Episode 1823 Scott Adams: How To Fix The Soros Problem, Al Qaeda Loses A Boss, 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:
Paul Pelosi's stock trading
George Soros motives
Shaun King allegation
Jon Stewart, Jack Posobiec, the Veteran's bill
US governments dietary advisory committee
Reframe suggestions
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Hey everybody! You know, this is going to be a great moment in your life.
All of you, really. YouTube and locals alike.
Yeah, you're all watching me and you chose well.
Because today is the highlight of civilization itself.
And I hope you're doing well too.
But, would you like to take it up a notch?
Yeah? You want to go to another level?
Yeah, you do. All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a canteen jug or a flask, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
The dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
Everything. Absolutely everything.
It's called Simultaneous Sip and it happens now.
Go! Oh, that was so bad.
But still caffeine, and that's good.
Well, Nancy Pelosi is going to Taiwan.
Is that today?
I don't know. And China had a stern response.
They issued a scary video about their military equipment.
What else did they have to do?
You know, when you're a spinach pox...
Sorry, I'm laughing at a joke on locals.
Referring to my... I've got a burn on my lip.
Somebody called it... It was from hot spinach, like literally from soup.
Somebody called it spinach pox.
It's pretty funny. All right, so what the hell is China going to do about Nancy Pelosi anyway?
What exactly are their options?
Start a trade war?
Bomb something in Delaware?
What the hell are they going to do?
I don't think there's anything they can do.
So to me it feels like close to a non-story.
The press is going to play this up as almost nuclear war.
Almost nuclear war.
But it's going to be closer to nothing.
Just a plane trip.
What about Paul Pelosi?
What do you think about his trading?
I was just looking at some commentary on Paul Pelosi.
Now I guess the criticism is that he traded some stocks that were also the subject of legislation.
And that in a number of cases he's made stock trades that were also the subject of legislation.
Mostly tech stocks.
And here's the problem.
I listened to what investments he made, and they're kind of similar to mine.
So, how do you know that he's using insider trading?
Now, one of the examples I heard is that Nancy Pelosi had a private conversation with Tim Cook of Apple, and after that, you know, perhaps her husband had some inside information.
That view That a conversation between Nancy Pelosi and Tim Cook could produce some kind of secret information that you could trade on is very unaware of how anything works in the real world.
Let me ask you this.
Do you believe you could have a private conversation with the CEO of a major company and you would learn any fucking useful thing?
Everybody who actually has any experience in the business world is laughing right now.
No. No.
Lost connection? Yeah, the trade was NVIDIA. Interestingly, my next-door neighbor went to jail for insider trading in NVIDIA once, in a different place I lived.
So I know a lot about insider trading in NVIDIA, just by coincidence.
The problem is it's not illegal for Congress.
Here's the problem. Should you take away Paul Pelosi's trading ability, the thing that everybody else in the world can do, do you say that Paul Pelosi is the only person who can't trade stocks because his wife has some role in the government?
Really? Really, you would have the spouse lose a basic freedom, a basic freedom, because the wife is trading.
Alright, here's the thing you don't understand about trading.
There's nothing the CEO can tell you that is going to help you.
There's nothing. There's nothing the CEO can tell you privately that can help you.
Because if the CEO could tell you that what the CEO knew would really help you trade, there would only be insider trading.
There wouldn't be anything but insider trading if that worked.
The one and only time that works is when there's like some real serious new technology or something, and that's kind of rare.
But if you're looking at a company like Apple, Do you think there's anything that Tim Cook could say about Apple that would cause you to trade or not trade that stock?
Well, if you're a day trader, maybe.
But is Pelosi's husband a day trader?
Can somebody give you a fact check on that?
Is he buying and selling within a year or is he holding things more than a year?
Can somebody tell me that?
Is he trading right before major legislation?
Right? Which is fine.
He can trade before major legislation.
Because everybody knows the major legislation is coming.
Right? That's public.
So he trades options.
Okay. He trades options.
And are they short-term options?
So is he trading on small movements based on the news?
Now that would be a problem.
If we knew that he was trading on short-term investments and options especially, I guess, because those give you a bigger gain if you hit.
Monthly options. So short-term investments on technology is what you're alleging here.
Now let me ask you this.
Are his investments transparent?
How do we know about his investments?
How in the world do we know he invested and when?
Does he have to disclose all of that?
I think I'd be fine with him disclosing it.
Honestly. They already closed out.
Pelosi privilege.
Disclosure is delayed.
I don't know. I have mixed feelings about this one.
On one hand... It feels perfectly reasonable that you don't want people trading on insider knowledge if their spouse is the speaker.
On the other hand, I don't believe that you can do it productively.
I don't know that even if you knew everything that Nancy Pelosi knows, I don't really think you could necessarily trade on that.
Do you? So your assumption is that if you knew what Nancy Pelosi knows, you'd be a better trader.
You'd make better trades.
I don't think so. Everything I know about investment says no.
Because I think Warren Buffett would agree with me.
I think Warren Buffett would say, yeah, you can do that, but that's just gambling.
You know, Warren Buffett says just buy an index fund and hold it, and that's your best thing.
So I guess I have some big questions about the context of this story.
So here's the things I would look for.
Does he disclose all of his trades?
If yes, that's a lot.
I mean, that certainly goes a long ways.
Should you care about a conversation between Nancy Pelosi and any CEO? Well, if Tim Cook told Nancy Pelosi something like, we can't make iPhones, but we're not telling anybody, Yeah, that would be pretty big.
Do you think Tim Cook did that?
Do you think Tim Cook gave her, like, secret insider information?
I just don't think CEOs do that.
I don't think they do it to anybody.
I don't think they, you know, maybe their best friend or spouse or something.
But I don't see Tim Cook telling Nancy Pelosi secret Apple plans or insider stuff that would really help you trade.
There is so much going on with Apple that all the experts are, you know, they get surprised every time Apple has a profit announcement.
The most common headline on Apple profitability goes like this.
Experts were surprised.
You know, profits came in much different than they expected.
I don't know. So I guess I'm sort of, I've got a mixed feeling about this one.
Somebody says, you're missing the point, in all caps.
Nancy knows about potential legislation.
No, I'm not missing that point.
That is the point. The point is she knows about potential legislation and actual legislation, and I don't think any of it's going to help.
And even potential legislation tends to be semi-public.
Please change. What's that mean?
Yeah? It's the trading before the bills are brought to committee.
Well, what kind of trades do you make?
See, the problem here is that if you take the generic allegation, it doesn't hit with me.
You really, in order to convince me, and by the way, I could be convinced.
So I'm not trying to defend Paul Pelosi, because I don't know exactly what's going on there.
I'm just telling you that you don't either.
Right? So that's my only point.
If you think you know what's going on with his investments, you probably don't.
But I agree that it's sketchy.
So if you're saying it'd be better if that didn't happen, I agree.
I just don't know exactly how bad it is.
It's hard to tell. All right.
I think I have formed an opinion on George Soros, who has been a mystery to me for years.
I've been trying to figure out why the hell he's doing what he's doing.
Or allegedly doing what he's doing.
Why is he funding who he's funding and what's up?
And I was trying to think, okay, is it, like, some people say it's a plot to depopulate the world and destroy it, or he's trying to make money somehow in a clever way, or he hates America, or something.
And I was trying to figure out, like, really what it is.
And there have been some recent interviews where he's talked enough that I've formed an opinion.
And my opinion goes like this.
It turns out he's just a fucking idiot.
And that's the whole story.
Because he thinks that these liberal prosecutors that he's funded and backed and got jobs and, you know, they're not prosecuting people like the old days, he thought that would be a good idea.
Because he thought that there was too much racism in the prosecutions.
And somehow he had not connected the dots that the reason that five times more black people get convicted is that that's roughly the rate of crime.
I don't know what the actual ratios are, but he seems to be ignoring the most obvious reason that there's a disparity, which is there's a difference in crime rates.
But back it up a little, George Soros.
Back it up a little. Why is there a difference in crime rates?
Why? Why, George Soros?
Well, probably because the teachers' unions prevent competition in schools, and so every generation of young black kids is underserved because of the teachers' unions.
In other words, they're the strongest protectors of a system that does not educate black people.
Let me say it again. The teachers' unions are the strongest protectors of a system that does not educate black students the way you would want.
I think the solution to George Soros is to get him on the right problem.
I actually think that George Soros might be mathematically brilliant, which allowed him to make money, but he might be kind of a moron about sort of general, ordinary things.
When I listened to his description of why he was funding the liberal prosecutors, it didn't sound like a smart person talking.
And for the first time, I thought, oh, there's one explanation for all of it.
He's not that bright.
He thinks he's helping, and he's not that bright.
So would you buy that, or do you buy the conspiracy theory?
Because somebody who's not so bright explains a lot of stuff.
Have you ever seen Rob Reiner tweet?
If you gave Rob Reiner an IQ test, he'd probably do okay.
I don't think he has low intelligence.
But for some reason, he's dumb as a rock about politics.
Stephen King? Probably smart enough to write some good books.
You gotta be pretty smart to do that.
But you see his tweeting about politics and you think, uh, he's dumb as a rock.
So it seems to me that we have plenty of evidence Of people who could be brilliant in their careers and dumb as a box of rocks about some really basic general stuff about how the world works.
So that's my current working hypothesis is that he's just under-informed and a little bit and not too bright.
Here's how you fix it.
See if he can get somebody to get to Soros and say, you're aiming at the wrong target.
If you want to make a difference, you could get everybody on your side.
You could fix, with his amount of influence, he could probably make a big difference in fixing school systems and the teachers unions, etc.
So, instead of trying to destroy George Soros, I would take the stalker philosophy.
Do you know how you stop a stalker?
Have I ever taught you this?
This is something I learned from somebody who is an expert at stopping stalkers.
Do you know how you stop them? You don't.
It's not possible.
Because whatever turns somebody into a stalker doesn't turn off.
The only thing you could do is make it harder to stalk one person, and they will move their stalking impulse to another person, which is horrible.
But if you're working for one client, it's good enough for that client.
Because it gets the stalker into another stalking situation away from you.
I suspect that Soros needs to do something or wants to do something very badly about what he would see as social injustices.
And he wants to do something.
So instead of criticizing him for doing the wrong thing, maybe move him to another target.
Move him to the teachers' unions to try to neutralize their negative influence.
I feel like he could be converted.
Scott, do you know Bill Gates personally?
No, I've never even been in the same room with him.
Never had any contact whatsoever.
And I don't know who could get to George Soros or how, or maybe get to his son, maybe that's the way to go.
I don't know. But I feel as if his influence is perhaps, perhaps, well-intentioned.
How many of you would accept that?
That his intentions, they don't seem to be going well, but don't you think he's trying to help?
I think the people who say he's not trying to help, what is he trying to do?
What do you think he's trying to do?
Do you think he's trying to destroy America?
Hitler was saving the world, he thought.
No, he didn't.
Right. Well, here's the thing.
Most people mean well.
Most. It's kind of unusual if somebody would do something this high profile and had bad intentions.
It's kind of rare.
Maybe. Yeah, I can't read his mind, so I don't know.
But I would say the most basic...
Oh, there's another chart on locals that I don't believe.
Let me tell you, there's no chart of COVID, vaccinations, masks that I believe.
You could just stop pasting them.
They have no credibility whatsoever.
Some of them might be true, but there's just no credibility in any pandemic data anymore, or if there ever was.
All right, well, there's a story about Sean King.
You remember Sean King? Described as a Black Lives Matter activist.
And apparently he raised a lot of money in his political pack.
And he used...
About 40% of all the money he used to buy a dog.
He bought a $40,000 dog as a family pet.
Let me say that again.
This is an allegation.
I'm not making an allegation.
But the news is alleging that Sean King, BLM activist, used something like a huge portion of all the money donated to the Political Action Committee To purchase a $40,000 dog for his family.
Now, here's the first question you might ask yourself.
Isn't this a little too on the nose?
I think I saw this on Fox News.
It's a little too on the nose, isn't it?
You believe this?
Do you think he bought a $40,000 dog with his BLM funds?
Maybe. And then the rest of the story says that it turned out not to be a good family dog, so he gave it back.
I don't know if he got his money back.
It was some kind of, like, prize special dog, you know, a dog show dog that was going to win dog shows, I guess.
But it was, you know, too rambunctious for a family dog, so he had to give it back.
Too on the nose? I don't know.
I feel as if there's something missing in the context of the story because it's a little too neat.
I want to believe it because, you know, my bias makes me want to believe that he bought a $40,000 dog.
You know, I want to think that he was that ridiculous.
I can't go there.
I can't get all the way to believing this story.
I want to, but I can't get there.
Speaking of fake news, you all know the story of Jon Stewart advocating for the veterans, funding for health care, especially over those burn pits, etc.
And the story goes that there was some early bill that the GOP liked, but then they said no to the bill when it was, you know, the final bill, but nothing had changed.
And then all the people on the right said, Jon Stewart, you are so uninformed.
You don't realize that the Republicans voted against it because it had a bunch of pork in there.
How many of you believe that's the correct story?
That Jon Stewart was uninformed about all the pork in there and so he got excited and didn't realize that the reason the GOP didn't like it is because of all the pork.
Is that what you believe happened?
Well, so of course Jon Stewart looked into it You know, he got trolled to death on Twitter over his complete lack of knowledge of the bill.
So he looked into it and he concluded this.
This bill is utterly and completely focused on veterans' issues.
There is no pork in it.
It is a kosher bill.
I'd say halal, but I know...
He was joking about...
He couldn't say that on Fox, just jokingly.
And... So what do you think?
So John Stewart looked at it, and the allegations were that it was full of pork, and he looked at it, and it wasn't there.
So which one of your conspiracies, theories, do you think is right there?
Now, I don't know the answer.
Do you? Because I've heard from credible sources that it's full of pork, and now if John Stewart looked at it to find out if there was pork in there and says it's not there, he's a credible source too.
I consider him a credible source.
So if he looked at it carefully, like it'd be one thing if he hadn't looked at it, but if he did look at it, and he's saying there's no pork...
Yeah, now we have to read it, right?
Why can't the news settle to Jon Stewart and pundits on Twitter to tell us what's in the bill?
That's pretty bad. So I'm going to revise what I said about this situation to at least be open to the possibility that Jon Stewart is completely right.
There's probably some...
It was one word.
It's about mandatory spending versus discretionary spending.
But if Jon Stewart doesn't care about that, why do we care about that?
The CBO score.
Oh, Dems moved a budgeting gimmick of $400 billion of discretionary.
Well, so? How is that relevant to Jon Stewart's issue?
Does Jon Stewart care where the money came from?
I don't see your point.
I understand that it's a gimmick, but if it's a gimmick he likes, why can't he like it?
I don't get it yet. So the second part of the story is that Jack Posobiec did meet up with John Stewart in person.
There's a video on Jack's feed, you can see it, in which he and John Stewart shook hands and agreed to work together to get the veterans their funding.
But, which by the way, I thought was one of the coolest things I've seen in a long time.
You know, it feels like there's one thing we should be able to agree on, taking care of veterans.
How in the world can we not get that done?
So I'm at least, you know, I'm impressed that Jack Posobiec is able to You know, make that connection.
And I am very impressed with Jon Stewart, who was willing to accept that, you know, contact, and even put it on video.
He was willing to accept that just to get it done.
Now, I see what you're saying on the Locals platform, everybody's saying, but there was a gimmick.
There was a budgeting gimmick that the Republicans disagreed with.
So it's the gimmick.
But if Jon Stewart doesn't care about that gimmick, does it matter?
I mean, it might be a gimmick, but what if it gets the money for the veterans?
I'm missing the whole point here.
How is it that we got this far?
There's a $400 blank check for veterans' health.
Right? You're saying that there's fusing the gimmick.
The gimmick was there in the prior bill as well as this one.
So John Stewart was right that not one word of the bill changed from the time that all the Republicans voted for it to the time they didn't.
So look at how confused you are in this story.
I'm just looking at the comments.
They're all over the place. So here's the thing that we can conclude.
We don't know what's in the bill.
We're not so sure that anybody does.
That's what I can tell.
If the reason that we're arguing it is there's something confusing in it, then I would have voted against it, frankly.
Let me put it this way. If you can have this discussion, then the GOP is right to vote against it.
Would you accept that?
The fact that we're having a discussion where we can't figure out what's in the bill, that's a good enough reason not to vote for it.
I would vote against anything that's not clear.
So if it's not clear, I'd vote against it.
I might vote against anything that's misnamed, too.
Wouldn't you love that? Maybe there should be a law that the only titles for bills can come from AI. So AI can read the content of the bill and then create a title, but humans aren't allowed to do it anymore because we'd all be liars.
There's the first example.
Now somebody says the $400 billion in the bill is not for vets.
Now, maybe you're right, but answer me this.
Do you think Jon Stewart is not smart enough To read the bill and not know that it's for veterans.
So I get what you're saying about the 400 million not being specified.
So you're saying that John Seward simply can't read the bill.
I'm not going to buy that.
Sorry. I mean, it might be true.
It might be true. All right, so here's what I think.
I think both sides don't understand this one.
My guess is that nobody understands what's going on.
Look, maybe literally nobody.
I mean, maybe, you know, maybe Jack Posavik and Jon Stewart can sit with some senators and figure out what the hell's going on.
And I think that's the plan.
I think Jack wants to bring the parties together as much as he can and see if they can even understand what's in the bill.
Somebody says they read the bill and they think Stewart is correct.
So here's something we can conclude.
People who have read the bill have different opinions what's in it.
Would you agree with that statement?
Would you agree with the following statement?
The people who have read the bill disagree on what's in it.
Is that fair to say?
All right. So if people who read the bill disagree what's in it, should you vote for it?
No. No.
The fact that people disagree on what it says, that's reason to vote against it.
So I'm going to go with the GOP on this.
I didn't think I'd end up here, by the way.
I thought I was going to end up...
What the hell's wrong with the GOP? They're being too political or something?
But if you tell me that this many people who actually read the fucking bill don't even know what's in it...
You don't vote for that bill.
I'm completely on board with not voting for bills you don't understand.
That's got to be a standard.
Wouldn't you love somebody like, you know, some Democrat, well, it doesn't matter who, some candidate for president to say, we have to make bills understandable or you shouldn't vote for them.
That's got to be basic.
All right. Here's some possibly good news or possibly the end of the world.
You can never tell. But Ars Technica is reporting that genetic engineers in China have developed crops that can thrive with less nitrogen.
And there's a strain of rice that's 40 to 70 percent higher yield and you wouldn't need nitrogen.
Now nitrogen, I guess, comes from burning, is made from natural gas.
So it's bad for the environment to make nitrogen, they say.
So you could grow tons of more rice and use less natural gas.
What do you think? Do you think that's a big deal?
I saw one critic say nothing in nature is free and if you get more of this grain it might have lower nutritional value or something.
I don't know. I'm not sure that one leads to the other.
Are we still watching? We're tracking the flight of Nancy Pelosi's flight.
See if it gets shot down.
Speaking of shot down.
Anyway, the good news is maybe there will be some genetic strain of plants that don't need fertilizer.
Because we do have a fertilizer shortage as well as we don't want to use gas for nitrogen, I guess.
So the Al-Qaeda leader, Ayman al-Zawahari, Got killed by a Biden drone strike.
Took him out on a balcony in Kabul.
And I can't tell if this makes a difference.
Killing bin Laden made a difference, and we definitely needed to kill this guy.
So I'm going to give the Biden administration full credit.
This looked like a clean kill to me.
The reporting looks like a clean kill.
So if Trump had done this, I'd be applauding him.
So I'm going to applaud Biden.
It looks like he did a nice clean kill.
Apparently there were no other innocents killed.
The weirdest thing about this story is that this top al-Qaeda guy has a wife and kids and he travels with them.
How do you travel with your wife and kids if you're a top terrorist?
But they did get hurt, so I guess that's good news.
I don't think it makes any difference, does it?
I'm not sure exactly what al-Qaeda was doing lately, but it doesn't seem like it would make much of a difference these days.
So there's a study looking at the conflicts of interest for members of the U.S. 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.
So the government has this advisory committee to come up with dietary guidelines.
Now, wouldn't it be a problem, just asking, If the people who came up with the dietary guidelines had conflicts of interest with big food companies, that would be a problem, right?
Because you wouldn't want your dietary guideline advisory committee to be a bunch of people who work for big food companies.
Then all your guidelines would be ridiculous.
So the study looked to see how many people on the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee had conflicts of interest, and it was 95%.
95%.
The Dietary Guidelines for the United States, 95% of the people on it had a conflict of interest.
You know that January 6th insurrection?
I was a little underpowered.
You know, you see shit like this and you do want to overthrow your fucking country, don't you?
They're actually poisoning the citizens with incompetence.
Our government and conflict of interest.
They're poisoning the country because they're incompetent and in the bag and conflict of interest.
Motherfuckers. Can I use the C word to describe the government?
Would anybody have any objections to that?
If you don't like to hear that word, you probably want to mute it for a minute.
But I don't think there's any way to describe 95% of the people on that Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee having a conflict of interest other than fucking cunts.
You fucking cunts.
Right in front of us.
Right in front of us.
You put these fucking conflict of interest people on the most important advisory committee in the whole fucking world.
Tell me one advisory committee that has more impact than the dietary advisory committee for the fucking government of the United States.
Nothing is worse than this story.
Now I don't know how that conflict of interest necessarily translated into the guidelines, but I don't also care.
I don't fucking care.
If you look at how bad this is, what's worse than this?
Name anything that the government has done that's worse than this.
You can't. Vaccinations?
Nope. No.
If everything you said about vaccinations is true, like the worst conspiracy theory, it's not even close to this.
This is controlling what everybody puts in their body, you know, five times a day.
There's nothing worse than this.
Nothing. This is so fucking bad, I can't even believe it, and it will never be even treated as a story.
It's just a study. People read it.
Eh, whatever. Now let's do the FDA. Any conflicts of interest in the FDA or the CDC? The whole thing is just conflict of interest.
The whole fucking government and all the most important decisions is just conflict of interest.
And it's sort of laying right out there where we can go look at it ourselves.
And there it is. So, I'll tell you, it's hard to support a government that's not trying.
I'm very forgiving of mistakes.
If Biden had tried to kill Zaohari and killed some civilians and missed Zaohari, I would be telling you it was still a good try.
And I'm sorry about the victims, but mistakes are mistakes.
It was still a good try.
So I'm not the guy who gets on mistakes.
But this isn't a fucking mistake.
This is the system.
This is the way it's designed, apparently, to bring in all these conflict of interest people and put them in the wrong positions.
So, you fucking cunts for poisoning the country.
It's hard to even...
Generate the right amount of outrage for this.
It's just hard to do.
Well, let's talk about the misery index.
There's something called the misery index that is an unusual model for economists, I read.
So what it does is it combines inflation and unemployment.
To create a measure of voters' likely attitudes when they cast the ballots.
Now, if you use this measure, it suggests that Democrats are just going to get annihilated in the midterms.
But it's weird, because you add inflation and unemployment rates, but actually the unemployment rate is not bad.
So it's really all in the inflation number.
So it really comes down to, will inflation You know, kill the Democrats, or will the Democrats successfully argue that Biden is lowering inflation?
Because that's what they are arguing.
And there are some economists who apparently say, you know, it might make a difference, his latest bill.
We'll see. All right.
So there wasn't much else happening here.
Did you see anything else happening?
I was talking about this before I went live on YouTube.
Paul Krugman is tweeting yesterday, the problem may be that the Biden economy boomed too much, feeding inflation, and that it now needs to cool off, which may involve a recession, but hasn't yet.
So Krugman tried to explain that Biden was too successful, and his being too successful may have led to a little inflation, but you know, that'll cool off.
That's not wrong. You know, we mock Krugman for he's made some famously bad predictions.
But I don't think he's wrong.
It's just that painting it as some advantage for Biden is kind of, that's a little too far.
But it is true that a hot economy is part of the reason that inflation is going up, right?
Demand exceeded supply.
So it's a weird way to characterize it, but technically it's not that off.
A good economy did lead to that.
All right, what else is going on?
So Reuters just fact-checked the meme.
Okay. All right.
Can't feed your kids.
Sorry about that. Shotgun man.
What about it? Alright, I'm looking at your comments because I've run out of things to say.
It's the two-bit economy.
I thought a good economy was more balanced and sustainable.
Chauncey Gardner says, yeah, Chauncey Gardner.
Yeah, I think the supply chain situation is that the ships are getting...
There's something happening outside my curtain here.
I don't know what it is. Probably a sneak attack.
What's on my lip?
A burn. It's not monkeypox.
Burned it on twice-eated soup.
Bad mistake. When will you be able to buy the new book?
Well, I've got to write it first.
It's coming along really well.
Would you like to see what's in the new book?
I'll give you a little preview.
Okay, that's not good.
Why is my book not showing up?
There it is. All right, a little bit of a preview.
I'll tell you what kinds of...
Oh, God. All right.
I think I just knocked YouTube off, but maybe not.
All right, so here are some of the things that'll be in the new book.
This is just the index. So the reframes...
A reframe is usually just one sentence that replaces the one-sentence description of how you were thinking before.
I have everything from handling criticism, judging people, reprogramming your brain, managing time, directly improving your happiness, how to look at the world, handling complaints, luck, sleep, exercise, diet, art, freedom.
So I've got 71 pages and probably 70 or so reframes.
And let me ask you this.
Would you buy a book that had I don't know.
There might be a hundred when I'm done.
A hundred reframes under the promise that one of them would change your life, probably.
And the other 99 might not have an effect on you.
But one of them would completely change your life.
And it would be different for each person.
So the reframe you need is different than the reframe I need.
Yeah, because I think they're all interesting and useful.
And here's the way it feels.
It feels like a book of spells.
It's not meant to be magic, of course.
It's based on pretty obvious mechanisms for why it works.
But if you can change your life with one sentence, doesn't that feel like magic?
And I know a number of people have.
A number of people have changed their life just because I reframed alcohol as poison.
And I hear about it all the time.
People say, yeah, I stopped drinking because you said alcohol was poison.
And it's not like it was a new thought, but there's something about the way you word it, the way you repeat it, the way it sinks in, that has a difference.
Reframes equals euphemism?
No, it doesn't. Reframes are not euphemisms whatsoever.
It's completely different.
Yeah, I should do something about how to eat without burning yourself.
Don't eat things that have spinach in them.
You did that with processed foods.
Yeah, I actually thought that one of the working titles would be The Book of Spells.
Because it does feel like that.
Alright. How many of you would buy this book when I finish it?
I'm pretty sure that almost everybody would get at least one reframe that would completely change your life.
Almost everybody. All right, good.
Good to know. All right, that's all I have for today.
And I'm curious about managing complaints.
I can do that for you.
And so, this comes to the end of today's program.
How to reframe your losing streak?
I can do that. I can reframe your losing streak.
Are you ready for this?
So somebody says they're on a losing streak.
Have you ever had that happen? And they ask for a reframe.
This one I use all the time.
And this one will completely change your thing.
Now, I'm going to take as an assumption That you are authoring your own bad luck.
Now I know that you don't think that, but my working understanding of reality is that we're a simulation.
And I do believe that you literally can change your future by what you focus on and concentrate on and expect.
I literally think that's true.
So here's how you can change your thinking about what's coming next, which will change what comes next.
You ready? For whoever said they were on a losing streak, here it comes.
The universe fucking owes you.
It's time. Nobody can be that unlucky that long.
The universe owes you.
It will revert to the mean because that's how it's designed.
It's designed to revert to the mean.
You can't screw one person forever and just keep them underwater.
Unless you die, You're going to be reverting to the mean.
And there's nothing the universe can do about it.
Because statistics and the odds drive everything.
And the statistics say, even if you did flip a coin and get heads five times in a row, if you keep flipping, it's going to be 50-50 over time, right?
You will always revert to the mean.
Here's the way I've used this very reframe.
And by the way, this is one of the most effective ones I've ever used.
My childhood, as I've mentioned a few times, was, let's say, less than ideal.
Does anybody have that situation?
Anybody have a childhood that was less than ideal?
Probably. A lot of you.
Here's the reframe.
There's no way that can last.
There's no way that can last.
You can't be unlucky all the time.
Luck has to revert to the mean because it always does.
That's how statistics work.
If you had a terrible childhood, the odds of you getting a little bit luckier later are pretty good.
The odds are in your favor if you had a terrible childhood.
Do you know who I feel sorry for?
Literally. This will sound like a joke or something.
You know who I feel sorry for?
People who had really good childhoods.
Because they're fucked.
How many times have you seen it?
Good childhood? Eh, adulthood didn't go so well.
Now it's not every person every time, right?
But as a general rule, people who have ideal childhoods grow up soft.
And they can't push through.
People who had terrible childhoods can push through anything.
So to you who had the losing streak, still alive, right?
Still alive. Not only are you still alive, but you did the one thing you needed to do.
To turn it around.
You came here and you asked for some advice.
The people who say, I got a bad streak, but I'm going to do something about it.
The do something about it part is what sets you apart.
You could have easily said, I had bad luck and I'm just going to deal with it.
I guess I had more bad luck coming.
But you did not. You came to the one place in the world where you could ask the question to somebody who would actually give you a good fucking answer.
Me. I don't know if there's anybody else who could answer this question as well, and I'm honest, right?
I'll be happy to tell you what I'm good at and what I'm bad at.
I'm very bad at eating soup.
Very bad. There are lots of things I'm very bad at, but there's nobody in the world who can answer that question better, what to do about your bad streak.
I just changed it for you.
Once you understand that luck just can't work like that all the time, and that you're probably controlling it by your thoughts, well, I just changed your thoughts.
Your thoughts now are, oh, you're right.
It can't really be bad luck all the time.
The universe owes me. Just say that sentence.
That's your reframe. The universe owes me.
And watch how it produces.
Watch how believing that the universe owes you.
And by the way, that doesn't mean you're not going to work and do things.
You're not going to sit on the couch and wait for it to come to you.
You're still going to go out and get something, right?
You're a hunter, not a waiter.
Not someone who waits.
You're a hunter. And I can tell that you're a hunter because you came here and in public asked that question.
Consider that you probably have control of your ego because you could say you're on a losing streak in public.
I mean, that takes a little guts.
So I think that your odds are going to look good and check back with me in a year.
I feel like some good luck is coming your way.
Statistically speaking, there's some good luck coming your way.
And just keep improving your talent stack and increasing your network.
You'll be fine. You'll work it out.
It sounds like you have what you need.
All right. Don't think that the universe owes you in general.
That would be a mistake. What the universe owes you is a statistical truth.
And the statistical truth is that it can't make you unlucky all the time.
You just can't do that. Now, I do have a section on how to manage your luck.
And I wasn't planning to do this, but I'm going to give you the reframe after I refresh this page.
I'm going to give you the reframe for luck.
Some of you have heard something like this from my book, how to fail almost everything and still win big.
But let me tell you how I'm going to frame it here.
The usual frame of luck is that luck is random and can't be managed, right?
Luck is random and can't be managed.
Here's how you can manage it.
Go where there is more luck.
That's it. That's the whole thing.
Don't sit on the couch.
There's no luck that's going to find you on the couch.
But if you go out and meet some people and do some things and put some energy into the world, well, then luck could find you.
If you live in the smallest town in the world and you decide to stay there, well, luck could find you, but it's going to be kind of hard because there's not much energy.
There's not much happening in your little town.
So go to a bigger town.
Go to where there's more people.
Go to where there's more energy.
What about the job?
Take a job in an industry that's growing.
Never take a job in a stable or shrinking industry, even if it seems to be the perfect commute and all that.
You've got to take a job in a growing entity, whatever that is.
Find something that's growing.
And if you do those things, Luck can't avoid you.
You just stay alive, stay in the game, and go where the energy is, and the most energy produces the most luck.
So if you're in a low energy environment, go to a higher energy environment.
If you have one talent, try to intelligently add some compatible talents.
So that you are more valuable.
It will seem like your luck increased, but it will just be that you increased your market value.
You have goals, but you don't reach them.
The problem is maybe that you have goals instead of systems.
If you had a system of doing something every day that would move you toward your goal, your luck would look a lot better.
So you can't manage luck in a direct absolute sense.
You can't change whether you win at a slot machine, for example.
But you can go where there's more stuff happening, and you can add to your talent stack.
That will produce luck.
You can use systems instead of goals.
That will produce luck.
It's actually designed to produce luck.
Specifically, what's good about a system is that even if the thing you thought you were aiming at doesn't work out, your system will still prepare you for other luck.
Example, going to college is a system, but we don't always know exactly what job we're going to have.
So let's say you're aiming to be a writer.
So you go to college and you get an education that's compatible with being a writer for, I don't know, magazines or books.
And then that doesn't work out.
Your system still gave you this platform for which there are all kinds of things that you could do because you're now capable of doing all kinds of communication-related things.
So luck, in that case, would be preparing a set of skills that had lots of different possibilities.
So of course you're going to get luckier because you can do more stuff.
So make sure that you're a person who can do lots of stuff And then insert your person who can do lots of stuff into an environment where there's lots of energy, which usually means people, maybe an industry that's growing.
If you do those things, your odds of luck just go through the roof.
It would be hard to fail in the long run if you just did those things.
And, you know, try not to be a drug addict.
That would be a problem. If addiction is your problem, I'm not saying it is.
But if it is, that's a whole different path.
You've got to deal with that first.
On YouTube, there's a suggestion that a great way to end the live stream would be to open the curtain and reveal a Bigfoot on the outdoor area there.
Thank you.
That would be. I saw in the news that the Loch Ness Monster might be real.
Apparently, fossils have been found in other places, not Loch Ness, but there have been fossils of freshwater dinosaurs that were aquatic and had the general shape of what people imagine Loch Ness monster looks like.
And there's a belief that such freshwater swimming dinosaurs could have easily been in Scotland as well.
So there's that.
Pelosi has landed.
That's one small step for a hag, one giant step for traders.
It's cruel but funny.
How can you reframe to get rid of laziness?
Laziness, there are lots of ways to approach it.
I think everybody's lazy until they have a good opportunity.
So one part of it is making sure that you're around opportunities, things that will pull you.
The other thing is micro steps.
If you're lazy, don't do the big thing in your head.
Just do the smallest thing that moves you in the right direction.
So that's basic advice that I've been giving for years.
Just do the smallest thing.
Make a phone call or write down a phone number.
That's all you need to do today.
Today, Just write down a phone number or look up a web page.
That's it. Tomorrow, do something else, but just, you know, also easy and small.
And you also want to combine your best energy periods with the things you need to do.
So most people have a good energy at some point in the day, but maybe less energy later.
So make sure that the things that are important in your life Get moved to the good energy time.
The classic mistake of losers is to use their high energy time for their entertainment and to use their low energy time for their work.
You will get a predictable outcome if you do that.
Remind them about the micro steps more.
Well, the micro steps is just, if you're sitting on the couch and you can't imagine, let's say, starting that new landscaping business that you have all the skills for, but you just need to get going, don't imagine all of it has to be done.
Just take the first step.
Maybe you shop for a new lawnmower.
Maybe you ask somebody, if I were to try to start this business, would you help fund me?
usually relative.
So just do the smallest thing.
Here's a reframe that I heard Well, of course, it's a famous song, but you've heard Janis Joplin say, freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.
That sounds kind of a downer.
Oh, you got your freedom, but the only way you got it is because you lost everything, right?
But reverse it, right?
It's all negative if you say freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.
But reverse it.
What happens if everything's shitty?
The person who said that they're on a losing streak.
Have you ever been in a situation where just everything's shitty?
Just everything. Just everything.
What's your first thought?
Oh, everything's shitty.
I better, I don't know, end my life or something.
Do you have an unproductive thought?
You know what I always think?
Because unfortunately, I've gone through a number of situations where at least it felt like I lost everything.
Usually a change of relationship.
When I left my first relationship, it was a 15-year relationship.
I wasn't married, but it was a long-term, live-together situation.
I left with only what I could carry.
Literally what I could personally carry with no help.
That's all I took from all of the assets I had accumulated in my life, physical stuff, a house, furniture, etc.
I left it all.
And I didn't have a social life, because that collapses the same time you get divorced.
If you've ever gone through a divorce, the first thing that you lose is your social life, because the couple situation just falls apart.
So I lost all of my social life, all of my sex life, all of my furniture, my home, And my job was, you know, my career was sort of an in-between phase.
I hadn't started doing this yet and hadn't written some good books yet.
So my take was, I'm free.
I'm free. So what did I do as soon as I was free?
Some cool stuff.
When I got married the first time to Shelley, there were...
There was a restriction. I guess I can tell you this now.
I don't know if I've ever mentioned this in public before, but I think it's fine to do it now.
Part of the divorce from her prior husband involved a court order that said that I could not write about my family life.
Because it involved two children who were, you know, the issue of another man.
Now think about that.
I'm a professional writer.
I'm a professional writer who writes about his experience, his personal experience.
So when I was in the corporate world, that's where Dilber came from, And then it moved to more of a family situation, and I thought, oh, this is great fodder.
I can't wait to write about all the funny things that happened with raising kids and stuff like that.
And then a court order came down that said I couldn't write about my own life because kids who were not mine would be part of that situation.
Think about that. Think about the fact that a wedding that I had nothing to do with, a prior marriage of two other people A judge could judge that I couldn't write about my own family situation, even without naming the kids.
I mean, I wouldn't have given away identities.
I would just have, you know, general stuff like, you know, have you ever had this situation?
You know, it'd be something like that.
Couldn't do that. So, once I got divorced from Shelley, What was the first thing I could do?
I was free, right?
Free of this court order, free of any other kinds of restrictions.
So I can tell you that in two situations in which I lost everything, I had of course all the sense of loss because that's unavoidable, but at the same time I never lost sight of the fact that I gained a type of freedom That's amazing.
You know all of the Trump stuff that I talked about?
I wouldn't have done that if I'd been married.
So my entire situation now wouldn't have happened had I stayed married because I would have played it safe and just done some Dilber stuff and stayed under the radar and not embarrassed the family and stuff like that.
So absolutely Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.
But if you ever find yourself with nothing left to lose, congratulations.
You're the freest person I know.
And if you waste that, you're really wasting a big asset because there are only a few free people.
Now in my case, it was easy to exploit it because speaking more freely and doing businesses that I wouldn't ordinarily do, I could do all those things.
So if you're having a really, really bad time, your marriage broke up, you lost your job, you are one of the freest people in a land that really does reward freedom.
You can move to a new job, get a new relationship, find a new situation, and make it work.
