Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 2, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams

46:59

Episode 584 Scott Adams: AOC Theater, Nike, Democrat Polls, Kim’s Health

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hey, look what time it is.
	That's right. You're right.
	It's time for a coffee with Scott Adams.
	Almost every one of you got the right answer to that question as you're flowing in here to watch.
	No pushing, no shoving.
	Take a seat. Hello, Martin.
	Hello, Missy, Donna, Boris.
	Good to see you guys. Well, If you're here early, you're probably prepared.
	And that means you've got a glass or a mug or a cup.
	I've got my dainty travel...
	travel...
	what is this? A cup?
	With me right now, because I'm on the road.
	But you could have a tankard or a stein or a chalice.
	You might have a thermos. You might have a flask.
	Fill it with your favorite liquid.
	Excuse me. I like coffee.
	And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the simultaneous sip.
	Oh, dopamine.
	That's good stuff.
	All right, well, we've got a lot of stuff to talk about today.
	Number one. Did you see the latest CNN poll of the Democratic candidates?
	And did you compare the latest poll to what I predicted the polls would be after the debates?
	Scary, isn't it?
	If you recall, I told you that Biden and Sanders would take a hit, mostly Biden, and I told you that Harris and Warren would rise.
	What happened?
	Exactly that.
	Exactly that.
	So the CNN poll has Biden down 10 points after the poll to 22%.
	Harris is now in number two at 17%.
	Who told you a year ago that Harris would be the nominee?
	Me. Who told you before that?
	I don't know if anybody did.
	I think I might have been the first over a year ago.
	And since I don't see Biden having a path to the nomination in the long run, I would say that whoever's in second place at this point has a pretty good position.
	Warren, of course, also looks strong, as you could surprise, but I'm going to still go with Harris as the stronger candidate, and I think ultimately the Dems will pick the stronger candidate.
	One of the keys to winning, I think, is if it turns out to be that they not make the same mistake that Hillary made.
	Hillary made one of the worst political mistakes she could ever make.
	She made a few of them.
	But the biggest one was running as an advantage.
	Let's say she sold her gender as an advantage.
	you can't really do that You can't be the party that's running for everybody's equal at the same time you say women are superior.
	Because she essentially said that.
	She said that being a woman was an advantage.
	That women are better listeners.
	She literally had specifics of why women are better candidates.
	And I think that hurt her.
	Now, I haven't heard Harris say anything about her gender yet.
	And if she could make it all the way to the election without even bringing it up, that would be a really strong play.
	So we'll see if she does that.
	I've often said that was Obama's smartest political move, was to not make ethnicity part of the equation.
	Let people think about it their own way, but don't put it in their face.
	All right. Brian Stelter is all giddy because he says, I think he used the phrase, the hypocrisy burns, which made me laugh.
	He was talking about how the Fox News hosts were all upset that Obama might talk to some dictators.
	But when Trump does it, they say, well, that's brilliant.
	Only Trump could do it.
	And so according to Brian Stelter, that's hypocrisy because they said it was bad if Obama does it, but it's good when Trump does it.
	But of course, Obama is not Trump.
	How in the world do you compare those two personalities and say that they should be doing the same thing?
	At the very least, they should have their own strategy, which is compatible with their brand, if you want to say that, compatible with what people expect of them and all that.
	Trump is playing directly to his strengths.
	His strengths are that he can talk to anybody.
	He can make anybody like him, apparently, one-on-one anyway.
	Half the country hates him from a distance.
	But one-on-one, it's hard to I don't have any impression of him other than liking him.
	Now, I speak from experience because I did get to meet him, the president.
	I got to chat with him in the Oval Office last year for a little bit.
	And I can tell you, his personality is hard to resist.
	In person, he gives you his full attention and you feel like you're the only person in the room.
	And he compliments you because, you know, if he likes you, he always compliments you.
	And you walk out thinking, oh, feeling pretty good.
	What a great guy. He complimented me.
	He must be a genius. So, and I don't know if, did Obama have the same talent?
	He might have because he has, you know, he has enormous charisma as well.
	But I don't know if he had that same talent.
	Did he? Did Obama have the one-on-one touch?
	Because I don't remember thinking that.
	Somebody in the comments is saying Clinton did as well.
	You are correct.
	Bill Clinton apparently had that same touch.
	So I would not say that there's anything similar.
	Likewise, President Trump, I think, did a more credible job of looking scary before he looked friendly.
	So you can't compare those two strategies.
	Obama acted friendly and then said, hey, let's talk.
	That looks weak.
	Trump said, fire and fury, I will reduce your country to rubble, but I'd also be willing to talk.
	Those are not the same.
	Those are not even close to being the same.
	Let's be friends versus I will destroy your country in a ball of fire if you keep it up.
	But I'm also willing to talk anytime you want.
	They're not even a little bit close to each other.
	Those are completely different strategies, except they both involve talking at some point.
	All right. The political play of the week goes once again.
	I hate to tell you this, but the political play of the week goes to AOC again.
	Again. Again. Now, I'm not saying play of the week means I agree with it.
	It doesn't mean she's telling the truth.
	It doesn't mean she's even persuading in a positive way.
	You can make your own decisions about that.
	But she visits this border detention facility where the illegal immigrants are being kept.
	And she comes back with probably just one of the all-time great persuasive, probably not true, but persuasive statements that the detainees are being made to drink out of the toilet because they don't have water.
	Now, if I had to make a bet, somebody says she has you fooled, Scott.
	Fooled about what? Am I fooled that I'm talking about her and that she's a headline again?
	Am I imagining that?
	Am I imagining that she gets a lot of attention?
	What part am I fooled about?
	That's the only claim I've made.
	She's really good at getting attention and being persuasive.
	This is as clear as day from this latest play.
	I'm not saying she's right.
	I'm saying that she gets attention and she's very persuasive.
	And one of the tricks she uses is this visual persuasion.
	She can put a picture in your head, she can make a quote that you can't forget about, and she can sell a narrative like nobody's business.
	And this whole thing about being forced to drink out of the toilet, if I had to bet I would take very long odds that that's just not true.
	Now, there might have been something that suggested it.
	You know, it would be easy to imagine that there was this one time somebody asked for water, and the guard said, you know, I've got to take care of this thing, but I'll get you your water right after.
	And then you could imagine the person saying, well, what am I supposed to do in the meantime?
	Drink out of the toilet.
	And you can imagine the guard being frustrated and saying, you know, do whatever you want to do.
	And then going to do his thing and then getting water later.
	Now, I'm not saying that's what happened.
	I'm saying it's very easy to imagine some kind of conversation that happened once between two people that may have had some passing resemblance to her ultimate comment about drinking out of the toilet.
	But she's still smart.
	From that image, because you can't get it out of your head.
	I hate to say this because it's so gross, but you can see it, and you can taste it.
	I didn't want to say that, right?
	Because it's so awful.
	But it's persuasion you can taste.
	And you don't get stronger than that.
	So I think it's very effective.
	But probably not very true.
	However, as I often say, directionally, it's kind of true.
	You don't want to hear that, right?
	But directionally, it's kind of true in the sense that people are in conditions which nobody would want to be in themselves.
	So the conditions are not good.
	I think we'd all agree with that.
	And it has nothing to do with anybody's intentions.
	It's that the system is overwhelmed.
	So we got that.
	The other story is Kaepernick apparently contacted Nike and got them to change their plans for a sneaker that had a little American flag on the back, but the flag was the early 13 stars colony flag.
	I guess the reported reason, and of course this is yet again one of those stories where you can't necessarily believe every detail that you hear, but the reported story is that because it was the early flag of the colonies, it was associated with slavery.
	And Nike decided to change their minds.
	To which I say, meh.
	Now, somebody on social media said to me, well, Scott, you say there's no slippery slope.
	How can you say that now?
	Because now they're even banning early versions of the American flag.
	How is that not a slippery slope to whatever bad thing?
	To which I say, what would be wrong with this country de-emphasizing slave owners?
	Now that would mean, it would mean de-emphasizing George Washington.
	It would mean de-emphasizing Thomas Jefferson.
	But how would you be harmed by that?
	Would you be harmed? It's one of those things where we have this deep emotional connection to our founders, but that's not shared by all of your fellow citizens who also count.
	And my take on this is that I don't think my life would be any different if we change shoes on our money, for example.
	I just don't think it would be any different.
	But it might make people feel better in the future.
	It might make a statement. It might make for a better situation.
	So I think that there will arise some counterforce if things go too far.
	Maybe this is it.
	Maybe this is too far.
	Maybe it's the next move after that that's too far.
	Maybe it's after they take the slave owners who are also founders off of currency, which I'd be fine with.
	I would be fine with taking slave owners off of currency.
	I saw somebody defending Betsy Ross as a founding mother, and I thought to myself, What did she do except to sew a flag?
	Because I'm not sure all the founders had exactly the same level of contribution.
	I mean, she made a good flag.
	I'm not saying she didn't do a good job, but somebody wrote a constitution that has lasted hundreds of years and changed the world.
	Other people led armies of insurgents fighting against the strongest army on the planet and won.
	Betsy Ross, she made a flag.
	They're just not all equal, is what I'm saying.
	Anyway, I'm sure that'll get me demonetized.
	Speaking of that, pretty much the majority of my videos that I make here, originally on Periscope, and then I put them immediately on YouTube, YouTube is routinely demonetizing them.
	Now, it's not about the money, necessarily, because, as you know, I don't need the money.
	But when something is demonetized, it's also not part of the recommended videos, because, of course, YouTube wants to recommend things that are monetized.
	So demonetizing has the effect of throttling back how many people look at it by a great deal.
	Now, upon appeal, because you can ask for an appeal, All but one of them, I think, has been re-monetized.
	But by the time they re-monetize it, most of the viewers have already seen it, because I do content that's coming from the headlines, and so timing of it matters.
	If people don't watch it the first day, they're far less likely to watch it the second day, because I also have a new video the next day.
	So the effect of temporarily demonetizing it Probably reduces the viewership by, I don't know, 40%?
	By half? It's a big deal.
	Now, I of course ask the question, how can I believe this is legitimate?
	If you've been watching me lately, you know that I've largely stopped using bad words intentionally.
	So it's not about language.
	It might be about content, but I don't do any controversial content.
	I look at things from a different angle, but I don't do anything that would get me, let's say, fired from a job or boycotted or anything like that.
	I stay away from that, quite intentionally, because I would like my content to have a wider audience, and the edgier I am, the smaller my audience would be, and I choose to have a larger audience.
	So here's the interesting part.
	It's impossible to tell what is the impact of some kind of decision to throttle things and what is just the algorithm doing its thing and it has nothing to do with anybody.
	Now that could be just as bad because if the algorithm is doing its thing and humans don't know exactly how it's all playing out, there's no human being who knows what it's doing.
	That's bad, because it means the algorithm is making important decisions that may not be the same ones that humans would make.
	That kind of puts the machines in charge, accidentally.
	But I saw a tweet from David Pakman, who said that YouTube is doing the same thing to him.
	Now, if you don't know, David Pakman, P-A-K-M-A-N, He is an anti-Trumper.
	He probably wouldn't call himself that, but he would be far more associated with the progressive left, I think would be the right way to say it.
	I hope I'm not mischaracterizing David's position, but he's left of the middle.
	So if he's having the same demonetization issue, and I only know from the one tweet, then that would be interesting, wouldn't it?
	Because I would consider him a comparable...
	Comparable in the way that when you're looking for real estate, in order to know if a house is worth the price, you look at the other houses in the neighborhoods that are comparable.
	So it's your comparison to know if you're going to pay too much or not.
	And I think that Pac-Man is a good...
	Comparable for me, because it's probably the same content, meaning the same topics, but he puts his left-of-center spin on it.
	Most of my audience is Trump supporters, so my spin is there.
	So if we were both treated exactly the same way by the algorithm, I would say, well, you have an issue with the business model because it's under-monetizing, but it's not a bias problem.
	If that's true. So if it's true that Pac-Man's demonetization and mine are essentially equivalent, I would say that would be important to know.
	It's also... I'll get back to my suggestion I've made before.
	In order to spot...
	Thank you.
	operating somewhat independently, meaning that their internal decisions about what to do with their algorithms are not checked with the other companies.
	You would expect that you would be able to identify when bias has been injected into any of the platforms by seeing if you get the same impacts in the same time on other platforms.
	So if you had several platforms running your content, it was all uploaded at the same time, roughly speaking, and that applies to me.
	If that was true and I saw that, let's say, I got throttled on Facebook but not on Twitter and not on YouTube, well, that would tell me something.
	It would tell me that Facebook is doing something.
	So I think there's some kind of a meta program that could be created that just tracks comparables.
	So you know people from the left, people from the right.
	You can see if there's any big difference that happens suddenly.
	And you're also looking at comparables of your own material, not only in the past, but currently out there.
	So I think that's needed.
	The President was doing an interview with Tucker Carlson during the trip in Asia, and the President suggested that maybe the Department of Justice was looking at the tech companies, but he couldn't say. Meaning they didn't want to say.
	So it seems to me that in all likelihood, there's some activity going on to find out what's going on with the tech companies, and that's all good.
	All right. Did you see I tweeted this?
	Mike Zunovich tweeted around a video of a traffic stop.
	In which it looked like a, I'm guessing, a white police officer was stopping a young African-American man.
	And you really have to see the two versions of the video.
	One is selectively edited to a smaller piece of the interaction, and one is the full video.
	The full video and the selected one tell completely opposite stories.
	So I won't even give you an opinion about the event.
	And I'm not going to give you an opinion about who was right or who was wrong.
	I'm going to make this point because it's the important point.
	The selective edit gives you an opposite opinion of who's wrong from the full video.
	It completely reverses your opinion of what happened.
	So it's worth watching just for that, because the more examples you see of how a selective edit can literally reverse something's meaning, because you wouldn't think that, right?
	Your common sense tells you that a selective edit would be maybe not as complete as the full video, but common sense tells you that the selective edit would at least be in the same direction as the full one.
	You would think that if the edited showed somebody doing something bad, that the full one might show them doing something bad as well.
	But you can actually reverse The meaning, from good to bad, from criminal to not criminal, completely reverse it just by editing it down to a smaller version.
	It's scary to see how effective that is.
	Yeah, the Covington situation is the perfect example of that.
	The more examples you see of that, the more prepared you will be.
	A number of people ask me why I don't use Bitshoot instead of YouTube.
	Because BitChute is a competitor and I guess they don't have the censorship or the demonetization problem.
	BitChute contacted me about five minutes before I turned on this Periscope.
	And offered to show me some tools to make it easy to take my YouTube content directly over there.
	So I guess they were smart and they have some mode where if you're going to stay on YouTube, they'll just sort of mirror your content on BitChute.
	And I thought to myself, I will look into that as time allows.
	And I don't think that BitChute will have the same kind of monetization.
	But it would be good to diversify.
	It would be good to diversify.
	Then you can watch it wherever you want.
	All right. I saw some speculation in the news.
	Did you see this? Speculation that President Trump might replace Pence for when he's running for re-election.
	And one of the names that came up as a potential replacement for Pence was Tucker Carlson.
	And I'd love to know what you think about that.
	Let me give you my take on this.
	My take is that I don't see the slightest chance that Tucker Carlson would take that job.
	Now, I don't have an opinion about whether he'd be good at it, because I don't know if his experience is exactly translatable into the political world.
	It's hard to know. But he's very smart.
	He's compatible with the president's views on most stuff.
	He explains things better than just about anybody.
	So you could imagine why the president might have at least thought about it.
	I don't know how much he's thought about it.
	And I don't know how true the rumor is.
	But I would say there's no chance that somebody takes that big of a pay cut at that age.
	And if he does, I'd be very surprised.
	Because Tucker Carlson has probably, not probably, could we say he has the best job on television?
	Would you say?
	Because he's on the highest rated network, and I believe he has the highest rated show in his time zone for cable news.
	And I would imagine he's well compensated.
	So I can't imagine him wanting to go from a stable situation that I assume is friendly with his home life and family situation and gives him time to see the kids and all that good stuff.
	I can't imagine he'd want to throw all that away to have the most thankless job in the world of being vice president.
	So it would be an irrational decision, unless he had ambitions that we don't know about.
	And maybe he does. Who knows?
	Anyway, I would call that just interesting.
	I don't think there's a chance in the world that Tucker would go for a VP job.
	But I'm not a mind reader.
	Are you watching what Bill Pulte is doing?
	He's doing the experiment.
	Well, it's not an experiment because he's really doing it.
	I guess it's an experiment in the sense that we don't know how it will all turn out.
	But that's part of the fun.
	So Bill Pulte, P-U-L-T-E, you should be following him, by the way, at Pulte.com.
	So in addition to working on cleaning up blight in our inner cities, and you're going to hear more about that, there's some stuff coming on that that you're going to be very interested in.
	I'll just give you that preview.
	There's something coming on blight removal that you're going to find very interesting.
	So just wait for that.
	But in the meantime, Bill Pulte is doing an experiment in which he's literally just giving away money, his own money, on Twitter to people who make a good case that they need it.
	So I believe he's given $1,000 away twice, and he's currently offered to give $10,000 away to somebody who makes the best case.
	I just tweeted that if you want to see the details of that.
	It's as easy as just...
	It's as easy as just responding to his tweets.
	I saw a video of a woman who was a recipient of $1,000 from him and she was very touched because it made a gigantic difference in her life.
	So the bigger issue is Whether this idea that he's testing out of, let's say, Twitter philanthropy of just offering to give money, just doing a tweet and saying, hey, if somebody has a good A good use for the money, I'll give it to you.
	I love what he's doing with this because who knows if it becomes a bigger thing, if it evolves into something else, it's going to be terrific.
	But no matter what happens, a whole bunch of people who desperately needed a little extra money are probably going to get some.
	So it's all good. The worst case scenario is still amazing.
	The best case scenario is changes the whole world.
	So this is a good lesson.
	So what Bill is doing, the worst case scenario, the worst that could happen is a bunch of people who really needed some money and got some extra money.
	That's the worst that could happen.
	The best that could happen is it could change society.
	It could introduce a model of giving that connects people with money with people who need it in a way that nobody could quite predict and might be transformative.
	It might give people a lift up when they need it most.
	It could be the difference between, you know, Finishing school and being able to have childcare to get that job.
	I mean, these could be big differences in people's lives.
	So that's one of the smartest bets you'll ever see.
	The worst case is good.
	The best case, who knows, could change the world.
	All right. There's a story today, which is very ugly, about apparently there's a Facebook group of border control people, immigration border control people, Apparently, the reporting is that it's, quote, filled with derogatory posts.
	Now, what does it mean for a Facebook group to be filled with derogatory posts?
	Well, if it's like social media everywhere else, it means that there are some percentage of people commenting who are terrible people.
	Somebody in the comments just said normal.
	That's right. This is fake news by changing context.
	So it looks like, my guess is, is that it's a large group of people, and like every large group of people, you're going to have, you know, if you have thousands of people doing anything, you're going to have a hundred people who are terrible people.
	You can't put 10,000 Americans together and not have 100 of them who are just totally bad people.
	It's guaranteed, because we're humans.
	So if you have 100 people who are doing horribly racist, evil, awful thoughts, and as some group of thousands and thousands, that would be described as normal life.
	Well, because they have a professional responsibility that is, you know, in some ways...
	I'd just say that that matters a lot in this case because of the political feeling we have about it, because there are lives involved, because it feels like punching down.
	You could come up with ten more reasons.
	It sounds racist, whatever.
	So the fact that they're border security...
	It makes what would look like ordinary bad behavior from a large crowd looks way worse.
	So I'm not going to defend it.
	I'm just going to say you're probably hearing it out of context.
	And if you did hear it in context, you're more likely to say, yeah, if you get thousands of people together, you're going to have some racists.
	They're going to post some terrible things.
	That's guaranteed. But it's unacceptable.
	Unacceptable at any level because of their jobs.
	If they didn't have those jobs, I'd say, well, trolls be trolls.
	But because of their jobs, they do need to be held to a higher standard.
	I think that's fair. One of the things Tucker Carlson was noting, and I haven't seen it reported anywhere else, is he noted when Kim Jong-un met the president at the DMZ, Tucker was right up close.
	He was just a few feet away from the event and away from Kim.
	And he reported that Kim was wheezing and having trouble breathing, just walking that short distance to meet the president.
	And according to Tucker, it was noticeable enough that it was worth calling out and making a big point about it.
	In other words, you wouldn't have to be a doctor to To understand there's something going on here.
	Yeah, he's a smoker.
	He's got some weight problems.
	Who knows what else? And Trump tweeted that Kim was healthy.
	Somebody's saying in the comments.
	I don't know about that. But, yeah, we do have to worry about this, don't we?
	Because imagine we get some kind of good agreement with Kim, and maybe he only lasts...
	Five or ten more years?
	If you're looking at the timeline of international events, five or ten years is kind of a short time.
	If you're not sure he's going to make it to his older age, that might influence how you deal with him.
	So I'm not a doctor, so I'm not going to make any assumptions about Kim.
	I have also not heard him in person.
	There's a great story about Amazon is now...
	Allowing you to build or buy homes online for under $20,000.
	So for under $20,000, you can buy a kit to make your own little home.
	Now, that of course does not include the land.
	It doesn't include the prep.
	These homes don't have insulation.
	I'm not sure that they have bathrooms.
	You still need somebody to do the plumbing and the electrical.
	And of course, your town would never allow them to be built because of building codes.
	Now people are saying, just like the Sears catalog kit homes.
	I think that these kits are all wrong.
	I think what they are, they look to be something like a traditional home that is just smaller and they've added some conveniences and some cost advantages.
	But I think the kits need to be something more like Legos.
	I think the kits need to be a lot easier and also give you the flexibility to build a number of different things at any rate you want.
	Buy as many bricks as you want, do it at your own leisure, etc.
	So I think that what we're seeing is just the very beginning, sort of like the first personal computer.
	It seems to me that the future is that the cost of housing We'll go way down because of these kits, because of these modular things.
	Now I'm going to tell you how to design a perfect house.
	And you're going to say to yourself, that's not the way they already do it.
	And the answer is, what I'm going to describe is going to make perfect sense.
	And it's not the way it's done.
	If you were going to design a perfect home, here's the right way to do it.
	The right way to do it is to say, okay, what functions do I need?
	And then for those functions, what would that furniture look like?
	So you'd say, okay, one of the functions is watching television.
	So you'd say, okay, how far from the television should the seats be?
	How many of them should there be?
	And what configuration? Once you had...
	The function, whether it's the kitchen function, the garage function or whatever, you would have your components and your furniture around that.
	And then you'd say, okay, if this is the furniture, this must be the size of the room because the furniture wants to fit in the room and not be in the middle of the big room and not be too small.
	So then you'd have your perfect room.
	So you'd have a perfect bedroom, you'd have a perfect kitchen, etc.
	Then you should take those perfect rooms and put them together.
	But you would first notice that they don't fit together that well because each of them was designed independently.
	So you'd need to next figure out, okay, where would the doors be?
	And you hope that the doors don't ruin everything you've done so far.
	Once you've got the doors and you've put them together, then you know what the outside looks like, etc.
	And then you've got your house built.
	That is not the way homes are built today.
	The way homes are built is backwards.
	I built a home, so I saw the whole process, and I was blown away at how backwards the process is.
	The way it starts is a builder will say, okay, I'm going to subdivide this land that I got, and I'm going to start with this much land.
	And I'm going to say, okay, I need a little room for a backyard, so the house will be sort of on this footprint.
	And then they say, all right, I've got something weirdly shaped because that's what the land is shaped like and I needed to put a garage here, etc.
	And then I'm going to try to shove all the rooms in there.
	So they draw the rooms and then the last thing they do is put furniture in.
	So they're actually designed backwards so that when you're done, have you ever gone into a model home and you're walking through the model home and you say to yourself, Why is this room all wrong?
	It has furniture in it, but it looks like it wasn't even designed with the intention of furniture because it doesn't really fit.
	Nothing's facing the right way, that sort of thing.
	And you see this in every model home.
	There's no exception. They're all designed backwards.
	Why? There's no reason.
	There isn't a single reason.
	Let me give you the best example.
	So my current home was built 10 years ago, but I don't think things have changed that much.
	The house was designed by the architect with, you know, a lot of my input.
	And once it was built, it's handed off to the builder.
	The builder then frames it and starts building it up.
	And then here's the part that's going to blow your mind.
	After it's framed, after it's framed, The builder calls in the air conditioning guy and says, can you put in some air conditioning?
	And the air conditioning guy has to figure out how to run ductwork through the framing that already exists.
	There are two spots in my house where it didn't work because it wasn't designed for ductwork.
	I had to actually put in a duplicate AC in one room because there wasn't physically a way to get a duct from where the equipment was to that room.
	I had to duplicate it.
	And to get to another room, I had to run duct work, and this will blow your mind, outdoors.
	So my air conditioning duct work at one part runs under an outdoor lanai, meaning an unconditioned space, Where the ductwork with cool energy has to go through a very hot place to get back to a cool place?
	Now, if I told you that was the process, what would you say?
	You'd say, well, you must have got a bad builder or something.
	No. My builder was like every builder.
	That's actually the way it's done.
	It's called engineering in the field.
	They do that part of the engineering after it's framed.
	Ridiculous. Likewise with the electrical and stuff, people come in after the fact and put in their electrical.
	And when they put in the electrical outlets, it's done without regard to the furniture.
	Think about that.
	The electrical outlets are put in without regard to where the furniture is.
	I mean, they take it into account when it's obvious, but not really.
	So everything about a home is designed backwards.
	Here's the way you should do it.
	You should build a bunch of rooms.
	They're like perfect bedrooms for different sizes.
	Perfect living room, a few different sizes.
	Then you run people through them and you say, how does it feel?
	How's the feng shui? How does it feel to you mentally?
	How do you feel about how closed in you are?
	How do you feel about the light?
	How does it feel? And then after you've tested a bunch of rooms, you've got perfect bedrooms, perfect kitchen, and you just duplicate them.
	You should be able to take design completely out of the expense flow by designing a set of homes that gives you all the basic functions and they're the perfect ones.
	You can change the colors of the walls and stuff if you want to make it special.
	Anyway, so my basic point is the homes are designed completely wrong and the primary reason is, do you know why homes are all built wrong?
	You're going to hate this.
	But the reason that all homes are designed wrong is because the people who go into those businesses are not really engineers.
	They're not like the engineers who are designing computers.
	There can be building engineers, a different kind, but even the building engineers don't see it until after it's designed.
	Right? Your engineer actually gets the plans after it's designed.
	And the engineer says, yes, this will keep the roof up and it'll be safe.
	That's sort of all they do.
	Make sure it's safe. Whereas an Apple engineer is not just making sure the computer is safe.
	That's part of it. But they're making sure that it's designed right from the bottom up.
	There's nobody doing that for houses.
	Let me tell you what your architect and your landscaper will design to.
	You're not going to like this, but your architect designs for the architect's portfolio.
	In other words, the architect doesn't have to live in your house.
	So if the architect doesn't give you enough storage area, it doesn't matter to the architect.
	What does matter to the architect is when it's done and the architect takes pictures of the work, it looks really good in a photograph.
	Now, I would love to tell you That's not how they design, but it is.
	Your architect designs for the photograph, and the photograph looks better if they don't have a garage.
	That's a bad example.
	Your photograph looks better if it isn't a very efficient space.
	It doesn't matter if the light is too bright in the afternoon because you don't take the photograph then.
	Here's my perfect example.
	When I was doing my landscaping around my house, I had a landscape architect, you know, somebody who was an expert at making it look good.
	And that person designed this great-looking thing, and I looked at the price, and the price was unbelievably high.
	And I asked about the trees, and I said, are these the kind of trees that you're putting in here that lose their leaves in the winter?
	Because I live in California, and there are plenty of trees that don't lose their leaves.
	And my landscape architect goes, oh yeah, these ones all will lose their leaves.
	And I said, well, why would you give me suggestions of trees that are going to lose their leaves so that half of the year I'm looking at a leafless tree?
	Why would you even show me that?
	And he says, because it looks so good when it has leaves.
	In other words, that's when he's going to take the picture.
	He was designing my landscape for his portfolio, because the ones that lose their leaves can be more interesting looking.
	But he just won't take the picture in the winter, because it will look like hell six months into the year.
	But that's my problem.
	It's not the designer's problem.
	Somebody's saying they had the exact same comment to their landscape designer.
	Yeah. And when I tell you that they're all designed this way, backwards and for the benefit of the photograph, you realize what's going on.
	If we designed homes The way Silicon Valley designs everything else, the cost of the home would drop like crazy and the livability would go through the roof.
	Because even small spaces can be amazing if you design them right.
	Nobody's even trying. All right.
	Let's see what else we got going on here.
	All right. Those are my primary points for today.
	So that's what's going on.
	I would just like to harken back to my prediction of who would be the Democrat candidate and ask you this.
	Is there anybody in the country who made a more accurate prediction so far?
	We don't know how it ends.
	But have you seen anybody in the country, any pundit, who made a more accurate prediction of what the Democratic field would end up looking like?
	Because it seems to me most people are saying, well, it's Biden.
	Biden, Biden, Biden.
	Don't count him out. He's going to win.
	And I've been telling you from the start, totally not Biden.
	Probably Harris. Starting to look pretty real, isn't it?
	All right. Yeah.
	So, you should feel special Because I think my audience for these videos is, if you count the original Periscope and then plus podcasts plus...
	By the way, you can hear these videos on iTunes.
	It turns into a podcast the same day.
	So I've got maybe 50,000 or so watch the average video.
	But you're the only ones who hear these predictions.
	And didn't you feel like you were hearing the future?
	If you didn't feel like that before, you should start to feel like that.
	Because you do hear the future when you watch this periscope.
	Alright, that's all I've got now.

▲