All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 19, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
43:27
Episode 633 Scott Adams: The Golden Age of no Real News
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ba dum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum.
Hey everybody.
Happy Monday. It's time for coffee with Scott Adams.
I'm a little bit late because I got things going on this morning.
All kinds of things. I got window washers who are going to show up any moment now.
Peaking in my windows.
That's always upsetting. Alright.
If you'd like to join me for the Unparalleled pleasure of the simultaneous sip.
You know what you need? You do.
You need a cup or a mug or a glass, a stein, a chalice, a tanker, a thermos, a flask, a cantina, a vessel of any kind, solo with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for that dopamine hit that makes the rest of the day better.
The simultaneous sip.
Go! Ah.
So I was reading yesterday that there's a company in China called Yuanjeng, Y-U-A-N-C-H-E-N-G, Yuanjeng, Yuanjeng.
I'm probably not pronouncing that correctly.
But apparently they're the primary source of all the fentanyl ingredients sold to this country and then to Mexico, which then turns it into fentanyl and sends it here.
And I'm reading this story and And my jaw is just dropping.
It's like, are you telling me we know exactly the name of the company, we know their corporate address, we know the names of all their officers, and they're killing, what, 40,000, 50,000 Americans a year by sending fentanyl precursors here?
Really? And we're okay with that, apparently.
Because we just say, hey, how about a trade deal?
I am absolutely opposed to a trade deal with China.
Period. Any trade deal. I don't care what it is.
Do not care what it is.
If they're allowing this to happen, they are at war with us.
They are an enemy, and we should treat them as such.
And it's probably illegal to call for assassinations.
Is there anything illegal about that?
What if, hypothetically, Hypothetically, if somebody went on Periscope and called for the assassination of somebody in another country, would that be illegal?
I don't know. But I'll just put it this way.
Rather than calling for the assassination of the officers of this company, I would just say we should not do any business with China until they take care of it.
China can take care of it.
They're a big country.
They've got lots of capability.
They know how to execute their citizens.
So if they do that, then we should have a productive conversation with them and see if we can get any further.
If they don't do that, no interest in doing business with them under any conditions.
I'm watching in amazement, another topic here, as As Ted Cruz is trying to inform the country through Twitter primarily, that the New York Times got caught with that secret recording with the top editor talking to the assembled reporters and telling them that the Russia collusion thing that they had organized around For a couple of years,
didn't work out, so they were going to reorganize around the topic of racism in America.
And so Ted Cruz put the same interpretation on that that I did, which is, wow, this is the first time, at least the first time I know of, where a major press organization was caught red-handed creating the story a year before the news.
So whatever the news is, they've created this structure that they can sort of slot in, well, because of racism.
Well, the economy is doing well because of racism.
Well, this happened because of racism.
And that, of course, is a narrative.
It's not the news.
Now, it's pretty hard to do the news straight without accidentally putting some opinion into it.
So I realize it's never easy.
But you've never seen it so carefully laid out.
But the amazing thing is the response to it.
Imagine, if you will, that probably the most important news organization in the world, maybe, certainly in this country, the New York Times, gets caught...
Plotting to make up the news, essentially creating a narrative and then slotting the news stories into it.
And I thought to myself, well, that's gigantic.
That's bigger than Watergate.
I mean, actually bigger than Watergate.
No joking. Way bigger.
Watergate was about covering up a break-in that other people did to something that didn't make that much difference.
But starting a, you know, a race war in the United States, way worse.
It's not even close. And so I thought, well, how does the left handle this bit of knowledge?
If you're on the left and you find out that your news sources are not even trying to be legitimate, what do you do?
Do you say, ah, darn it, I've been using these news sources for years, and now I realize in retrospect that it's not news.
They've been programming me.
Do they do that?
Nah. But what they do is even more head-shaking.
So John Harwood, I guess NBC guy, this was his response.
Now remember, the Ted Cruz linked to the actual transcript of the New York Times editor talking to the staff.
It's all there to read.
And here's John Harwood's response to it.
No, that's not what the editor said.
What? So, no, that's not what he said.
And then I think Maggie Haberman had a similar comment that was, no, that didn't happen.
And I thought to myself, my God, the people on the right, Tim Pool, Was tweeting around a graph that showed that the people who lean right see most of the news on the left as well as their own news sources.
People on the left only see their own news sources.
They don't see anything, anything from the right.
It's just nothing. So if the people on the left say, it's not a story, nothing happened, what do the people who consume that media think?
They actually think nothing happened.
It's the biggest story of the year, wouldn't you think?
What's a bigger story than that?
There's so many things happening that I may be forgetting bigger stories, but I think that's the biggest story of the year.
And the people on the left just told their audience, yeah, nothing happened.
Amazing. Like, I don't even know how to process that.
No, nothing happened. That didn't happen.
No, nothing to see.
Nothing happened. Amazing, amazing, amazing.
So, it seems to me that the news has sort of devolved into four categories.
There used to be a time when the news was something like, hey, some events happened.
Let us tell you about those events.
And then we called that news.
But now we have fake news, stuff that didn't happen, stuff taken out of context, and in this case, simply denying that an event happened.
Just saying it didn't happen.
And as you know, we're on hoax number five from the New York Times, if you count up all the fine people hoax and all the other hoaxes.
But this is hoax number five.
They're up to. And I'm not even counting all.
I'm not counting the Smollett hoax, the mocking the disabled reporter hoax.
There's just so many hoaxes.
I'm not counting them all. But you're in the category.
So you get your fake news, which is usually just stuff taken in the context.
Then you've got your hypothetical news.
I suppose that's always existed, but it seems more prominent.
Hypothetical news goes like this.
If there's a recession, Trump might not get re-elected.
If a meteor hits the earth, we're not prepared.
So we've got hypothetical news now, because we ran out of actual news.
Then the other category, somebody's added me here in the comments, is the mind reading.
News based on what we imagine, literally imagine, other people are thinking.
Now, that goes well with the taking things out of context and then putting your assumption about what people are thinking into there.
And then there's the reframing history news, where you don't introduce any new news, but you go back and you talk about history to change how we look at the history so that you look at the present differently.
Now, the New York Times is engaged in this in their 1619 project.
1619 refers to the year, the first year of slavery from African sources.
Before that, there was a lot of slavery, but in terms of African slaves coming over, I guess the first ones were 1619.
And so I was reading, I read the first article on that.
And so here's my first statement about that.
Real good history.
So in terms of education, in terms of understanding what the nature of the colonies and the early birth of the country was, really good stuff.
I'd recommended that book, American Nations, for the same reason, because it talks about how different things were than the way you learned them in the textbooks.
But here's the thing.
While I love it as history, And I absolutely love that the countries get a little more informed about who we really are, where we came from, etc.
All that stuff's good.
But the problem is that the intention of it is to make us think differently in the present.
And I don't know how to interpret that, except that we should be thinking differently about Trump.
Because it turns out everything ends up connecting to that, right?
Because it's the thing that the news cares about.
So having an entire history lesson of hundreds of years ago events to make you hate a guy who was not part of that time is not legitimate news.
It's great history, and I recommend it.
It's good reading. So well done in the terms of writing, historically, good for the nation, probably lots of good reasons to read it.
But you have to question their intentions for doing it now, the way they're doing it.
Here's a couple of things that you don't hear, because the news is all about narrative and not facts.
Here are two things that the President promised us that I don't think get enough attention.
One is, he said he was going to be politically incorrect.
He said that in direct words.
At the very first debate, he said he doesn't care for political correctness and he's not going to adhere to it.
Now, when you hear, I'm not going to be politically correct, what do you hear?
Well, what I hear, and I suppose it's open for interpretation, but what I hear is, I'm telling you right now, I'm going to speak plainly without worrying about offending people.
So far, I think you'd all agree, right?
That he's going to speak however he wants to speak to get his message across, and he's not going to care whether it offends people.
And the reason that there is a phrase called political correctness, the context of that is that when you do that, you will be accused of being a racist and a sexist and a xenophobe and a bigot.
So he told us, I'm going to speak In a plain way, the people will find offensive, and they will use that as an excuse to accuse me of being a racist and a xenophobe and a bigot and a sexist, etc. And then he delivered that.
He delivered that.
He gave us exactly what he said he would give us if he were elected.
I don't think he gets enough credit for that.
Because he actually said, in what I take as a very clear language, when I get elected, they're going to go crazy accusing me of every ism.
But I'm not going to care.
And that's what we got.
That's exactly what we got.
Now, if you see it through that filter, obviously I added a narrative to it.
So I didn't just report the facts, I added my little spin to it.
But is that spin illegitimate?
Is it illegitimate to say, he told us in clear language what he was going to do, he told us in clear language, because of the term politically incorrect, the way it's commonly used, is that I'm going to be falsely accused.
Right? If you say I'm going to be politically incorrect, you're also saying, and I'm going to be falsely accused because of the types of language I use.
He nailed it.
That's where we are.
He's exactly where he said we would be if we elected him.
The other thing he's not getting enough attention for is something like 21,000 Mexican people National Guard troops are guarding the border to keep people from crossing their southern border and getting to the northern border and crossing here.
Isn't that kind of expensive?
What does it cost to put 21 or 20 whatever thousand soldiers on a border?
That feels really expensive.
Can we really say Mexico isn't paying for the wall?
Because it looks exactly like making Mexico pay for at least border security.
Now, you could say, well, that's not a wall.
But that's, you know, it's a substitute.
Border security with a whole army feels a lot like a human wall, as somebody says in the comments.
I think you have to stretch To say that he failed to make Mexico pay for the wall.
That looks exactly like making Mexico pay for the wall, if you allow that the wall means border security.
Now, you could be, you know, is it pedantic and say, no, no, no, he said the wall, the wall, W-A-L-L, it has to be concrete or else it doesn't count.
Well, okay, I hear what you're saying.
But getting Mexico to pay for border security in a way that's very expensive and apparently effective is an awful lot like doing something that other politicians didn't look like they were going to do.
All right, so what do we do about all this?
So it's another day where there's no real news.
I look at, I always do the same thing.
I look at social media, Twitter, I look at CNN.com, I look at Fox News, and I say, what's the news?
And there are days like this where there's just no news.
And that's actually not unusual for August, because people are on vacation.
Hong Kong, let's talk about Hong Kong.
Which largely fell off the front page.
So it's interesting that Hong Kong is using some American imagery.
They're using some American flags, and I guess there was the American national anthem.
But here's my take on Hong Kong, which I said before.
In the long run, China will win.
Because they can wait, they can put as much pressure as they want.
Now you might see something like, you might see China appear to pull back.
So they might, for example, say, okay, we hear you people on the street, so we're not going to do the thing we said we were going to do, which is essentially assert some judicial control over the country so they could try people in Chinese courts.
They might say, no, we'll pull back on that.
But if they do pull back, they're not going to give up on it.
They're just going to start moving other variables until it's easier to get it next time.
So maybe they start bribing some people, influencing some people.
So I don't think China's going to lose in the long run.
Because Hong Kong doesn't have a military force, and Taiwan has a military force, so they're not really directly comparable.
So what the president's done, I thought, was kind of perfect.
So the president's response to this, and for those of you who are new, I do criticize the president when he does things I don't like.
I don't think he's killing it on healthcare or immigration or Race relations, for example.
So I got plenty of stuff I could criticize.
But his response about the Hong Kong thing was just about as good as you could do in a non-politician way.
So what he said was that he believes that his great friend, President Xi, who has many talents, if he wanted to, even though he knows it's not his thing, he could meet with the protesters and he could solve this thing with any violence fairly quickly.
Well, yeah, he could, under the condition that the Hong Kong protesters just give up.
But President Xi is not going to call a meeting with the Hong Kong protesters and then give them what they're asking for.
So the beauty of what President Trump suggested is that it's completely impractical.
That's what's beautiful. There isn't the slightest chance that President Xi is going to personally meet with the heads of the protesters and then give them some of the stuff that they want.
That's just not going to happen.
But the President puts it out there as a compliment.
So he frames it as a compliment to President Xi.
He shows his respect.
Very, very well done in terms of threading that needle.
Because the President says, I believe President Xi could pull this off because he's so awesome.
And he can ignore, he has the, I guess he has the freedom to ignore that it couldn't possibly work in a way that's good for Hong Kong and that Hong Kong would agree.
But as a way to say something in public, it's great because he's clearly on the side of Hong Kong while complimenting Xi and saying, President Xi, you can handle this in 10 minutes.
I know you could. You're awesome.
I love you. We've got a great relationship.
It's kind of perfect.
But then the president continues and says that if there's violence in Hong Kong, You know, I'm paraphrasing, but the president would have a difficult time getting a deal done, which is also perfect cover for not getting a deal done.
If I were having trouble getting a deal done, I would certainly want this Hong Kong thing to pop up so I could lay it on that and say, well, you know, Hong Kong, we would love to do a deal, but I don't know, China...
Things you're doing to Hong Kong makes you the kind of trading partner we don't know if we could trust.
We don't know if we could be on your side.
We can't support that. So the president picked the perfect place to be on this, because you can't really pressure China for something like this.
There's no way to pressure them in a way that works well.
We can simply say, The way the president put it is that, politically, he would have trouble getting a deal done, even if he wanted to.
So he sort of took it out of his hands and said, I don't know, the mood, I'm paraphrasing again, but the mood would be, if you did something bad in Hong Kong, the mood would be such that it would be hard for me to get a deal done here in America.
So, excellent, excellent job of depersonalizing the situation, keeping the respect on, setting the boundaries, giving himself an out if the negotiations with China don't turn out to be fruitful.
He's got one more reason to say, well, we can't really deal with some country that was so bad to Hong Kong, if that happens.
I would have to say that so far there has been more restraint from China than I might have expected.
And it has a lot to do with just the number of people in Hong Kong that are motivated.
So watching that is fun.
But I will say again that I don't think a trade deal with China will ever be in our interest unless China changes their philosophy on deals.
Apparently, their philosophy on deals is to only make deals that are good for them and bad for the other team.
Now, I can't confirm that that's true, but that's what smart people are telling me, that China doesn't have, let's say, the philosophy that deals should be win-win deals.
There's just power, and that's sort of the end of the story.
So we probably are going to need to walk away from China as an active market or just forever do deals with them where we tariff each other if they want to live with that.
But I suspect that in the long run China will just not be philosophically compatible with our economic system.
And I don't know that they need to be.
I don't think it's the end of the world necessarily.
I will simultaneously sip to that.
The other thing we never really know is how close to the edge China is.
You know, from the outside, I don't know if we can tell.
Even from the inside, I don't know if they can tell.
The distance between doing great and having a major recession, I don't know if anybody can see it coming before it happens.
Now, yeah, and it does make me wonder if we should be closer to Russia in terms of trade.
Somebody raised the possibility, and I will not name names, that cryptocurrencies would someday be used for assassinations.
Have you ever heard that idea?
The idea that you could maybe put out a hit, you know, a request, To have somebody whacked and then, you know, in some untraceable cryptocurrency way, you could just pay for the hit.
You'd have to have evidence that it happened.
And it makes me wonder if you could start seeing hits in other countries from people who just say, you know, I'll just put some Bitcoin toward this and we'll see what happens.
I don't know that that really could work because I've got a feeling that you can trace more things than...
I think everything's traceable.
I don't believe in untraceable stuff.
Check out the dark web.
Does the dark web have assassination markets?
I don't think that's a thing.
Big Brother won't allow untraceable currency.
Only socialists believe China is socialist to justify their BS. Okay.
So China's not buying our soybeans.
I would like to see China buy all of our soybeans.
We should give China all the soy they want for free.
We should just ship them all the soy, and Russia too.
We should give both Russia and China free soy.
Just as much as they can eat.
We can just soy them right to death.
I don't think Ross Albrecht is serving time for creating an assassination vehicle.
He's serving time for the Silk Road, which allowed a number of things.
Have I heard of Craig Wright, creator of Bitcoin?
Well, that doesn't sound right, unless his name is Satoshi.
So I don't know that story.
I have not heard it. Scott, please see Ian Fletcher, economist who wants to talk.
Okay? I don't know what that's all about.
I'm just reading your comments here because, honestly, I like spending time with you guys, but there's not much to talk about except soy in China.
But what a world, huh?
So the president, one of the things I love when he does is he goes on in his public statements, he'll call out heroes and villains in the media.
And they say that, you know, you don't want to normalize this behavior, but I'm so glad it is normalized.
So the president went after Juan Williams on Fox News, but he praised some other people, Greg Goffeld as one of them.
And he was talking about how he doesn't like it when Fox News does things that are not complimentary to him.
And I gotta say that if we were not in a world where the New York Times had just revealed that they're a narrative organization and not a news organization, at least in terms of politics, It would be a lot more bothersome that the president talks about Fox News as sort of a wholly owned subsidiary of his administration.
But I think in the real world, you can see that news networks do seem to have political preferences.
Can you invite a public liberal to talk?
You know, I would love to.
To have somebody on here who just disagrees with me.
But I don't know if I could get one.
I don't know if I could get...
I will tell you that I did invite a prominent liberal, somebody whose name you've heard, to be on the show, and let's say he balked.
He balked, and I let it go.
I don't know that...
Are there any liberals who would take the chance?
Will we buy Greenland?
It sounds like we won't, just because Greenland doesn't want to sell.
Oh, they went after Fox for hiring down to Brazil.
Yeah, the president did. Talk to Yang.
I tried Yang. His people didn't get back to me.
And then I lost interest, frankly.
If I'd been more interested, I probably would have followed him.
Invite Bill Maher. I doubt Bill Maher would go on my podcast, but he would be interesting.
Oh, Rob Reiner. Wow.
Michael Moore. I would love to talk to Michael Moore.
But again, I don't think any of those people would come on my show.
Get the Mooch. You know, I don't know what's happening with Scaramucci, exactly.
I mean, other than the obvious.
We're all watching it, and it's all kind of obvious what's happening.
But I just don't know that that news, in my mind, the Scaramucci news doesn't really go beyond him and the president, and some people in the news want to talk about it.
It doesn't seem to affect America.
Will I sell Scott's sipping mugs?
Probably not.
How can Ian Fletcher contact me?
You say in all capital letters.
Easiest way to get my attention is on LinkedIn.
So if you go to LinkedIn, just send over an invitation.
I accept everybody on LinkedIn.
But because there's far less traffic on LinkedIn, I'm far more likely to notice a message.
John Cusack, I don't think he'll talk to me.
Share. Punchy De Niro.
I love the fact that De Niro is now called Punchy De Niro.
All right. Mooch likes to Periscope, too.
Well, I've spoken to Scaramoochie.
So we did once have a brief conversation.
So I could, and we've crossed, we've not crossed messages, we've exchanged some messages on Twitter.
So I could invite him on, but I think I know what he's going to say, so...
Could it all be a setup with Scaramucci?
I doubt it. Somebody says, you say you're left of Bernie.
On what? Abortion.
I'm left of Bernie. So some people often ask me, why do I say I'm left of Bernie?
And let me give you some examples.
I'm left of Bernie on abortion, for one example.
The conservatives are more likely to be opposed to all abortions.
Liberals are more likely to be in favor of abortion under certain conditions.
And I'm left to that, which is men such as Bernie and me should be followers of this issue, not leaders.
Meaning that women have more skin in the game and their collective decisions I'm willing to support.
There's a longer description there to why I have that position.
But that's the short version.
The short version is I'm left to him because I think he and I shouldn't even be talking about it.
Whatever women collectively want about abortion, it's life and death.
Women have skin in the game.
Men don't. And while I'm not saying we should give up our vote, I'm not saying men should give up any decision-making about money, but the moral I would rather follow the lead of women because in this area they have the most skin in the game.
Now, would I say the same thing for, let's say, the military because there are more men who go off and get killed in the military?
And the answer is yes, I would.
I think that men probably should have a little more say in that because they have a little more skin in the game depending on the situation.
All right. You want another one?
Conservatives want to keep their guns.
Bernie likes a little bit of, you know, Second Amendment, thinks you should be able to keep your rifle, I believe.
But I believe that no one should have a weapon except me.
So I'm far left to Bernie.
He thinks people should have at least rifles for hunting and whatnot.
But I think nobody should have a gun except me.
And then you don't have to worry about the government taking over because there would only be one gun and I'd have it.
So I'd kind of run the whole country.
Now the thing with guns is that guns are really a difference in a risk profile.
The people who want guns either don't have any risk or they don't have much risk of their existence and they want to use them.
And they might think that in their case it would keep them safer in their home.
There are other people for whom Lots of guns make them unambiguously less safe.
So if the people who know they will be less safe don't want guns, and the people who know that they will be more safe do want guns, it's not really a political conversation.
It's just people trying to get what's best for their risk profile.
Anyway, so here's another one.
I think this is true.
Conservatives generally would keep Confederate statues, generally.
Liberals would be far more likely, of course there's not universal agreement anywhere here, but liberals far more likely would want to get rid of Civil War era statues for being offensive.
And I think Bernie's probably in that category.
Somebody has to fact check me.
But I'm left to that.
When the President says, what are we going to do?
Take down references to George Washington?
To which I say, absolutely.
Yeah. Yes.
You should absolutely stop worshipping a slave owner.
I know it's hard.
I know we've all been raised, most of us anyway, raised to worship Washington and Jefferson and those guys.
And I'm willing to say that they had some excellent qualities.
Jefferson was a good inventor.
He was excellent with words.
He was also a giant racist slave owner.
Should we be putting giant racist slave owners on our money And then asking, should we put slave owners on our money and then ask African Americans to be on the same team?
Say, hey, why can't you be a team player?
Just because we put slave owners on money, that shouldn't offend you.
To which I say, absolutely it should offend you.
Put yourself in that situation.
So, if you don't agree with that, Then you are a good candidate to read either the book, American Nations, which tells you just how evil the early slave owners were.
And by the way, the early slave owners, they had white slaves.
It wasn't just racist.
Now, the situation with the African slaves, the ones that came from Africa, was much worse.
But the rich people were abusing and murdering and And whipping white people, too.
You know, they just had to be poor.
Somebody says, you just lost me.
But again, you didn't give a reason.
All right. So who sold the slaves doesn't matter to this point.
Totally irrelevant. If you want to win points, it's like, oh, but who sold the slaves?
If it was black people who sold the slave, irrelevant.
Irrelevant. If one of those black people in Africa who sold the slaves had their picture on the currency of the United States, I'd say maybe get that off of there.
Right? The fact that it happened to be Washington who was a slave owner.
And keep in mind, the revolution was not fought to free the slaves.
The revolution was fought to keep the slavery.
A big part of the reason that the revolutionary war happened at all is because people wanted to keep slaves and England was moving away from it.
So the revolution was kind of a pro-slavery thing in addition to the political part.
Scott Adams for destroying pyramids.
No, I think anything that's historical can be maintained if you put the proper context around it.
So I don't have any problem with the pyramids, and I wouldn't have any problem with somebody keeping a Confederate statue if they put a plaque up.
That said, you know, we're not praising slave owners.
We're just telling you the history, for example.
That would be fine. I'd be okay with that.
Or just move the statue to a museum.
That'd be fine. So I don't think you have to destroy history, but you don't have to put slave owners on your currency.
I mean, seriously. So there are a lot of positions where I'm left to Bernie, and then there are a lot of them where he's either impractical or we're sort of similar.
All right. Take Bernie's position on dealing with China.
He says be tough.
Take Bernie's position on offshoring jobs to other countries.
Same as Trump's.
Take Bernie's position on...
Well, whatever.
All right. Somebody says, it wasn't about taxes, so you mean I've been lied to.
Correct, you have been lied to.
It was a little bit about taxes.
It was a little bit about taxes, but no, that wasn't the whole reason.
Is there a huge story to be had?
Oh, let's talk about Epstein's assistant there, Ghislaine Maxwell.
So there's this picture taken of her, and people are asking questions such as, why are there two drinks there?
And why did she take her glasses off for the picture?
And how do you read a book without your glasses on?
And wasn't it easy to find her and all that stuff?
And I have to say, if we don't find her fairly soon, Meaning the legal system or the press.
I'm going to say that that was probably a setup.
If I were trying to hide, I would go somewhere, have somebody take a picture with a professional camera, and then I would make sure that I was never anywhere around that place again, so that everybody would be looking wherever that picture was taken.
So, the Ghislaine Maxwell thing, Could be she just went out for a burger and they caught her.
Could be. Could be exactly what it looks like.
But I think it's just as likely that she wanted the picture taken for her own purposes.
Just as likely. Somebody says, we know you are really conservative at heart and support Trump.
Well, supporting Trump is about supporting systems over goals.
You hear me talk about that a lot.
A system is all the stuff you do to make sure that you have good outcomes.
And a goal is just something you want.
It doesn't tell you how to get it.
So, I want income equality.
But I don't know how to get there.
The best we have is a capitalist system, and the president supports capitalism.
So the president tends to support systems, and I generally like that.
If Ghislaine was nearsighted, she would take off her glasses to read.
That is correct. I often take off my glasses to read, by the way.
And, you know, these glasses go both ways, but I often take them off to read.
You can't read one book and no American history.
Did I tell you I read one book?
That sound wall behind you makes you look like a little kid in a big chair.
Okay. I'm just looking at your comments now because I got nothing else to say.
Well, I think I'll end it and get on to some other work.
And I will talk to you tomorrow.
Maybe there'll be some...
Somebody's asking me about income equality.
I would like poor people to have more stuff.
I don't care if rich people have yet more stuff.
So in my perfect world, poor people will get more stuff, rich people don't really need any more stuff, and so you'd get closer to equality.
But I don't like it as a goal.
I like it as something that happens because you're doing everything right, not as an objective.
All right. That's all for now.
▲
Export Selection