Dec. 5, 2018 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
23:17
| 
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| Joanne, always in here quickly. | |
| You've got the fastest fingers in all of the planet. | |
| Hey Ryan, and Ray, Brian, Tyler, do you all have your coffee? | |
| Or the beverage of your choice. | |
| I'm very permissive with my simultaneous sips. | |
| Get in here and enjoy with me the simultaneous sip. | |
| It's time for coffee with Scott Adams. | |
| Grab your mug, your stein, your glass, your cup, your container, your chalice. | |
| Fill it with your favorite beverage. | |
| I like coffee. And join me for the simultaneous sip. | |
| Mine is prescription strength. | |
| I would like to start off with a tweet from my president. | |
| My president. | |
| I'm calling him my president today because I like what he did in this tweet and what he did that he's talking about. | |
| I will just read it to you if you have not seen it. | |
| This is a tweet from this morning from President Donald J. Trump. | |
| It's a two-parter. He says, So far, so good. | |
| It will now be considered a, quote, controlled substance. | |
| This could be a game-changer on what is, and now moving to the second part of the tweet, considered to be the worst and most dangerous, addictive, and deadly substance of them all. | |
| Last year, over 77,000 people died from fentanyl. | |
| That's a little bit of an exaggeration, but it's in the ballpark. | |
| If China cracks down on this, quote, horror drug, using... | |
| The death penalty. | |
| Did I say the death penalty? | |
| For distributors and pushers, the results will be incredible. | |
| And so I drink to effective government, one that listens to the people, one that takes bold action to get things done. | |
| This is how it's supposed to work. | |
| Now, we're not done. We don't know if China's going to do what it's supposed to do. | |
| But so far, it's looking promising. | |
| Share a drink with me. | |
| Now, there was some reporting last day or two in which people were saying, hey, how come China is not reporting the good news or the progress made at the G20, whereas the United States is crowing that we got some things, but China is kind whereas the United States is crowing that we got some things, but China is | |
| My guess on that, this is just a guess because I live in the real world, is that nobody in China was willing to write a story until they were really, really sure what President Xi said and what he would be okay with them printing, because it's China. really sure what President Xi said and what he would And President Xi may have just been busy. | |
| He's got a big country to run. | |
| He's traveling around. So they made remarks today that apparently were... | |
| We're positive. But it would make sense to me that they would not have an immediate response. | |
| Because it's a complicated topic. | |
| Who gave what? Who promised what? | |
| Who's doing what? In terms of the tariffs and trade war. | |
| So I think the press in China probably just waited. | |
| Because they couldn't afford to get it wrong. | |
| You don't even want to be 10% wrong because it looks like it's coming from Xi and that would give away their negotiating position if they said, oh yeah, we're giving away this or that. | |
| It could have been embarrassing. People could get in trouble. | |
| So I think they were quiet just because they needed to wait and make sure they really knew what President Xi had promised or not promised. | |
| Now, Let's read some more of my... | |
| I've got another tweet I tweeted around about nuclear fusion. | |
| If you don't know, nuclear fusion is that long-promised technology that's always promised but never arrives. | |
| And the idea is that instead of nuclear fission, which we have now, which is wasteful and dangerous in some ways, that you could create unlimited energy in a fairly safe way through a different technology called fusion. | |
| Now, the reason that we've never been able to create these so-called fusion reactors is because apparently the biggest engineering challenge was the magnets so the way that the way they have to contain the reaction is through enormous magnetic fields because it's the only way to contain it and apparently there have been breakthroughs recently In materials, | |
| you know, in the material science that would create new types of magnetic materials which, at least on paper, they think they can engineer something in the next three years to refine the engineering to the point where it can reach this level of magnetic strength to hold the reaction in. | |
| Now that, as I understand it, is the last of the engineering challenges, and on paper it's pretty close to working, meaning that it might be just some fiddling with the engineering of it. | |
| So whereas it used to be science fiction, meaning somebody had to invent something that didn't exist in order for fusion to work, at this point it looks like everything's been invented. | |
| Now, I told you this maybe a year or two ago, that I know somebody who's a major investor in this space, somebody who's actually investing in fusion. | |
| And one of the smartest people you'll ever meet, I won't mention his name, but, you know, hugely successful, richer than God type of person. | |
| Who told me privately that fusion is reduced now to an engineering problem. | |
| Meaning that the science has actually been solved. | |
| If they can get these magnets to actually work in an actual engineered way. | |
| So I would liken it to building, let's say somebody decided to build a building that's twice as tall as all current buildings. | |
| Well, we don't exactly know how to build that building, probably. | |
| You know, the architects would have to play with the engineers, they'd have to adjust things, because you wouldn't do it exactly like the existing buildings and just make it taller. | |
| You'd probably have to do extra engineering to make it strong enough. | |
| But we'd know how. | |
| If we wanted to build a building that was twice as tall as all existing buildings, it could be done. | |
| It's an engineering problem. | |
| It's not a science problem. | |
| So it looks like fusion has been reduced to an engineering problem. | |
| And we might see something in 10 years. | |
| Now, fusion It's a big game changer. | |
| Because what happens when you have self-driving cars and unlimited cheap energy? | |
| Did you see all those people rioting in France? | |
| They were wearing the green jackets. | |
| Those are the green jackets that everybody who drives for a living in France wears. | |
| So whether they're truckers or cab drivers or whatever. | |
| All of those people are going to be unemployed. | |
| All of them. Because the self-driving trucks and cars with their unlimited, inexpensive energy will take over that entire industry. | |
| Now here's one of the... | |
| One of the filters on the world that not everybody shares. | |
| I'm going to tie together a few points. | |
| We talked about fusion. | |
| We'll make the driving industry just go away. | |
| Self-driving vehicles plus unlimited energy. | |
| People are just going to be looking for other jobs. | |
| Here's a point in economics that I have not heard anybody say as clearly as I'm going to say it right now. | |
| Are they yellow vests, somebody's saying? | |
| Well, yellow green. A hundred years ago, almost all immigration was good. | |
| Because a hundred years ago you didn't have technology and if somebody came in and they didn't have an education, you could still put them right to work. | |
| You could clear a little extra farmland and grow a little extra stuff because now you have more employees. | |
| You also had not much in the way of social services. | |
| So if somebody came in a hundred years ago, they added to the economy immediately because they could do the work and we needed workers. | |
| There was no room constraints, because the country was still, you know, there just seemed to be like there was lots of room. | |
| And there were no social services, so nobody was paying taxes to support them. | |
| Today, The situation is reversed. | |
| Because we're right at the point where even the people who already have jobs, the people in their yellow vests, for example, they're not going to be employed in 10 years. | |
| They won't have jobs in 10 years, at least not the same ones they have. | |
| And the people coming into the country will only be able to do the types of jobs that don't exist. | |
| And they'll be coming into countries with robust welfare systems. | |
| So everything that worked about the economics of migration in the past, the fact that we didn't have a welfare support system, and the fact that there were unlimited manual jobs, It's completely reversed. | |
| So now there's a huge welfare system and all of those jobs are going away. | |
| In fact, there might not be enough for the people who are already here. | |
| So I was checking my portfolio this morning and I realized that if you're trying to invest for 20 years, 10 or 20 years, that And by the way, this is not investment advice, so please don't consider this any kind of investment advice. | |
| But the question you have to ask yourself is, what would be the difference between countries that control their immigration and those that don't? | |
| For example, if Europe continues treating immigration the way it used to be 100 years ago, which is that it's all positive, it's good for the economy, it's good for the people, it's just all good. | |
| In a situation where it will have massive upheaval, it will tax their social systems, and jobs will be so sparse in 10 years at the lower end, it's going to be problems. | |
| So you really have to think about whether you would want money in a country that was very permissive immigration-wise. | |
| And I'm also going to predict That more countries are going to want their own Trump. | |
| I'm watching the fentanyl news that we just talked about. | |
| And Canada has also a huge fentanyl problem. | |
| So their problem is big. | |
| It's smaller in total numbers because of the population differences. | |
| But Canada didn't get this done. | |
| Canada did not convince China to criminalize fentanyl. | |
| That was President Trump. | |
| And they're going to be the, ideally, they will maybe benefit in some ways from that. | |
| So I think you're going to see, and you see in France that I think the people rioting probably wish they had a little bit more Trump and a little less Macron. | |
| So you might see a big wave of countries saying, uh-oh, let's be more like Trump. | |
| I think that's coming. | |
| Now, I made a bold prediction. | |
| A bold prediction on social media yesterday. | |
| And I predicted that we have reached peak climate change alarm. | |
| Now, I'm not saying we've reached peak temperature. | |
| That's a separate thing. | |
| I'm saying that in terms of our alarm over it, I think we've peaked. | |
| And here are the things I'm looking at to make that calculation. | |
| Number one, what just happened in France? | |
| You saw that the population that is going to take the brunt of anything we do just decided they're not going to. | |
| They just decided that they're not going to take it. | |
| So I think other countries are going to look at what happened in France and they're going to say, well, you can make a law to tax our gas, but it's going to look like France when you do. | |
| You know, there's going to be a riot. | |
| So I think the population has reached the peak tolerance for raising their taxes to deal with something that they can't quite feel and see and touch the way they can their paycheck. | |
| So that's the first thing. Second thing I think you're seeing is that every year that goes by and we don't see a catastrophe that's obviously a climate change related thing. | |
| Every time there's anything like a fire or whatever, the news will say it's climate change. | |
| But it's getting less and less believable because the ocean isn't going up. | |
| Every year seems pretty similar to the one before in terms of our experience of it. | |
| So there's that, although the news will keep talking about any situations where it does look like it's climate change. | |
| But maybe the most important one is this latest climate report that showed that the biggest risk is a 10% less GDP over 80 years than it could have been. | |
| So instead of the GDP going this higher, this much higher, it's gonna go only this much higher. | |
| In other words, we won't even notice it. | |
| So the most scary and credible current numbers about climate change tell us, it looks like we can handle that. | |
| And then you add on top of that fusion, And you add on top of it every other technology that will have some role in this. | |
| And it's feeling like closer to solved than dire. | |
| That's what it feels like to me. | |
| And I'm not sure I would have even said that a month ago. | |
| I was actually really scared until the latest climate report. | |
| Scared in the sense that it seemed like a real danger we had to worry about. | |
| And then the climate report came out, and it was designed to scare us and did exactly the opposite. | |
| And said, eh, it costs a little money. | |
| We'll just get better air conditioning. | |
| I told you that Richard Branson is involved with some kind of a $3 million prize for developing the best new kind of air conditioning. | |
| So if you have the best kind of new air conditioning in 10 years, and you've got better economies because things are just improving every year, and you've got fusion maybe in 10, you're looking pretty good. | |
| Looking pretty good. I will be flying out in a little bit to snow country myself, and I'm going to have to get ready for that. | |
| Let's see if I talked about everything I want to talk about. | |
| Yes, I did. Yes, I did. | |
| Alright, so it seems to me that The biggest problems in the world are being addressed. | |
| I think healthcare is still the one that Seems like it's dangling out there. | |
| The Trump administration is working hard on reducing regulations and making things more market-friendly and capitalism-friendly, which should lower prices. | |
| But they need to package that up a lot better. | |
| Oh, misandry. | |
| Yes, I'm sorry. So, there's a tweet this morning from Kirsten Gillibrand. | |
| Gillibrand? Gillibrand? | |
| Gillibrand? U.S. Senator from New York. | |
| And she actually said this. | |
| This is her tweet from this morning. | |
| It's almost hard to believe, isn't it? | |
| And she says, this is Kirsten Gilbrand, a sitting senator, who says, our future is, colon, female, intersectional, powered by our belief in one another, and we're just getting started. | |
| Our future is female. | |
| Now, that might be true. | |
| I'm not gonna argue with the fact of it or the non-fact of it, but are you allowed to say that? | |
| Are you allowed to be a US senator and say that men are gonna be left behind? | |
| Because that's what she's saying. She's not saying the future is equality. | |
| She's saying the future is not men. | |
| She might be right, and it would be this kind of attitude that would make that happen. | |
| But how do you keep your job after this? | |
| Seriously. How do you go full sexist, anti-male, As a U.S. sitting senator with no embarrassment whatsoever. | |
| This is, you know, she's proudly saying that the future is women. | |
| Imagine if anybody said anything like that for any other category. | |
| You know, I usually don't like to do the, well, imagine if somebody else did it. | |
| I hate that. But this is one where you could put in anything. | |
| The future is, fill it in with anything else. | |
| Could you say that? I don't think you could say that out loud and keep your job in any field, in any business. | |
| If you worked in the corporate America, could you keep your job after you said the future is female? | |
| I don't know. Could you? | |
| Somebody said she has two boys. | |
| I don't know about her personal life. | |
| Now, it could be that what she means Is that, you know, women will do better than they're doing now. | |
| Maybe. Something like that. | |
| And, of course, I give her the 48-hour courtesy because this is one where there could be room for misinterpretation. | |
| So if she'd like to clarify in the next 48 hours, I will fully accept that clarification. | |
| Yes, the 48-hour rule for clarification and or apology is in effect, but this is really jaw-dropping. | |
| It feels like... | |
| How do I say this? | |
| It feels like... | |
| I don't think women understand... | |
| What it's like to be male. | |
| Just as men don't understand what it's like to be women and just like nobody really understands what it's like to be anybody else. | |
| So we'll start with that assumption that's true. | |
| But one of the things that women really don't understand about men is that, at least in the United States, men do a lot to compensate for the fact that they feel like they have advantages. | |
| In other words, men make lots of allowances for the fact that there are advantages to being male. | |
| I can pretty much go anywhere without being afraid. | |
| I can be alone with anybody without being afraid that something will happen. | |
| There are probably some jobs I can get that would be harder for a woman to get. | |
| So you have advantages. | |
| What would happen if it just turned into all-out war? | |
| And I don't mean war in a violent way. | |
| I mean, what if men were allowed to just absolutely compete against women without any hesitation, without any obstacles, without any social constraints? | |
| No violence. I'm not talking about that. | |
| I'm just saying that all the social constraints come off and men just say, all right, it's us against you now. | |
| So we're not even going to pretend we're on the same team anymore. | |
| It's just us against you. | |
| What does that world look like? | |
| Do you want to live in that world? | |
| That's a world you don't want to live in. | |
| And I'd be a little bit afraid about Trying to materialize that kind of world. | |
| So... Sharia. |
Export Selection