Episode 1740 Scott Adams: Early Show Today, Talking About 2000 Mules and Disney copyrights
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
LGBTQ Nation outrage
Very persuasive, 2000 Mules
Disney copyright change, bad precedent
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
I'm going to go take a week and just write on my new book.
I'm going to go where the scenery is better, to my top-secret location.
And you'll watch on YouTube later?
Okay. So we'll be at a different time today, and all you need to make this special is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or gel, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind, and fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dope bean of the day that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
I might be a little quick today, because I've got to get ready.
Go. All right, you early birds.
You are the birds who always get that worm, because you're up early.
Sorry messing with your schedule.
It's only today. Only today.
All right, I tried out my new technique of when somebody responds to my tweets with a personal attack on me, instead of responding to the personal attack, which is a habit, a bad habit, that I have developed.
Because sometimes it's funny and sometimes it's just work.
So I just call everybody who does that Keith Olbermann.
And I just say, okay, Keith.
And I tried it out today, and it took a personal attack and just turned it into confusion.
And I thought, well, that's an upgrade.
Somebody was attacking me personally, and I said, okay, Keith.
And the person said, who's Keith?
Diffused the entire thing.
So try it.
If we could make Keith Olbermann a joke...
I mean, more than Keith Olbermann has already made himself a joke, then we should do it.
So, remember.
Okay, Keith. All right, here's the Dad Joke of the Day.
You ready? Dad Joke of the Day from Twitter user Frank Scaramello.
Talking about the Kentucky Derby winner.
Did you see the video of the Kentucky Derby and the horse called Rich Strike?
Coming from behind and winning at the last minute?
Now, let me tell you, your first thought is, I could not be less interested in horse racing, right?
I mean, I've never watched a horse race, like a complete horse race, just for fun.
I've never watched one. The video of this horse, an 80-to-1 shot, coming from the back of the pack in the Kentucky Derby and winning it all, was really breathtaking.
It was really fun to watch.
And I have lots of questions.
Like, my question is, could that horse always do that?
What's up with that?
Like, why did that one horse have that amazing one day?
Was it that the better jockey?
Was it... Somebody says drugs, but I think they test for that.
I don't know. So, it was amazing.
Anyway, here's the joke from Frank Scaramillo.
He says, Breaking Kentucky Derby winner Rich Strike turns down a meeting with Joe Biden.
Asked why. They said, If I wanted to see a horse's ass, I would have come in second.
Not bad. Not bad.
Good dad joke. All right.
My Twitter growth has slipped back to baseline levels.
Do you remember when we all thought that the algorithm had changed?
And now all the conservative accounts were going to have a lot of uptick, because they did for a while?
Well, that uptick is over.
Does anybody else have the same experience?
That you were getting tons of users for like two weeks and then boop, back to normal?
Because that was my experience.
So remember, Elon Musk, his opinion of why the follower count went up is just because Twitter was in the news and Musk was trying to buy it.
And it looks like maybe that was the reason.
So I think maybe the most obvious reason is the reason.
It got a lot of attention.
People said, hey, we can go back now, see what all the noise is about.
And then they were done.
So probably it wasn't so much about Twitter, you know, trying to burn the records and change the algorithms before Elon Musk found out what they were up to.
Probably wasn't that. It probably was just they got a lot of attention.
And that's all it was. Well, I got...
There was a hit piece on me put together by some group called LGBTQ Nation.
And they're quite, quite angry about my treatment...
of the trans community in my comic in which the trans community was not mentioned directly or indirectly or even contemplated in any way by the person who wrote it.
But they're quite mad. And so this article accused me of three things.
One, being a right winger.
Incorrect. I'm left to Bernie.
Two, making a trans joke.
Incorrect. It was a joke about a guy named Dave who is black and an engineer.
Had nothing to do with trans whatsoever.
Not even a little. Not slightly.
Not glancing. Not indirectly.
Not in any way.
But they're pretty bad because they just saw themselves.
Now remember this story, will you?
Because in a moment, I'm going to tell you an unrelated story that connects to this story in such a clean way, it's going to amaze you.
It was just a coincidence these two stories happened at the same time.
But just remember the story that this group were absolutely sure that this was all about them, my joke, and it was nothing about them.
Nothing at all. Not even slightly.
And I don't know, maybe some people don't believe me.
Maybe you think cleverly in my mind it really was about them.
No. No. Not cleverly in my mind.
Not in the back of my mind.
Not my subconscious.
It just was nothing about them.
And yet they believed it was about them.
Who does that? What kind of person does that?
There's nothing about them, but they think it's all about them.
Hold that thought.
Hold that thought.
We'll get back to it.
They also said in their article, they just threw this in, that in one of my prior tweets I had insulted Pete Buttigieg and suggested that he liked to touch young children.
And then they showed my tweet that didn't do anything like that.
So they actually showed my tweet that clearly debunked what they said about the tweet.
It was like they said, you're saying that Snow is purple, and then they show the tweet that says, I say, snow is white.
And then they say, see?
What's that? What is that?
I don't even know what that is.
How do you even explain that?
I mean, they show their work, and the work clearly shows the opposite of what they say it shows.
I don't even know how to interpret that.
Behold this thought, it's going to circle back.
And then, when I responded to it, telling them that every single fact in it was literally and obviously incorrect, what do you think they did?
Apparently, and I don't know the details, there's some way that you can use an ad sign, and you delete your tweet, and then you repost it, and somehow it doesn't show up in your timeline, but it's still searchable.
Somehow they managed to take down my comment that their tweet was completely wrong in every factual way.
And they got to retweet it without my comment and somehow cleverly made my comment disappear from connection to the tweet.
Now, do you think it's because they felt they were right?
No. No.
They disconnected my comment from their tweet because I'm the one who knows what's right.
Obviously, I'd know if I'm a right-winger.
I'd know what I was thinking when I made the comic.
Like, I don't have to wonder.
I'm the one who knows.
So they took the only person who knows the actual reality of it, and they dismissed me from the conversation.
Does that make them look guilty?
A little bit. Hold that thought.
Hold that thought. The people trying to suppress your thought without a counterargument?
That looks pretty guilty, doesn't it?
Well, that topic's going to come back around.
You just wait for it. All right.
The other thing that people kept asking me when I said I'm not a right-winger, people said, when do you ever disagree with conservatives?
Give me one example, Scott.
Give me one example where you disagree with conservatives.
To which my answer is, fuck you.
I'm not your bookkeeper.
It's not my job to go figure out everything I've said and present it to you in a nice form.
If you wonder what my opinion is, just fucking ask me.
I'll tell you. You don't have to look at three things I've done and a 50,000 and form an opinion.
And you don't need to tell me to go back and research my entire life to tell you who I am.
You can just ask me.
Just ask. I'll tell you.
You don't have to do the research at all.
I'll just tell you.
And, you know, there are plenty of people who have watched so much of my content that they can confirm it.
So just ask anybody who's watched me for years to confirm it.
That's all. All right, here's an example of me criticizing conservative opinion, I guess.
So Republican Josh Hawley...
It's introduced the bill to strip Disney of some of its copyrights.
Now, I vehemently disagree with that.
It's a political retaliation, and it changes a deal.
And I have a real, real...
Like, I don't know, it's almost an irrational emotional response to anybody changing a deal.
I don't like changed deals.
I'll give you the philosophical reason...
The philosophical reason is that the economy works best when it's predictable.
People will invest because they can predict, at least they think they can, a little bit what would happen if they invest.
If you take away all the ability to predict, because anything could happen, then people don't invest.
The economy suffers.
So the first thing is, don't change a deal.
And somebody said to me, Scott...
The government changes deals all the time.
They change your tax rates.
They change the laws. The government is changing deals all the time.
Why do you pick this one?
Like, why is this the one thing you're going to pick on?
To which I say, okay, you're wrong again.
I pick on it every time something is changed.
It's a very basic economic rule that you don't change stuff.
The economy will adapt even to inefficiencies.
But once it's adapted, you don't want to mess with it, right?
You don't want to make it have to readapt unless you have to.
Now, there are reasons why you would change things intentionally, but if you're just changing something for political payback, that is not the reason to change something.
So let me say as full-throatedly as I can, and this is not a defense of Disney, by the way, This is not a defense of Disney.
This is a defense of systems that work.
A system that works is that you don't randomly, not randomly, but you don't target a company If you're the government, for special rule changes to punish them.
You just don't do that.
And basically, this is fucked up.
This is just fucked up.
And Josh Hawley, I think, is just a fucking idiot, really.
I mean, this is such a bad idea.
Now, it might be politically good.
It might be good for his team.
You know, it's popular. But what it looks like is somebody trying to be Ron DeSantis and failing.
That's what it looks like. It looks like Ron DeSantis is the genuine item.
He knows how to surf the headlines and take advantage of the news and do little things that really get him attention in just the right way.
So Ron DeSantis is batting 1,000, basically.
He's just hitting every note consistently.
I think Josh Hawley is trying to be like that, and this is just not the right way to do it.
This just looks cheap.
It looks like a cheap shot to me.
All right, here is the most interesting tweet thread that I have seen in a long time.
Now, I wouldn't normally read the whole thread, but it's so good, and it might explain so many things that we're seeing that I'm going to read it.
Now, I want to warn you in advance.
There's one example that's used within the thread about the trans community.
I disavow that comment.
Because I think it's a more complicated situation.
But the comment does fit within his thesis so well that I'm going to read it anyway.
Normally I would consider it not really the content I would share with you.
But because the larger opinion is so solid that I'm going to take a little discomfort with that part of it.
Here's what a user named PEG. Just three letters, PEG. And he says this.
He says, he starts his thread, he says, what leftists describe as empathy or compassion is really narcissism.
Now this is his theme. That the left is not really full of empathy or compassion.
They're really just narcissists.
He says, the feeling of being a good person and having power over the putative victims, they so solicitously help.
Then he goes on. The tell is that there is no reconsideration when their empathy causes harm to the people it's directed to.
Holy shit.
Holy shit. This is the part where I said, I think he's onto something here.
All right. And then he gives examples.
He says, if they actually cared, he's talking about leftists, if they actually cared and were just misguided, they would go, oh shit, turns out defunding the police leads to lots and lots more black people being shot.
Or pick another out of literally hundreds of examples.
But they never ever do.
In other words, they never reconsider that they're hurting their victims.
They just double down that it's what they want.
Who does that?
Narcissists. That's who doesn't.
And I thought, huh, he's on to something.
The other tell, he says, is a total lack of interest and other perspectives.
Well, I think you could blame both sides for that.
Right? But it does seem, it seems, that the left have more Let's say less interest in listening to the right than the right has in listening to the left, but that could be subjective.
I mean, maybe it is just that the right is always subjected to the left's opinion and it's easy to understand.
Then he goes on in this thread.
He said, imagine this.
I meant well, but I guess most Hispanics don't want to be called Latinx.
And since I believe in centering BIPOC voices, he goes, nope, never, not once.
So he's giving an example of somebody who would change their mind because their prescription for other people didn't work.
In other words, the people that are trying to help by being more respectful and calling them Latinx didn't want it.
So they never say, oh, sorry, I guess you didn't want that, so we'll just stop doing it.
Nope, just keep doing it.
Because it doesn't matter if they want it or not.
Who does that? And then he goes on.
Again, it's not just that they disagree, which would be legitimate and human.
It's that it doesn't even register for them.
Because for them, it's all about me, me, me, and the theater inside their own head when they're a white knight, where they are a white knight.
In many ways, they're the...
Okay, here's the part where I'm uncomfortable with this, and I'm just going to read it because it completes the picture.
But this does not match my own opinion of the trans community.
He says, in many ways, they're the prototype of the abusive parent, which is why the acme of lib brain is Munchausen by proxy, where you castrate your own child for their own good, you see. Okay, here's the part where he's going too far for my comfort.
But then he says, the deranged Munchausen by proxy, trans mom, is just the microversion of how they see all problems.
Munchausen by proxy, government.
The point here is not the vaguely police-related word cell...
Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, and then he gives an example of AOC where she talks about herself, and you sort of don't notice it until he mentions it.
But here's an AOC tweet he used as an example.
So the beginning of her tweet started out this way.
Tired of having to collectively stress out about what explosion of hate crimes, blah, blah.
So he points out that AOC begins her tweet by talking about how tired she is.
That the problem is about her being tired.
And I'd never noticed this before.
And then when he talks about AOC's tweet, he says, the point here is not the vaguely policy-related word salad.
It's that AOC is so tired and stressed.
It's the first thing she mentions.
It's what she cares about.
It's what she wants you to know about her.
And then he says, guess what Tucker Carlson never talks about on his show?
Himself. Did you ever think about that?
Does Tucker Carlson ever talk about himself?
I don't know. Maybe he does, but I can't think of an example.
And then the last part of the thread was a tweet by George Takei.
And this is George Takei talking about himself, another leftist.
He goes, there's much talk these days of what being a man entails.
I'm more of a man than someone like Tucker Carlson, whoever it be, you know, blah, blah, blah, talks about himself.
And again, it's another good example of a prominent left-leaning person who starts by talking about him or herself.
Now, what do you think of this hypothesis that leftist politics, at least the aggressive leftists, we're not talking about people who just lean Democrat, right?
Can I make sure that you all know when you talk about generalities, you're not talking about everybody.
You're not talking about any of the people in the middle ever.
You talk about the left and the right extremes, usually.
But this is a fairly solid point, that it does look like narcissism.
Now, I would argue that all politics is just people talking about themselves.
Will you go that far with me?
So, I think that user Peg, P-E-G, makes a great point that it looks like narcissism drives the leftist, at least the most headline-grabbing stuff.
But I'm not so sure that there isn't just as much of a personal projection going on on the right.
It just expresses itself differently.
Because I think the right mostly wants what's good for them individually, which they then assume would be good for other people individually.
For example, gun ownership.
If you're on the right, And you're a certain type of person where you're going to take a gun ownership class, you're going to learn all the safety elements of a gun, you're going to put a gun lock on it, maybe put it in a safe, you're only going to use it in an emergency for self-defense.
Well, in that case, guns are pretty good.
More good than bad.
But lots of people are not in that situation.
And so generalizing your personal preference for security and imagining that Other people share it as opposed to being in more danger because there are more guns in their apartment or house or environment.
So lots of times I think that all of us are just generalizing from ourselves.
And I would argue that everything is that.
I would argue that everything we invent is a person.
It's an extreme thought.
Let me connect that. Everything we invent is an extension of ourselves.
For example, the internet is us talking, but we're doing it better.
An airplane is us walking, but faster.
This is just a conversation, but extended.
So everything that we invent is just us.
It's just more of it. And I have a theory that it's all we can invent.
That you could never invent anything that isn't a projection of yourself.
Because you couldn't even think of it.
Now, that might be too far.
I don't have any way to prove that.
But it feels as if we don't even have the ability to see anything that isn't a version of ourselves.
We fall in love with something that feels like something about us.
You have a pet that feels like something about you.
Everything's about you. Alright, I asked this question, and I don't, I guess I was just being provocative, but also curious.
It's the middle of May, and those of you who have watched me for a long time, you know how I get stuffed up in allergy season?
It's actually hard to listen to the, sometimes it's hard to listen to the live stream, because I'll be so stuffed up.
This is the middle of May.
I don't have any allergies.
At all. This is literally peak season.
This week would be the peak of the whole year.
Nothing. Why?
Now, I'm trying to think what's different.
Now, it could be...
Yeah, somebody said vitamin D, but there doesn't seem to be a strong enough mechanism for that.
Some people said maybe it's your vaccination.
But I asked on the internet, and people had experiences all over the place.
There were people who never had bad allergies who have the worst time they've ever had this year.
So there are some people...
Oh, that's interesting. Wildfires.
It's actually early for the wildfire season, though.
So that's not a May thing.
That's usually a summer thing.
It's not the drought, because the current conditions where I am are completely green and lush.
So it's not the drought. It would be the drought of the summer.
But in the spring, there's still plenty of water.
Everything's green. So the plants are not feeling any drought.
The plants are well-fed.
So that shouldn't be it.
You jinxed yourself.
Your cat. No, I had the cat until just this week, and I didn't have any allergies.
Now, the other thing that I did is I stopped having things with sulfites in them.
Because it turns out I do have a severe allergy to a food additive that took me my entire life to discover.
There are various sulfite-related chemicals that I have a reaction to.
Now, they're usually in wine, so I do have an allergy to alcohol.
And they're in salad dressings and dressings, and I do have a reaction to those.
But it's also hidden in a lot of different foods, and you don't notice it on the label.
So it's really hard to avoid.
But this is the first time that I've tried hard to avoid that, and sure enough, I'm having a good spring.
So is it possible I never had allergies?
But that doesn't make sense.
I don't really have an answer for it.
So it could be the California's low pollen.
It could be just a coincidence.
It could be a hundred things. I don't think it's from the vaccinations.
So can I say that clearly?
I don't see evidence that the vaccinations had any correlation with anything.
Because when I asked online, people were all over the place.
There were every combination of I did or did not get vaxxed, I did or did not have worse allergies.
But there's something going on.
There's a whole bunch of people who said their allergy situation is completely different than any year in their life.
What is that? Is it just confirmation bias?
It could be. Yeah, it could be.
Alright, so I watched 2,000 Mules last night, as many of you requested, and I was not surprised that it was deeply persuasive.
It was deeply persuasive.
Now, I knew that before I watched it, and I told you that, right?
Because documentaries are the most persuasive form of communication.
Because you get, let's say, an hour of one point of view with no counterpoint.
Imagine any lawyer who could argue in court for an hour and the other attorney couldn't talk.
There would be no evidence presented on the other side.
How persuasive would one lawyer talking for an hour and no counterpoint, how persuasive would that be?
100%. How persuasive is a documentary that talks for an hour and shows no counterpoint?
100%. So remember, being persuasive has nothing to do with being true.
Do you all get that?
That's really important. This documentary is persuasive as hell.
I mean, it's really persuasive.
Doesn't mean it's true.
It doesn't mean it's true.
So that's the first thing.
So I wrote a little thread on my take on it, and I saw that Dinesh had retweeted it and said he wishes that other people took the same critical opinion of it.
Now, it's notable because I was not entirely positive about the movie.
This is notable. I was not entirely positive about the movie, and Dinesh still said, this is the kind of thinking I want everybody to do about the movie.
So his credibility, I think, improved by that statement because he allowed a negative about the movie into the opinion that he retweeted.
All right, so I'll read what I said in my tweet.
I said, I watched 2,000 Mules last night.
It makes a persuasive case for major election fraud in 2020.
Don't take me off the platform yet, because I'm going to soften that a little bit, okay?
So before I'm removed from all social media, wait for the rest.
So I watched it last night.
It was very persuasive. And then I say, most documentaries are persuasive.
So are most lawyers. That's why I never trust either one.
I recommend you do the same.
So keep in mind that I just said most documentaries are persuasive, so are most lawyers.
That's why I never trust them, and you should do the same.
So in my tweet thread, I told you you should not trust this documentary to be true.
And the person who made the documentary retweeted that.
Because he also says, and I think this is a fair characterization of his opinion, I think, he also says you should not take it as the final answer.
It's enough information for you to go to the next step, which I believe is what he would like you to do.
Now, if you took the next step and found out That the early indications that are pretty strong signals were false signals, then wouldn't that be good to know?
I would really like to know that.
If none of this is indicative of a real problem, I'd like to know.
That's very important.
But then I said...
I said, that said, the alleged debunk of the film, so I've seen in writing in some smaller outlets, because the bigger outlets aren't even talking about it, right?
But some smaller entities attempted to debunk the film, but their debunk is nothing but hand waving.
Let me pause and tell you what it was.
The debunk I saw was that the method used in the documentary, 2,000 Mules, was that they got a hold of...
The analyst got a hold of his cell phone tracking geolocation stuff, and they could find that there were certain people who went between certain organizations, nonprofits, and drop boxes way more times than anybody would have a normal reason to go in those directions.
So they could find that there was an unusually high level of activity Of people, the same person, going over and over to a drop box in lots of places, in lots of places that the election had an unusual outcome.
And there's lots of videos of people putting multiple ballots in boxes.
Now, we don't know if those people were maybe legal, maybe they had gigantic families, and they were taking all of the ballots for their family.
That is possible, which would be legal.
Or it's exactly what it looks like, a bunch of mules, in other words, transporters, just taking these ballots from however they got them and shoving them in boxes, which would be very illegal.
So the pushback is that the cell phone data would not be accurate enough to know that they actually put the ballots in the box.
Okay, that's it.
That's the debunk. The debunk is that the phone information is not accurate enough to know that they actually put a ballot in a box, just that they were in the neighborhood.
Now, if you listen to the movie, whether or not the movie is telling you everything true, I don't know that part.
But the way they describe it, their method would be pretty darn persuasive.
Now, I don't know if it's wrong.
Don't know if it's wrong. I don't know if they analyzed it wrong, but it's very persuasive.
All right, so I said this.
A reasonable assumption under these circumstances, the circumstances being that the pushback is weak and the film is massively censored by the alleged guilty team, If the team that is being, in this case the Democrats, if their team is being blamed of something and they're also the ones primarily behind censoring that allegation, well, that's a little suspicious too.
And the fact that the pushback is so weak, it's just ridiculous.
Now, that doesn't mean that there isn't a good argument against the movie.
I just haven't seen it.
Nobody's offered it in any public way that I've seen.
And then just to keep myself on social media, I said, to be clear, no court has ruled that the 2020 election had substantial fraud, but lacking full, I capitalized full, election transparency, a responsible citizen can't assume fraud because the signals are all there.
So in my opinion, if you made an assumption that 2020 was fraudulent, without core evidence, because it's not proven, definitely not proven, but the situation is sufficiently signal-rich that that would be a reasonable assumption, that it was a rigged election.
Doesn't mean it's proven. Doesn't mean I have evidence of it.
But the signals, I would say, are so strong that you could be quite a reasonable citizen.
You might be wrong, but you would be reasonable in assuming it was fraudulent.
That would be very reasonable.
Sorry. If somebody doesn't like that, there's nothing I can do about it.
Yes, and as the comments here, I feel like I was the first one to say this, but I saw Sebastian Gorka say it in the film, and it was in the comments here, that if you thought that Hitler was actually running for president, you would do whatever you could to rig the election, wouldn't you? So to imagine that the Democrats who actually thought Trump was a form of Hitler, to imagine that they wouldn't try to stop him, is sort of an insult to them, isn't it?
It's a pretty big insult to Democrats if they didn't try to rig the election.
In fact, I'd hate them.
I mean, I think I would have no respect for them all if they didn't try to rig the election, from their assumption that Trump was like the devil.
Now, that part I disagree with, but if that's their starting point, I can't respect them if they didn't try to kill him.
I guess that was too provocative.
We don't want to recommend any kind of violence, so we're not doing that.
I'm just saying that they're not acting consistent.
If they really believe that stuff, they should act a lot more aggressively, and they should tell you right up front, yeah, we totally rigged that election, because there's no way we're going to let this Hitler in there.
Might as well just admit it.
Now, I think that that suggests they don't believe their own arguments.
There's something to that. All right.
So that's my bottom line on the movie.
Very persuasive, but that doesn't mean anything about being true.
And ladies and gentlemen, this concludes my shorter, better, amazing livestream.
Yeah. Now Biden's after the ultra-megas.
Ultra! I'm not just mega.
I'm ultra! Ultra!
All right. Inflation numbers came out.
I imagine they're bad. What do we believe if we can't believe the news and we can't believe our own research?
Don't believe anything. So we have to navigate a world in which nothing is credible.
There are ways to do it.
I mean, there are a number of strategies for making your cost-benefit decisions.
But you have to do it with the assumption that you can't trust anything.
Alright. It's got electrolytes.
Alright. That's all for now.
Disney has a special...
All right, let's talk about the Disney copyright thing in a little more detail.
My problem with changing the situation with Disney has nothing to do with whether the deal they had was fair or good.
That's not the point.
It should be irrelevant.
What should be relevant is that you make a deal, and one of the reasons you make deals is to create predictability.
Economies need predictability.
Even if things are inefficient, people will adapt to it.
You don't want to change things midstream.
That's just a bad economic thing, always.
Imagine if you had invested in real estate for years, and you were going to retire, and you'd done well, and then the government says, we're going to take away all of your tax benefits for your life's work.
They could do that. And it wouldn't even be unfair, because you made all your money with an unfair tax benefit, you worked all your life, you used those set of rules that you believed would be stable, and then at the end they said, you know, I think you actually owe us all those taxes that we told you you didn't have to pay.
Because we can. We're the government.
And it wasn't really fair that you got all those breaks in the past, so we're going to make you pay it back.
Because other people didn't get those breaks.
Would you be okay with that?
See, there's a larger economic, let's say, I don't know, I wouldn't call it a guideline, but sort of a thing that you can't ignore.
Which is when you make things unpredictable, it ruins the economy.
Now, this is just one small special case.
So if you say to yourself, Scott, this is such a special case, this isn't going to ruin any economy.
This is just bad for Disney.
And you don't like them.
To which I say, you don't want to make this a precedent.
You know, any time you can not change a rule, that's the way to go.
Any time you have the option of not changing things, do it.
Now, an exception would be if you've got a bunch of health and safety things that don't work.
Of course you want to change those.
But if something's sort of cruising along, and I would say that the Disney copyright problem wasn't causing any problem for anybody, was it?
Like, nobody was worse off because Mickey Mouse is a protected copyright.
Nobody. Nobody was worse off.
It didn't hurt anybody.
And it probably allowed Disney to grow into the robust business that probably contributes to Florida in a lot of ways.
So, changing deals, I just have a...
I admit it's partly emotional.
When you change a deal, I just get really angry.
Just don't like it at all.
But some of that's on me, right?
So I'm projecting from my personal preferences.
A micro lesson on finding the truth.
Thank you.
I don't know if I can make that micro, but it is a big subject of my book, Loser Think.
It's sort of the main theme, so it would be hard to summarize that entire body, but I might be able to do that.
I'll try that. Mickey was around before Disney World, but it's a big part of it.
All right, that's all for now. I'll talk to you tomorrow.
I'm not sure about the time difference, but we'll see how that works.
