Interview: DC Central Planning Can’t Fix The Housing Market
David Bonson, manager of an $8B wealth fund and National Review contributor, argues that housing shortages stem from stagnant construction—not institutional investors like Blackstone—while dismissing Donald Trump’s proposed fixes as counterproductive, citing Hayek’s "knowledge problem" to reject centralized planning. He frames work as a divine blessing tied to Genesis 3, contrasting it with AI-driven isolation, which he warns could enable "statist tyranny." The episode concludes that market failures reflect deeper cultural shifts, demanding bottom-up solutions over top-down mandates to restore community and human dignity. [Automatically generated summary]
He is the manager of $8 billion with a B dollar wealth fund.
He's also a prolific writer.
He is a contributing writer for National Review.
He serves on the National Review Institute board.
He's named one of America's top financial advisors by Barron's, Forbes, and the Financial Times.
He's also regularly on Fox News and Fox Business, as well as a contributor to World Magazine.
And I wanted to talk to David about several issues.
First of all, his expertise, of course, is in economics, but he also is a published Christian author.
He has some perspectives on the meaning of life and how to find life's meaning in your work and other things.
So we want to touch on that as well.
He had a rebuttal to a piece that was done on The Atlantic talking about the isolation that has become characteristic of our society.
So joining us now is David Bonson.
Thank you so much for joining us, David.
Well, thank you so much for having me.
Pleasure to be with you.
Thank you.
Let's talk a little bit about this piece from The Atlantic.
I thought it was pretty amazing.
And it began with an anecdote, as most of these stories do.
This is a guy, he's in a restaurant, I think it was North Carolina.
And he says he's sitting there and he's seeing one person after the other come into the restaurant, grabbing a paper bag and going out.
There's not really any interaction.
You know, there's not a group of people coming in and having a meal at a table.
They're not even really interacting with the people behind the counter.
And he wrings his hand and says, this is awful.
This is what is happening to American society.
And he said he talked to them that it was a very bustling place before the pandemic.
And yet he believed, didn't he, that it was some kind of a problem of capitalism.
What did he say the problem was?
How did we get to this?
Yeah, what the author ends up doing is concluding that it wasn't a problem of markets.
It was rather markets adjusting to what the problem was with the culture, that the society moving towards increased alienation, a decreased value on community, on being together.
And of course, that was an opening anecdote to what was a really longer piece.
I did a whole podcast at my National Review Capital Record podcast about the broader subject of how do we reverse this trend of greater alienation and isolation in society.
And one of the points I make is that this restaurant's not going to go out of business just because people don't want to go out to eat together anymore.
So they're going to shift to more deliveries and DoorDash and to-go orders and some of the other things.
So the business of the restaurant might find a market mechanism that maintains some cash flow, but the societal issue that undergirds it is really the challenge.
And I want to make the argument that markets are not causing the problem.
They're responding to the problem.
We don't blame markets when thousands of people go out together for big successful concert events.
We don't give markets the credit for that, but that's an example of markets accommodating a societal trend for the togetherness of what was the successful Taylor Swift concert tour a couple years ago.
The point I think you're bringing up, David, is that there was a Societal trend taking place before COVID of people valuing community and togetherness less, and COVID exacerbated it.
And it's a trend that we ought to be very concerned about.
I absolutely agree.
And of course, my listeners know that I was a pandemic skeptic before, during, and especially after.
I mean, even the people who are pushing this on us say, well, we did our best.
We just did the wrong thing.
And that was, as you point out, it was a trend that had been happening for quite some time.
And it was actually war gaming and simulations that they had done since two months before 9-11 to lock everybody down and to keep everybody locked down until you got their special formula.
So I was skeptical of that all along.
And I've seen the ways that this has been used and how it has advanced a lot of the, let's say, the agenda.
Because when you look at that, as well as some things like universal basic income and compare that to the stimulus checks, it seems to me like there was a lot that was going on with that that was pushing us down this very bad path of isolation and dependency on the government.
And it doesn't surprise me to see the Atlantic take the approach that when the government gaslit and forced a lockdown and isolation, that they would then blame people who responded to that as businesses trying to stay alive.
Well, I believe that pandemic response is unforgivable, outrageous.
I think there were some people who were better intentioned than others, that all of it still, you know, you don't judge a policy by its intentions.
You judge it by its results and it was bad results.
But the lockdowns and pandemic issue ended a long time ago.
And one of the things Derek points out in the Atlantic article he wrote a year ago is that the worst year at 2021 was very bad for this.
Then 22 was bad.
And then it got worse in 23.
No one was locked down by 2023.
So what you see is this sort of craving of people dining alone.
Robert Putnam's book, Bowling Alone, was written in the year 2000.
Okay.
That was 25 years ago.
That was well before the pandemic.
The death of community is a postmodern and secular problem, not merely a byproduct of the very bad COVID policies.
And I believe that societies that don't value mediating institutions like and family end up being very lonely societies.
Oh, I agree.
Yeah, it was a trend that was already in place.
And this accelerated it, intensified it significantly, I think.
Accelerated Loneliness00:07:52
And we're living with that.
I guess that was one of my things I was most surprised about was how rapidly this accelerated trends like that that we already saw in place and kind of solidified them.
You know, in my son's generation, almost everybody meets their spouse or whatever that they know, have met them online initially.
And there used to be places where you could actually go and have a human-to-human interaction with somebody rather than primarily being online.
And it's such a strange thing to see that.
And it really is that kind of isolation.
And many have bragged about that being the design, you know, they want to have like a ready player one environment where we all just sat there in our virtual world, you know, communicating with people on the outside rather than having any kind of in-person communication.
That's exactly right.
Dining is but one example.
All sorts of various community activities.
You know, we can talk about the role that COVID played in exacerbating it, but nothing has exacerbated it quicker than screens, than electronics.
And I think there is a very healthy way in which one can use electronics for productive use.
There's plenty of benefits that come from it for people staying in touch.
It's an easier way to send your long-lost aunt and uncle on the other side of the country family photos.
There's no reason to be Luddite or a technophobe about things, but to the extent that people have replaced human interaction with screen time, it is entirely unhealthy.
Well, it's one of those things where because it makes it easier and available to not actually be in person and it takes some of the discomfort of some of the aspects that you would have in meeting with somebody in person, takes a little bit of that out.
It is kind of seductive in that regard.
And I think we're going to see a lot more of that as AI intrudes more and more into our lives.
But let's talk a little bit about the solution because you wrote a whole book really about a perspective of life full-time, work and the meaning of life.
Give us a little bit of an overview of that.
Well, I try to make the argument from creational theology, from the very beginning of the world as to what God told us as to why he created us, that our endeavors here on earth matter, that work is not just something we do for transactional benefit to help feed us or sustain us, but that it is a venue for creative and productive outlet,
that in producing goods and services that enhance quality of life, we can enable our dreams to come true, our passions, we can develop our skills in ways that bring tremendous meaning and joy to our lives.
This is a productive, proactive view of human agency versus a reactive and I think very sedentary one where people are sitting still waiting for things to happen to them.
Yes.
And one allows for humans to experience great joy and meaning and dignity, and it reflects the created intent and character of our creator.
And one is depressing.
One leads to isolation.
One leads to this societal malady that we're dealing with now.
Work is not the source of our problems.
It is the solution.
Absolutely.
And it's one more aspect here where we can see the wisdom of God, the wisdom of the Bible, in the sense that this is what we were designed for.
And we know that that is very effective.
As a matter of fact, just recently we had Dr. Oz out there saying, we need to keep people working longer and retiring later.
So the cynics came in and said, see, he just doesn't want us to have a nice life.
And yet he was pointing out that study after study have shown that if you have a fulfilling job, as a matter of fact, people who are doing work that is not menial or reproductive typically naturally work for a longer period of time until health makes it impossible for them to do that.
But if it's something like some kind of an intellectual pursuit or something like that, that's a part of their work or some kind of creative process, they typically do work longer.
And I'm thinking of the many conductors that I've seen who continue conducting the symphony orchestra in the 80s and 90s.
And it keeps them young and alive.
It's not just waving their arms around, you know, getting that kind of exercise, but it's something that engages their spirit and their intellect.
And so there is a truth to that because there is a truth to what God said.
He designed us to work.
He designed us to tend the garden.
Work has become more difficult because after the fall, God cursed that work, and it has now been deliberately made more difficult.
And yet there are ways that we can still find our purpose in it, even if it is tainted by the curse of sin.
And I will say what I think is a little bit more biblically precise language in Genesis 3.
We don't generally talk about children as being cursed.
There's pains of childbirth now.
But that verse came before in Genesis chapter 3.
The curse to the woman was the pains of childbirth.
It was not the children.
And the curse to the man was not work.
It was the sweat of the brow.
It was the thorns and thistles.
You're right that with the taint of sin, work now.
Hang on a second.
David, you're breaking up there a little bit.
We can pull this back here.
I'm not sure why.
Yeah.
Do I sound okay now?
Was it breaking up when you heard it, Lance, or was it just on my end?
It was breaking up.
It was.
Okay, it's okay now.
Yeah, it was just, it was cutting out.
So we didn't get the last of that.
So let's pick up the market.
Let me pick it up from the sentence before.
We'll edit that together.
Yeah.
I think that the man that we talk about thorns and thistles, that it is a curse that now is going to be accompanying work, but that the underlying work itself remains a blessing, just like children remain a blessing.
Sin polluted a lot of things, but in God's redemptive plan to restore all of us to an edenic condition, I believe that we err to believe that work itself was cursed.
Work and family both predated the fall.
And that perspective, I think, is important theologically.
Yes, exactly right.
Yeah, it is work is harder for us now, but even hard work like that, difficult work has its reward, you know, just like the pain of childbirth, and yet there is a reward of the children as well.
And so both of those things are there.
The process is painful, but the reward that we were built for is still fundamentally there.
Is that the basis then of the thesis of your book, Full Time, Work and the Meaning of Life?
It is, that there is not 50% of people who are made to work and 50% who are made to consume that because all of us were made in the image of God.
And he did this, by the way, because he loves us, not because he hates us.
That we all have a ability to work.
Some have different skills and interests and abilities and backgrounds and whatnot, but that there is no one God made not in his image.
Housing Imbalance Explained00:14:55
And if part of being an image bearer of God is the creative, productive, innovative capacity that he has, then this means that what I'm speaking to doesn't apply to just Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos.
It applies to all of us in some capacity to go and wake up every day with the blessing of being able to be productive, the four-letter word we call work.
I agree with that.
That's great.
And we should all, I think we'd all be better off if we had that perspective.
Let's talk about what many of us work for, and that is a roof over our heads.
And you talked about the root of the housing problem in a recent article that you had.
Trump's got one idea of how he thinks he could, actually, he's got several.
He came up with 50-year mortgage life indenturement to the mortgage company.
That was one of them.
Of course, manipulating interest rates.
And now he's got the idea of prohibition of institutional investors.
And you take issue with that.
Tell us why you think that is the wrong approach to it and what the real root of the housing problem is.
Well, I take issue with almost all of them, although that one might be among the worst.
We have a tremendous problem of inadequate supply.
Housing is too expensive because we need more of it.
And this is basic economics.
When supply stays level, but the demand curve moves up, then you get higher prices.
And so you need an equilibrium between supply and demand in order to avoid prices going higher, let alone higher than the rate of inflation itself.
House prices have outpaced wage growth and job growth and economic growth for some time.
And that is unsustainable and it creates an affordability price problem.
Vice President Kamala Harris, when she was running for president, said, well, I'll address the affordability issue by giving every American $25,000.
President Trump has said, or every American wants to buy a first-time home.
President Trump said, I'm going to address it by having Fannie and Freddie buy a ton of mortgage bonds so it creates more supply of mortgage financing and pushes interest rates down.
Both things feed demand, but do nothing about supply.
And when he talks about supply, he says the institutional people that have come in and built new homes and bought homes have now made it more unaffordable.
The reality is, first of all, the largest institutional holder owns about 60,000 homes, 30,000 that they own to sell, 30,000 they own to rent.
This is in a nation with 90 million homes.
Some of the cities with the worst home price appreciation, meaning the lowest, have the highest level of institutional ownership.
Some of the cities that have the highest home price appreciation and the biggest unaffordability problem have no institutional ownership.
So there's no real empirical evidence that this is a factor at all.
But what it does do is tell Americans who they're allowed to buy and sell their home to and from.
Yeah, exactly.
It's just outrageous.
And so it's not only not addressing the problem, but it is a solution that is outside of market principles that most of us on the right have believed in for a long time.
That's right.
And you point out in your article, American Enterprise Institute going through and looking at the data behind it, that 80% of all institutionally owned homes exist in just 5% of U.S. counties.
So again, that's not the systemic issue for prices because they're seeing this everywhere.
And he also pointed out that not a single country in America has even has 10% institutional ownership share.
So yeah, that's not the issue, clearly, when you look at the numbers.
But again, what he's talking about doing is, as you point out, it's going to feed demand.
I look at this in a sense like the car issue.
Look at how unaffordable cars have gotten.
I talked about this week the electric vehicles and how they were bragging that this new type of electric vehicle would be priced at under $60,000.
I thought, how is that a selling feature?
That is so incredibly expensive.
I went back and I looked at the average car price and adjusted it for inflation.
And that's going from 1974.
So the last 50 years or so, that is double what it would be if you just adjusted for the inflation, for the devaluation of the dollar.
And so there's something else going on here.
We know that the price of cars, it's not like it has a supply issue.
It's really a pricing issue because the car manufacturers would be more than happy to ramp this up.
But it's all the regulations that are put onto the cars are making it very expensive.
What about the regulations that make houses more expensive?
Because they got a lot of mandated stuff with regulations from that standpoint as well.
How does that affect the supply side in your view?
Well, it's a huge issue.
And it doesn't just affect the supply side in getting priced in.
It affects the supply side in not getting new supply.
Yeah.
Because some of these regulations are so expensive that they simply cannot build.
And or it takes so long to build that you end up not keeping up with growing demand.
There's a few things that all played into this.
And I'll do this very quickly for your listeners.
But you had the financial crisis.
There was a big glut of supply relative to demand.
And when the bubble burst, it was very difficult to get capital investment into housing.
And then they came in with a lot of new regulations about the banks, what they were and weren't allowed to do.
And so there was so much excess inventory that had to be worked through as millions of Americans had bought homes they couldn't afford.
So that was going to set everything back a few years.
And it made a lot of sense why there wouldn't be a lot of people lining up to build new homes in the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis.
But then combined with that, demographically at the time, we had millennials becoming adult age and normally would be buying a home, starting a family, but they were getting married five years, 10 years later than their parents did.
They were having kids five, 10, 12 years later.
So it put a big increase of demand on multifamily homes and a big decrease in demand on single family.
But then a few more years go by.
It turns out they do want to get married.
They do want to have kids, even though they're now into their 30s instead of their 20s.
And so that is what it is.
But lo and behold, now the housing crisis purge is long gone.
A lot of millennials have gotten older.
There's a huge demand for single family housing, but we haven't built any new homes in 10 years.
Then the COVID moment happens.
Interest rates go to zero.
There's tons of demand, low-price financing.
Everybody wants to move to a bigger home and we don't have the supply.
It pushes prices up.
Now you have a ton of people own homes at very low interest rates and they don't want to sell.
They think they've made a bunch of money on their home, but now all of the young people entering the workforce can't afford to buy a home.
There's three or four things involved there.
Some are more dominant than others, but I put all of them together to say it isn't a simplistic thing.
People that want to blame Blackstone for the housing crisis or blame Fannie Frankie for the unaffordability thing or just blame the Fed or whatever.
There's a lot of different things going on here.
But the fundamental solution is that you don't have enough supply.
And where you do have states that didn't give in to SECA and the environmental regulations and burdensome permitting and zoning requirements, they were able to keep in front of it by building a lot of new supply.
Now, house prices got more expensive in Phoenix and Dallas and Charlotte and Miami and Nashville, too, even though they were much better behaved states about building new supply.
But that's because their demand was huge.
And so thank God they built a lot of new supply because they had a lot of new demand because a lot of people left blue states to move to red states that were behaving themselves.
Yeah.
Well, we look at building code.
You look at building code and the massive expansion of regulations.
Much of that being driven by Washington, pushing out regulations for people, do this, do that.
It's going to be greener if you do this.
And so there's a lot of those types of things that are there.
And when you talk, you brought up the concern about Blackstone and people get Blackstone and BlackRock mixed up and you point that out.
But I think that kind of plays into people's suspicion because BlackRock made so much money out of the derivatives market that created the real estate crash that was at the heart of the real estate crash stuff.
They made so much money with that.
Everybody's thinking, oh, they're going to do something about that again.
I think that's a big part of this policy that I would characterize Trump's policy as a mixture of demagoguery Democrat economics.
What do you think?
Well, I think there's a lot of demagoguery.
I'm not sure what BlackRock had to do with the derivatives market in the financial crisis, right?
They were just a passive asset manager that had very little fingerprints around all that.
There's a lot people could criticize BlackRock for.
There's certain things they could compliment BlackRock for.
I have a pretty thoughtful take on the good, bad, and ugly of BlackRock, but they have almost nothing to do with housing, but Blackstone is a larger, I don't blame people for getting BlackRock and Blackstone mixed up.
That's an easy enough mistake to make.
I do, however, blame people for still holding on to the class warfare narrative when it has been corrected, when it has been pointed out.
Hey, we're not talking about BlackRock guys.
We're talking about Blackstone, but the demagoguery is too important to them to let go of.
I want to hold on to truthful narratives when we critique public policy.
And I don't like seeing my friends on the right hold on to untruthful narratives just because it fits a demagoguery that has become baked in the cake.
Yeah, I've said many times the Republicans are the Democrats of my youth and the Democrats are the Marxists of my youth.
We have drifted in that direction on both sides.
And so it is kind of interesting, as I said, kind of the demagoguery as well as the Democrat policies.
And you point out in your op-ed piece about how this sounds like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
Even Trump, I think, by the way, by the way, if I'm being fair here, some of it does not sound like them.
It's literally them.
It was, you know, banning institutional ownership of homes, limiting credit card fees.
That was actual legislation that these two socialist senators wrote.
Yeah, well, you know, I think that there is something to say about usury laws.
I think that was something that served us well as a society in the past.
I think there's been a huge imbalance in terms of what they actually have to pay to get their money from the Fed or whatever and what they charge people.
I think we've gotten into loan shark territory there.
So I'm kind of sympathetic to putting something on about usury.
But of course, what Trump is talking about is a one-year moratorium on it.
And to me, that is no different than a kind of a come-on rate to get you to switch your credit card company that we've seen over and over again.
A one-year moratorium on lowering the rates really doesn't do much to help.
You can actually get a better deal than that with changing credit card companies.
Yeah, I don't believe that the credit card companies have anything to do with usury laws biblically defined.
I mean, the concept of not having exorbitive interest, but in terms of usury being a personal law with one's neighbor who is destitute and hard up and not taking advantage of them for commercial purposes, credit cards, the interest cost is zero when you pay your bill every month.
This is revolving and non-purpose credit that one lender in America has $7 billion of bad debt write downs per year because this is totally unsecured lending.
And so the cost of credit cards to low-income and new borrowers or maybe people with troubled credit past, the cost of it has to factor in just for one bank, $7 billion of people that don't pay their credit card bill back.
So Dave, my problem is if I'm afraid of usury, which it sounds like you and I both are, I believe this creates a lot more usury because when the banks stop generating credit cards because they're going to lose money, their net profit on the credit card business is somewhere between 7% and 9%.
When they then say, okay, well, now we can't charge more than 10% and we're going to lose $7 billion on bad borrowers.
So we're just not going to extend credit cards to a whole segment of the population that needs them for building credit, for expenditures, for medical emergencies, what have you.
Where are those people going to go?
They're going to go to real loan sharks, to pay Day lenders, to other higher cost, higher usury expenditures.
So that's why I opposed it when Bernie Sanders wrote this bill last year.
And while I want to see cost of credit be proportionate, there's one thing that really does hold the credit card companies in line, and that is competition.
But what President Trump's trying to do is eliminate competition and make everybody charge the same amount.
That's not going to help.
No, yes.
I would argue, though, I would say one more thing.
I'd say if they've got that big a bad debt issue, as you pointed out, maybe they're not doing due diligence when they extend credit.
The Saddest Part of Recent Economic Lunacy00:02:56
So maybe that should be a part of it.
You can't do due diligence on credit card borrowers.
They have no assets and often no income and no credit.
So the due diligence means not giving them credit.
And society hates that even more.
It's a risky form of credit.
And what they do to pay for it, pay for the lack of due diligence.
Because this is not like a home underwriting when you're looking at income verification and you have an underlying asset you can repossess.
What they do is they charge 20% because they're going to recover the bad debt from good payers with a higher interest rate.
That's the business model.
And if you take away that, then you can say, hey, we are going to have to do harder underwriting.
And that means we're not going to give about 2 million of you credit cards.
There's trade-offs.
Right.
Right.
Now, when you look at some of the other policies of Donald Trump in terms of economics, you wrote an op-ed piece for the National Review.
And it was titled The Saddest Part of this Recent Economic Lunacy.
What is the economic lunacy in your view?
And what is the saddest part of it?
Well, in that particular article, it was all in about a four-day period, I believe, where the president announced, and I'm going to say some really great economic things that the president has done and hopefully will do.
But what I was referring to there was the ban on institutional ownership.
We've already talked.
My opinions on credit card interest caps that we've already talked about.
That I'm going to make Fannie and Freddie go buy $200 billion of mortgage bonds to try to manipulate interest rates.
And then saying, I'm going to tell our defense companies that they can't return capital to shareholders.
So, our private companies like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon and Boeing, that we're not going to allow them to reward investors with dividends and stock buybacks.
As if somehow we're going to maintain our superiority and as a defense industry, if we can't attract capital, and what causes you to not attract capital is treating capital poorly.
So, he had all four of those ideas in about a five-day period.
I wrote an article at National Review criticizing all of it.
And yet, right now, I hear that the White House is very seriously considering indexing capital gains on primary residents to inflation.
That's a brilliant idea.
That's supply side.
That will enable people that want to sell a home but are holding it because of the tax burden, a tremendous tax relief that incentivizes a natural flow of activity that creates new available inventory in the housing market.
He, in his first term, reduced the corporate income tax from 35% to 21%.
In the Big Beautiful Bill Act last year, which had plenty of things in it I didn't like and plenty of things they didn't do enough.
The Knowledge Problem00:07:26
They didn't cut spending enough, in my opinion.
But it has supply-side tax deductions to incentivize more business investment, full expensing, bonus depreciation, deduction for research and development.
So, I'm not a constant critic of the president's economic agenda, but I do want to call it out when some of the good things in his economic agenda are going to be impeded by the bad things in the economic agenda.
And where it comes from is impatience.
It's the same thing that caused Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren to come up with these ideas.
The belief that government needs to do something now.
Most of the time, when government does something now, they make it worse, not better.
Oh, yeah.
And you talk about that.
You talk about human action, human freedom.
You talk about some of the Austrian economists like Mises and Hayek and so forth.
The knowledge problem, and I've always said that about centralized control and centralized planning.
Even the smartest person doesn't have sufficient information to make these decisions like the marketplace does.
It's kind of the invisible hand that is there.
And yet, do you think that they will use the idea of artificial intelligence to attack that knowledge problem?
In other words, saying, well, we can sort through massive amounts of information as they can with AI.
They can go through and do audits of individuals and a lot of things like that to organize and find the needle in the haystack.
Are they going to then try to make that argument that we ought to let government do it with their artificial intelligence?
How do you see that breaking out?
If people don't fight back against this, they have no idea what kind of tyranny and statism is coming.
I agree.
Because the notion that all we're talking about, the knowledge problem means they don't know what questions to ask.
They don't know time and place circumstances.
They don't know the immediate context the way a person who runs a trucking company in Nebraska knows or a bakery in Des Moines, Iowa, that they have local access and thought process and history and whatnot at a very imminent proximate level, that those are the decision factors that matter most in what we do that Washington, D.C. can never have.
The idea that AI is going to give the government the ability to do it in a better way than the humans using their own language learning models and then the application from that knowledge.
That you could say, well, AI gave us more information, so we may as well let the information go to bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. because they're really smart.
Even if they get the information because of AI, that doesn't solve Hayek's knowledge problem as to what they do with that information contextualized to one's own individual family, business, community, et cetera.
Buying into that argument is an invitation for statist tyranny.
I agree.
And I'm very concerned about the AI initiative.
That's one of the things that concerns me so much.
The Genesis Act and clearing the decks for AI to go basically unregulated for 10 years because there's a great deal of harm that can be done by AI by the government.
There needs to be regulation of the government's use for AI, I think.
And that's one of the things that really concerns me a great deal.
We've talked about a lot of different things, and I really do appreciate your perspective on it, David.
And very interesting.
And I enjoy reading your articles.
I have not read your book yet, but I'm looking forward to doing that at some point in time.
I think we all need to get back to human interaction and the importance of person-to-person interactions, the family and the community and other things like that.
And I think all this, the new technologies being thrown at us, the rapidly increasing change is naturally pushing us away unless we fight against that tide.
And I think it's important for us to understand where we're being, where we're drifting to.
I used to go to Daytona Beach a lot with my family, and you could get pulled out with the undertow and not really realize how far you were out until the lifeguard whistled you in.
And so we're trying to act like a lifeguard and whistle people in from this drift that is taking us out to sea.
And I think you've got your finger on the pulse of this.
We have to get back to our interaction and our families and our relationship with God.
That's very true.
Thank you so much for that.
Amen.
I appreciate your kind words and I agree with you completely.
And I think it's a great analogy.
We don't want to get pulled away without realizing we're getting pulled away.
And yet also, one of the greatest agents for change here is going to be us modeling the right behavior.
People, the society is not going to change if we're not changing, if we're not doing the right things.
Yes.
It starts with each and every one of us and then it goes out like a pebble being dropped in a pond.
You know, that you get things right with yourself as much as you can.
And that's going to move out to your family, your community.
It's really got to come from the bottom up.
It's got to happen one person at a time.
We're in agreement on that as well.
Thank you so much.
David Bonson at the Bonson Group, you have a website?
Yeah, so dividendcafe.com is the easiest one to remember.
That way people don't have to spell anything tricky like Bonson.
DividendCafe.com, plenty of my economic writing and investment writing and information there.
And then for those that are interested, Bonson.com is where all of my other material, theology, politics, all that fun stuff can be found.
Great.
And I'll spell it for them, B-A-H-S-E-N.
B-A-H-N-S-E-N.
Oh, okay.
There you go.
See, you just illustrated the point for us.
That's right.
I did it for you.
The good news is God gave me a last name that is easy to find on Google, but the bad news is he gave me a last name that it has to be spelled on radio.
That's right.
Thank you so much, David.
Appreciate that.
Have a good day.
God bless.
The Common Man They created Common Core.
It dumbed down our children.
They created Common Past to track and control us.
Their Commons Project to make sure the commoners own nothing and the communist future.
They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary.
But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God.
That is what we have in common.
That is what they want to take away.
Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.
They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us.
It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide.
Please share the information and links you'll find at theedavidnightshow.com.
Thank you for listening.
Thank you for sharing.
If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers.