My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Trump's approval rate 51%, Biden incoming at 48%
Failure to fix election transparency
Biden allows Chinese control of US power grid?
Elon Musk, most interesting person in the world
Katie Couric wants Republicans deprogrammed
Our "Super Capables" are stepping up
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Is this sideways? I swear I've had every technical problem you can have.
Oh my god.
Alright, so let me tell you what happened.
There's a software I use called StreamYard that lets me do a live stream simultaneously to both YouTube and Periscope.
Now, I've used it several times, and it's really easy.
That's what I like about it.
You just put in your credentials, point at those services, bam, and you're in.
So you're asking me, why am I not using that simple service right now?
Well, there's this one problem with it.
It doesn't seem to work twice.
I don't know why.
And what happens is the buttons for going live just don't appear sometimes.
Meaning that there's some kind of mode where you get into that I don't know how they make that so hard.
Basically, all you do is put in your credentials and hit go live.
But sometimes those options exist, and sometimes they don't, and there doesn't seem to be any pattern to it.
So it didn't work this morning.
But, I know why you're here.
You're here for the simultaneous sip.
The best thing of the day. The thing that was, really, you can't go without.
Can ya? Alright.
Well, luckily, I'm prepared today.
Got my coffee. It's Bora Bora coffee.
And if you'd like to enjoy this simultaneous sip, all you need is a, what?
A cup or a mug or glass.
A canteen jug?
No. A cup or a mug or glass.
Some other things. They hold beverages.
They'd be like containers.
There would be several of them, and if you cleverly put them together, they would be sort of almost a rhyming kind of a thing, and then we would drink.
And if I had not woken up, or awakened, which is it?
If I had not awakened, Mere moments ago, I'd remember that.
Because I do say it every single day.
It's the reason I read it, I can't memorize it.
But, whatever you've got, let's do the simultaneous sip.
Go! Oh, that's good.
Alright, let's talk about what's going on.
Of course, my notes that I've made are on a device that tells me that the power is going to go off at any moment now.
So here's the funniest story of the week.
So Trump is, according to Rasmus in polls, Trump is leaving office or left on his last day with an approval rating of 51%.
It's not too bad. Now, that's Rasmussen, of course.
So, you know, if you see some other poll, you're going to get a different result.
But also on Rasmussen, so you're using the same methodology, same company, they have Biden at 48% the day he took office.
So Trump is actually leaving office at a higher approval rating than the guy who took his job And beat them soundly in the popular vote.
Which makes total sense, right?
Now, the way that's being explained...
Oh, and by the way, I want you to know, I do know how to turn a phone sideways.
But it didn't work.
So none of my technology is working today.
I've got three devices and five different ways to do this and absolutely none of them work twice in a row.
Yeah, it's starting to rain pretty hard right here.
So you can see it's not quite sunrise.
It's going to be happening pretty soon.
Alright, so here are the things that are bugging people who voted for Trump.
So you've got all these data points.
More people go to Trump rallies, more people watched Trump on YouTube, like way more, like five times more.
More people Let's see.
He has higher popularity.
Blah, blah, blah. So people are thinking, how in the world could Biden have won this election?
Now, the response to that is that people were voting against Trump, not for Biden.
Right? Now, when you first hear that, you think, okay, well, that makes sense.
They're voting against somebody, so that might not show up.
But wouldn't that show up in the approval?
Is there somebody who approved of Trump, did not approve of Biden, and still voted for Biden?
How exactly do you get higher approval of the person you're voting against?
Right? Right?
Now, I'm still on the side that says there's no proof whatsoever of any election irregularity that's big enough to change the election.
There is, however, also no proof whatsoever that the election was fair.
Now, is that a reasonable thing to say?
Does the election have to prove it's fair?
Or is it the responsibility of those who have claims, such as allegations of fraud, is it their responsibility to make their case?
Well, if it were a legal case, of course, you have to prove that there's some crime that happened.
But in the rare case of an election, as I've said before, I think the election is the one case where I think the election system has to prove it was not fraudulent.
Meaning it needs to be at least transparent enough, or at least auditable enough, that if anybody had a question, it would be easy to check.
You just audit it, it's transparent, see if there's anything to it.
So this is just the one example I can think of.
Maybe you can think of another, but I can't.
The one example in the world where the burden of proof should be on the accused.
I can't think of any other case that would be appropriate.
But for the election, it is the burden of proof on the election system to prove it was valid and fair.
And we don't have one that's designed so that it could do that.
So whether or not you wanted to do that, it's not designed that you could.
And apparently we're not moving toward that.
Would you say that the election, let's say the election disagreements, if you will, may be the biggest problem in the country immediately?
What's Biden doing to fix it for next time?
So Biden's the president.
It's his job to fix stuff that's broken.
And the country almost got torn apart by a belief that the election was not at least transparent enough.
So what's he doing to fix that?
Nothing. Every day that Biden doesn't do something to improve the transparency of the election, I think, is evidence of fraud.
Now, it may not be evidence of fraud in the past, but it's definitely evidence of fraud in the future.
Because if you don't fix something that's not transparent, and in the face of people doubting it, fairly aggressively doubting it, you're not really planning to do it fair next time, are you?
Because it seems like He could do a little executive ordering or at least some presidential jawboning to make people at least try harder to make the thing transparent.
But no, I don't believe this will ever be a topic he cares about.
I'll bet he'll say something like, well, states have to do that.
They sure ought to do it better, maybe.
But I don't think he's going to go after it.
Now, arguably it is a state issue, but that doesn't make it not his problem.
Alright, so that's happening, and again, I don't have any proof that the election was anything but fair.
I say that, so I'll remain on social media.
So, Biden issued an executive order rescinding one of Trump's orders.
And it's a real head-scratcher.
He rescinded Trump's order that banned Chinese companies, which we assume can be controlled by the government of China, to prevent them from selling bulk power systems into our grid.
Now, the worry is that if you get any kind of electronics made by a A rival, if you will, China, that they would have maybe a software way into the whole system, they could bring down our electrical grid, and they would have tremendous...
You're disappointed in me?
For what? Sassy southern patriot?
I'll give you about a minute to tell me why you're disappointed in me before I block you.
Because it's okay to say anything that is content-wise, like why you disagree, or what your opinion is, or some facts I missed.
But I don't really want you to come on here and tell me that you're fucking disappointed.
Because you know what I don't care about?
Your fucking disappointment.
I do not give a fuck about your disappointment in what I've said.
Because the moment I start caring about that, I'm worthless.
The moment that influences me, that somebody came on here and said, I'm disappointed in you, the moment that affects me, this is all worthless.
It's all worthless, the moment that matters to me.
So I can't let that matter to me.
So don't bother saying it unless you've got something useful to say, okay?
Alright, so Biden rescinds this order, the Trump's order that would have kept the Chinese companies out of a power grid vendor process.
Now, wouldn't you think that rescinding an order like that would, number one, be headline news.
Didn't see it. Didn't see it on CNN. Did not see it on Fox News.
Is it possibly fake news?
So the first question I have is, is this real?
Because it's not covered on either CNN or Fox News, at least with a quick look, I didn't see it.
So if somebody could give me a fact check on that, it would be great.
Now, it could be that the only thing that's going on is Biden is pausing all the executive orders of Trump so he can just look into them.
But what is there to look into?
What exactly is there to look into in this?
I don't know what you would look into.
Is there an argument that says that the Chinese government should have control of our power network?
What? Or is there an argument that maybe it would be racist if we prevented the country of China from controlling our power grid?
I hope that's not the reason.
Or is it just because Trump did it so it has to be undone?
What exactly is that about?
Now, of course, every Republican is saying, could it be that China controls Biden and that China has secrets about Biden or Hunter Biden or anything like that?
Now, I have no reason to believe that any of that is the case.
Well, I have reason to believe it.
I don't have proof of it.
I have to be careful about my choice of words, right?
And don't you think that we deserve an explanation?
Don't you think your news should be telling you right now, hey, there was actually a real good reason for rescinding that.
It's not obvious, but let us explain it so you can feel comfortable with it.
That's not exactly what's happening, right?
So, if it's true that Biden did rescind that EO about the Chinese companies in our power grid, if it's true and we don't hear any news about it from the major news sources, what's that tell you?
Well, it would tell you that your news sources are corrupt, both on the left and the right, anybody who doesn't cover it, if it's true.
If it turns out it's not true, and I think that's at least a, I don't know, at least a 50% chance, right, that it's not even true, that anything happened with that.
So let's find out about that.
All right. Biden has a little trap that he's set for himself, which is he's branded himself the pro-science president.
So if he does anything that's not pro-science, he's got a little extra explaining to do.
Ah, good coffee.
So, every time there's any inconsistency, either in logic or math or science, it's going to be fun to criticize.
And by the way, everybody who told me, Scott, why are you so sad that Trump lost?
And I would look at them and say, well, I preferred that he win, but do I look sad?
Because I don't feel sad.
I feel as though criticizing Biden will just be like this wonderful, like a wonderful, delicious meal that I can have every day.
Now, the country is in bad shape.
You know, maybe. We'll see.
But, you know, we'll give him a chance.
But it doesn't look good so far.
I mean, Biden has the worst first weeks or first start of any president I've ever seen.
But I could be biased. Let's give them a chance.
We'll see. But here's my question.
The Democrats have taken the following view, which I would argue is maybe not scientifically valid, which is that the absence of proof of election fraud is proof of absence of fraud.
Now, you know that's not logical, right?
Just because you did not prove something happened is not proof it didn't happen.
Because there are lots of things you can't prove happened that did in fact happen.
So the Democrats have sold this to the public through their clowns in the media that that actually makes sense.
Because they're not saying, hey, we don't know if there's fraud, but you haven't proved it, which actually would be a fair thing to say.
It would be fair to say you have not proven it to enough people's satisfaction.
That's fair. But can you logically go to, therefore it's proven it doesn't exist?
No, you can't.
That is a famous illogical thing, which the public has accepted.
The public has accepted A logical fallacy, one of the most famous ones, really, if you're going to make a list of logical fallacies, that would be in the top ten, that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, right? It's famous. It's literally a famous illogical thought.
And it's the primary news.
The reason that people are being banned on social media is not just claiming that they're sure that something was fraudulent, but beyond that, the people doing the banning kind of are buying into the logical fallacy that the absence of proof is proof of absence.
And that's happening right in front of you.
While you're looking at it, like they don't even care that you know it's not logical.
The thing that's mind-boggling is it's not only illogical, it's literally a famous example of illogic.
It's one of the most famous ones, and we act like that isn't even true.
Like, nah, let's just act like that's logical.
We'll just go on with our day and act like that made sense.
All right. So if there are other anti-science or illogical things that come out of the Biden administration, be sure to notify me because I'd like to mention all of them.
Now, to be fair, I do think the Democrats are on the right side of science in a number of cases.
As you know, while I disagree quite a bit with the economic long-term predictions about the doom of climate science, I do believe that they got the chemistry and the physics right, in all likelihood.
You can never know 100%, but in all likelihood they did get that right.
So I think that's the case where the conservatives probably need to catch up with where science is.
On just the physics and chemistry of adding CO2, blah, blah, blah.
And as I said yesterday, if you believe that climate science is not real, Either because the sun had something to do with it instead, and you think science didn't look into the sun, or you think because there used to be more CO2 in the distant past that means something.
It doesn't, because everything else was different then, too.
So, I would encourage anybody who's in my audience to catch up with the science on climate change.
Doesn't mean it's the end of the world.
Doesn't mean you need a Green New Deal.
Doesn't necessarily mean you need windmills or anything like that.
You don't need to buy into that.
Those are different questions.
But buying into just the general question of whether there's warming, I feel like it's time.
I think it's time for the skeptics to say, if you've ever felt yourself fooled before, this might be one of those.
Seeing somebody else saying they're disappointed.
Wrong. Disappointed.
All right. So, Matthew, I don't know if you caught the earlier discussion, but when you say you're disappointed in me for my opinion that agrees with the vast majority of scientists on Earth, I don't care about your disappointment, but I do want to block it because I don't want other people to be poisoned by such a shitty opinion.
So, I've decided that the most interesting person in the world right now is Elon Musk.
Now, you could argue it used to be Trump.
He's gonna be pulling back from the limelight for a while, it looks like.
And Elon Musk remains, I think, the most interesting person in the world right now.
And I've been watching some old YouTube video clips of famous things that Elon Musk has said, or interviews he's done recently, and he doesn't do anything boring.
You can watch him all day long, and whatever he says is just sort of interesting.
But here's what I like the most about it.
Elon did an interview in which he was saying that you wouldn't want to be him.
If you actually knew the internal life he has in his head, I'm paraphrasing him now, but he basically said that he has so many thoughts and ideas and they're streaming at him so quickly and they're so activating, meaning that he feels he needs to do something about these ideas, that it's closer to a curse Now, again, I'm paraphrasing, so I hope I got that at least approximately correct.
And I thought to myself, there's a gigantic lesson there, isn't there?
He was literally the richest person in the United States recently.
I think Bezos overtook him again.
But you look at that and you say, well, wouldn't that be great?
Wouldn't you like to switch places with the first or second richest person in the world?
And then you hear him talking completely, I mean, honestly, I don't think he was doing any, I picked up no false modesty or anything like that.
It looked completely honest to me, that it's really hard to be him.
And the more I thought about it, the more I was appreciating that point.
And think about this. The biggest problems in the world, if you were to look at like the really big ones, it would be energy policy and then the related question of climate.
But even if you didn't worry about the climate, You would certainly think we need more energy, right?
The world needs clean energy.
There's no doubt about that. So Elon Musk, you know, he's got his electric cars.
He's got his electric battery company.
Tesla, the smart people think of it as Adam Townsend.
I heard him say this. So I bought a bunch of Tesla stock the minute I heard this.
I think Adam Townsend said it.
That you should think of Tesla as an energy company.
If you think of it as a car company, you're missing what it is.
It's more of an energy company.
And I thought to myself, oh my God, that's true.
And I bought the stock, it's up 130%.
Now, I don't make stock recommendations, so don't go buy any stocks, because I said this, right?
This is not a stock recommendation thing, and you shouldn't take any stock recommendations from people like me.
But the fact is that that insight is a big deal, because our energy is the biggest challenge in the future, probably.
The other challenge is space.
We have to get off the planet, and if the United States doesn't do it first, whoever gets there first is going to own the planet.
Because if you can control space, you kind of control the planet, because it's easier to You know, drop things down than it is to shoot things up.
Sort of a general statement.
You want the high ground. So I'm oversimplifying that.
But the point is, whoever controls space is going to control the future.
So aren't you glad that Elon's on your side if you're either a democracy or an American?
So, and then he's also putting up Starlink, these low-Earth satellites that will blanket the Earth and be a secondary, well, not secondary, but it'll be basically an Internet system that's in the sky instead of wired.
So what's that going to do for our freedom of speech?
Well, it kind of puts it in Elon's control a little bit, because if he says you can be on his satellites, well, I guess you can.
And fortunately for you, he's pro-freedom, pro-free speech.
So that makes me feel pretty comfortable that there'll be some kind of an alternative to the social media platforms and the common carriers that we have now.
So when you look at the size of the problems that he's taking on, or even his boring company, the B-O-R-I-N-G company, where it bores holes in things, and then he's also turning humans into cyborgs.
He's got the company where they'll put the little chip into your skull, literally, so you can control technology with your thoughts, I guess.
So if you look at the things he's doing, they're literally save civilization things.
Now imagine this.
Put yourself in his place.
And this was my, there's a boat going by.
This was my realization yesterday.
You know in Spider-Man, if you ever watch the Spider-Man movies, there's this line where he says, with great power comes great responsibility.
That's sort of Elon Musk's problem right now.
He can do things that other people can't do.
He just did this $100 million XPRIZE kind of thing.
It's not an XPRIZE but his own thing.
He offered to pay $100 million to whoever comes up with the best carbon capture technology.
Who else did that?
Who else could've? Who else was smart enough?
Who else knew that carbon capture technology is basically the only way to fix things?
Did you know that? Did you know that there's basically no way to fix climate change if you think it's a problem?
If you think it's a problem, there's no way to do it.
And also feed the poor.
I was reading an article by Bill Gates, who was lamenting in great detail the same thing.
If you tried to meet the climate goals, it would be so aggressive, it would just destroy all the...
the poor people basically couldn't eat at that point.
So you might starve a billion people to make the Green New Deal work.
Now I'm making up those numbers, but I'm trying to give you the sense that we're not talking about a small problem.
You're talking about maybe you kill a billion people to get to the point where your CO2 is low enough that you don't destroy the planet.
Now that's Bill Gates, who's really looked into it, right?
And he's telling you, you can't get there from here with any way that we can think of.
Think about that. Bill Gates literally says, the end of the world is coming, basically, through climate change, and we don't know how to stop it.
He says that directly.
I mean, I'm paraphrasing, but he says it essentially directly.
Now, that's not to say that we're doomed, and I don't think so.
I think we'll innovate our way out of it, and that's what Elon's tried to do.
But my point is this.
Yeah, it's like my leaf blower problem except with boats.
The problem is this for Elon.
If Elon Musk doesn't fix the world and save it, Who else will?
Now, I hear what you're saying. People are saying nuclear, nuclear.
Actually, if you listen to Bill Gates, and he was very compelling, you could not build enough nuclear plants fast enough.
There just isn't any way to do it.
If you do the math, there's nothing you can do fast enough that would fix the problem.
You can delay it. And building nuclear as fast as you can would definitely help, would definitely delay it, definitely good to do.
But it doesn't come close.
According to Bill Gates, it doesn't come close.
Even if you did everything really, like really aggressively, it just wouldn't come close.
Do you know it would?
Carbon capture. If somebody can build efficient enough carbon capture, then we can be, let's say, bad with our energy policy, use too many carbon fuels, but just suck them out of the air.
Now, maybe the math of that doesn't work either, but I have a feeling that, you know, the fact that Elon put a hundred million into it shows me two things.
Number one, He's got a lot of money.
That's the first thing.
Number two, he's not the entrepreneur who's just going to be funding the thing that's, let's say, politically hot.
He's going to do the thing that works because he's an engineer, right?
So when Elon says carbon capture is worth an enormous investment, $100 million, plus whatever it would take to roll it out, when Elon Musk says that, You know that's probably the lever you need to start pulling, right? And those of you who are saying, carbon capture equals trees.
Carbon capture can be done with a tree.
We don't have to invent that.
Plant some more trees.
You can't get there from here.
Trees are good carbon capture, but you couldn't grow enough.
You couldn't plant enough. You just can't get there.
There's no path.
With just trees.
Trees plus nuclear power?
Not enough. Trees plus solar and wind and every green technology pushing as hard as you can?
Not even close.
You can't get there from here.
There's no path to stop the end of the earth, according to Bill Gates.
He ends his, even Bill Gates ends his opinion piece on this by saying that doesn't mean we're doomed.
It does mean we need to innovate.
So it's sort of down to engineers need to save the world.
Has that ever happened before?
Engineers have to save the world.
No way around it.
Because the politicians aren't going to do it.
If they did, they would be starving their own public.
Nobody's going to do that. You have to engineer your way out of it.
And Elon Musk is, at the moment, he's the chief engineer of the world.
Let's say chief engineer of the United States.
Because he's figured out the most important thing to do, and then he put tremendous resources, you know, $100 million of money behind it.
That's how you get out of it without starving people.
Elon Musk is the only person who told you the truth on climate change.
Think about that.
Elon Musk is the only person that I know of in the whole world Any politician?
Any pundit?
I think he's the only person who's told you the truth.
Which is, if you don't go hard at this and do the carbon capture, there's no way to get there.
So he put his money behind it and Right now he's the most important person in the world, I think, because he's engineering the way out of our biggest problems.
Our biggest problems are not guns or transgender sports or whatever you're going to worry about today.
I don't worry about that one, but I know you do.
So anyway, I would say he's the most important person in the world right now.
Katie Couric apparently was chosen to host Jeopardy!
to replace Alex Trebek, who passed away.
I thought Katie Couric was an interesting choice.
I'm not sure I would have chosen her for that job, but, you know, she's a big name brand, and she's great on TV, so it makes sense, I guess.
But apparently she went on the Bill Maher show and said that Republicans need to be deprogrammed.
And the Jeopardy!
people said, we just hired you for a TV show where we would like everybody to watch our show.
We'd kind of like conservatives to watch Jeopardy!
because you know there's a lot of them and they like their TV. So Jeopardy!
the rumor is that Jeopardy!
is having second thoughts about hiring her, because she just turned off half, well, maybe a third of the country.
What her statement was that Republicans need to be deprogrammed.
What do you think about that?
Would, I know most of you watching this are probably conservative leaning, but do you believe that Republicans need to be deprogrammed?
I would say yes.
I would say anybody who believed in the Q stuff needs to be deprogrammed.
I think so. I think a lot of the climate opinions need to be deprogrammed.
It might not make any difference if you did or not, but it would be useful.
I think in terms of the, let's say, the election security, Probably need to be deprogrammed at least to the point of knowing that the obvious ones that have been debunked have been debunked.
Now that doesn't mean that you could...
Man, it's getting windy here.
We've got a little monsoon coming up.
It's starting to get a little dicey here.
All right.
So I would say that both Republicans and Democrats should be deprogrammed, but in different topics.
All right.
Biden says today there's a quote, nothing we can do to change the coronavirus trajectory.
So now that Biden's president, he says there's nothing we can do to stop the coronavirus.
And I'm thinking, well, would have been nice to say that, you know, during the election.
When he ran for office, what do you have preferred hearing Biden say?
Sorry.
If I take the microphone off of my body, maybe it'll help a little bit.
I've got a hurricane going on here.
Let me walk inside.
Alright.
Might be a little bit better.
So, here's the inside.
All right.
So, I can see the climate change doubters doing the laffy, laffy, happy faces.
So, here's the inside.
Let's see if I can get this microphone back on.
So, those of you who are, let's say, climate skeptics, there's plenty of good reason to be a skeptic of climate, because I think a lot of the climate claims are obvious bullshit.
So if you're saying to me, Scott, how do you not realize that the climate change science is bullshit?
How do you not see it?
It's obvious. And here's the problem.
A lot of it is bullshit.
Obvious bullshit. And you're completely right.
But there's a whole bunch of other stuff that isn't.
So the problem with the climate science topic is that if you're listening to, let's say, somebody who's a believer in climate, they're going to give you a bunch of things that are true, that you should believe, and then a bunch of things that are obvious bullshit.
If you talk to somebody who's a skeptic, the skeptic will tell you a bunch of things that are true, and then a bunch of things that are complete bullshit.
So if you think the people on the left are all wrong, Or you think the people on the right, or let's say just pro and con of climate change, not left and right.
But if you think one of those sides has the good argument, you are wrong.
There are two bad arguments.
The ones that are pro-climate change and the ones that are anti-climate change belief, I guess.
Both sides are completely irrational.
Meaning that if you're going to be fair about it...
Let me be a little bit...
Let's see.
We still have the same problem out here?
Looks like we do. It's about a hundred times more windy than when I first had that.
So let me put it this way.
Almost everybody needs to be deprogrammed when it comes to climate change.
Whatever you believe, if you were to make a list of all the things you say are true statements about climate, whether you were pro or anti, whichever side you were down, if you just wrote down ten things you believe to be definitely true about climate, you'd be wrong on five of them, and it wouldn't matter which side you were on.
I don't think there's anybody who talks about this topic who isn't wrong about 30% of what they say on climate.
I've never seen anybody who wasn't obviously in need of some deprogramming.
And by the way, that includes me.
When I started digging into this topic, and I've done quite a bit of looking at the skeptical arguments, probably more than 99% of people.
And I've looked at the pro, I've looked at the con, I've looked at the debunks for both the pro and the con, the debunks to the debunks.
So I've gone down a few layers.
I'll let you look at a better scenery while you're doing this.
I've gone down a few layers into it, and what I can tell is everybody's lying.
So both sides are lying, or they're just mistaken.
I don't know. But I don't think there's anybody who's being completely honest about the climate stuff, with two exceptions.
And you're not going to like this, right?
I know you're not going to like this.
There are two people that I believe are completely honest about it, Probably are really close to also being accurate in terms of understanding it all.
One of them is Bill Gates, and I know you don't like that, but I've been watching him for a long time and listened to a lot of what he says about this, and I feel like...
He's as close as you can get to the real thing.
I would bet, I don't know this for sure, but I'll bet if you put Elon Musk and Bill Gates in the same room and said, all right, talk privately about climate change.
What is real and why should we not believe about climate change?
I'll bet I would be close.
Not exact. But I'll bet the two of them would be on the same page about what's real and what isn't.
I'll bet you if I said to either one of them that the economic predictions are not reliable, the ones that look like it's great doom, I think they'd both agree with that, that you can't predict 80 years of economics.
Too much innovation, too many surprises along the way.
So I would listen to those two people.
And when you see Elon Musk Do something this big, you know, the 100 million for carbon capture, You should take that really seriously.
I feel as if you're seeing some kind of a political shift that I like a lot.
A lot. And it goes like this.
Most of our future problems are going to be technology related.
In other words, you'd have to understand the technology in order to make the right decision.
So they're technology related and they're going to be complicated.
Take any issue with China, climate change, whatever.
They're complicated. Who is the best type of person to make a difficult decision that's scientific and complicated?
A politician who's 80 years old?
No. That would be exactly the wrong person to be in charge.
An 80-year-old politician with no technical background.
You couldn't have a worse choice for a leader in today's world than somebody with that kind of a background.
And that's who we elect. We elect the people who aren't even close to having the kind of skills that you would need to do the job.
Now, obviously, I know that the experts make recommendations to things, etc.
So it's not the president who has to have all the technical knowledge.
But I don't see it working.
I don't see our presidents being technically competent, just in terms of the decisions.
So it looks like our billionaire class, let's call them the super capables, have decided that they have to take control.
And that may not be a bad thing.
For example, you saw that Amazon, let's say Jeff Bezos, it must have been behind it, decided to offer to help with the vaccination rollout.
Likewise, some other big corporations are helping as well.
So, if people like Bezos and Elon Musk and Gates are just saying, well, we're going to have to solve this ourselves, literally, I guess I'll have to do this myself.
That's how a Gates or an Elon can think of these things, because they have the ability to do that.
They can actually solve problems themselves.
So maybe we're heading toward a world where our billionaire class, who I'll call the super capables, not the ones who inherited, but the ones who made a billion dollars, they are super capable.
And if they start asserting themselves because they need to, because with great power comes great responsibility, this might be the way we solve stuff.
Because we're going to have to innovate our way out of all of our problems.
The only way we protect ourselves against China is to out-innovate.
The only way we protect ourselves against losing space is to out-innovate.
The only way we get past climate change is to out-innovate.
The only way we can get to an election system that's transparent is to innovate.
Probably some blockchain stuff, whatever.
So we've kind of reached this point Where the people who matter, the ones who could make a difference, are the ones who can understand complicated things and are hyper-capable innovators who can push the right direction and pull the right lever.
So we're lucky to have them.
I don't know that our super capables don't get enough credit.
Rather than calling them billionaires, which makes you automatically biased against them if you don't have a billion dollars yourself, let's just call them super capables.
Because Bill Gates, he's not like you, right?
He's not like you and me.
He's super capable.
Whatever he chooses to do, he's probably going to do it better than you would do it.
And Elon Musk is the same.
So, you know, you've got your people like your Naval Ravikants, your Peter Thiel's, you know.
There's a lot of people...
Who I'd put in the super capable category, and they have begun to assert themselves individually, mostly individually.
I don't think they'll end up forming some kind of a billionaire cartel.
They could, but I don't think their personalities are leaning in that direction.
That's the good news. If you want to know the good news, our super capables have decided to step up.
And by the way, I'm seeing it in a whole bunch of realms, maybe more than you're seeing it, because I know people who know people, that sort of thing.
And it does seem that the super capables have decided they have to take matters into their own hands.
And now that I've called these people super capable, I'll look like a dick for the next thing I'm going to say.
But if I've taught you anything, I'm not afraid of looking like an idiot.
So I'm just going to say it because it's useful.
I told you that I was going to try to form a group of independent thinkers to review the news to tell you which news is fake news and which news you should depend on.
Now I'm still on my honeymoon, so that won't happen this week.
But as soon as I get back, I'll start putting together some people who can help you sort out what's true and what isn't in the news.
Now, why do I do that?
Why isn't that somebody else's job?
Why can't the news do it?
Can the government do anything?
Probably not. So, I'm just sort of sitting here saying, maybe I can fix that.
Or at least I could take a shot at it and maybe learn something.
Maybe I can learn what doesn't work.
So I don't put myself anywhere near the Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Naval Ravikant, super capable category.
But I can do some stuff, right?
I have some powers at a lower level.
And so it just felt to me that if I didn't do it, it wouldn't get done.
Imagine that feeling times 20 if you're Bill Gates or you're Elon Musk.
If they don't do it, It might not get done.
Do you think Elon Musk offered $100 million for carbon capture technology because he thought it would happen without him?
Probably not. He probably thought there's a good chance this isn't going to happen unless I personally make it happen.
That is one hell of a responsibility to have on you.
And, my God, we are so lucky.
So lucky. That the hyper-capables are on our side.
There are probably more American hyper-capables or super-capables than anywhere else, and I don't know why.
Some of it is the people we've attracted to this country.
Some of it is I don't know, our entrepreneurial way of life.
You know, maybe it promotes this sort of thing better than other places.
Maybe it's cultural.
I don't know exactly what it is.
But we do produce more super capables than other places.
We just invent more stuff.
I don't know why. How do you gather info within a huge network?
It's a general question.
Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter are what happens when you let engineers run things.
Well, let me make a distinction.
You don't want an engineer to be your president if that's all they've done, right?
I wouldn't take somebody who ran a peanut farm but also was an engineer and say, okay, we're in good shape now.
But the super capables are different.
They made their billions through their inventiveness, etc.
So when you've got an engineer who also made billions of dollars multiple times, that's more than an engineer.
That's somebody who is an engineer plus has all of the qualities you need to make a billion dollars.
Somebody says, is PragerU content mostly true?
What kind of question is that?
I don't even know what content you're doubting.
obviously they lean heavily right, but beyond that, I don't know what you're talking about.
Is there a pool?
All right, just looking at your comments.
I don't have much more. I'm going to sign off for today.
