The radical fundamental principles of freedom, rational, self interest and individual wise. This is the Yuran Brook show. Oh right, everybody, welcome you on book Shows show. Thanks for joining me. I know Lanes follows hopefully with you and you will enjoy just trying to create as much content as I have
as I can before I leave. I'm going I'm gonna be away for almost four weeks starting tomorrow, so we will do a morning show, but other than that, I'll be gone for three and a half almost four weeks. I'll try to do as many shows as I can from the road. But as you know, if you follow the book show, you know that it's it's a challenge. Technology is a challenge, and then of course my time
is a challenge, and the time zone difference is a challenge. So shows in the next three and a half weeks are going to be all over the place in terms of time zones, because I'm going to be seven hours ahead of East Coast time starting on Wednesday, and then much of the rest of the trip, all of the rest of the cheap six hours ahead of East Coast time. So not going to be easy to find a good time to deliver these shows. But I will try, and we will do what we
can, and we will keep having fun with your book shows. All right, So today I want to talk about China. I'm reading I think, I think you guys know. I read this book called Chip Wars, which
I really liked and I highly recommended. I did a whole show on the whole issue of Chip Wars, which really focus on on chips and the history of micro processes and then relating add to the conflict between the United States and China and their long term prospects for that of course, the use of chips and weapons systems and the real risk of China having access really because of the West, because they buy them for the West are the most advanced chip technology
that then they just plug into their smart bombs and missiles and airplanes and everything else, and weib making we're basically facilitating their super advanced weaponry. Well, I'm just about to finish. I'm close to finishing another book called Wireless Wars. So this one is not about chip war. It's not about micro chips, but it's about it's about wireless technology. And while it's true that neither the chip war nor the wireless war is really a war, A big chunk
of it is related to national security. A big chunk of the competition conflict and ultimately the decision making about how governments will respond is a national security issue. And I think that's the partisue this is not just an issue of straight trade. This is not a made up national security issue like steal or other things. Uh. This is potentially, at least potentially a national security issue.
And I talked about why it was a national security issue when it came to chipwool uh and and let me try to articulate why it's a national security issue when it comes to wireless, um, when it comes to five G communication. But at the end of the day, what I really want to talk about is what do you do about all this? I mean, what
do you do? I mean? One, of course, one answer to that is we need industrial policy, we need a chip back, we need the government to invest in in technology, we need to government to invest in wireless companies, we need to we need we need to bring back and build
in America. And of course I think that's a nonsense. UM. So we'll talk about what I think should be done about China, about the legitimate national security threat that is China. So put aside, put aside UH economics just just for national security, a real objective national security threat, how do we deal with China? So first, let's let's just set the table in terms of wireless communication. Wireless communication now UH is ubiquitous. It's everywhere.
It connects um it connects everything. It doesn't just particularly with five G. It doesn't just connect our phones. It doesn't just connect the Internet for us to browse through Google. But it connects us to all things. It connects me to my my, my air conditioning units to set to set the temperature,
it's connected, Census are connected throughout. We basically live in a world that is connected through kind of five G wireless that from from U product if from you know, a product, the product sense of the sense of phone to phone, UH and and and and through the air to you know, in an expanse of ever expanding universe of smart things that are all connected wirelessly and and this is great, it's fantastic in five G made all possible,
and it's only going to get better, and it's only going to get more and they're only going to be more things is connected. One of the challenges, of course, with with a network like that way, everything's wireless and everything is connected. Is that means that a lot of things that that have
national security implications, whips would happened. There are also connected, um so there are missile sites, there are there are a variety of different different military installations all over the United States that use wireless technologies and they are on the network. They're connected to everybody else and everything else that is on the network, and if somebody can break into on any given one point, they potentially
could have access to real national security problems. Now it's not that easy, of course, to break in, and it's not that easy to have get access to telecommunication terminals and switches and places where you can hack and access information
that has national security implications. But it would be a lot easier for you to access that information if the people who built the equipment, the people who are actually built and installed equipment all around you actually worked potentially for a government that wanted to hack. And this is actually what has happened in telecommunication.
The number one leading company in the world today in five G communication for a variety of reasons, we can get into the number one leading telecommunication company in the world that builds five G telecommunication equipment. Is Huawei. It is a Chinese company. It is a Chinese company, where there are lots of reasons to believe, lots of reasons to believe it's a Chinese company with strong ties
and links to the Chinese government. There's also evidence to suggest that Huawei, when it installs telecommunication equipment all over the world, and it does all over the world, provides back to access to those that telecommunication equipment to the Chinese
government, and Waiwei today is banned. American companies are banned from from doing business with Huawei, and there are various restrictions in Huawei installing telecommunication equipment in the United States and in much of Western Europe because it was discovered and because you know, it was found out that they were doing exactly that they were using this equipment in order to provide back channels to Chinese agents, and in
that sense, they were facilitating spying directly on Americans, not through some app we download that we know the Chinese own, like TikTok and maybe they get some information about the cat videos that I watch. No, this is telecommunication equipment, this is the switches, this is the this is the backbone of the telecommunication infrastructure in the United States through which a lot of sensitive, top
secret information travels. Now, Chinese could just wait until twenty one year olds publish a lot of the secret information online as they downloaded from from from secure service. But what the Chinese would really like is direct access to all that information throughout telecommunication network. And it turns out that way Wei was providing them
exactly that. The various examples of situations, for example, the why we provided the African Union with all their telecommunication equipment in their headquarters in I think it was like a baba in Ethiopia, And it turned out that at five pm every day they would download to a server in Beijing every piece of communication that it traveled through their equipment during the day. Now, they probably couldn't
do something that explicit with the US. But from what I understand from Wireless Was, and I'm going to read more about this because I want to be sure that this is true. For one end, Standford wire was it's very very difficult to figure out if a piece of equipment, if a piece of telecommunication equipment has a backdoor, if a piece of telecommunication equipment can be easily
accessed and can be easily hacked. That is that there very few people in the world who have the capacity and capabilities are being able to actually guarantee that a piece of equipment. And of course even if you buy one panel or one box and it's free of any bugs and free of any back those,
do you know that every box that you buy, you know. One of the reasons that Whyway was trying to in the mid twenty teens trying to sell Spent on its telecommunication equipment, which at the time was the best in the world and the cheapest in the world, and Spent turned them down to a
logic tent because they couldn't guarantee the network security. They couldn't guarantee that these boxes that they were going to buy, this eipment they were going to buy from Haiwei was not going to be used by the Chinese to spy on Americans. So there is there is good reason to ban a company that you suspect
and you have evidence of. So it's not an arbitrary suspicion. It's not just because they're Chinese, but you have actual concrete reasons to believe is providing information and providing access to telecommunication networks around the world to the Chinese governments and the US the DAD under Trump, they banned Huawei and then they convinced many of the US allies in Western Europe to do the same within networks. Remember Whaiwei has the best five G equipment in the world and the cheapest five G
equipment in the world. And to a large extent, that is a consequence of American company is getting lazy, American companies not in investing, American companies making bad decisions, Western companies more broadly, but American companies included. It is also a consequence of UH such a consequence of bad management, bad investment um and and that's that is going to happen. It's it's a very similar story to what happened in the microchipped environment to Intel. Where is lucned.
I don't know if you guys remember Lucin, but Lucent was Ball Labs. Beall Labs was one of the most innovative private laboratory systems in the world. They were brilliant and at some point when ATT was broken up, Bell Labs were spun off as loocned. Uh Loocinned then built and designed the world's leading telecommunication equipment for many, many years and ultimately loosened, uh faded, it
became non competitive. It's uh, it became it. Management made bad decisions and and Lucent got sold I think to the French company Alcatel, and today really on the West, the companies that make telecommunication equipment Eriksson and Nokia basically and I think Alcatel. But that's it. But Lucent is gone. A great tragedy, I believe, given how valuable Bill absod. But that's what
happens in competitive businesses and which you sold. During the two thousands is the rise of Chinese companies, primarily Huawei, to dominate the telecommunication equipment space to the point where Western companies just couldn't compete. Now, part of that was quality, part of that was government subsidies, but whatever, they couldn't compete.
Now, the problem here is the national security threat that this opposes the fact that these networks, if you buy them from Huawei again provide access to Chinese government. So the question is what do you do? What do you do? How do you deal with this? How do you deal on the one hand, how do you deal with China with Chinese companies? And another hand, how do you spur the United States to be able to compete with China. Now why Way is a very innovative company, as have been Ali
Baba and we Chat and other Chinese companies. Not I think we have less the fear from China in terms of innovation because of in terms of fast innovation and dramatic big leaps in innovation, because the more authority in China becomes, the less innovative it will become. But the challenge we face is that the West has become non innovative, particularly in telecommunications, and as a consequence, just to satis Quo makes the Chinese way ahead, puts the Chinese way ahead
of that. Now, telecommunications have a huge implications war. Telecommunications are used in war, of course to communicate, it's used for intelligence gathering. The fact that China has a better five G than the United States suggests that in a war, China can communicate with its own people, with its own forces, within its own military, far more effectively than the United States can.
And of course to the extent that they can hack into our networks and we can't hack into theirs, they have an enormous intelligence advantage over the United States. So again all all reasons why we should care. But what do we do? I mean, the instinctual response of Democrats and many Republicans is to say, well, we need a mimic what China has done. What we
need to do is subsidize our businesses. What we need to do is allow have some a few five year plans in the telecommunication space, in the chip space. I mean, this is the logic behind the Chips Act. The Chips Actual was passed by Congress bipartisan, with a lot of Republicans voting for it, which set aside fifty billion dollars to subsidize chip manufacturing. It's the
logic behind bidens. What is it something Inflation Act which provides massive subsidies for I don't know, battery technology and other technologies and and EV and all this other stuff which is not national security related, but even on the National Security Fund? What should be done? What should be done with things like telecommunication? What should be done with things like chips that have clear national securities issues? And here I think we have to understand why it is that America,
what makes this country special? Why is it that the United State States has historically had such a massive lead over the rest of the world, in particularly authoritarian states like China, when it comes to technology innovation, and indeed, even in the last twenty years, almost all the innovations, both in biotech but in technology have come to the United States a significant number. Way this proportion and even to the sizes of American GDP. Indeed, America has been
and the question is cann continue the land of innovation. China has been good at copying, It's been good at making these better. It's had some innovators, particularly during the period where it left it's tech companies alone free, which happened arguably from the mid nineties into about the early twenty teens into Cheese presidency, but no longer exists. How does the American compete with China throwing tens
hundreds of billions of dollars on technologies? How do we keep up? How do we how do we get sixty How do we get the United States to developed much better technology? How do we get the United States to become the leader in the world in sixty seven G A G. I don't know, technologies way ahead of the Chinese. How do we get the United States to be in a position to design, manufacture, and create the best chips in
the world, semiconductors in the world. By the way, semi conductor dosn't need it for five G telecommunications, you can And is that do we get that from the from the from chips, bills, chips acts, UM and UH and other type of other type of government intervention, government peakings, winners and losers. And the answer is, of course no. And I like Wireless Wars. It's not as good as the book as Chip War, partially
just because it's not as well written. The stories that it tells are not quite as stimulating and interesting, and it skips over a lot of stuff, and it's just not as good as good a book. But it has a conclusion section which is quite good. I've just gotten to it now and basically the author comes to the same conclusion I came to. And that is What American needs to do is liberate it's innovators. What American needs to do is
tap in to its entrepreneurial, innovative culture. What American needs to do is be America. Our private companies could beat Chinese state run companies any day. Our private companies can beat Chinese private companies guided by the state and subsidized by the state any day. What we need today is to get is the government the regulators, and in telecom there are lots of regulators. To get out
of the way. Hey, what we need is to return to what economists have called, or commentators are called a permissionless society, a permissionless innovation. We need to encourage entrepreneurs to go out and break the rules and do new stuff. One thing the US could do is sell its entire wireless spectrum to private companies. Just get rid of the entire wireless spectrum all at once. Let private companies figure it out, let them do whatever the hell they want
to do with it. Don't sell Okay, this section is for TV, and this section is for wireless, and this section is for that and that section. No sell it all and let the private market figure out how to use the wireless spectrum. Get rid of government mandates to dictate standards and standardization. Get rid of you know, government dictates that you have to use something that the industry is standardized. Encourage entrepreneurs to think outside of the standards.
Encourage entrepreneurs to do the new, something completely new, to really think outside of the box. And I'd say, don't provide funding. Don't give subsidies. Subsidies and funding stifle in industry, the regiment in industry. The industry
then plays to the government. Regulators plays to the government people who approve the grants, and you can guarantee that if the government is involved, the grants will be given to the companies that are boring, that are doing the same old thing, and the revolutionaries, the crazies, the people who you know. The cell phone was invented very early on, and it was everybody thought it was crazy. It was a crazy idea. It was invented in nineteen
seventies. I think the first trial of it at AT and T was done in nineteen seventies and people thought it was crazy Indian who would want to do that? And it wasn't until the nineteen eighties until somebody established a network. I think mcgrass cellulo is the first one, but to others and into the nineties when it really became effective that anybody believed in it and invested the kind of capital necessary. Let the markets work it out, Let the markets figure
out what the best technology is. God forbid government. You know the sides between VHS and beta, that's the old guys among you who remember what VHS and BEATA is. I mean, I don't know if you know, but the European Union is not dictated that all cables for all electronic devices have to have This is the standard USBC. If something better than this comes around,
tough because the government has decided what the optimal standards. And Apple actually has to change from this connector to this connect the next year because otherwise it can't sell products in Europe. So what we need is to liberate the entrepreneur What we need is to get rid of regimented standards. What we need is to get rid of the rules and the regulations and the constraints on innovation, on
entrepreneurial creation, on ingenuity we need. We need ingenuity. We need people to take ideas and turn them into products, and take wacky ideas and try to turn them into wacky products. And we need to liberate liberated venture capital community and that that is investing in these kind of things. And my guess is that within ten years the taller communication industry would look completely different than it looks today, and we'd be dominated by American companies, companies that doing things
that we couldn't even imagine today. We need innovation, and we know how to get innovation lead people alone. But there's one other aspect to this. There's one other aspect to this. Do you know why one of the reasons Huawei has such a big lead in five G telecommunications, it's because five G the original I guess you know, algorithms or idea around five G was was first invented or created by a graduate students in a graduate student in the United
States. I think he was Chinese, maybe not, maybe it was European, I can't remember. Anyway, he was a feign graduate student in the US university and he developed the first idea around five g's the first solution for five G tailers communication. Yet he couldn't get hired in the United States because he couldn't get a visa. Ultimately, he landed up working for Huawei and
they got access to this technology before anybody else. So one of the things you know that half of the I think the fortune five hundred companies in the US right now were founded by immigrants or son's old daughters, children of immigrants. What the United States needs to do is to liberate the innovators, to free up the entrepreneurial spirits to eliminate regulation, to create a permissionless environment, and at the same time bring to this country the visionaries, bring to this
country the entrepreneurs. And it sounds like you have to pay them to come. All you have to do is say come, here's the US, or stay if you're in school here, and they will want to stay wide because they'll get to participate in this exciting innovative push. What we need is to completely restructure our immigration policy. I mean it's it's to his credit a Biden
looks like he's gonna increase immigration significantly to the United States. But most of the immigrants Biden is inviting into the United States or allowing to stay in the United States are refugees, immigrants that are coming here under some kind of asylum laws. Get rid of that. We don't need asylum seekers. What we need a people who work. Change the immigration law to a brook based system. If you can get a job, then you get a visa. If
somebody offers your job, you get a visa. Again. I don't care, and we shouldn't say in telecommunication because we don't know what the next greed innovation. The change is telecommunication is going to come from. We want the best and the brightest in this country. We'll get the best and the brightest by making it easy for them to come here. You have capital. Somebody's willing to invest in your idea. Here's a visa. You got a grand
your degree in a STEM in the United States, here's a visa. Actually for what it's what. You got a STEM degree anywhere in the world. Here's a visa. Please come to the United States and start your businesses. Yet, please come to the United States. We won't tell you what business is. To start, start your business, raise the capital, find the team, and put it together. If America returns to its entrepreneurial essence,
if America returns to the idea of freedom and free markets. For America returns the idea of a permissionless innovation, permissionless business, i e. With no regulations and constraints and limitations. There was no limit to what we can do. We beat the Chinese hands down, We create more wealth, we grow the economy faster, and national security becomes a non issue. We have the best chips in the world, we have the best telecommunication companies in the world,
and the Chinese become irrelevant. Now in the same time, we should bar equipment that is used for chief for spine. We should bar giving them chips that they use in military technologies. We should be absolutely, unequivocally self interested in place America first in a meaningful way, not in the kind of slow gneering, nonsensical way that Donald Trump used it, but to indicate that we will pursue America's interest and America's interest from a national security perspective, not
from a mystical collectivist perspective. And from a national security perspective, we should not be selling weapons to our enemies Sardi Arabia comes to mind, but certainly not advanced chips that can use the those weapons to China. And we should not be allowing equipment can be used to spy on us to be installed in
our own country. So, you know, let's continue trading with China, Let's continue to get their subsidized goods, Let's continue to watch videos from TikTok, Let's continue to buy Oh you know, I think, well, ultimately, if, if, if the gods in Washington allow, if we ever do have a electric vehicle revolution, we will be driving Chinese cause all good, because none of that has national security implications. When it comes to national
security, Let's cut them off. Let's draw a clear right line of what is allowed and what is not allowed. And then, much more importantly, let's fuel innovation on entrepreneurship in the United States. On the military front, America is and must be a naval superpower. It is a country with a long coast, both on the east and on the west. It is a country dedicated to economic growth, economic prosperity, and therefore to free trade.
It is a country, therefore that should commit it its military to protecting the sea lanes of the world. We should rebuild our navy, and we should make it the best in the world, not by a little bit, but by so much that no other country would even dare to compete with us. We should frogily, and I think we can the Chinese in terms of innovation and in terms of the kind of navy that we can build, and we should command disease. We have no real need for a massive land army.
There is no imminent war in the United States. Nobody's invading the United States with tanks. There is no need for US to send our troops to Europe. The Europeans are rich enough to be able to field a ground military by themselves to deal with whatever threat they faced. The primary threat I think is Russia, but that is also true of the Middle East. I don't see circumstances in which the United States will once to engage in a land war in
Asia. Taiwan is too small to engage a big tank battles on Taiwan. Taiwan will ultimately be determined in the sea, well ultimately determined in the ocean, will ultimately determined in the straits of Taiwan. It will not primarily be a ground ward not a ground ward that the United States participates in. Taiwan should invest in ground troops for their own self defense. But the United States should dominate the oceans. The United States should dominate the sea lanes. The
United States should dominate the trade routes. Doesn't require using that force. That's the beauty of having a navy. Nobody else can compete with. Put it out there, nobody's going to challenge you. And what you do is secure American prosperity, not only by internally allowing innovation, allowing technology, allowing ingenuity, but then securing the ability of Americans to trade with the rest of the world, to buy goods from other countries and to have other countries buy goods
from the US. And even when it comes to telecommunication infrastructure chips, it's not necessary to build the chips in the US. It's not necessary to have a fab in the US. You can have the fab in Taiwan and South Korea as long as you have a navy that protects the ability to get the
chips to the US. Maybe have a fab in Europe, Maybe have a fab in Mexico wherever it's economic to build those wherever it's economic, which means wherever they are skilled engineers and the ability to build such manufacturing plants and then to produce the stuff. Do it anywhere in the world that we as Americans can secure passage to US. We don't have to do here. We don't have to have manufacturing plants in the United States. When it's sense sea of
national security. Make sure that the manufacturing plants and countries that are friendly. Make sure that it manufacturing plants and countries the we can defend. And maybe a certain amount of supply. Like some of the very sophisticated chips in the world, maybe some of those should be produced in the United States for used in the military just in case Taiwan gets wiped out. Now we still have
today, by far the best navy in the world. Nobody comes close, but the Chinese a gaining ground and the United States has not invested as much as it could, as much as it should in preserving it's military. It's it's lead in navy technology. Troy, thank you. Troy just came in with five hundred Australian dollars. Thank you. You've got us much much closer to our goals. So we're now only two hundred dollars away from our six
and fifty goal for today and hopefully we can make it. And trying to make up for all the shows I didn't do in earlier in the month, trying to make up by doing a lot of shows now. But that also creates kind of a lot of pressure financially and raising the money quickly, and I know that puts strain on some of you guys, So thank you Troy for making it easier easier. By the way, Australia is a key player when it comes to China because Australia obviously feels threatened by China. Australia is
within reach of China Australia is an island. Again, for Australia, it is essential and necessary to have a navy. It's why Australia joint forces with you, with the United Kingdom and the United States to form an alliance around
submarines and around naval capacity. I mean, in my view, the United States should lead an effort to combine the force of the United States, South Korea, Japan, and Australia, maybe New Zealand in a naval alliance, and combine the forces of those countries to defend free trade and to defend all of those specific countries an alliance from any kind of Chinese or North Korean aggression. I think that would be a game changer. I think it would be
a game change in the Pacific Ocean. And with combined resource, Japan probably has the second or third best navy in the world. And again, Japan has also committed to doubling their defense spending over the next five years. So Japan is going to be a significant force in the Pacific. We want to make sure they're on outside. We want to make sure we have an alliance.
The Philippines could be part of it, although Philippine governments in the past, I mean so wacky and crazy that it's harder alliance on the Philippines. But we do have now four new bases in the Philippines for the US Navy, So the Philippines could certainly be a part of this. And ultimately you could imagine Indonesia and Malaysia joining in, and oh, I forgot Taiwan.
Taiwan would be a key to this. Right, So you have South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand. You basically have China surrounded without firing a bullet. The Chinese threat goes to zero. But it's all doable. That is all doable, building the navy, creating that alliance, encouraging our alliance to build their own navies and their own military forces, making sure we have the anti ship laser technology to
shoot down their missiles, the Chinese missiles that are targeting our ships. There's a bunch of stuff that can be done. We've talked about much of it on the show, but there's a bunch of stuff that can be done, should be done, and China stops being a threat because they can't compete with
us. The reality is China is a relatively on a pickapita GDP basis, a relatively poor country, and the more resource that allocates the military, the more resources that it has to take from its own citizens, the poorer its own citizens becomes become. The reality is that a free America, that a deregulated America, an innovative America, an entrepreneurial America, cannot be matched by
any country in the world. And it's not that difficult to do. Even if you only want to restrict the permission of society, just the technology, just the crucial technologies for national defense. I mean, this would also create and you could also use this to create real competition within defense contractors. Today, the three four or five defense contractors dominate everything. Well, let's move
that around. Let's make the US Navy, YOMY, Air Force far more technologically savvy and therefore far more interested in high quality technology for which you don't need to have massive, big companies building stuff for you, and you can have smaller entrepreneurial companies. So again, the solution to China is more freedom for America. The solution to China is American strength, is American capacity to
defend itself. Unequivocally an American innovation. An American innovation comes from American liberty, American freedom, American government getting out of the way, American government leaving entrepreneurs free of regulations and controls and subsidies and preferences, and central planning. To make great products, to build great products, and then to trade with the world, keep the sea lanes open. Massive free trade should be our
mission. We should lower tariffs to zero, and then we should allow American entrepreneurs to compete with the world. And if American entrepreneurs are allowed to compete with the world without restrictions, without subsidies, without governing interference one way or the other, American wins. China becomes irrelevant. All right, That is my answer or what to do about China. Hopefully, hopefully that was a value. All right, Um, we have a lot of we have a
few super check questions. I would really like to be able to to get us to the target today. It's it's I think pretty important before I leave that we kind of do well, do well financially and put the show on good financial terms. So we are one hundred and sixty nine dollars short. Please do twenty dollars questions. We've got a lot of ten dollars questions here,
with one option from Michael, twenty dollars we did get. Troy came in with five hundred Stralian dollars, and let's see, Mike came in with fifty American dollars, and together they've really pushed us. Steven Stephen contributed and others have contributed. So please, if everybody wants you right now, does five dollars? Well, no, two dollars. We're done. And if a few of you ask twenty dollars questions and a few of you do some stickers for ten, twenty fifty, one hundred dollars, will be over the
six hundred and fifty mark very very quickly. All right, So let's let's move on to the super chat question. Let me start with questions about China, and Liam liam says, I don't think China is a threat to anyone. It will have a bumpy road to shake off it's authoritarianism, but China will ultimately keep getting richer until it becomes first world. In Weston, so I hope you're right. I always thought that and always hoped that that was
true, because I love China. I've visited China many times. I find in an exciting, thrilling place, and the Chinese people very engaging and very entrepreneurial and very motivated. And I'd like but over the last ten years, she has slow slowly, slowly, not slowly slowly, and systematically move China and authoritarian direction. And I'm hopeful that the Chinese people will ultimately rebel against them, that the Chinese people will ultimately want to liberate themselves and throw off
the shackles of authoritarianism. And I agree with you completely that a free China is not a threat to anybody. But what scares me is that it's becoming less fee now. As it becomes less free, it will also grow less fast. As it becomes less free, it will also it will also be much less of a threat to the United States or to anybody else's. So I'd like it to become more free. So it's a robust, amazing trading partner. It would be amazing if America can benefit from the entrepreneurial spirit that
all of us as individuals on America can benefit from. The entrepreneurs spirit would be unleashed if China freed up its citizens I mean, Chinese amazing entrepreneurs and they have the capacity to really change the world if they are free from the constraints placed on them by the government. Thank you, Liam Right, Richard says, I look forward to the day China is free. I will see it in my lifetime, and I believe it will happen in the next twenty
years. Chinese people yearn for freedom, but there was no moral leadership by US. One president with a mall backbone could end CCP rule. I think that might be true, but you need that one American president, and unfortunately, even that one American president, I don't know where he is. And uh, you know, it's not so much that we need to see in my lifetime of free China. What we really need to see in our lifetime
as a free America. Maybe not as free as my ideal, maybe not as capitalist as complete separation of state from economics, but freer than it is today, free as it used to be. If America can become free again, if America can can can turn on and it can liberate it's such an entrepreneur, it's can liberate its innovators. There's no It's very difficult to stop the United States, and if America can open up its borders, that's super
important. I mean, I don't think people realize how big of a headwind we face, because over the last five or so years we've more than that. You know, since the twenty sixteen seventeen we have restricted immigration, and primarily we've restricted the best from coming to America. I mean, why are we not issuing visas to Russian engineers? Why are we not issuing visas to
Chinese engineers who want to leave their countries. Imagine if we told the Chinese entrepreneurial class, yeah, you probably can't get done stuff done in China right now because it's so regulated and controlled and your government is sowthalitarian. Come to the United States is a visa. Can you imagine the flow of people, talent, brain power, and capital. They bring their money with them too.
All right, let's see quickly other China questions. Michael says, the future economy growth from China maybe what keeps the West alive long enough objectives to ideas to really get out there. I don't think so, because, as I said, as China becomes more authoritarian, China's economy will grow slower, will grow slower. Right. What American needs, what China needs, what any country in the world needs in order to grow, to become wealthy is
capitalism. And and uh, if you negate capitalism, you negate economic growth. You you you destroy the capacity to grow free markets or drive economics. Uh. You know, government attempts to regulate control, socialist attempts to regulating control always always, and in disaster an economic failure. All right, Um, wow, West, thank you. West just came in with one hundred dollars, got us over the limit. Thank you guys, really really appreciate
it. This is super helpful. You can keep asking twenty dollars questions. Um, all right, let's Richard h less China. Okay, let's let's take Owen. First of all, great show today you're on. Thanks, oh, and really appreciate the support those twenty dollars. Michael asks, you say, objective answers are not obvious, but a cons explanation and answers any more obvious. D can's answer make people more comfortable while people create discomfort, So impetus to evade his great No. I mean, look, I don't
think you quite get it right. So Conscian says are not easy, but consconsas are compatible with the dominant way of people were thinking that as Christianity content Christianity are bedfellows. They lived together really really well. Indeed, part of why Kant was motivated to provide those answers was because he wanted to save Christianity. He found the Enlightenment. So Kan didn't come across as as much of
a revolutionary as objectivism is. Objectivism is an upheaval of their ideas. And then, of course when Khan came out with his ideas, many of the intellectuals around him were impressed, supported those ideas and embraced them and then started teaching them all modified them to suit their needs. Hagel didn't teach Kant, but Hegel's philosophy is imbued with Kant. And once you get a Hagel, then you get a Mark Suit takes Hago's ideas and abuse them with another dimension,
turned it into Marxism. So ideas built, and ideas built, and ideas all off of this Kanti in base, and those ideas were picked up by intellectuals and spread and taught and integrated into people's lives. They don't know its Kant, They've never heard of Amanuel kant they don't know exists that it doesn't matter what they get are the final ideas, the final outcomes of those kantient ideas presented two hundred plus years ago, but then integrated by intellectual left
intellectual left intellectual and reshaped and changed into a million different things. Now, objectivism doesn't have that. We don't have the multitude of intellectuals. We won't picked by the culture and by its intellectual elite, and that makes it far more difficult. We have to create an intellectual elite. We have to replace the existing intellectual elite, and that is a lot more difficult. So it's
our answers are not obvious, and they're not embraced by the intellectuals. They're not embraced by the people who then perpetuate ideas out there into the culture. Richard, underneath the US freedom not in my backyard rules banning cell towers are so effing annoying, so many dropped calls, so much bad reception and lost activity because of this, not to mention immigration restriction open boats. Now, yes, no, I mean not in my backyard. You know, cell
towers are just a beginning. What about all the industry that can't be built, the refining capacity that's shrinking because you can't build new refineries, and on and on and on you go, the non in by backyard, the housing that is not being increase, massive challenges and massive problems, massive challenges and massive problems for growth, for economic success, for economic prospality. Theme Aster says, what can be done to help improve the epistemology of American people?
Well, I think one it's the model good epistemology. It's that makes arguments using good epistemology. I think you'll have less success in teaching epistemology explicitly. What you want is to model it, to show people how to present arguments, how to deal with reality, how to deal with facts, what does reason look like in terms of its application. That's one. The second is, of course, you've got to improve the epistemology of the intellectual leadership of
the country. You've got to make the intellectual leaders be people who model this good epistemology and who write books based on the epistemology, and then find ways to simplify it and to teach it in schools, to teach a proper way of thinking, a proper way of engaging with the world. Two children too.
High school is primarily and to college students, that's the revolution. So you need again, you need hundreds of intellectuals translating all of these abstract ideas both into the way they communicate, so modeling it, and into actual tools that people can use without having to understand the deep source of every epistemological principle Shasba. Do you think that the first Moon colony would be more capitalist in the US? Would you move there? If it was? It would be
easier on your back at least. Um, I don't know if the first Moon colony it would be more capitalist in the United States. I mean, it's it's it's really hard to tell. Um what kind of principles would guide it. It would probably be a kind of a corporate structure. It could
very well be top down. Um, it's hard to tell. I mean, I wish it was, like I don't know if you guys have read The Moon as a Harsh Mistress by Robert Handlin, a where he describes a revolution on the Moon that establishes a free political political system on the Moon, but then even it deteriorates, so the hero is then often a spaceship to the next colony. Um, I don't know. It really depends on who establishes it is at the US, is it China? Is it a corporation?
Is it is it? Is it alone musk So I don't know. Would I move there? Probably not. It strikes me it's quite claustrophour weeks after where the space suit all the time. I kind of like Earth. I like gravity. Um, it would be easy on my back. But I'm hoping that once we can build colonies in the moon, we can also replace my back or or reinvigorate it with uh, with stem cells, or maybe we can have the nano nano particles that you put into the back and
they they fix everything. You know, who knows what technology is going to bring to cure problems like my back problems. I truly believe it's going to happen. I mean, the last surgery I had was cleaning up and stem cells and it's it's it's been amazing, and that was done. That was done um, kind of in the stealth because it's it's not completely officially permitted by the FDA. Say, imagine once these things are permitted and or we
go to permissionless society and you don't have to ask permission. You can ask for forgiveness afterwards. Yeah, I have titanium in my spines, so um, you know it would be nice if I don't think I could ever get rid of the titanium in my spine. But it hasn't living to be too much, the titanium in the spine. I'm still in pretty good shape. Um. But yeah, I mean I'm excited about medical innovation anyway, So I'm not. No, I'm not that curious about living on the moon.
Let me let me stay on Earth. I mean, imagine, imagine the latency and and the internet connection problems I would have on the moon. I mean I have them in Puerto Rico. Imagine on the moon. You're on the terminator. I literally have titanium in my back. I mean big screws and you know, whole structure. It's a pity cool bionic You're on, all right, Richard says. Israeli friends of mine have spent time in China. They say Chinese idealized Jews and books like how do you invest like a
Jew? Did you encounter these sorts of positive depictions of Jewish stereotypes in your visits? Yes, Primari Israeli stereotypes more than Jewish stereotypes. They love Israel. They think Israel is amazing. They they they adore the innovation, the entrepreneurship, um, the the technology that comes out of Israel. I think a lot of technology. The China has. Unfortunately a lot of technology that I think probably China uses in the military comes from Israel. But but they
really do adore Israel. They think Israel is amazing and um, and there is something about um. There is a certain really deep respect for people who describe themselves as Jews over there. So I have noticed that I have encountered that many times in my travels in China. Uh that as a phenomenon. All right, let's see Richard says we're losing ground to China on stem cell research, one of the most obvious problems caused by by Christian Christian stick worship,
um, stick shoving leutism might must end. Yes, I mean, look, no question, Um, we're losing. I mean, luckily Europe is not quite as obsessed as America is with Christianity, so there's a lot of stem cell innovation going on in Europe. You know, it was the cloning of the sheep you remember the cloning of the sheep that happened in the UK because the UK did not have restrictions and cloning, which the United States
did. There's a lot of stem cell innovation going on in Europe that is not going on in the US. A lot of research going on in Europe over over stem cells and some treatments in places like Switzerland. Um in in in the America as you see, um, you're starting to see real medical tourism. I know people who are going to Panama, to Mexico, to
Colombia to get stem cell treatments. But would mean would it be amazing for unleashed the innovative, the American innovative innovatives, the American entrepreneurs on stem cells and and American labs on stem cells and provided them with the incentives to go full blown on stem cells and the incentives of COURSA to be able to make money off of it. With the FDA supporting stem cells, you know, doing a way with the FDA, wouldn't that be amazing? So yes,
we're definitely losing ground to the rest of the world. In China is innovating like crazy and biotech they realize biotech is an important feature of technology in the future. But again, a lot of those Chinese we could get to move to the US. We could get them to come here and do their research over here, if only we had the right visa structure, if we only
had the right immigration policy. The only thing keeping them over there is one some belief that they have which is based on some reality that Americans are anti Chinese and anti you know, in a racist way. They're racist against Chinese. And the second is just an absolute, unbelievable difficulty of getting an immigrant an immigration visa to the US. It's one of the biggest political issues out
there. We need to have more immigrants. All right. A bunch of you were asking me about Tacker, Carson and Lemon, who is fired from CNN. I saw that this morning. I actually talked about it quite a bit on my morning show, so you can go back. It's called Taka Carson and then some other things. I talked about it back then. But let's quickly go over these questions. Michael Laite says Lemon and Carson have been
let go from the media networks at roughly at the same time. Thoughts do you think there will be replaced by people better was, so I think that'll be replaced by people who are better. I think CNN has engaged over the last few months in a real effort to try to move the network to the center. I think the new CEO is trying to trying to base. He changed the perception of CNN from best end of the left to what it was when it first came out, kind of a news network for everybody, twenty
four to seven news, and and and and and centrist balanced. So I do think they'll get somebody better than Lemon at Fox. UM. I think Carson was a problem. It was a problem with dominion. He was a problem with the other lawsuits that Fox is still facing. He was a problem in terms of his attitude, but he was also a problem in the sense that he was feeding the worst elements on the right. I think what they
will get is somebody again better. How much better, I don't know, but somebody who is more UM, I don't know, a easy to control, probably from the corporate perspective, but also UM. Somebody who maybe UM is more to the sent that may be more balanced, but not too anti Trump because they can't afford to piss off his audience. So It'll be interesting to see where they replace him with. But but but they but they they can't afford to just cata to the worst conspiracy theory elements on the right,
which is what Tucker Carson did. Um Tyler says, can you believe the news about Tucker Carson? I was, I'm ecstatic. I'm really happy. Couldn't happen to a nicer person. Um, I'm glad to see Tucker Carson go. He was a bad influence on America, a bad influence on I think the rights, or a bad influence on the on the on the people who watched Fox News. I think he was a really, really, really corrupting influence on America. So I'm glad to see him go. I hope
he's marginalized somewhere and we don't see much of him in the future. I don't think that will happen. I said, that was my hope. Uh, let me see. There was some other Hopper Campbell asks, will Tucker Carson fade into obscurity like Stephen Stephan Mall and you after he was canceled. Um, I don't know. All I can say is I hope so, But I really don't know. I mean Techocoston was obviously a lot bigger than
Stephan Malling you and had a much stronger base. It's hard to know where those two point two million people who watched every one of his episodes go, and it's obviously more than three point two because it's not the same three point two every night, So I don't know where he goes, all right. Some unrelated questions, this one from yesterday by Michael I had a professor tell me Affrica is poor because of capitalism and imperialism. What economic system do African
countries actually operate under? Well, they operate under autocratic, authoritarian, corrupt economic system where the government basically the authoritarian charge basically sucks all the wealth out of the economy and puts it into a Swiss bank accounts where you know, Wagner Group exploits much of those resources by enslaving in a sense of slaving or
exploiting Africans to mine products that then they sell on the open market. It is a It is basically a economic system based on violence, and based on authoritarianism and based on central planning. The few countries in Africa that have a semblance of private property and and and free markets. Other it's just other ones that are growing the fastest, like somewhat Rwanda, Botswana, UM and Botswana and um. It was one of the country that I can't remember right now.
Africa needs capitalism, it needs property rights. When property rights implemented, Africa will be rich. Michael asks why did White Rose and other anti Nazi movements in the nineteen thirty Germany proved completely impotent. It shows morality and good
ideas can't overpower evil intellectuals who control academia. Um. It's not clear that the Nazis controlled academia early on, but because the White Rose didn't and they have other anti Nazi movements didn't have a moral and real ideological um argument against Nazism. They were also contient and they were also influenced by German philosophy.
They didn't have a philosophical argument against them. They they they were like conservatives today, They who can't argue with the left because they can't they can't challenge their altruism. So ultimately the left has to win in in that context, either through the right winning and just implementing the left policies, or the left winning in the short run. So that's why the Nazis won the Nazi one because they faced no real intellectual philosophical position. There was no principal opposition to
them. There was just practical, pragmatic opposition and maybe socialist communist opposition, which which obviously is not going to effective. You can't fight fascism with communism or communism with fascism, which is what the right is trying to do today in America. Richard said it gave a presentation to Department of Justice officials today about the supply chains. I was pleasantly surprised by how receptive they were to
my argument to deregulation and immigration reform essential financial security thoughts. I mean, that's great. I do think there are better people out there. I do think there are people even in government who understand these ideas. I think a problem is the American people and politicians we elect. I think once we have better people, we can Once we have better politicians, it won't be that difficult to turn things around. But we need to have better politicians. We
need to have better Americans, better people to elect better politicians. So I think it's fantastic, and I think the more people like you present to them, the more they hear this. The more they hear that it's important, the more likely it is that they resist the stuff coming from Washington. The more likely it is that they propose better and better policies. We elected these politicians. Robert says, Amy and Owre just back from a ten day trip
to Japan. Cool Tokyo and Kyoto and I had a yen to hear the un Brook show for your information. Ayumi and Yoshi of the Iron Man Center Japan send their greetings. Oh aren't they wonderful? I mean, both of Ui and Yoshi just amazing people. I love those guys and it's great. It's great to do stuff with them. I've had some fantastic dinners with them and had some fantastic events that we've scheduled together. So it really inspiring to
see object everywhere includes Japan and actively engage in appticativity involved. So yes, glad you got to meet them, Robert. All right, last question for the night. James says, you've got to be consistent with your shows even while traveling or super Chat, revenue and viewership will keep suffering. Consistency is key. Problem is consistency is impossible. I can do shows at two am. On the road. When I have to do stuff at eight am on
the road, it's just undoable. So you're just gonna have to suffer through my inconsistency, and I realize that revenue will suffer. That's just part of the deal. Luckily, most of the time when I travel, I'm also making money by giving talks and things like that. This trip not so much because this trip is mostly vacation. Although I am going to give talks in
Israel. I'm going to do quite a few things in Israel. I think I'm going to be debating a somebody from the government from these raided government on the judicial reforms. So I think we're gonna have a minister from the government and I'm going to debate him on the proposed due to siover films. We'll see if that happens, but I think that's part of the plan. Daniel says, I'm writing an article on industrial base in regards to military China.
You once said it takes four and a half years to build a factory because of the Clean Air Act. Do you have a source? Please? No luck finding this so far? Oh god, Um, I mean I would look for Cato. I don't know if I said four and a half years, that sounds that sounds short. Uh, you know, but look at Cato. Look at that economist I really like at Cato. Lindsey Com. Lindseycom has a lot of information like that, and I think I probably got
it from one of his articles. I would definitely check out Scott Lindsey Coomb. I think it's Scott for information like that at the Cato Institute. He has also his own sub stack where you can find all his articles. All right, everybody, it's a really late at night. Thank you for joining me for the second show. Thank you for getting us way over the target. You know, this helps keeps everything going and it compensate for the fact
that we got almost nothing yesterday. So it all balances out in the end, and you guys are great. Richard has one final question. I have sources an answer to the question. Google environmental impact studies take an average of four and a half years. You'll find plenty. Just google that sentence, hopefully, Daniel hood that just google environmental impact studies take an average of four and a half years. Thank you, Richard, and Fenn Harpa has another
question. I mentioned to you doctor Stone before while Live on AMA New Development and the show they introduced The Greediest Man Alive. It's a good way. It's a good in a good it's in a good way. Though he wants everyone to raise so he can trade with them, win win. Character. That's great and we need all of that. It's reminds you of that Patrick Ben Davide Bait David that I did yesterday about selfishness. I mean, there's
an element that's good in there and in the way he uses selfishness. We just need to clean it up dramatically, but clean it up all right, everybody, Thank you. I really appreciate the support. We've done phenomenally well today and I will see you all tomorrow. I'm gonna plan to do a show I think at noon that will be a new show. What won't be a noon? What am I talking about? Way to say noon, I've got I've got a meeting at noon, so I think it'll be have to
be at um, yeah, tomorrow at one o'clock, one o'clock. I might have to push it to two maybe two o'clock. Anyway, sometime tomorrow afternoon one or two o'clock. Well, we'll have a show and I will see you all then buy everybody and thanks again for all the super Chattis. You are great today. Thank you Troy from Australia for the five hundred stillion dollars M