of actual good.
Things that would be cut.
So this is kind of right of Alex Epstein's advocacy. A lot of the cuts being proposed by the administration, again they have to get to Congress, and Congress actually used to vote on them. Dramatic cuts to alternative energy subsidies, all kinds of alternative energy things, all kinds of Interior Department programs that involve again setting aside funds and everything
else for alternatives. They're cutting EPA stuff, and so a lot of this is coming from energy and environmentalism, those areas where mower stations being good about really cutting back on regulations and cutting back and government spending. The problem, of course is all it is is one hundred and sixty billion dollars.
One hundred and sixty billion dollars.
Is very minor, minor cuts. Now it's better than nothing, and it are the kind of cuts that will liberate certain parts of the economy, particularly again energy and maybe some infrastructure projects, given that it dramatically is going to weaken weaken the you know, the environmentalist movement and the environmental regulations. But that of course is just what the
White House is sent to Congress. But now Congress governed Bible Republicans, and both the House and a Senate, and here for the budget, they only need a simple majority. Now they're going to have to work all the details out. So we have a bunch of committees. We have all the committees and subcommittees are now going to have to work through different pieces of the budget and.
Put it all together.
Now, all the special interest groups are going to come to Washington and lobby Congressman. And remember all you have to do is peel off a few Republicans. Republicans particularly in the House and Senate. They basically have to get unanimity. If they get people objecting to the bills, the bills will die. By the way, none of that, None of these cuts a Doge cuts. These are cuts that are being proposed to the White House, the budget office in the White House, to Congress, and our Congress has to
prove them. The White House can't cut spending unilaterally. This is the fallacy about DOGE. You actually have to change it in the budget. And the budget is determined not by Doge. The budget is determined by Congress. So what Doge is is fire a bunch of people, but the money is still allocated those departments. Only Congress can end
the budgetary allocations. Indeed, in spite of all the Doge cuts that have happened, government spending has increased every single month since Trump got into office, and is expected to increase every single month.
For the rest of the fiscal year.
So we're going to have now all these committees, all the lobbyists, get together and start meticulously going line by line over all the budget items for the American federal government, this massive, many trillion dollar budget. You can't cut Medicare and you can't catch those security So what are they going after? Well, in the House. They have said they're going to go after Medicaid. Medicaid is health care for
poor people. Ninety five million Americans on Medicaid. So they're talking about shrinking the amount of money dedicated to Medicaid, But a lot of Republicans are from districts that are dominated by Medicaid recipients. Medicaid recipients, they're not gonna want to shrink it then or not. They're not gonna want to dramatically cut it or make a lot of people ineligible. So now they're saying, we're gonna spend less on Medicaid,
but we're not gonna shrink eligibility. So we're still gonna have all these tens of millions of Americans on it, but we're somehow gonna provide it less money. How are they gonna do this? How they're gonna shrink Medicaid by hundreds of billions of dollars without getting the program? They
probably can't. So this is the big battle now. The big battle right now is because you can't touch MEDICAI, you can't touch Medicare, you can't touch medica, and you can't touch the secure they are now trying to figure out how do they shrink Medicaid, which is a huge program. Again, somewhere between seventy to ninety five million Americans on this program. But they are going to try to do it now. Of course they'll say they're going to cut waste, faard
and abuse. Waste, far and abuse are not going to get them the kind of numbers that they want. So this is a budget process that we're going to watch and going to see how to how.
It all gets resolved.
Well, one way to resolve this that Republicans Republicans are supporting is to adopt a program advocated for by Democrats. Right, and what did Democrats propose in terms of cutting the cost of spending on healthcare? Well, Democrats have long argued price controls on drugs, on pharmaceuticals, and indeed Biden imposed some price controls to executive voter on and I think there was a bill that passed Congress on the pharmaceutical companies. By the way, a law that Trump has not rescinded,
has not argued against, does not try to undo. Indeed, quite the opposite, Republicans are now talking about placing price controls on drugs as a drug prices on pharmaceutical companies as a means of cutting government spending. So the government is now, you know, the government is now. The Republican government is now. Republicans are now adopting democratic talking points in order to get spending out of control, which is
pretty pretty amazing. Another talking point is several people within the White House over the last couple of weeks have been started to talk about a one of Joe Biden's talking points Joe Biden Elizabeth Wong, and that is to put together a special millionaire tacks. This is now what's being called the Bernie Sanders wing of the GOP, the Bernie Sanders wing of the GOP. Once price controls and drugs and a millionaire's attacks. This is what Republican politics
is under Trump. It's almost as leftist as under any Democrat, and in some ways more leftist than any Democrat. And yeah, I mean, why exactly the you've for Trump? What do you get from him that you know? Ohd I he's not woke and he hates the left, even though he is the left. He hates the left, and therefore he is a good guy.
Pretty sad, pretty sad.
There's a good article by Kim Strassel in the in the Wall Street Journal titled Republicans for Price Controls rather than reform welfare. Some of the GP want to fight farmer companies, So Kim Strassel can often.
Be very very good. Let's see.
One good news thing is that Trump signed an executive order related to spending, executive order basically pulling funding from np on PBS. Now, which I am one hundred percent forour the government should not be funding media, any kind of media, no matter what the actual views or the actual advocacy is. The problem with executive order is that that's probably unconstitutional. Now, again, our location of budgetary money is not the job of the president.
It's Congress Congress.
If you're going to defund the NP on PBS, Congress has to defund.
NP on PBS.
And you think that with Republican majorities in the House and the Senate, they would do that. Republicans have tried in the past and always failed to actually get it across. So to the extent that Trump is going to try to implement this cutting a funding to NPR PBS, I think it's gonna be He's gonna be sued. I think it'll go in front of the courts, and I don't think he has the grounds to do it. I think this will be something that goes that the Congress is going to have to do the gonna have to get
the balls and actually actually defund it. Now, we will see when and if if that happens. I'll be surprised if finally they do this, right, if finally they do this. All right, let's see a quick one on housing. It's pretty funny that, you know, people are rediscovering, well, it's better to rediscover than not the laws.
Of supplying demand. It's it's pretty stunning.
So here's you know, So people are complaining, have been complaining for a couple of decades now about the cost of housing. Housing keeps going up in price and in not in every place in the country, but in some places in the country, particularly California and a lot of the major city is of seeing prices go up and rents as a consequence, rents going up and home price is going up, and many of us in the free market world, I mean saying, well, of course, it's a
supply issue. We're not building enough homes. If you build enough homes, supply demand prices will come down, and like people are skeptical of this, like, no, it's and they've got a million other reasons why prices of homes are going up.
No, it's a simple supply issue. It's not about monetary inflation.
Usually it was in the two thousands, but since two thousand and eight, it's not being about monetary inflation. It's not being about anything but not enough supply. And there's a massive shortage of homes in the United States. You saw this, and of course you know there's the supply is constrained because of zoning and regulations and all kinds
of land use laws. Well, surprisingly, on the left, over the last few years, there's been a movement called Yes in my Backyard that has been mobilized to try to influence left leaning cities because most cities are left leaning, to build more, build more housing. And again the skeptics are like, what'll that help. That won't do anything, And you have to build They say, you have to build low income housing. No, any housing will reduce the cost of all housing. Any housing will reduce the cost of
all housing, particularly of cheaper housing. And people still skeptical. So here's a couple of headlines, and it's crazy that this is just not accepted, and that every city in the United States just doesn't embrace this simple, straightforward posse build, build, build, and prices will go down.
So this is from Berkeley, This is from California.
Many Berkeley rents are back to twenty eighteen prices.
Is new housing. The reason.
A question mark A question mark like e kind of one on one before you write a title like that. Rent prices of Berkeley's older housing stock have cooled significantly, even as inflation has swored. Yes, when you build housing, prices will come down because you've increased supply. Demand hasn't gone up, and therefore prices go down. Rent is determined by supply and demand, not by greedy landlords. The price supplying demand. But they still, even though it's happening before
their rise, they still don't know it. Get rid of rent control and increasing the quantity of housing and prices rent prices will come down.
Here's another one, another.
Headline, apartments surge in Denver market delivers record decline in rents. Reagion added twenty thousand multifamily units last year, resulting in a three point six percent rent decline in Q four. Well, at least the guy who wrote the article in Denver knows about supplying demand and can make the cause of relationship, not just the correlation between the increase in rent, increase in quantity of houses and the decline in rents. So
you know, we can complain, complain, complain about housing. The solution is right there, unequivocal, easy to identify, build more homes. And to do that you have to change the law, the zoning laws, and change the building restriction laws and all of that crap. All right, I want to show you a video talk about education. I want to show you a video which I think is pretty creepy. We'll see what you think.
This is a.
Video of of Miller, Steven Miller, of you know, Trump's advisor, senior advisor, talking about in a sense, his kind of vision for education.
And I'm just going to play it. I hope this you find.
This is creepy and is shocking and as warisome.
As I do here, we go.
Be taught to love America. Children will be taught to be patriots, children will be taught civic.
Values, children will be taught to be patriots. They'll be taught to love this country. And if they don't, well, whip him. No, he didn't say that. I mean just the way he says it that is unbelievably creepy. And it's you know, he looks like a little I mean he looks upon He looks like a little fascist. Children will be taught what I tell them to be taught. Note that this is after they close the education department.
They have no interest in letting go of education. They have no interest in getting the federal government out of education. Their goal is to a place leftist agenda in education with their right.
Wing agenda education. Let me pay this again and some more to love America.
Children will be taught to be patriots. Children will be taught civic values for schools that want federal taxpayer funding.
So if you get federal taxpayer funding, which I thought when they shut down the Department of Education they wouldn't get anymore. But I guess they are going to get, but only only if you now advocate for the ideas that the federal government decides appropriate. Just like the left did it, the right will do the same.
So as we close the Department of Education and we provide funding to states, we are going to make sure that these funds are not being used to promote communist ideology.
In other words, we're going to make sure that these funds are used to promote oh fascist nationalist ideology.
For any nation to be successful, it cannot teach its children to hate themselves and to hate their country.
So these are a few of the areas.
In which President Trump has fought the cancerous communist work culture that was destroying this country. Where were led to believe that men were women, that women were men, the racial discrimination was good, the merit was bad, and that safety and physical security matter less than the feelings of liberal be taught to love America. Children will be taught.
You know, I find this stunning and scary. And children will be taught to love America. Children would be taught. You know. It's almost like a mantra. But this is again federal. This is why the federal government should have no involvement in education. It shouldn't give money to the states. It should just not give money at all.
It should just shut itself down.
This is why closing the part of education was not as big of a win as some of us might have thought it was, because as long as the federal government is still involved in education. When Stephen Miller is involved, they will be learned to love America. When AOC is in government, they will be taught to be good comrades in the communist you know whatever. Right, The point is that education needs to be separate from politics. How about
teaching education to think? How about teaching children to think for themselves. How about teaching children the facts of history. If the facts of interesting don't align with loving your country, then maybe you shouldn't love your country. How about just teaching children math and English writing skills and reading skills and history and just reality. This is like right out of I don't know, the authoritarian uh, the Theiritarian Playbook of State, mandate, worship of the state.
You shall love America.
This is you know, the whole point of this is to get students to be obedient, to be servants of the state, to be quote patriotic. And you don't have to teach reality, just like the left doesn't teach reality. What you teach is that which will make them subservient to the state. So the fact that we close the department education, it's going to have very little impact on
the perverse perversion that is state involvement in education. Just give you an example of this in Oklahoma, students are going to be required to learn about how the election
was stolen from Trump in twenty twenty. See here's one of the assignments they're going to have to do in social studies, identified discrepancies in twenty twenty elections election results by looking at graphs and other information, including the sudden halting of ballot counting in select cities in key battleground states, the security risk of mail in ballots, sudden batch dumps, an unforeseen record number of voters, and the unprecedented contraction
a Bellwether county trends. So Oklahoma is in the social sciences curriculum, going to require the brainwashing of its students, or the indocrination of its students. That's a better word, the indocrination of the students in the idea that Trump lost the twenty twenty election. This is so essential to the identity of Republicans now, it's so essential to the identity of MAGA, so essential to the identity of Donald Trump, that it is now going to enter the school curriculum.
Even though all of this is bs, it is completely debunked, being debunked many many times. Lawsuits have been lost on this basis. Imagine what would happen. Imagine what would happen if students research this and they write a paper saying, actually, all this stuff has been debunked. Nothing happened. I mean, do you think they're going to get a good grade? Speechless? Talk about speechless?
All right? This is under the category of.
No, I can't, I don't anyway, It's not in any category other than this is your president. This is under the category of this is your president, and it's going to be, you know, in the president's words. So I'm not gonna put any words in his mouth, and then you decide about what you think of this president. I will explain why I think this is so awful. But this is the president. So the president did an interview with Time magazine, an extensive interview with Time magazine. You
should watch this, you should read this. I'm going to give you two examples from these interviews. The interview makes clear that we've elected a man who.
Is ignorant.
And who is not smart to the White House. Now. I think a lot of us knew this already, but this interview is just so stark that it is really shocking. And this is why everybody should should read the interview, because watch the interview or read it if you can find a transcript, because it is so luckily, the American people are smarter than this guy, or not more knowledgeable
than this guy. It's just unbelievable. Here's an example. So the interviewer says, so one hundred and forty five tavis in China, and that is basically an embargo, which is true, you know. Trump say, as that's good, they deserve it. Interviewer says it'll raised prices on everything from electronics to clothing to building its building homes houses. Trump says, you don't know that. You don't know whether or not China is going.
To eat it.
Now, notice a minute ago he admitted that it was basically an embargo. If it's an embargo, China's not eating it. The goods are just not arriving in America. So China can't eat it if the goods are not arriving in America. So that's the first contradiction. And then the interviewer says, that's mathematics, and Trump.
Says, China probably would eat those taps.
Now we've done the math before, but I want to emphasize the maths on the math on this, because I want to show you the sheer impossibility of what Trump is saying. Let's say, yeah, a good the China is selling for one hundred dollars in the United States. One hundred dollars, and let's say the profit margin on that. Let's say the Chinese are really this is good. They've got a they've cornered the market on, They've got a good,
healthy profit margin. Let's say the profit margin is thirty percent, which is a very high profit margin on almost anything you buy from China. So it costs him seventy dollars to make and they're making thirty dollars and they're selling it for one hundred dollars in the United States. Now, let's say the tariff is one hundred and forty five percent,
which is the example we've done here. One hundred and forty five percent makes makes it so that if the tariff was born by an American, then the price of the tariff, so that the tax paid by the importing company is now one hundred and forty four five percent of one hundred, which means one hundred and forty five dollars. So when I import this good, I have to pay the Chinese company one hundred dollars and then after pay
the US government hundred and forty five dollars. Now, what would it mean for the Chinese company to eat the tariff? It would mean that not only would they have to be willing to give the product to the importer for nothing basically right, so it's one hundred and forty five percent taf So they would have to be willing to reduce the price of the good so low that one hundred and forty four tariff brought it up to one hundred.
So they would have to sell it for less than forty bucks about forty bucks, So forty dollars one hundred and forty five percent is about sixty bucks, and that gets it back to one hundred dollars, so they would have to That means they eat it all up right at forty bucks? What is their profit? Mind, they're losing thirty dollars on every item they sell.
How are the Chinese gonna eat.
Losing thirty dollars for every item they sell because they're selling it at forty dollars. It's just a mathematical impossibility. They would lose so much they'd be wiped out very quickly. This is just one item, and I'm assuming thirty percent profit margin, which is just not true. Most Chinese goods have profit margins. What below ten percent? You just can't do it. And again, this is not difficult mathematics. This
is not calculus. This is arithmetic. And we have a president of the United States who can't do the arithmetic and who's advisors are too afraid to tell him what the arithmetic actually means because that's model of So that's one example of this interview, of of of what he
said in interview. The other one was, you know, he's got a copy of the Declaration of the Dependence hanging in his office, and the interviewer asks him about the Declaration of Independence, about about what it is and what it what it you know, what it represents.
Right, And.
I mean, you got to watch the video of this because you've got to see the interviewer's facial response to to what Trump says. I this is Donald Try, I mean, this is this is him, right, I'm not making this up. I'm being objective. Yeah, I could not highlight this, but this is the President of the United States, and this is this is a major interview he did with Time magazine and it's all over the web right here it is.
So he's asked about what it means, what this is, and so this is what he says, quote, well, it means exactly what it says. It's a declaration, a declaration of unity and love and respect, and it means a lot, and it's something very special to our country. The Declaration of Independence the most important political document in all of human history. The Declaration of Dean is the clearest articulation of the declaration of the rights of man. The man
has rights. It's a declaration of unity. What unity around? What of love? Love? Is love mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. I don't remember the word love in the Decreation of Independence. I'm sure I don't remember unity, but certainly no love and respect, respect from whom it's a declaration independence. It's a massive, disrespectful document, disrespecting the authoritarian king in America. You gotta what and then you watch it in the interview is like looking at him like
are you crazy? Are you insane? Are you the president of the United States? And you don't know what this document is about? Who are you?
Well, it means exactly what it says.
It's a declaration, a declaration of unity and love and respect, and it means a lot, and it's something very special to our country, the.
President of the United States.
Ladies and gentlemen, you know, I think it's important for all of us to have an objective understanding, an objective understanding of who we are actually dealing with. And that's who we're dealing with. All right, thank you. That is the news for Friday. May second. Uh, let's jump into our questions, our super check questions. We are way behind it. I don't know what's gotten into you, guys. You think
a new month has started and you can anyway. We're sort of targets, so I'd appreciate it would be great if if some of you jumped in with some stickers and and and questions.
We've got we've got some time for questions. We've got some stickers.
Mary Elaine, Robert, Bonnie Allen, anonymous user, Jeremy Steven and I saw there was there was one, Fedd Harpa and Benjamin. Thank you all for the stickers. Really really appreciate it, so please please consider doing more stickers. Got a lot of people watching. This is the way you support the show. Which is only made possible through contributions from people like you.
Listeners like you.
I want to remind you that a great way to support the show is through Patreon. You can become a monthly supporter. Not worry about it. Most of you are listening to the show and watching the show are not live, so some of you can do it on YouTube. You can still applaud and support the show that way. But the rest of you, the best way to do it is just go to Patreon, sign up, make a monthly contribution. Anything but two dollars to five hundred dollars or one
thousand dollars. I think there's an option for a thousand dollars a month, and that's it, and then you don't have to think about it again. And we are trading. You are providing me with a value. I'm proviting you with a value. Obviously you're listening. That means it's a value to you. So please support the show so we can keep it going. Michael says, I don't think Reagan was successful because he brought the Maral majority.
He was popular because.
Of his more liberty oriented and optimistic policies. Ran may have viewed him differently if she lived long enough to see his entire term. He became popular because of that, but he won. He didn't win by a big margin the first time. He won because the country was rejecting Jimmy Carter was a very unpopular president, and because the evangelicals.
Voted for him.
He would not have won without the evangelical vote and evangelical vote that had voted for Jimmy Carter the previous election in nineteen seventy six. Jimmy Carter won because he got the evangelicals. They all shifted to and came into the Republican Party and became part of the Republican Party with the nineteen eighty election. Now, by the time you get to nineteen eighty four, Reagan is unbelievably popular, and he wins in a landslide, a true landslide, not a pseudo landslide like.
Donald Trump's victory.
And that is because the economy is doing really well, and he does change the vibe in America.
He changed it to a more.
Optimistic, positive orientation, so he benefits from.
And a thriving economy.
A lot of that is more caused by people like Paul Voca, and actually the deregulation under Jimmy Carter, and the kind of the financial activity going on Wall Street, which is generating a structuring of American business, leads to a thriving economy. So he's benefited from thriving economy. He's lower taxes, Inflation is coming down because of Voca, interest rates are coming down, and he rings an optimistic note
that resonates with Americans, and he wins. So Ironran didn't say that he won because he brought the Ma majordy into the Republican Party. Ironran said she would never vote for him and that she thinks he was a failed president if you think about the long term, because he brought the majority into the Republican Party.
And she was absolutely right.
He did bring them into Mam Majarady into the Republican Party, even if they weren't the only cause of his victory, and he did ruin the Republican Party forever. We're seeing the consequence of that with Donald Trump. It's because the evangelicals, the emotionalist religionists associated with the Republican Party that we have Trump's party. That is Trump's party, it's it is Ronald Reagan's party. It's what the mam majority is morphed into. Andrew Rand was asked what we could do so that
our children are not ashamed of success. She said, in part, do not teach him to be humble. Do you think there's a cultural repression on pride that leads the blatant baggers like Trump. Yes, I mean it's the same. It's it's my point about how altruism leads to nihilism and pragmatism.
Nobody wants to be an altruist, and there's a certain element in which we reject pride in the context of religion and in the context of altruism, and people rebel against that when they were belt against altruism, and they rebel against the religion. But they don't adopt as an alternative rational egoism. They don't adopt as an alternative the
proper virtue of pride. What they adopt in you know, in opposed to it to stick it in people's faces, is a form of hedonism, a form of pragmatism, a form of of of uh, you know, psychologically, a form of narcissism which embraces being a braggard, embraces you know, the Trump kind of behavior, and that is a direct consequence of this rejection and not having an alternative, but also not being not looking for an alternative, that is being orient it towards emotionalism, being orient it towards uh,
the the narcissism of But I think a culture that isn't that is altruistic but it's still semi free, is gonna The people who rebel against the altruism are going to land up. Many of them are going to land up as narcissists or pragmatists.
Chasbod.
I have a theory that Trump is actually Guilderoy Lockhart, the incompetent wizard who managed to convince everyone that he was a hero. I don't know who Guilleroy Lockhart was, but I find out how to believe that Trump is a wizard, even an incompetent one that seems way too attributing to him abilities that I don't.
Think he has.
Michael is the right to unintellectual to embrace objectivism. I've interacted with a few Maga rallies. These people are real knuckle draggers. Yeah, I think that's right, Or to put another way, they have been so corrupted epistemologically by religion, and by the cult behavior and by their worship of Trump that they are beyond hope. They are not who we should be looking for to find recruits. In that sense, I think the left has always been a better hunting
ground all old style of Republicans. The more intellectual conservatives are better place to find converts to objectivism.
I do not think Mega is a is.
A complete and utter waste of time.
It is.
An anti reason political movement, an anti mind political movement. Leam Weiss Trump fast with the tariffs and slow with deregulation. Can't he claim some emergency power to deregulate certain industries.
I'm sure he can.
But deregulation is boring, it's boring, uninteresting, and there are a lot of people, and I'm sure a lot of people surrounding him don't want him to regulate because regulation is a power and when you do you regulate, you lose power. So there's a lot of people who want to use regulations. I mean, this is again Jdvans. JD Vance is inspired by people like Patrick Denin who think that regulations are good, they just need to be used
to inculcate right wing ideas. It's the same as we don't need to dismantle the Department of Education because we want the Department education so we can inculcate students with our ideas. Now they're disbanding the Department of Education and inculcating their ideas, so they found a way to do both. But that's why tariffs are easier. And look, let me another way to say it. Trump is passionate about tariffs.
TEFs are just not one other policy issues. This is the one thing that Trump is believed in and advocated for since the nineteen eighties. This is something he actually believes in. Deregulation he doesn't really believe in. It's just a yeah, that would be nice, not you have your joagorithm. Isn't it infuriating that in a few hundred years the world will be perfect and none of us will be able to see it. You can't think that way. You can only think about what is in your life, what
is possible for you. You don't know in a few hundred years the world might have disappeared nuclearmageddon and will be dead. It's irrelevant. All you have is your life. All you can do is focus and focus on making it the best stop worrying about what happens. There's no point in even considering it. Michael, will we lay be able to abolish the Central Bank of Argentina or will other world powers not let him? Could relate to an Argentina into first world economy, you know, I don't know.
It's going to be hard to abolish the central Bank of Argentina, but other countries in Latin America have done it. Ecuador has basically no central bank. The economy is a dollar economy. Panama's economy is a dollar economy. El Salvado has no central bank. They have a dollar economy. So it's it's certainly possible, And the question is does he want it? Are his allies on board with it, because a lot of his allies are kind of nationalistic conservatives
who want an Argentinian currency. It's part of the nationalism to have their own currency and not use those dollars from another country. I don't think the world powers will get in the way. Maybe the IMF, but I don't think if they dollarize, I don't think the IMF would get in the way.
They didn't in other cases.
Could relate turn Argentina into first world economy. Certainly he could if he allowed to do it, If the Argentinian people back him up, they elect the right people to Parliament in the elections coming up in the fall, then yeah, he could definitely turn the economy into first world He certainly has the plan to do it, the ability to do it, and then the question is does he have the political support to do it not? You have a algorithm.
Narcissism and selfishness are going to be conflated in the next fifty years, at least.
Least at least it's slowing the movement down.
I think yeah. I mean, look, narcissism, pragmatism, hedonism, even nihilism have often been.
Conflated with selfishness.
The altruists have every incentive to take every negative characteristic out there that appears somehow to be in somebody's self interest and conflated with selfishness. It's always been odd, it will continue to be hard. There's nothing new here. It's just a I think narcissism is always been viewed as selfish. Kiki ban BYU cause because a possible kill switch, or maybe.
Leave that to customers to decide.
Maybe have inspectors inspect the cause and make sure there isn't a kill spitch.
B y D you mean not b y U b y D. I don't know.
I you know, I wouldn't ban cause I would let consumers decide whether they want to buy the call or not, maybe encourage them not to buy them. But I don't think the state should get involved and make decisions for you what you call not I don't think BYD cause a national security threat, but maybe we need inspection and to make sure that they don't they don't have a kill switch, and maybe that they're you know, they're not
listening into conversations that are happening inside the car. It not that I care what the Chinese know about my conversations when I drive a car. But yeah, the more power we give the government to decide which products are okay for us to use and which are not, the less freedom we have. Dan Nolton my first super Chat just to test thanks to the shows, yeh, Superchat is working matters. I'm officially being a member for one year. Thank you for all you've taught me in the last
twelve months. Any plans to come back to SOO forth soon haven't been invited, So talk to talk to what's his name, Regene about inviting me back? Gene Epstein. Mary Aline says, AOC is thirty five, so I guess she's old enough. All right, AOC is going to run for president. It'll be fun as a trek economy. Hey, Ron, would you ever move to a private charter city if they become common? Does the US need more new cities? We have a lot of land to use, Yeah, we absolutely.
We need no more immigrants. We need more people. We need more cities. We need more population, more production, more creation, more building, more, Yeah, all of that stuff. Would I move to charter city? Maybe under the right circumstances. I'm skeptical because I think that the government's granting them the charter will ultimately take it away. They'll ultimately step in and take the charter away. All right, guys, we only have,
you know, about ten minutes. We're sixty dollars short of our one hour goal, and we're going on two hours or an hour and a half. So yeah, please consider supporting the show. Stickers of large denominated stickers would be great. Large denominated questions would be great, or just stickers of any denomination would be amazing as well.
Harper Campbell.
Let's be honest, we're collapsing into Nazi Germany and there's nothing we could do about to stop it. I don't think any of that is true. I don't think we're collapsing into Nazi Germany. We're not rounding people up. And you know, Trump is not Hitler, He's not ideological enough. And if he was ideological, then making people would have never voted for him. We are not not not in Nazi Germany. We're not heading to Nazi Germany. Relax, calm down.
Stuff is bad enough without blowing it out of proportion. Adam, it's all a variation of the same argument. Less tariffs, more supply of goods, more choice, lower prices, more houses, more choice, lower prices.
And and note that you know.
Taisa just taxes, so lower taxes, more supply of goods, more choices, more freedom, uh, more pursuit of happiness, more respect for the individual's life, and lower prices. Of course, so yes, yes, yes, absolutely no, but it's all the same theme. You're absolutely right, all right to last two questions. If you want to ask something, jump in quickly here, hi on, just finish the Leonardo series. Leonardo series, and really enjoyed it thanks to the accommodation. To me, do
you know other series in that style? Huh No. I mean there's a lot of series on artists, but I don't know anything in that style. Now you know, there's there's something un Rafael, there's something on Michelangelo, all enjoyable. But I'm not sure if that style is I'm not sure if it's the same thing, Mary Ellen.
This is the last question.
How does Trump believe in tariffs with such passionate intensity when he doesn't understand.
How they work?
Is it batchet crazy? He understands that they reduce well, I don't know what he understands. I don't know he's batchet crazy. There's a question about that.
Though.
I'm not supposed to say that. He's not very smart. He's not very smart, and he can't really hold what they actually do. But what he really hates is trade deficits, and he believes wrongly. And his first term shows that that if you have tavish, you you get rid of the deficit. And that's really all he cares about is getting rid of the deficit. But you don't do that. First of all, there's nothing wrong with the deficit. Zero Resiltch not a second taris, don't get rid of trade deficits.
You didn't update on Doge. Why aren't you using super chat like everybody else?
Bo was.
No no updates and Dose because there's nothing the update, nothing particularly, nothing special is happening. As I said, Dog wants access to SI security, but for what just to root out fraud and that, which is meaningless and doesn't. It's just there's just nothing interesting going on with Dose right now. They're not cutting anyone near as much money as they said they would, certainly not two trillion or
one trillion. Now they're down to one hundred and fifty, and of one hundred and fifty, we're probably looking at fifty maybe fifty. So it's just it's it's less interesting and nothing, you know, nothing much is happening. Oh yeah, news flash. On Monday, probably at around ten thirty, I will be joining Destiny's podcast YouTube channel what does he do? Does he even do YouTube? I think he's going to send me a zoom link. So I'm going to be
on Destiny's show for a couple of hours. So I don't, you know, I don't know what the format looks like. I don't know how he does it. I don't know if it's a debate, I don't know what it is. But basically, I'll be on a stream. I'll Beyond Destiny stream starting ten thirty in the morning on Monday. So Destiny is this big, huge celebrity. Would you call him a leftist, a centrist or something like that. So we will see where the conversation takes us. We will see
what we're talking about. But it sounds like we're just going to be chatting. And it's great because he has a massive audience, which is mostly a new audience for me. So yeah, I don't hate him. I've seen a little bit of him. I mean, he's wrong in a lot of stuff, but I certainly don't hate him. Okay, Simon says. Simon is stuck in a question, how do you articulate to someone that values objective even in the real even in the realm of economics, and values can't be subjective
because they are tied to reality. Well, I mean it doesn't matter what realm they are the objective to the extent that they enhance your life, that.
You are value.
Now, some values are you know, they can be subjective. The point is that there are such things as objective values, and the standard of objectivity is reality and their contribution to your life. So the extent that the value adds to your life is enhancing your life, leads to your flourishing, supports your well being, and it really does. So that's the base on reality. Then it's an objective value. Objective is not independent of valuer. Quite the opposite. Objective is
by the standard of the valuer. You have to have a standard. Only the valuer can give them standards. So the valuer is what makes it objective. There is no such thing as objective, as objective in epistemology outside of for somebody, there has to be a consciousness that is being objective. There's no such thing as a disinterested something out there.
Values are not intrinsic. They're not in and.
Of themselves good. They're good for whom and for what, and that is what makes them objective. All right, guys, I will see you all tomorrow, not to exactly what time, but we will have a show tomorrow.
Thank you all the super chatters.
I really really appreciate it, and I guess I will talk to you soon.
Bye. Everybody,