Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 3, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams

01:00:16

Episode 553 Scott Adams: Why President Trump Will Win 2020 in HUGE Landslide

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Bump, bump, bump, bump, bump.
	You know. You know.
	Yeah, I've been studying international sign language.
	I don't have all of the language yet, so I can't sign as well as I'd like to.
	I've only got some of the basics.
	For example, this is international sign language for would you like to have coffee with me?
	I think. I'm sort of guessing.
	I didn't really read that anywhere, but it seems like this would be it.
	So, if you'd like to have coffee with me, if you'd like to enjoy the unparalleled pleasure of the simultaneous sip, which comes with dopamine, you'll be providing that yourself with my help.
	If you'd like to participate, grab your cup, your glass, your mug.
	It could be a steiner, a chalice, or a tankard.
	Maybe a thermos, maybe a flask.
	Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee.
	And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the simultaneous sip.
	It goes well with gratitude and optimism.
	Thank you.
	Two things that I have plenty of today.
	Let's talk about all the fun things in the news.
	Number one, I love it when this president goes to Great Britain.
	First, Great Britain, of course, has the, quote, special relationship with the United States.
	And we do.
	We certainly have a special relationship.
	But part of that special relationship is that the Brits have a certain sense of humor that I really enjoy.
	And the United States has a certain sense of humor that I also really enjoy.
	So when the funniest person in the United States, President Trump, takes a visit to probably the funniest country that isn't the United States, in terms of a sense of humor, it gets fun.
	Now, I remember when everybody was complaining that, oh, I hate it, you know, we don't want to be in a situation where the President's rhetoric becomes normalized.
	Let's not normalize the way he insults people.
	Well, a few years later, here we are, totally normalized.
	Are you worse off?
	You are not worse off.
	You are not worse off.
	You can't tell me that you did not have fun listening to President Trump trash talk Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, after the mayor of London had trash talked to the president.
	You can't tell me you didn't enjoy that.
	Now, you might have enjoyed what he said.
	Maybe you enjoyed more of what Trump said.
	Maybe you enjoyed the interplay.
	But it's totally normalized.
	Didn't change anything.
	Nobody died.
	Nobody lost any money.
	It was nothing but entertaining.
	I'm glad it's normalized.
	What did Trump call the mayor of London?
	A stone-cold loser?
	Now, I don't want to live in a world where my president can't call a major leader of another country who's an ally a stone-cold loser.
	I don't ever want to go back to those days.
	He said he was like as dumb as Bill...
	He was as dumb as Bill de Blasio and half as tall.
	Come on! If you don't think that's funny, just the fact that he's saying it, I'm not saying that as a punchline, it's the funniest joke or anything, but just the fact that it's happening at all, nobody's getting hurt.
	Nobody's getting hurt.
	It's just fun.
	And if you can't see that, well, you're missing a great show.
	There was an article I was alerted to today by J. Frank Bullitt in the Issues and Insights online publication.
	And he asked the question, why are Democrats and liberals and journalists, who are largely the same group, why are they so angry?
	And I wonder the same thing.
	But I also wonder if it's imagination.
	Would you say it's true that the people on the left are angry and the people on the right are sort of upbeat, sort of optimistic?
	And is that only because...
	Trump is in power?
	Or is that sort of a permanent situation?
	I actually don't know.
	It feels like it's because who's in power.
	But does it seem true to you that people on the right are kind of optimistic, kind of happy, things are going well, can't wait for tomorrow.
	People on the left are, well, if you don't get killed by a racist today, you just wait, because climate change is going to fry your brains.
	So the people on the left are living in this world of doom and gloom and, you know, tragedy and unfairness that I just don't experience.
	I'm sort of living in the other world where people are doing well and making progress, and sure, there's a lot of things we need to do, a lot of people that need to get helped, but we're making progress.
	That's my world. But I also don't know if this is just a perceptual thing and everybody's just as happy.
	I did a little experiment yesterday in which I was trying to see if the title I gave these periscopes, which will be translated over to YouTube after this is downloaded later, so you can see the replay on YouTube or here on Periscope.
	But on YouTube I was experimenting to see if the title I gave it would change the traffic.
	Now, I don't mean in a clickbait way, but rather in a pro-Trump or anti-Trump way.
	And so the experiment was, and this is totally non-scientific, so I'm not sure you can...
	Well, I'm sure you can't make any definitive conclusion from this, but I'll tell you what happened.
	So, I experimented with a title that seemed to be anti-Trump, because the words Trump and impeach were in the title.
	And it seemed to me, if somebody somewhere, if they were trying to influence things, they would give more traffic to things that say Impeach and Trump, and less traffic to things that say something that might be more positive to Trump, on average.
	So I put Impeachment and Trump in my title last time, and what do you think happened to my traffic?
	Up 22%.
	So compared to my average video, When I put impeachment and Trump in the title, it was up 22%.
	Now, I had to do the counter-experiment, which I'm doing right now.
	So I put Trump will win in a landslide in the title, and you can see that the native traffic on Twitter is off the chart.
	So notice that the periscope slash Twitter traffic is much higher.
	So keep that data point in mind, because in a few hours this will be downloaded and put on YouTube.
	YouTube has an entirely different algorithm.
	Will the high traffic that you're clearly seeing, it's way above average right now, will this high traffic also be duplicated?
	Because it's the same content.
	Same content. Will it be duplicated on YouTube or will YouTube do the reverse?
	Will the traffic on YouTube be below average even though it's clearly above average here and you would expect that they have different algorithms.
	So I would suggest that this might be one way that you could test for bias because you could do the same message on two platforms and there are mechanisms for Hypothetically, if there were any shadow banning, hypothetically, if there were any throttling, you might see it in the differences between platforms.
	It wouldn't be conclusive, but it would tell you, if you saw a pattern there, that it was always better on one than the other.
	It would certainly raise a question.
	Here's another data point.
	You all know Anthony Scaramucci, right?
	He had a very short career with the White House.
	Anthony Scaramucci, I noticed today, followed me on Twitter.
	Why is that noteworthy?
	Well, it's noteworthy because it's Anthony Scaramucci, and if he followed you on Twitter, you'd be very happy.
	But here's why it's noteworthy.
	He followed me years ago.
	You see where I'm going in this?
	Anthony Scaramucci had to, I think, re-follow me.
	It looks like, and I don't have confirmation, maybe he can confirm it later if he sees this, but do you think that Anthony Scaramucci intentionally unfollowed me after he'd been following me for a few years?
	Years! Right?
	So that's not, there's certainly not any chance that it was a system error.
	Because sometimes there's not a handshake when you first follow somebody, so you think you followed him, but it didn't follow through.
	What are the odds that Anthony Scaramucci looked at his God knows how many followers and said, you know, I think I'm going to unfollow that Adams guy, and then for whatever reason months later decided to follow me again?
	I don't think that happened.
	Now, I don't know what happened, so...
	Without confirmation, you cannot make a conclusion.
	But what are the odds that Anthony Scaramucci, who, by the way, I know, right, we've talked.
	So I've had a long conversation with Anthony Scaramucci on the phone, but he knows me, I know him, at least, you know, as acquaintances on the phone.
	By the way, he recommends my book fairly often in public.
	What are the odds that someone who recommends my book fairly often, Win Bigly, in public would unfollow me?
	Pretty low.
	Pretty low.
	So, that's just something to watch for.
	Here's another one.
	Again, these are all, everything I'm going to mention is not confirmation of any kind of mischief.
	They're just things which could certainly be confirmation bias.
	They all fit into that category of, well, just because I don't know why it happened doesn't mean there's only one way it could have happened.
	So my ignorance of why I'm seeing this is not proof of something.
	Just keep that clear.
	But they're questions.
	It raises questions. Here's another one.
	I don't know this for sure.
	But it seems to me that I'm gaining about the same number of followers that I've gained since maybe 2016.
	So I'm getting the same number of new followers as I have since 2016.
	Why is that noteworthy?
	Well, back in 2016 I had about a total of, I don't know, 50,000 followers.
	Now I have a total of 317,000.
	If 317,000 people are following me and retweeting and interacting with me, is it likely that the number of new people I get would be the same every day, roughly, as when I had only 50,000 followers?
	Is that likely?
	It's possible.
	It's possible.
	But is it likely?
	I don't know.
	Again, it doesn't prove anything.
	I just wonder. It's a lot of questions.
	So here's the thing that you should be wary of.
	If, in fact, social media platforms were trying to put their finger on the scale, I wish there were some better metaphor or analogy for that, but I'll use that one.
	If they were trying to influence 2020, when would they start?
	Right now. Because if they start too late, they don't have enough influence, and it would be too obvious.
	It would be too much of a big change in 2020 around the election.
	It would just be too noticeable.
	But if they start now, and they just start tuning it a little bit, just a little bit of tuning, a little bit of tuning, by the time you reach 2020, the lobster is boiled, and the lobster never knew that the water got any hotter.
	So, Don't have any idea if any of this alleged shabbanning or throttling is real.
	But the fact that we can't tell eliminates your confidence in the system.
	And a system, let's say the system is the United States and the Republic and our democratic slash republic system.
	Can the system survive if you can't tell what's running the system?
	I can't tell. I literally, I can't tell.
	I don't even have a confident guess if our votes and our own opinions and the citizens are even running the country anymore.
	I cannot tell.
	Legitimately, I can't tell who's running the country.
	Is that a good system? No.
	It's not a good system.
	Let's talk about something else.
	Kamala Harris, I've said for over a year, has the best natural advantages for becoming the candidate to run against Trump.
	I don't think she could win, but I said she had the most natural advantages.
	Now, what I meant was, she would start with the advantage of being a woman.
	And by the way, let me ask you this.
	Again, I've got to give credit to Hillary Clinton.
	No matter what you say about her, I just have to go back to what an amazing accomplishment it was of how she broke the glass ceiling.
	Even though she didn't become president, she got the most votes.
	And I think she forever changed what you think about the possibility of a woman for president.
	Let me ask you this.
	So all of this noise about all the candidates running for president, etc.
	Have you heard one person in your private life, not in public, in your private life, have you heard one person say, I don't think a woman can be president?
	Have you heard one person say that opinion?
	I haven't. And I've heard every bad opinion you could possibly hear.
	Think about that. That's Hillary Clinton's accomplishment.
	You should never take that away from her.
	I have a system that I like to use and I would like to suggest you use it too.
	And the system goes like this.
	If there's somebody that you really dislike in terms of their politics, try to find something you do like and call it out.
	Take somebody that you're not a fan of and you don't agree with them and you wouldn't want to see them in office.
	Find something you do like and call it out.
	Why do you do that? Because it keeps you unbiased.
	If you can't say something good about somebody you don't want to be president, You should check your own thinking.
	There's probably something wrong with you, right?
	And in my opinion, Hillary Clinton changed forever how we see female candidates for president, and she eliminated from the conversation, woman can be president.
	It never made sense in the first place, but she eliminated even the stray thought.
	It just doesn't even happen.
	So, let's get back to Kamala Harris.
	She's a woman, so she had that advantage because nobody talks about being a woman in any way except that it might be an advantage.
	Alright? Think about that.
	Whenever you hear a woman is running for president, it's always couched as a positive.
	Like, oh, there's an advantage.
	She's got that. Locked down.
	Likewise, if you hear that somebody is a person of color and they're running for president, what is the first thing that people say about that?
	Is the first thing that people say about Cory Booker, they'll say, oh, I don't know, he's black, so I don't think his chances are good?
	No. Nobody says that.
	Even racists don't say that.
	Everybody says, being black, well, that's a plus.
	Think about that. Think about the fact that you live in a country where if somebody's running for president and they're either a woman or a person of color, the first thing you think and the thing you think all the way through is, well, that's an unfair advantage.
	That just sort of snuck up on us, didn't it?
	Just totally snuck up on you.
	Suddenly, we don't live in that old world where that's just automatically a disadvantage.
	Anyway, back to Kamala Harris.
	There was a story, I think it was on CNN, which makes me think they're trying to take her out of the race, but I'll ask you for your opinion.
	So I'm going to ask you for your opinion.
	The story on CNN about Kamala Harris was about her husband.
	And I thought to myself, huh, I've not heard one thing about her husband, and that's good, right?
	How good is it?
	How positive is that?
	That Kamala Harris is one of the top people running for president.
	He hadn't even heard of her husband.
	Wasn't even part of the conversation.
	Great, right? That's sort of the way you'd want it to be.
	Unless it was some problem, it's just not relevant.
	In the case of Pete Buttigieg, you hear more about his spouse because that's just more of an interesting story.
	It's, of course, sort of a special case.
	But here's what I found out about Kamala Harris' husband.
	He's an old white guy lawyer.
	And here's my question.
	If you're a member of any person of color community, would you think less of Kamala Harris for being married to a white guy?
	I actually don't know the answer to that question.
	I wonder if that's ever been studied.
	Because on paper, it should be a plus.
	So if you were looking at this as a logical person, you'd say, oh, she's a person of color, so she has all the appreciation of what that's like.
	At the same time, the ideal situation is she's married to a white guy, so that she's got...
	She's certified open-minded.
	She's certified good with all kinds of people.
	That should be nothing but good.
	But is it? So that's my question.
	If you could get an honest poll on that sort of thing, would people who are black...
	Would they say, oh, who cares?
	You know, the spouse isn't the president anyway, why do I care?
	Or do they say, I don't know, that's not quite as genuine as I might want it to be, might be, you know.
	So that's the question. Is that a plus or a minus?
	I'll leave that to you.
	There's a very funny story about the Philippines President Duterte.
	I can never pronounce that right.
	Duterte. Duterte.
	He's got one of those names that he should change his name.
	He should just call him, you know, Duke or something.
	But Duterte. I can't pronounce that.
	You know, he should change his name so I can pronounce it better.
	That's the standard I give to everybody for their name.
	But apparently he's gone public with the bizarre claim that he used to be, and I'm quoting, talking about himself, a little bit gay.
	That's right. So, Duarte.
	Somebody's helping me there with the phonetic spelling.
	So, Duarte... Has said in public that he used to be a little bit gay, but he cured himself by meeting a beautiful woman.
	Um... Okay.
	This is one of those stories where I'm tempted to add a joke to it.
	It's like, well, watch me add my clever little thing to it to put a funny spin on this.
	But there's nothing you can really do with it.
	You just have to just let it lay there.
	Duarte say he used to be a little bit gay, but now he's not attracted to good-looking guys, he says.
	That's what he says.
	So now he's all cured, because he met a woman so beautiful that it cured him of being a little bit gay.
	Okay. Let's assume that's a real thing.
	All right, here's my favorite story of the day.
	Do you remember my prediction about the so-called alleged execution of Kim Jong-un's nuclear negotiator?
	So there was a story that said, unconfirmed report out of an unreliable source.
	So it was an unreliable source with an unconfirmed source saying that That North Korea had, that Kim Jong-un had executed his nuclear negotiating team, but then today we see a picture of that guy who should have been, who was allegedly executed sitting in the same row with Kim Jong-un and all the special people at an event.
	So, let us check the fake news filter that I suggested.
	The fake news filter I suggested was that it was too on-the-nose.
	It's a Hollywood scriptwriter term, and it means that if you were going to write this as a story, it would be a little too perfect.
	It's like, well, that just fits a little too well, doesn't it?
	So when I heard this story, the first thing I heard was unreliable source, And how would you even know?
	Right? Unreliable source.
	Two on the nose.
	I predicted it was fake news.
	Today we have a confirmation it was fake news.
	So keep track. Keep track of my predictions.
	I've been making predictions in public for three years or so.
	And so people keep bringing up, when I talk about my predictions, they talk about how I was wrong about the Covington boys.
	Let me say this about that.
	If any of you are ever fooled by a fake photograph or a fake video, I think there were both in this case, a fake video and a fake photograph, you should not feel embarrassed about that.
	Never feel embarrassed that you were fooled by a good fake.
	That was a good fake.
	Fooled a lot of people. You should be judged.
	By how you respond to it.
	In my case, I immediately said, oh, I'm completely wrong.
	I apologize in public.
	That's it. Quick, clean, unambiguous.
	I was totally wrong.
	I apologize in public.
	Done. So, if you judge me by how I handled it, I would prefer that.
	But you should also be keeping track of the accuracy of my predictions.
	I did not make a prediction about the Covington kids.
	I simply said I had a reaction to it.
	Now, if you recall, my reaction was not ever that they were being racist.
	All right? So I never fell into the trap that the left did, which is to say, hey, what's going on here is racist.
	Do you all agree?
	I never said the kids were acting racist.
	To me, that was fake news.
	So did I correctly say, okay, this is being interpreted incorrectly because this is not racist?
	I did say that.
	So when I took full responsibility for being wrong about it, I took responsibility for saying the kid was being a jerk.
	I never said he was being racist.
	I said he was being a teenage kid, and teenage kids can be jerks.
	Now, when you saw the full video and the picture, it was obvious that he was not being a jerk.
	He was actually sort of not sure what to do.
	And that's all it was.
	He was smiling sort of uncomfortably.
	So I... Yeah, a-holes.
	That was my exact word.
	So I apologized for thinking that the kid was being a jerk and that the other kids were being jerks when it's clearly not true.
	But I was not one of the people who thought he was being a racist.
	So not one time did that ever enter into my mind as even a possibility.
	So I was half hoaxed and apologized for it.
	But I would put that in a slightly different category than a prediction.
	Right? Alright, let's move on.
	Independent journalist Tim Pool announced that he's going to be setting up a fact checker slash database of journalists and news organizations.
	And he said he will randomly sample 100 articles and give a score of, you know, however many are good out of 100.
	And any violation of journalistic ethics will result in a strike.
	Thus scores will look like, for example, 73 out of 100 articles are credible and ethical.
	How would you like to be a journalist and know that somebody is going to give you a percentage of your articles that are credible and ethical?
	What do you think Maggie Haberman would get under this standard?
	Would Maggie Haberman have a score of maybe 10%?
	I don't know. I have no idea, because there's a lot of subjectivity in this.
	But even before Tim decided to do this, I thought to myself, is there a conservative fact-checking organization?
	Because factcheck.org, or.com, I forget which it is, and Snopes, the fact-checkers I know all lean heavily And you could argue that Wikipedia is a fact-checking organization and they lead left as well.
	Is there a right-leaning fact-checking organization?
	If not, why not?
	That would be weird.
	So if somebody knows one, let me know on Twitter.
	And if not, well maybe Tim Pool will be the one who creates that.
	But you're going to have a real question about who it is who is scoring these things.
	President Trump made news by arguing that...
	Can you hear my cat?
	My cat's at the door.
	I'm going to let my cat through the door while I continue talking.
	So President Trump decided to Call out CNN as a potential problem over in Great Britain.
	And his point was that apparently Great Britain doesn't get Fox News, I'm guessing.
	Somebody will have to confirm that.
	All right, letting the cat in.
	I couldn't think when she was yelling.
	Here, we'll let you look at the cat.
	Yeah, boo. She comes and yells at me, just like this, until she gets some playtime.
	All right, well, she'll have to wait.
	So, back to my story.
	So, President Trump's going to London.
	He was talking about how CNN is over there.
	And apparently CNN is the primary news source for people in Great Britain, understand the United States.
	And the president called that out as a problem.
	And I thought to myself, my God, that is a problem.
	Think about the fact...
	I mean, just for a moment, think about this.
	If you live in Great Britain...
	What you know about the United States is largely influenced by CNN. And CNN hates the United States.
	Now I'm exaggerating.
	CNN doesn't hate the United States.
	But CNN certainly hates the conservative government of the United States.
	And that's the part that interfaces most with Great Britain.
	So isn't that a serious...
	That's a serious problem, isn't it?
	I don't know how to label that problem.
	But if the primary news source that our allies are seeing is CNN, that's very damaging for the country because they're not seeing any counterpoint and they're not seeing anything like news or balanced news, certainly. So CNN has...
	I know if somebody's watching this who doesn't follow the news and isn't really sort of steeped in the media as I am, you probably would hear me say that CNN is biased and say to yourself, right-leaning cartoonist, blah, blah, blah, the other side's biased.
	But I think...
	I think we've moved way beyond the question of whether or not they're biased, haven't we?
	And haven't we left that way back in history?
	And now it's just obvious that CNN is essentially attacking the president and all he does, because it's good for business and has nothing to do with what the news is.
	I mean, we are well past the point where that's a question anymore, just as it is equally true that Fox News caters to an audience on the right and that they're friendly with the president.
	Those are not opinions, right?
	Wouldn't you say it's a fact that Fox News leans right and it's a fact that CNN leans left?
	Imagine you're Great Britain and all you see is CNN saying that our president is a psycho-racist misogynist.
	How does that help us overseas?
	That's a big problem.
	I mean, really, politics aside, you know, not taking sides, wouldn't it be just as big a problem if they only saw Fox News?
	Right? If I'm being fair, it would be just as big a problem if all they ever saw was Fox News.
	Because they wouldn't understand the United States.
	Because they would have missed this whole other half of the country's point of view.
	So, the President suggests that since AT&T owns CNN, that maybe people should boycott AT&T. Now, I'm almost never in favor of boycotts.
	As soon as you enter that world of boycotts are okay, then everybody's boycotted.
	And I've been boycotted however many times for however many things I've ever said that people didn't like.
	So boycotts are just not the greatest idea.
	But this is a unique case.
	This is a case where our actual foreign policy is being hurt by CNN. And there's no doubt about it.
	Our foreign policy is being hurt by CNN. Would you agree that that's an objective statement?
	Would you? Now, I think you could have said the same thing when Obama was president.
	I would have said, you know, if the only news that the UK was seeing was from Fox News and Obama was president, I would say exactly the same thing.
	I would say Fox News is giving you a damaging view of our president when our president is trying to work with the UK. It would be very damaging.
	So the president has accurately called out.
	I mean, it's political, but it's also accurate.
	That AT&T, a major U.S. corporation, is very deliberately, and I'm going to be very, let me be clear on this, this is deliberate.
	They know what they're doing.
	There's no ambiguity here.
	AT&T, a major U.S. company, is working very hard against the interests of the United States.
	It's all legal.
	You know, free speech.
	They own a company.
	Everything's out in the open.
	Completely legal.
	So I don't know if there's any recourse.
	Certainly there's no government recourse because free speech.
	But the president is suggesting that AT&T should pay for it.
	In other words, they should lose business because they're operating against the interests of the American public intentionally.
	They're intentionally acting against the interests of the United States.
	Think about that. Now, and again, I would say the same thing when Fox News was beating up Obama every single day.
	I would have said the same thing about that.
	We just happen to not be in that era right now.
	So, how can we be okay with that?
	So, I'm not going to go so far as to say you should not give your business to AT&T. But I will tell you that I wouldn't...
	I would not...
	I'm not recommending you do anything differently, but I wouldn't give my money to someone who's damaging the United States intentionally.
	The intentional part It's the part that puts me over the edge.
	If somebody was just, you know, doing business and maybe it had some effect on the United States that I didn't love, but they were just sort of doing their business and there was some side effect, and it was just really the side effect that was bad, I'd say, well, maybe I live with that.
	It's a free world, nothing's perfect, everything's got a little rough edges, I'll live with that.
	But when you know people are sitting around a room and saying, well, should we continue doing things bad for the United States?
	Yeah, it's good for our business.
	That's not cool.
	I'm not cool with that.
	Anyway, here's great news.
	Oh, before I get to that, let's talk about AOC retweeted a little whiteboard chat from Representative Pramila Jayapal.
	I don't know if I'm pronouncing it right.
	Pramila Jayapal, Democrat.
	She was doing a whiteboard talk about the cost of Medicare for all versus current costs.
	Now, before you jump in on the comments and say it, I'll say it first.
	I have no reason to believe That her facts and her interpretation of things is accurate.
	I also don't have any reason to believe they're not.
	I can't tell. I can't judge.
	So I'm only going to judge the quality of the presentation.
	The quality of the presentation, A+. So here is a smart congressperson who seems to have dug into the details enough to present to the public in a very simplified whiteboard presentation with a few images just what the situation was.
	Like how big of a problem is it?
	Is it a solvable one?
	Is it small? Is it big?
	Just sort of sizing the problem of universal healthcare.
	I don't believe that she gave us an objective, down-the-middle approach.
	I'm sure it was shaded or biased toward the AOC version of the world.
	So I don't tell you that it was accurate, but in terms of how well it was explained, Extraordinary.
	There should be way more of that.
	I would love to see members of my government, sort of like you saw Dr.
	Shiva do some whiteboard takes.
	They are really effective.
	In fact, I'd love to see some Republicans do it.
	I'd like to see other people do it.
	On these big issues that are complicated, just have a smart person who can simplify, put it in a two-minute or a five-minute presentation, show us some pictures, give us the big picture.
	And here's why this was important.
	Do you remember, I did a Periscope a while ago, where I looked at some big numbers about healthcare, and I saw that there were, I don't know, 18% of people don't have healthcare insurance, I think.
	And I went through some big number of conceptual thoughts in which I said, with my current knowledge, I don't understand why it would be unaffordable.
	Right? So I gave a whole presentation in which I said, based on what I know, I don't understand the point that this is unaffordable, because as far as I could tell, it's very affordable.
	Based on what I know. But what I know is, I don't know, how much?
	How much do I know about healthcare?
	This much? How much do I know about the budget of the United States?
	This much? And so the reason I did that was to show how uninformed the public are.
	Because you've heard, I've heard variously that it will cost $32 trillion on one side, and I've heard that it will save money.
	What's the difference between $32 trillion At negative dollars.
	Well, that's at least a $32 trillion difference in what the estimates are.
	We are seriously being lied to by, I think, both sides.
	I'm not positive, but it seems to me that...
	Let me just say something you're not gonna like.
	My current hunch Based on very limited information that I see from both sides that's also unreliable.
	So I'm getting limited and unreliable information about healthcare and what it would cost from both sides.
	I think the information on the right is 90% lie.
	I think the information on the left is 70% lie.
	Something like that. In other words, they're both mostly lies, the way they're presented on both sides, but it feels like the right is almost entirely lying, whereas the left has a few things right, but not a clean story that I can believe.
	Now, that's just my hunch, and I'd be happy to revise that.
	I'd be happy to completely change it with any new information.
	I'm not locked into that at all.
	That's just my current feeling.
	So don't believe anything you see about health care expenses.
	I'd love to see two people who know what they're talking about talk at the same time.
	Here's a fake news filter for you.
	If you see a person from one side present one side on a whiteboard, It's fake news.
	If it's an elected Democrat or it's an elected Republican or somebody who wants to be elected and they give you a whiteboard presentation or something like it, don't believe it.
	It's probably a lie.
	But if you see two people and they spend some time doing a little back and forth and somebody makes a claim, somebody says, this is why I challenge it, well, you might be seeing something like news in that case.
	But... The one person talking is not anything you should pay attention to.
	Here's big news.
	I've been telling you for a long time that we'll never be able to tax our way to something like a world where everybody could have a good lifestyle.
	Can't tax our way to it.
	Just can't get there. And I've been saying that the future is reducing the cost of a good life.
	What's it cost to have a home?
	What's it cost to eat?
	What's it cost to, you know, have transportation, etc.
	And Amazon just started selling $20,000 homes online.
	So you can go online, and there's several models of these products.
	Little tiny homes that they'll deliver to you as basically a kit and you snap it together and you got yourself a home for $20,000.
	Now, before you start, that doesn't include the land, it doesn't include any prep, doesn't include sewage or, you know, any of the site prep stuff or permits or whatever.
	But it does tell you That there's a movement in that direction, and that there's probably a market, and there's probably something there, and that our giant corporations, such as Amazon, are probably going to be a big part of solving this.
	So I would expect that you'll see kit homes, and here's the key.
	I think there's one thing more that they need to do to make this a big deal, and that is you should be able to add on to it easily.
	Give me that one change.
	Kit home? Pretty good.
	Pretty good idea. It's more like the Model T of cars.
	That's sort of where we are with kit homes.
	We're still at sort of the Model T, Model A. You know it's going to get a lot better, but right now it's Model T. One thing I want.
	I want to be able to build a tiny little home with a bathroom in one room.
	Maybe something like a kitchen.
	And then I want to easily add on another bedroom.
	With another kit. And then add another bedroom, another, you know, whatever.
	You give me that, and you've got everything.
	That would change the world.
	It's just that one change.
	All right. So that's very, very big.
	Bill Pulte tweeted that out of his account.
	And, of course, Bill Pulte, being the blight authority...
	Probably thought leader in this country, I would say.
	And we've got all this land in urban areas that people don't want because it's a bad area.
	So essentially, you've got lots of low-cost free land, even in central city places.
	Plus a lot in rural places.
	So could these kit homes be the thing?
	I predict it will be the thing.
	That's my prediction. Kit homes will be a much, much, much bigger thing.
	Might be one of the biggest industries in the next 20 years.
	There's my prediction.
	Kit homes will be one of the biggest industries growth-wise in the next 20 years.
	All right. I wanna make a climate change prediction.
	I'll try to keep this short.
	And it's going to start with me buying a new car.
	Recently, I bought a new automobile.
	And all I got was, I just got the newer version of my seven-year-old car.
	I think it was nine years old.
	So I like to keep a car for a long time because unless there's something really different coming out, I'm just not interested.
	So I had an old BMW X5, 2011, and I just upgraded it to the new version.
	Oh my God, what a difference that many years make.
	In 70 years or whatever it is, or 8 years or more, the technology is just so different.
	But here's the reason I'm telling you about this.
	This car has human characteristics and is slowly phasing me out of the decision making.
	So, first of all, as I walk near the car, and I've got my key in my pocket, some of the accent lights turn on, my car acknowledges my presence when I enter the area.
	That makes me feel like it knows me.
	My car will adjust its settings to be just for me, which makes me think, my car really knows me.
	My car listens to me talk Understands it, changes things, you know, the heat, the radio, whatever, by talking.
	I can also use gestures.
	So there's a place I can do a gesture, so if I want to turn up the radio, I just go like this with my hands under the rearview mirror, and the radio goes up in volume.
	My car understands language and sign language.
	When I start my car and I start driving, the seatbelt tightens.
	It literally hugs me.
	It hugs me.
	You feel like it's tightening. And you feel, actually, your car hugging you.
	It pays attention to me.
	It cheats me like I'm special.
	And it hugged me.
	Literally, it hugged me.
	And throughout all of the user interface elements of this car, you see something that is getting more and more human and is sort of merging with you.
	One of those aspects is that the car will keep you from doing something stupid.
	So if you're going to drive into something, the car will actually stop you from doing it.
	Every once in a while, I'll feel the car take control and put me back in the lane, sometimes when I didn't want to.
	So I don't know if it's safe, because the car seems to take the steering wheel every once in a while and get you off like a white lion if you're on it or something.
	You can correct pretty easily, but it's disturbing when you see the car make a decision for you.
	So, the car decides the route I'm going to take through the GPS. It makes sure that I turn when I'm supposed to turn.
	And it basically is this symbiotic Part in which I'm essentially a cyborg when I'm part of the car.
	So me plus my car is sort of an entity, a cyborg symbiotic entity, in the way that it used to be just a machine, and now it's not.
	All right, so that's my first point, that we're becoming cyborgs.
	This is important to my discussion of my prediction for climate change because our smartphones have also made us cyborgs.
	We As long as you have your phone with you, you have a brain augmentation, you know, communication augmentation, all kinds of augmentation to your natural abilities.
	We are now inseparable from our smartphones.
	So it's like we're one entity.
	Phone plus person is sort of the entity.
	And here's where I'm going to take my prediction for climate change.
	Let's say climate change, for whatever reason, doesn't even matter the reason, but let's say the temperature is going up within some range.
	At the bottom of the range, we don't have too much to worry about.
	At the top of the range, we do.
	You don't have to worry too much about the range.
	But when the IPCC makes a prediction, they're making something like an 80-year prediction.
	Here's what's going to happen in those 80 years that is not part of the prediction.
	First thing you have to ask yourself is what are the problems associated with climate risk?
	So let's say the temperature goes up more than we want.
	And again, it doesn't matter why.
	Could be natural, could be sun, could be CO2. Scientists say it's CO2. But for now, that doesn't matter.
	Let's just say that temperature's going up and bad stuff's happened.
	What is the bad stuff?
	Could we find ways to deal with all the bad stuff in such an efficient way that we don't care how warm it is?
	Let me ask you this, just to blow your mind a little bit.
	The current way that we eat as human beings is that we grow food in dirt and we wait for months and months for food to turn into something and then we package it and ship it and process it and add chemicals to it.
	That's the way we currently eat.
	Does that seem like the best way to grow food?
	Do you think in 80 years, food will come from dirt?
	Do you? Maybe.
	I would say the odds of food growing in dirt outdoors...
	We might approach zero in 80 years.
	In 10 years, of course, it's still going to be farms.
	In 20, probably. In 30, probably still just growing outdoors.
	But by then, there will be indoor farms.
	There will be underground farms.
	There will be all kinds of different ways to make food.
	There may be a chemical process for making food that tastes better than any food you've ever had.
	We might be just making it out of, I don't know, printers and stuff.
	Right now we slay living creatures and chop them up and turn them into burgers and steaks and stuff to eat them.
	Do you think that in 80 years a primary way that human beings get protein is by slaughtering other living creatures?
	Maybe. I would say unlikely.
	Because it's inefficient.
	The odds of science coming up with something that tastes better, is easier to make, easier to produce, and way more satisfying as well as nutritious, is 100%.
	Remember, 80 years.
	80 years.
	I don't think you're going to have to worry about what happens to your farm.
	Because nobody's going to get food from a farm in 80 years.
	Maybe. But I think not.
	Here's another problem.
	Maybe it's just too hot outside and people are going to die because they live in places that are just too hot.
	Well, in 80 years, do you think people will be dying from the heat no matter how warm it is?
	Do you think more people will be dying from the heat or fewer?
	Almost certainly fewer.
	Because first of all, we'll have more air conditioning.
	We'll have more ways to deal with things.
	We'll have more ways to get energy.
	If you've got energy, you've got air conditioning.
	Probably the number of people dying because it's too hot outside will approach zero in 80 years.
	And we'll just have ways to deal with it.
	We could get to the point where you can genetically modify people to be better at taking heat.
	Oh yeah, that's possible.
	We're already right at the point of technology where we could find people who have genes that make them more resistant to hot weather.
	Take me, for example.
	I don't do well in hot weather.
	Could you find a human being who does better in hot weather and give me some of those gene qualities?
	Or, if you have a baby, can you introduce it into the baby so the baby can just take a lot of heat?
	Or even a lot of cold?
	Absolutely. Do you think there's any chance we won't be able to do that in 80 years?
	Do you think there's any chance we won't be able to engineer people to just be able to handle the heat pretty well and maybe not even get sunburns?
	In 80 years, will we have clothing that keeps us cool and And a hat that is basically like a permanent little air conditioning.
	In 80 years, you might be able to buy for $20 something like a, you know, clothing that just completely keeps you cool.
	So you can't predict that.
	All right. In 80 years, we'll have Amazon delivering $20,000 homes.
	Nobody has to live outdoors because they got their inexpensive home.
	They built it themselves. You can have nuclear power everywhere.
	You might have fusion. Maybe you don't, but you don't need it because Generation 4 and beyond will be clean enough and good enough.
	So when you've got all kinds of power, because nuclear will get us there, and maybe solar and batteries and wind will keep getting better, too.
	When we've got plenty of energy, then we can do desalinization.
	Because the big expense of desalinization is the energy.
	But we'll also have cheaper, easier, lower energy ways to desalinate.
	So once you have water, is climate change a big deal?
	Well, one of the biggest problems with climate change is people might have too much water or too little water.
	So the people who had too little water, well, desalinization might solve it.
	Remember, it's 80 years from now.
	What about... Deserts becoming more deserts.
	Well, we now know how to reforest deserts.
	Some of it is just introducing livestock and they just poop on it and carry seeds and stuff and you can redo a desert.
	So we might be geoengineering the planet To actually get rid of major storms.
	I'll give you one example.
	My understanding is that the major hurricanes that we see in the Atlantic that affect the United States, they form because of the northern African deserts.
	That that heat is what gets the ball rolling that turns into a hurricane.
	If you were to cause that desert to be cooler, you would reduce the number of hurricanes.
	Could we do that within 80 years?
	Totally. Totally feasible to make the desert less of a desert and green it up a little bit.
	How about...
	One of the problems with climate change is that species become extinct.
	Will it be possible for species to become extinct 80 years from now or even 20 years or even 30 years?
	No. There will be no extinct species because we'll just grab their DNA and if the living ones die off, we can just clone them back to life.
	But here's a better question.
	How many species have become extinct in our lifetime?
	Like a million?
	I don't know. It's a big number, right?
	The number of species, if you count plants and insects and animals, how many of them have become extinct in our lifetime?
	I don't know, a million? Do you even notice?
	We could lose another gazillion species.
	I don't think, I couldn't tell the difference.
	Do I care? Not really.
	So we could save them if we want to.
	Somebody's saying it's billions.
	We could save as many species as we want.
	We just save their DNA. We have the technology.
	We can cone them back if we want to.
	But the fact is, we just don't miss them.
	We just don't miss them.
	There might be some point when we do miss stuff, but I don't know where that is.
	Take the coral.
	So we're losing corals in some places, and that can be a big issue for the barrier reef, etc.
	But we also know there are some types of corals that are resistant to heat.
	How hard will it be in the future to say, well, these corals seem to be dying.
	Let's dump a bunch of these heat-resistant corals in the same place.
	They're not exactly the same, but they're just as good for the fish.
	Those corals grow up.
	In 80 years, do you think we'll be able to do that?
	Yeah, we can do that kind of now.
	I think we can do that now.
	And then the other problem is that coastlines, the water rises, and you have to relocate things.
	Not the biggest problem in the world, because it will happen slowly enough.
	And the people with all the money seem to be living near the coast.
	They'll just move a little bit inland over time.
	They'll move to better places.
	They'll move to places that are hardened against hurricanes better.
	They'll move to places that are better protected.
	It will create a lot of jobs because people will have to do the work of relocating people.
	Here's my prediction.
	Even if everything that is said about climate change is true, So much will be different about how we can handle those problems, plus we'll be building scrubbers to take CO2 out of the atmosphere should we decide that's necessary.
	You don't want to take too much out because then the plants don't grow, but we'll certainly have that ability.
	So, the odds that climate change will kill you approach zero, in my opinion.
	That's my prediction. The odds that things will be better 80 years from now in every possible way Close to 100%.
	So that's my prediction.
	80 years from now, everything important will be better than it is now, not worse.
	There may be new problems introduced into the world that I haven't foreseen, but all the ones that exist will be far, far less.
	Fewer people dying of heat, fewer problems from hurricanes, fewer problems from not enough food, not enough water, all of that will be better.
	In 80 years. Alright.
	That's about all I wanted to say for now.
	If you want to check this out on YouTube, please do that.
	Just search for the phrase Real Coffee.
	Real Coffee with Scott Adams.
	Real Coffee with Scott Adams.
	And then you can see the replay on YouTube if you prefer that interface.

▲