Episode 1682 Scott Adams: The Nature of Reality Has Revealed Itself Again. Let's Talk About Ukraine And More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Solsbury Hill reframe
40 mile convoy update
China COVID spike, quarantine camps
No trusted truth tellers anymore
Supreme Court of Truth
Michael Shellenberger running for CA Governor
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
And congratulations on another successful morning.
And this is Coffee with Scott Adams, the highlight of civilization.
And wouldn't you like to take it to the next level?
Next level, that's right.
All you need is a copper mugger, a lasso tanker, chalice, a stein, a canteen drink, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
Who likes coffee?
I do. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
Unparalleled, I say. It's the dopamine to the day thing that makes everything better.
And watch how your day goes from who knows what, the way you started, to way better than that after the simultaneous sip.
It happens almost instantly. Go.
Checking. Yup.
Yup. It worked again.
I don't know how it does it.
Really. Well, I had an interesting spiritual experience yesterday that lasted half of the day.
It was the damnedest thing.
I'm going to tell you about it, but I'm completely aware that you might not care at all.
I'm still going to tell you. Because there's something in here that might be useful to you.
Like, really useful.
Like, really, really, really useful.
There's a reframe in here.
Now, some of you might know that my pandemic's been a little difficult.
I'm going through a divorce.
I've got a cat with cancer who's going to be checking out probably in a few weeks.
I've got a dog who's past her expiration date.
She's healthy, but...
She might have another year.
And things are a little difficult at the moment.
And yesterday I was driving along and actually I was taking a walk in the nice sunshine and it felt really good.
And I randomly was listening to some music in my headphones and a song by Peter Gabriel came on.
Salisbury Hill. And apparently he wrote this song when he had a spiritual, he calls it, a spiritual experience.
He went on top of this hill called Salisbury Hill, and he doesn't say if he was taking any hallucinogens, but I'm thinking maybe.
And I'm going to give you the lyrics of the song, and then I'm going to tell you the reframe that happened with me at the same time.
Every once in a while you know how a song will hit you at exactly the time that you need it.
And maybe it's just the way you interpret it.
So I'm going to read these lyrics, and I want to see how you interpret them.
Because some interpret them as something about God.
Other people interpreted it as something else.
I know that when I heard it, I cried.
And I didn't even know why.
And I had to go look up the lyrics.
And it took me a while to, like, piece together what was going on.
And here's what he said.
So here are the lyrics from his spiritual experience.
Climbing up on Salisbury Hill, I could see the city light.
Wind was blowing, time stood still.
Eagle flew out of the night.
He was something to observe, came in close, I heard a voice.
Standing, stretching every nerve, had to listen, had no choice.
I did not believe the information, just had to trust imagination.
My heart going, boom, boom, boom, son, he said, grab your things.
I've come to take you home.
To keep in silence, I resigned.
My friends would think I was a nut.
Turning water into wine, open doors would soon be shut.
So I went from day to day, though my life was in a rut, till I thought of what I'd say, which connection I should cut.
I was feeling part of the scenery.
I walked right out of the machinery.
memory.
My heart going boom, boom, boom.
Hey, he said, grab your things.
I've come to take you home.
Aye, back home.
When illusion, spin her net.
I'm never where I want to be, and liberty she pirouette.
When I think I am free, watch my empty silhouettes, who close their eyes but still can see.
No one taught them etiquette.
I will show them another me.
Today I don't need a replacement.
I'll tell them that the smile on my face meant my harp going boom, boom, boom.
Hey, I said, you can keep my things.
They've come to take me home.
So, here's the reframe.
You're probably thinking that you're seeing tears of sadness.
But actually, you're not.
You're seeing tears of joy, which is what I experienced yesterday.
I didn't think it would happen when I reread that.
That kind of caught me by surprise.
But here's the reframe.
Everything ends poorly.
That's it. Everything ends poorly.
If you fell in love and stayed together your whole life, one of you is going to die first, and then the other one will die.
You don't really have the option of things ending well.
Things can be longer, they can be shorter, but they don't end well.
Never. And once you realize that, it can help you put things into a better perspective.
And here's the reframe. If it was ever good, it was worth doing.
And here's the way to ask yourself if you regret it.
If you had a choice of going back, and you could remove the memory and all the pain, your whole memory of it could be gone.
All the pain, all the memory of it.
But in order to do that...
The deal would be you'd have to forget the good stuff.
Whatever it was that you liked about it at one point.
So you couldn't get rid of the bad memories unless you got rid of the good ones.
And here's the question.
Would you do it? Would you get rid of the bad memories at the expense of the good ones?
If your answer is no, then you didn't lose anything.
You didn't lose anything.
And what happened to me when somehow the accidental connection of that song, which has very, let's say, ambiguous meaning, you probably all read something into it that was different, but, you know, I have this feeling that I live in a simulation and that the model that makes most sense to me,
the one that seems to explain my situation, is that there seem to be levels, like a game, And that you can't go to the next level until you solve a problem that is thrown at you continuously at your current level.
And have you noticed that some problems just seem to repeat until you solve them, like the supply chain problems are going on right now?
But also in your personal life, it seems like you get the same problem over and over again.
And as I was thinking about this reframe and thinking to myself, Wouldn't I be better off to have had this with a poor ending than to have never had it?
And a lot of people had been giving me sympathy and empathy for going through a divorce.
But the truth is that for much of the time that I was married or with Christina, that my average day was, even my bad day, was better than your best day.
How do I feel bad about that?
Like, how do I feel bad that I went through a period where on some days things were so good I couldn't even explain it.
It was, like, beyond explanation.
But everything ends.
And then something will begin.
And I'll tell you what I felt, which is that in order to get to the next level, which feels like what happened, I mean, at least in some mental model way, I had to get to forgiveness.
Whenever there's a relationship, everybody's blaming everybody for everything.
You get to that point.
But until you get to forgiveness, it feels like you're locked into some kind of hell.
And yesterday, as I was listening to the song, I was thinking about, why am I having bad thoughts about something that was amazing for so long?
My first marriage, the same thing.
I wouldn't trade it for anything, even though it didn't end well.
But I wouldn't trade it, because I'd have to get rid of the good memories.
And so I felt this overwhelming feeling of forgiveness, which freed me from some kind of a prison that maybe I didn't even know I was in.
And so that happened to me yesterday.
And if it helps to think of that reframe, which will probably be in a book I'm writing as part of the book, then I offer that to you.
So I offer you my experience as one that maybe you can have as well.
But when you find yourself in a tough time, you know, it's the end of something good, Something that you, you know, had a lot of value in.
Even life. You know, my stepson died of an overdose a few years ago.
So even those tragic things, you can say, you know, I wouldn't trade the good parts.
So I'll give you that to start.
Well, this is coincidentally related in a weird way.
Apparently Pete Davidson is...
In discussions with Jeff Bezos' rocket company, Blue Origin, to go up in space.
Now, the other thing that Pete Davidson is getting a lot of attention for is dating Kim Kardashian, which apparently Kanye West, who I call Ye, doesn't like that too much, so you've probably seen that in the news and back and forth.
But I wondered if Kanye West...
Has had his moment of forgiveness yet, or if he'll be hoping that that rocket blows up with Pete Davidson.
And I was thinking to myself, a week ago, I would have been hoping for the rocket to blow up just to get Pete Davidson, even if it killed like five innocent people.
You know, you go through your dark thoughts, and you're thinking of the worst possible thing.
Well, I think Kanye has not quite worked through his trauma, and I can't imagine the thoughts that would be going through his head as Pete Davidson is not only sleeping with the mother of his children, but is also getting all this attention for going into space.
I think if I were in Kanye's headspace, I would actually be hoping for that thing to explode.
I don't know. It's a weird situation.
Tom Brady decided he's not going to retire after all.
He's coming back for another season at least.
Which is interesting, because as Jeff Pilkington pointed out on Twitter, somebody paid $518,000 for the last touchdown football that Tom Brady threw.
Well, I don't know if the value of the last football is going to go down a little bit when it's no longer the last football, but I was wondering how anybody was going to handle that situation, and I thought there's a perfect solution.
He should take his football that he bought for $518,000, and he should see if Tom Brady will just, you know, take a sharpie and write on the football, oops, or sorry, and just that.
Just oops. And I think it would double its value to a million dollars.
Well, let's talk about all the probable fake news.
I'll start with probable fake news that Russia asked China for military support.
Anybody? Do you think Russia asked China for military support?
The examples given were financial support, which you could argue is military support, given that the war caused the sanctions which caused the need for it.
And then they're also talking to them about drones.
Do you believe that?
Do you think Russia is talking about buying drones from China?
I feel like no.
Right? First of all, would we really know that?
I mean, I know we have spies, but would we really know that that conversation was going on?
I don't know. I feel not.
This feels totally made up to me.
Um... Elon Musk tweeted, I hereby challenge Vladimir Putin to single combat.
The stakes are Ukraine.
What? Did he really tweet that?
Elon Musk actually challenged Putin to a...
Oh, I hope that's true.
Please be true.
Please be true.
Oh, that would be amazing.
Can you imagine the pay-per-view on that?
I don't even know who I'd bet on.
I don't know. Unless Elon Musk is taking some karate classes or something we don't know about.
He said he's serious.
Well, I don't think Ukraine is going to take that bet.
So I'm going to say it's fake that Russia asked China for military support.
They might have asked them to buy more oil or something.
Here's another one. You know the story about the hospital that was bombed in Ukraine, and there was a pregnant woman who was taken away in a stretcher, and that story looked really, really fake?
Well, now we hear that the pregnant woman and her baby died, but nobody got her name.
So, pregnant woman and her baby died, but nobody got her name.
I'm not so sure I believe that story.
Now, I'm not saying that there aren't horrible, tragic things happening, because it looks like there are a lot of them.
So, there's no question about the horror and the tragedy.
But this specific story...
This specific story is, once again, a little bit too on the nose.
A little bit too on the nose.
I'm going to say no.
Probably. I mean, it could be.
There's nothing that would rule it out from being possible.
But it's a little too propaganda-ish purpose or perfect.
All right. How about the video?
Did you see the video of the Russian tank firing on a residential apartment building?
How many of you saw that video today?
A Russian tank firing on a residential building.
Do you know what was left out of the story?
The why. Why were they shooting on a residential building?
Do you think it was just a residence full of people minding their own business?
Well, if you see the video, you can see that this apartment building is the high ground for that entire area.
So there's a whole bunch of low buildings on the approach, but then there's one multi-story building that is the obvious place For the snipers and the people with the anti-tank weapons.
It's the most obvious place they would be because it's the high ground.
So it looks to me like the Russian tanks were aiming at specific apartment buildings where they probably saw something or saw some gunfire or something.
So to me it looked like they were shooting at military targets who were hiding in the most obvious place that you would be in the high ground where they have the view of the field, etc.
So that's what it looked like.
Yeah, the Ukrainian soldiers are mostly using residential buildings.
You'd think they would, just because of the placement of them.
So I'm going to say that's fake news only because the context was left out.
Now, how about that big Russian tank column?
Did you hear the news that had dispersed?
That there was a 40-mile tank column and it dispersed, and now it's basically deployed and ready to attack, and that the artillery has gone into positions in the forest where they can attack Kiev without being seen as easily.
Well, I saw a...
I forgot. I wish I'd written down the name of who said it, but there's somebody who seemed to know what they were talking about who said, no, nothing was dispersed.
They just got off the road because they were sitting ducks.
They're basically hiding on the side of the road so they're not as obvious targets.
And that there aren't many tanks in the column.
Have you ever heard that?
I think I need a confirmation of that.
But apparently there aren't many tanks in the column and that the column is a resupply column primarily.
And that it had some tanks to protect it.
But that the Ukrainians, realizing it was a resupply column, and here's something I learned.
For a military operation of this size, if they were actually shooting, they would need to be resupplied every day to two days.
Or they'd be out of ammo.
So they can only shoot for about a day-ish before they run out of all the ammo that they carry with them.
And then after that, it's got to be daily supply runs all the way back to post.
And so the question is, did the Ukrainians take advantage of a Russian blunder by getting in that long column by taking out the front and the back?
And that's all you had to do.
They didn't need to kill anybody because they're stranded.
Because they don't have a lot of weapons, except these, I guess they do have some artillery.
But it looks like they basically...
Ukrainians are going to defeat the Russian army in the north.
Maybe. Now, is it my imagination or have you started to see the beginning of that opinion?
Because I think I was the only one who said Ukraine is going to surprise on the upside.
Early on, everybody else was, eh, 48 hours, it's over.
And I kept saying, you know, you're not counting the weapons, because they're going to have good weapons.
They're not going to have the bad stuff, and that that would probably make a difference.
It looks like it is making a difference, that with the Russian blunders.
And so, there could be 70,000 soldiers in the north, and about the same amount in the south and the east, Or the West?
East and West, I guess.
And it could be that if the Ukrainians essentially defeat the Northern Army, it's half of Russia's invading force.
What happens? Does the South keep going?
Or do the Ukrainians just take that victory and then redeploy forces to the South, have more anti-attack weapons and more drones than ever before, And actually start beating the Russians back in the South.
Or at least, you know, back to Crimea or something.
Yeah, now Russia does have the problem that it can't go too severely on the civilian population, even though all the so-called experts are saying they'll do exactly that.
Yeah. All right.
All right. So keep an eye on that.
But here's what I'd be looking for, which is more analysts saying, you know, you know, Ukraine might actually win this war.
You're going to start seeing it.
Doesn't mean they will, but I think people will start talking about it at least as a possibility.
Well, back to COVID. South Korea's infections are through the roof, or at least in terms of percentage increase.
And there's concern now that all those countries that did really well during COVID are just going to get slammed by Omicron.
So South Korea is having their problems.
China's got these problems.
New Zealand will probably have a problem they don't yet.
But I saw some video of these China quarantine camps.
Where apparently China is cranking out all these little standalone...
It's about the size of two dumpsters, I guess.
And they'll put somebody in there and it's got a little toilet room and a bed and a table.
And they just stick them in there and they can't leave for two weeks or whatever it is.
It looks really...
It looks really inhuman.
And, you know, somebody said that there are millions of them.
I doubt there are millions of them.
But is there any chance that these countries that weren't infected early are going to get away with it?
It looks like they're going to have major problems.
And again, what would be the impact if Asia gets, you know, just hit hard with Omicron and they're trying to kill it by shutting down everything?
It's the supply chain again.
Is it a coincidence that we're seeing one after another supply chain problems when we've never really had them before?
And then suddenly it's just all supply chain, supply chain?
I don't know. Looks like something's being tested here.
So... Our reality, of course, has split into two worlds.
You're familiar with the Johns Hopkins study that said masks and social distancing didn't make any difference.
And I guess Rand Paul is introducing something that would get rid of Fauci's position in the future and put it in three organizations.
And according to Rand Paul and according to the Johns Hopkins study, masks and all the lockdown stuff totally didn't work.
Now, in the other reality that is just as robust, just as robust, if you go to Huffington Post, they will tell you just matter-of-factly that masks and distancing totally worked, and there's all kinds of science to prove it did.
What's true? I don't know.
How did Asia manage to escape the worst of it if none of that stuff works?
Was it just the testing?
Was that it? Was it the testing alone that allowed China and South Korea to get away with it?
Or is it blindingly obvious that distance plus masking must have made a big difference?
Because in Asia they're probably a little more fastidious about wearing the masks in more places.
It works so good it isn't working now.
Well, remember, the masks, everybody agrees that they're not going to work that much for Omicron.
So the possibility is that they worked great for the earlier versions.
They don't work at all for Omicron.
But it would still say they worked up until now.
So, I don't know.
What do you think? Do you think the science is totally in and the masks worked, or the science is totally in and the masks didn't work?
I don't know. Beats me.
Doesn't matter at this point.
But that's just one example of where our reality is really hard to discern.
And here's what's changed in recent years.
I did a viral thread on this.
And What changed is everybody understands that we've been duped by all the experts all the time.
It used to be that we thought the other team was being duped, but our team, whatever our team was for you, but that your team was not being duped.
Only the other guys. They're falling for all kinds of hoaxes.
What's different is I believe that both teams now understand that all we're seeing is fake news from both sides.
Because, you know, you can see the liberals waking up to it every day.
So when you agree that that change has happened, that people understand it's not just the other team being hypnotized, right?
I'm not imagining that.
We do know that it's happening to us as well as other people.
Now, in that environment, what the hell do you do?
And as I said in the thread, there are no trusted truth-tellers anymore.
There's nobody who's just a person in any kind of a job that you would say to yourself, well, they might be wrong about some things, but at least I trust them.
They're not going to lie to me.
And I would put myself in the non-credible category with everybody else.
Because we're in a world where even if...
By some miracle, I was the only person who never lied to you.
You wouldn't know that.
Even if somebody was the only reliable truth-teller, and maybe it could be me, even if it were me, you wouldn't know it because somebody would tell you I wasn't.
In fact, right now, I believe I have the best prediction record in the country by far, but if you were to read people's comments about me, they'd say the opposite.
So which is true? See, it wouldn't even matter if you had a good truth-teller.
It wouldn't matter if somebody could actually do the job, because nobody would believe them.
So what are you going to do?
So I've suggested that there should be something like a Supreme Court of Reality.
In other words, actually trying to develop a system that maybe isn't right all the time, but like a court trial...
You come up with a system to find out what is true and what is false.
Won't work every time, but work way better than whatever we're doing.
Better than guessing. And I saw Ross Garber say that maybe it should be more like a regular trial as opposed to a Supreme Court model.
But I do think that one of those models or some version of it should be employed so that we have something that the public can look at and say, you know, Maybe they don't get every one of them right, but the Supreme Court of Truth did rule that this is fake news.
Or they did rule that it's out of context.
And then there would be a minority opinion.
So you'd always have access to the minority opinion.
Just like with the Supreme Court.
So I don't think it's like the Supreme Court or like a regular jury trial, but you might look to them for some elements that you could put together.
Now here's a little story I like to tell.
Whenever you ask yourself, is it even possible to design a system that would be fair, given human psychology?
And I always give this example, as some of you have heard.
Suppose you were a drug dealer and you were buying some marijuana and you wanted to split it with whoever invested with you.
So you've got a big pile of marijuana and you want to split it, but you don't have a scale.
And even if you did have a scale, you'd still argue about who had the better buds and, you know, whatever.
So how do you divide it?
If the two of you want it to look fair, so you want to both feel like it was fair, but you don't have a way to measure it.
Well, there is, it turns out, an easy system.
And the system is that one person divides up the piles, and then the other person picks a pile.
So the cleverness of the system is it removes your ability to complain.
Because the person who divided the piles in the first place can't complain.
They're the one who divided the pile.
And the one who chooses one of those piles can't complain because they got their choice.
And they got to look at them before they chose.
So sometimes you can be surprised at how an unsolvable-looking problem can be solved.
Before the Constitution of the United States was created, how many people thought you couldn't do it?
I don't know, but I'm guessing a lot of people said, you know, don't even try.
It's just going to be dictators forever.
It's the only thing that works.
There's no way you're going to build a system that gives you fair outcomes and everybody agrees it's a fair system.
But we did it.
It worked. We actually built a system which most people think is credible.
Now it's not perfect. It's not perfect for anything.
All right. So how would you devise such a thing?
The first thing you do is I don't think you could have the same people making the decisions all the time.
Would you agree with that? So probably you don't want the Supreme Court model exactly because you don't want people appointed for life.
You wouldn't trust them, right?
So the first part of the system is it's got to be some kind of a rotating group.
The second part of the system is There should be at least some experts involved in their decision.
So maybe you have a different group for every category.
But you should have some people who are outside the group and have good skills at criticizing and analyzing, but also some people who know what they're talking about, plus some other experts, etc.
So I feel like you could come up with a system where you would at least know that a group of people who had been selected just for this question had looked into it carefully and that by a majority of 9 to 3, The group had voted that this is true news or fake news.
What do you think? Yeah, basically it would be a fake news slash reality committee.
But here's the thing.
As long as that group rotates, you could revisit some things that people didn't like.
So let's say day one, the group gets together and says, masks totally work.
But then let's say a new study comes out.
Maybe if there's new information, they go back and they rule it again, possibly with a new team.
Possibly with a new team.
And then you would know something you didn't know, right?
If the reality team had said it's true, and then later they changed and reversed and said it's false, that tells you something.
It either tells you that the new information is important or it tells you that we don't really know on this one.
It could go either way. I'm saying that I was approached by a blockchain system for solving this.
Now, I would need more than that because blockchain doesn't tell me why the system would work.
There has to be some balance of interests and transparency and all that.
So I think it could be dumb.
And I would say, dumbest idea ever in all caps, somebody says.
And I think that the Constitution did not foresee the degree of fake news that we're experiencing today.
Especially the weaponized AI search engine kind of fake news.
And that we actually need something like another branch of the Constitution.
Now, if you could do it without getting the government involved, that'd be great.
But how does that work?
Unfortunately, the market system, which normally corrects imbalances, is creating the imbalance.
Because as long as the psychology of people is that we'll look at fake news before we'll look at real news, because the fake news is more interesting, as long as that's the case, what the hell are you going to do?
I'm seeing lots of divorce questions on YouTube.
Let me just say one thing. I'm not going to be talking about my personal situation beyond the most general statements.
But you should assume that in the world where everything is fake, that whatever you're thinking or assuming about my personal situation, there's no way you're right.
Because if you're thinking it falls into some easy category where you say, well, that's obviously one of these or one of those...
No. It's definitely complicated.
So if there's one thing I can tell you, even I don't know what went wrong.
And that's legitimately true.
I have no idea. It's so complicated that I don't think the people involved even know.
Like, I could give you 12 reasons why something ended...
And I wouldn't believe any of them, but they sound pretty good.
And I think that's always the case.
I told you this about movies.
One of the smartest things I heard about movies is that when you don't like a movie, it looks like every part of it was bad.
Ah, that acting, the casting, it was all bad.
But when a movie is good, you think, wow, every part of that was good.
But neither of those are true, usually.
So it's the same with any kind of complicated situation, whether it's a relationship or a movie.
Anyway, you really don't know why things went the way they went.
Obama has COVID. He's got a scratchy throat.
It could be because Michelle changed her strap-on.
Maybe. I don't know.
Or it could be COVID. I'm just kidding.
I knew you'd laugh at that stupid joke.
Just kidding!
All right. Well, here's the best news for California, potentially.
Michael Schellenberger is running for governor of California.
Now, I've spoken of Michael many times because he's probably the most productive non-elected person in the country.
Meaning that he's worked hard on promoting nuclear as a solution for everything from clean energy to climate change, and now the world has gone his way.
He turned his focus and wrote a huge best-selling book, San Francisco, about the homeless and the addiction problem, dug into what works and what doesn't, and came up with a set of, you know, a prescription for fixing it that is based on human nature.
Surprise, right?
Because when the Democrats are involved, they usually ignore human nature when they build their systems, and then, of course, they don't work.
But Michael Schellenberger, who had been a registered Democrat for most of his life, decided to become an independent because he didn't like what he was seeing in either party, basically.
But he's laser-focused on looking at systems that work.
Not just goals, but systems.
And he's really, really good at finding out which systems worked where and why, and then breaking it down to their simple elements to say we should do this and not do that.
So he's got prescriptions from everything from addictions to homeless to the forest fires to energy, and they're all detailed.
They're very detailed.
Very specific, based on things that work in other places.
And how would you pick the guy who's done everything wrong?
Newsom. I mean, all the big issues, he got wrong.
It looks like. So how do you pick the person who has detailed solutions that look totally practical?
Well, the problem is, if he runs as an independent, he doesn't have party support.
But, did you know...
That there are basically three parties in California if you count independents.
And the independents are the biggest party.
So I think the independents are bigger than either the Democrats or the Republicans.
And he's running as an independent.
Now, can he make that work as an independent?
Because that's the tough thing, right?
It's hard to get elected as an independent.
But I don't know if it's this hard after California has failed so badly on so many big issues.
So certainly the door is open.
Now, the other thing that Michael Schellenberger has going for him and running for governor is me and other people helping him, of course.
So he has a lot of support from people who have been watching him for a long time and know that he can produce.
If you didn't know he could produce...
I wouldn't be as full-throated in my endorsement.
But this is one case where I can say unambiguously, this is really a clean decision.
There's just no way he's not the right choice.
There's just no way. This is really easy.
Doesn't mean he gets elected.
But it would be an easy decision for people who looked into it.
Well, Amazon has decided to relocate some of its offices from downtown Seattle because it's too dangerous.
Seattle is so crime-ridden in parts of it because of the defund the police and whatnot that even Amazon's moving out.
There was a McDonald's that closed.
Frickin' McDonald's closed.
How often does that happen? I think it happened one other time.
So Seattle's a mess. It's falling apart.
And I say to you, People.
People of the world.
If we could get ourselves some kind of a supreme court of truth, and we could get ourselves a Michael Schellenberger governor in California, and we can get ourselves out of the last mandates of this pandemic, and we can put the pain on Putin without a nuclear war, and we can use the The Putin situation as a way to get more energy independent?
I feel like it might look like things are going to hell, but we're really in a pretty good situation except for inflation.
I have one remaining big worry, and that's inflation.
And I don't quite know how that plays out, except that I guess it is a tax...
I guess you could say it's a tax.
Now, the other possibility is that there is a transient portion of this.
Well, there is a transient portion.
So I think if you get past the Ukraine situation, you get past COVID, if we could get our supply chain working, I think we're fine.
I think we'll be in good shape.
Somebody's asking me a question that I'm going to give you a generic answer.
I don't live with a regret.
And that's part of the reframe.
If you ever enjoyed it, then you got what you wanted.
If it turns bad at the end, everything does.
Every company goes out of business.
It just takes a while.
Some companies might take 300 years, but they're going out of business.
Oh, they're going out of business.
And every relationship ends because people die.
At the very least, you're going to die.
So, don't ask about regret.
I don't have any. And let me put it in the most stark terms.
Both of my marriages, totally worth it.
Totally worth it. I would do it again in a heartbeat.
No matter how they end.
Alright. That, ladies and gentlemen, is no doubt the best Think you've ever seen in your life.
And the news has largely stopped because there's nothing but inflation in Ukraine and the lingering COVID issues.
We've talked about those too much.
I think also that you're going to see a huge change in rare minerals.
Do you believe that the rare minerals only seem to exist in the places that are hard to get at them?
Why is that? Do you think we don't have rare minerals anywhere in the United States?
It's pollution-based?
Is that the reason we don't do it here, because it would be too polluty?
Somebody says the U.S. has plenty?
Yeah, ERA? Maybe.
But I think there are technical problems that are likely to be solved.
Yeah, the dollar has left its position as the sole means of trade.
But let me ask you this.
Would you rather have a dollar or whatever?
Ruble. I don't think it's close yet, is it?
Wouldn't everybody still rather have a dollar?
Oh, did Bill Maher already go on Ben Shapiro?
I'll go watch. Oh, would it be the one?
Why I told you Ukraine will win day two.
Why do you Westerners not believe in Ukraine?
Oh, okay. Troll.
All right, I'll go watch that Ben Shapiro thing.
Did Shapiro use the really frame with Bill Maher?
Did he? Did that actually happen?
You know, the really frame is where you go, really?
Really? Really?
Yes, he did. Okay.
We'll have to watch that just to see that.
Yeah, Shapiro is...
Somebody says Ben Shapiro is a genius.
But it's funny, that's not like a compliment, that's just a description.
Because he's like literally a genius.
So you think the dollar is done soon?
I don't know. I'm not betting against the dollar.
If you bet against the dollar, you're...
That's a pretty contrarian bet, I think.
Yeah, the dollar only has to be better than the other ones.
That's the thing, right? It only has to be better than the alternatives.
