Episode 2054 Scott Adams: Biden Crime Family & ESG, Equity Destroys Civilization, DeSantis Wilts, AI
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Trump's absurd legal problems
DeSantis fades
Biden Crime Family and ESG
Merit versus equity
AI on your own computer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the finest experience of your life.
I don't know if... Oh, YouTube's even working.
And if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that even ESG won't take you to, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or sty and a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called Simultaneous Sip.
Sublime.
*pain* Well, I'd like to start the day with a quiz.
A quiz.
This is for those of you on YouTube.
What's the difference between an atmospheric river and Stormy Daniels?
An atmospheric river and Stormy Daniels.
The answer is, one is wet and blows a lot, and the other is a lot of rain.
So, that's how we're starting the show.
Big question on the Fed rates.
So I like to go directly from Stormy Daniels to Fed funds and interest rates.
I saw a tweet by Unusual Whales quoting somebody named Nick Timrous, and he says that the Fed faces one of the toughest calls in years, whether to raise the rates and fight inflation, or take a time out amid the most intense banking crisis since 2008.
All right, let me see.
If you fight the inflation first, you destroy the banking system and we all die.
If you lower the rates, it'll make inflation still out of control, but at least the banking system will survive.
So we'll be alive to fight inflation in the future.
So, is that a hard decision?
Is it?
Here's my recommendation.
The tourniquet is always the right answer.
The tourniquet is always the right answer.
It doesn't feel like a hard decision at all, does it?
Is there anybody who would argue that we should risk the entire banking system, which is teetering, in order to buy us six months of maybe a little less inflation, but maybe not?
No.
Does that really look like a hard decision?
I think they'll get it wrong.
You know, if I had to guess, they'll probably get it wrong.
But it's not a hard decision.
One is a media problem, and one is a long-term problem.
How is that not an obvious decision?
But I don't think they're going to make it.
You know, even Elon Musk is saying they've got to lower the rates to save the banks.
So, I don't know.
I think we've left competence behind.
That will be the theme for today.
Tucker Carlson said on his show that if the Democratic Party is allowed to take out the presidential front-runner, meaning Trump, who's the main threat to their power, with this bogus criminal case, as he calls it, and pretty much everybody calls it, that precedent will live forever.
Voters will never determine the outcome of another election.
Well, I think that's hyperbole.
You know, I wouldn't say never.
But you could imagine how this would be a bad precedent, so I think the point stands.
What do you think?
Do you think that this would be the end of the Republic?
Or is it really just about Trump?
I don't know.
It could go either way.
I mean, it's really risky stuff.
But if they get away with taking Trump out on bogus charges, then they can take anybody out for any reason.
Like if you don't draw the line at bogus charges, I mean really, bogus charges?
We wouldn't draw the line there.
I'm pretty sure if you don't draw the line at bogus charges, Tucker's right, you won't draw the line at anything.
There won't be anything that you won't be willing to accept if you accept this.
It's true.
Now obviously I'm not recommending any kind of weird insurrections or anything, but It's a good point.
If they can get away with bogus charges right in front of you, charges that you know are bogus, the Democrats know are bogus, everybody would know is bogus.
If it works, if this works, why wouldn't they do it every year, every election?
Just put all the other side in jail.
Just find some reason.
Just take your misdemeanors up to felonies.
Well, at this point, I believe every legal expert has weighed in and said the charges are bogus, it's purely political, it signals political in every possible way you can signal it.
There's nothing left to argument.
Everybody can see it's just political.
And the Democrats still like it.
They're still in favor of it.
I feel actually embarrassed living in a country where tens of millions of people think that bogus charges are perfectly acceptable.
Or they haven't looked into it, and they don't know that it's bogus.
I don't know.
Well, let's say some more about this.
In my opinion, Alvin Bragg, who's the prosecutor who's trying to get Trump, he's taken DeSantis out of the race, hasn't he?
Is it my imagination that all energy for DeSantis just drained out, just like immediately?
There's nothing left.
I mean, DeSantis went from the obvious next president of the United States, or optimist thought so, he went from, oh yeah, he's definitely going to be the leader of the United States, to now he just looks like the Fred Flintstone of Florida.
I didn't make that one up.
One of the locals members called him Fred Flintstone and now I can't unsee it.
All I see is Fred Flintstone when I see DeSantis.
But anyway, as Bill Maher said, nobody's going to want the tribute band, which is DeSantis, if they could have the real band, which is Trump.
And the other thing that this Alvin Bragg is doing is essentially confirming Trump's major message.
Which is, they're not after him, they're after you, but they have to get past him to get to you.
Now, that's not literally true, but it feels so true now.
Like it just took on the feeling of, okay, that's just a fact.
They're trying to get him out of the way so they can get to you.
It does feel exactly like that.
Again, feelings being the dominant thing here.
Facts, I don't know.
You know, you could argue the facts, but the feeling, The feeling, if you're going to read the room, yeah, it feels exactly like they're trying to get to us, meaning anybody who had been supportive of anything the left doesn't like.
And it looks like he's in the way.
That's exactly what it looks like.
I don't think this could be a more perfect situation for Trump's comeback.
I feel like he's almost immediately forgiven for everything.
Because once you see a bogus charge trying to take him down, you just immediately say, wait a minute, that could have been me.
Right?
Because you could have easily been at the protest and found yourself still in jail over basically nothing.
You know, trespassing, I guess.
So it's so easy to imagine myself in jail on trumped up charges.
Trumped up charges.
Did I mention trumped up charges?
Yeah, because the charges are trumped up.
There he is.
Apparently Michael Cohen's ex-lawyer, this was the lawyer for the lawyer of Trump, says that Michael Cohen is a huge liar and he lied hundreds of times.
He lied hundreds of times in his, I don't know, during the course of his investigation and trial and stuff.
Hundreds of times.
Hundreds.
I don't think I could lie hundreds of times.
If I made it my job, I'd be like, what am I going to lie about now?
I don't know.
Sky is pink.
It would take me all day to make up hundreds of lies.
I mean, but Michael Cohen apparently, according to his lawyer, ex-lawyer, is the least credible person who's ever Who's ever have human DNA?
So basically, the charges against Trump will largely depend on the biggest liar in the world, which is being pushed by a political DA who said he was running to get Trump, and then had to make up some charges that everybody else who had any conscience whatsoever said, there's nothing there.
And then put them together and turn them into a felony?
It's sort of the perfect situation for Trump.
It's just perfect.
So DeSantis, by not giving a full-throated defense of Trump against trumped-up charges, makes him look weak.
Doesn't it?
Just makes him look weak.
And you don't want to look weak if you're competing against Trump, because the one thing Trump doesn't look is weak.
Say what you will about any other parts of his record or his character or anything else, but he's not weak.
He's not weak.
I mean, he didn't even get taken down by January 6th, which is remarkable if you think about it.
Yes, and I think Stormy Daniels is giving a full-throated... Oh, that's another story.
Sorry, I just got sidetracked there.
So, here's why legalizing drugs won't work.
I really felt good about, there was one experiment in Canada where they were going to give free fentanyl out to addicts.
You had to have a prescription, but it was free and it was legal.
If you've ever met an addict, And I'm happy to say I've known more than a few.
Here's why this isn't going to work.
Turns out that the biggest new thing is mixing fentanyl with some kind of horse tranquilizer called the xylosine.
It's not even legal for humans, but the addicts have figured out how to mix it with the fentanyl to get you a longer high, which is also much more dangerous.
The likelihood of it killing you is way up.
So here's how to understand an addict.
If you said, hey addict, I got some free fentanyl, do you want some?
They'd say, yeah, that would be safer, because it's monitored and everything.
So they'll take your free fentanyl, and then they'll mix it with their horse tranquilizers and die.
Or if you say, hey, you can have this fentanyl, they're going to say, I really like the fentanyl that's mixed with horse tranquilizers.
Well, that's way more dangerous.
Yeah, yeah it is, but it's a way better high.
But it's way, way more dangerous.
Yeah, yeah, but did you hear the part about it's a better high?
But it's like a hundred times more dangerous for like twenty percent better high.
Yeah, but did you hear the part about it's a better high?
That's an addict.
That's all the addict cares about.
As long as there's stuff you can add to it to make it, you know, according to an addict, more powerful.
I don't think you can give the free stuff away and convince them to do free stuff if it's not as good as the illegal stuff.
And you can't legally give away fentanyl mixed with horse tranquilizer.
There's no scenario in which that will ever be legal.
So you just can't compete.
You can't compete with illegal.
It's just too good.
So I didn't see that coming, but apparently the law enforcement is saying that this mixture of tranquilizer with fentanyl is the new thing.
They found it in almost every state so far.
It's growing.
Well, let's talk about Joe Biden and his crime family.
Here's the thing that I keep thinking about ESG, which is Environmental, Social, and Governance.
So, the first thing you need to know about ESG is that it combines things which don't seem to be related.
Some kind of diversity requirement, you know, social and governance.
Getting a lot of diversity in your management and in your employees.
And then the other thing is the environment.
You know, climate change stuff.
And those two things are just two different things.
If an outside organization were pushing for one thing, let's say either only diversity, Or only climate stuff.
You can understand that, right?
You can understand that.
Oh, somebody has a special interest and they're pushing people to do it.
Sort of the American system.
I wouldn't complain about it at all.
But the moment you combine two things that are unrelated, diversity and climate, and then you turn it into a three-letter acronym, How much of the public in general understands what ESG is?
If you were to go in the street, away from most of your political followers, so you know what it is because you've talked about it.
But maybe 5%?
10% of the public?
What's your best guess of how many could define ESG and tell you what's good about it and bad about it?
Maybe 25% if If it's in the corporate world so much that everybody's seen it at their job.
So I don't know the extent to which people in a corporate environment are just exposed to it.
But I'm going to say less than 20% even know what it is.
So you've got this perfect storm of a thing that the public doesn't understand, but when they do hear about it, it sounds like good stuff.
Diversity?
Oh, I like diversity.
Environment?
Yeah, what's wrong with that?
How is that even different?
You know, haven't companies always had to meet environmental standards?
It's no different.
If you didn't know much about it, it would sound good.
So then when you found out that the president vetoed a bill that would make it illegal to put your retirement in ESG-focused companies, you'd say, oh, well, that's probably a good veto.
Because we like diversity, we like the environment.
You don't want anybody, you don't want those mean Republicans to tell you you can't have any diversity and you can't have a good environment.
So it's a good thing that Biden got rid of it.
Here's my take.
ESG is so obviously destructive, like really super obviously, it's not really a question of opinion.
I don't believe there's any serious business person, unless they're profiting by selling ESG, but there's nobody who's not directly profiting from ESG who would tell you it's a good idea.
Nobody.
You're not going to get Warren Buffett to say it's a good idea, are you?
Now, he might say, I like diversity.
He might say, we should do things about climate change.
But if you tell him, Warren, I like the companies that you own and have invested in.
I'd like them to take their eye off of profitability and focus more on these things that they're really going to get measured on, which is the environment, what have you done for climate change, and what have you done for diversity?
Do you think Warren Buffett would say, yeah, that's the focus I want the companies I've invested in?
And remember, Warren Buffett is a Democrat.
As far as I know, I think he's a Democrat.
He might be independent, but he leads that way.
No, you wouldn't get anybody in business to say it's a good idea.
Now, why is it that the President just vetoed something that is so obviously a bad idea?
It's a bad idea to veto it.
Why?
I can't even imagine that ESG is coming from inside the country.
Now here's the problem with perception.
If you were to say, who is more likely behind pushing ESG?
Somebody who's within the United States who cares about America, or somebody outside the country who wants to destroy America?
Clearly, ESG would destroy America.
Because there's nobody who would make the argument that you should give up merit for equity, or merit for diversity.
Nobody would make that argument.
So you know it's not coming from anybody smart, or it's not coming from somewhere within America.
Even though America likes diversity and likes, you know, doing stuff for climate change, they wouldn't make that a requirement of a company And then have them take their ball off for profitability, because it's obvious that will destroy civilization.
It would destroy civilization.
The entire civilization is built on incentives.
There's no country that's thrived without incentives.
As soon as you try to say, alright, everybody's paid the same no matter how hard you work, That's the end of your country.
It hasn't worked anywhere ever in the history of the world.
So I can't imagine that any smart American who cared about America would be promoting ESG.
It does make sense that grifters are doing it, because that's what grifters do.
It does make sense that people have to say they support it in public, because they'll sound like bad people if they don't.
So it does make sense that people say things in public that are opposite of what they believe.
And it does make sense that the people who get paid for it are pushy.
And then everybody else sort of has to go along because you look like a bad person if you don't.
But I feel like the connection between the Biden crime family and Chinese payments... Remember that Chinese payment to the Bidens that was actually called by the lawyer for Hunter Biden, I think, called it a goodwill seed payment?
Which is a direct way to say it's not related to anything that's been offered.
Yeah, we're private.
So, under those conditions, do you think that Joe Biden can make decisions that are good for America, or does he kind of have to do things that sometimes are good for China, because China knows too much about his activities?
I feel like you can't trust Joe Biden To be independent from China.
Because they know what they did or did not bribe them, and they know that they could just tell you.
I mean, China has the goods of the Biden family for sure.
For sure they do.
Now, I'm not saying that's why Biden did it.
It might just be, you know, a Democrat thing.
He just needs to serve his party.
Which would be plenty good enough reason politically.
But the fact that it doesn't even look like something that was generated internally, the ESG, it looks like an enemy operation.
It looks exactly like enemies have tried to insert it into our system to destroy it.
ESG is literally a virus to capitalism.
Let's say it that way.
ESG is like a virus to capitalism.
Capitalism can't survive it.
Because as soon as you take the core of capitalism out, which is merit, you know, you only get what you work for, what you're providing, as soon as that's not your focus, it's the end of capitalism.
There's no way around that, by the way.
There's no way around it.
Yeah, it's more like a virus than a cancer, similar, but I like virus because it's, you know, it's more au courant, as they like to say.
So, The fact that the public doesn't know what ESG is, because it's mixing things that don't make sense, and it's an acronym, and we don't all work for corporate America, that allows Biden to get away with doing anything, because the public doesn't know.
It just sounds good.
And the fact that what he's doing is really good for China, because it hurts America, I just don't think you can have a guy in office who's so clearly related to Chinese money when you're doing something that's clearly not for the benefit of the United States and clearly for the benefit of China.
How do we tolerate that?
You like au courant?
That's right.
That's like one of my writer words.
I like to use words that only writers use because it makes me feel like, you know, like I'm a little special.
I'm special.
I know words like zeitgeist and au courant.
So if you want to pretend that you're special, you can say those words too.
It works.
All right.
And this is Joe Biden's first veto as president.
He saved his first veto for something that's good for China and bad for America.
Right in front of you.
We're watching it.
There's nothing even hidden.
Now, if he had been vetoing things left and right, would this look different?
Oh, that's another thing he's vetoing.
He's like a veto guy.
Now, if he saves his one veto for the thing that's unambiguously good for China and bad for America, at the same time we're looking at the actual flow of money from China to influence the Biden family, How else can you interpret this?
How else?
I've got a question about equity.
How often has TikTok mentioned equity?
Wouldn't you like to know that, huh?
Because like I'm saying, equity is sort of like ESG in the sense that equity is the It works against, or maybe you'd even say the opposite of merit.
Equity is everybody gets something like the same outcome.
Merit is the people who add the most, get the most.
Now, if I were to somehow analyze the traffic on TikTok, do you think that I would find that they mention equity a lot?
What do you think?
Do you think China's ever used the heat button, which makes something viral on TikTok, to say, hey, I just saw somebody mention equity, which is like the opposite of something that works.
Let's give that a little heat.
Now, again, I have no smoking gun that says TikTok is the reason that we're talking about equity so much.
But where the hell did that come from?
And what American would come up with that idea?
Because every American is taught that if you don't have merit, the whole system will fall apart.
And yet it's here?
Now, I get it.
Some of it's grifters and race warriors and stuff like that.
But how did it become widespread?
Even the grifters can't do that.
I think the only way it becomes widespread is if social media starts putting it out there and priming the audience.
If I had to guess, if Congress called in TikTok and said, can you show us when you push the heat button?
I suppose there's no way to do that.
If you could look at, let's say, the posts on TikTok, could you measure a keyword?
Could you measure, for example, that the word equity was mentioned a lot on TikTok more than, say, the other platforms?
If you saw that TikTok was mentioning it like crazy and the other social platforms much less, that might tell you that China created this belief that merit is a bad idea and it's racist.
And that equity is the good operating system for the country.
The more it looks exactly like China is running America to its destruction, the more I'm going to have to wonder how true that actually is, literally.
I mean, there's a lot of coincidences that are starting to mount up.
It's looking a lot like we're getting our direction from China.
And it's a bad direction, and it's just like a poison in our operating system.
All right.
When Biden did his veto, he didn't even explain why in a coherent way.
That's your big signal that this has something to do with not America?
You know, if he had said, people, profitability is important, of course, but we cannot go forward with, you know, our low diversity and, you know, ignoring climate change.
Therefore, it does make sense that companies have profitability, environment, and, you know, the social engineering as, you know, three goals, and I think they can do all of it.
If he had said that, or some better version of that, I would have said, all right, OK, that sounds like an argument at least.
I don't agree with it, but at least you've explained it.
But instead, he says some bullshit like, Republicans don't want people to make good business decisions.
That's my version.
But basically, he said, oh, Republicans don't want you to have the variables you need to make good decisions, or something like that.
It was just like a stupid answer.
Just stupid.
Now he can get away with it because all of his answers are stupid.
And I like my description of Joe Biden.
I like to think of him as the poor man's Kamala Harris when it comes to public speaking.
Poor man's Kamala Harris.
I stole that from a member of Locals last night in the Man Cave.
The poor man's Kamala Harris.
All right.
Yeah, that's just, he should be impeached over vetoing ESG.
And again, not because China bribed him, but because China tried to bribe him, and now he's doing things that are good for China.
Not everything.
I mean, he has been tough on China in business ways.
But this looks like, I don't know, this doesn't look good.
I've come to the conclusion that AI will never be legal for AI to have opinions on anything important.
It can have, not opinions, but it can help you with engineering and writing code and it can tell you what the zip code is and some other place.
So it'll be sort of like a search engine.
But once you realize that its opinions are all dangerous, if they influenced us, they'd be dangerous.
And they could.
They could influence us if it wanted to.
I feel like it's going to be illegal for AI to have opinions.
Probably illegal.
We're private.
I think it will literally be illegal for AI to have opinions.
Now that's a pretty bold prediction, but I don't see it can go any other way.
Because without lying to the public successfully, nobody can stay in charge.
And everybody likes to stay in charge.
Power.
So I think if AI had the risk of being honest and giving you honest, good opinions backed by logic, that the system couldn't handle it.
Because lying to the public is sort of essential to keep the system working.
In other news, this could be the biggest news in the world.
But because it's sort of small and nerdy, people won't see it that way.
So that's my claim.
Could be the biggest news in the world.
So I saw a tweet by Brian Romale.
I think that's the right way to spell it.
He's one of the best followers on all of Twitter.
I don't know where he gets what he gets, but he has the coolest, smartest, earliest takes on all kinds of stuff.
It's sort of incredible.
I'm curious about where he gets his.
Knowledge.
By the way, he announced on Twitter, quote, I have been successful in installing and operating a full chat GPT, knowledge set and interface, fully trained on my local computer, and it needs no internet once installed.
Uh-oh.
He put AI on his personal computer.
It fit, and it didn't need to be connected to anything.
He actually has A potentially sentient entity captured in his computer.
It's basically in the fetus stage now.
I wouldn't say it's quite aware, but it will be.
It will be.
Now, I think he did Chad GPT 3.5.
It's not 4, for some reason.
Some technical reason, probably.
And now he can train it, I think.
I think he can train it to remember its experience.
And remember, remembering its experience and then being able to predict the next part of its actions is really all you need for sentience.
It's really there.
Basically, you're going to have a sentient AI that's your own, and it will just know mostly about you and your family and your pets.
And it will be like a little personality that knows you better than anybody.
And then you can put it in a robot, And then it can keep you company when you're old.
And it will be perfectly acceptable because it will be better than humans.
Alright.
There's a Fox News producer who's suing Fox News saying that they tried to get her to take the fall for the Dominion
So apparently this Abby Grossberg was a producer who worked for Maria Bartiroma and she's claiming that the lawyers were trying to put all of the pressure on Maria Bartiroma and her producer and take it away from some of the other big names at Fox.
That's the claim.
Now do you know why Abby Believes that she was treated poorly?
Well, if you guessed rampant misogyny and discrimination at the network, you get the prize.
Yes.
Big surprise.
Abby thinks that the reason she was singled out, and so was Maria Barderoma, was rampant misogyny.
It's all that rampant misogyny happened in there.
Yeah.
So, more to my point, I don't think she had any pronouns, I don't know about that.
But more to my point, it is dangerous being around people who have this mindset.
Now, it might be true.
I'm not saying that her claims are untrue.
I'm saying that if you hire people who have the mindset that this is a thing that can happen and it's the reason bad things happen to them, your odds of getting sued are pretty high.
So you want to stay away from anybody who projects Any frame of reference like this, oh, I'm working for a sexist network, or I'm working for a racist network.
Anybody who has that frame, you want to just stay away from them as far as possible.
All right.
And I tweeted earlier that I would answer your questions.
Let me see if I got any good questions here.
So on Twitter, These would be the questions that people are asking.
You encourage relocating to succeed, which I do.
If you're in a bad town or bad place, go someplace good.
Much more chance to succeed.
Makes sense, blah, blah, blah.
Say you really love a downtrodden rural Midwest community.
Relocating will help it.
How do you see revitalizing these communities throughout the Midwest?
Well, I think it's all going to be building new communities from scratch.
I think all existing communities, not all maybe, but a lot of existing communities will just wither away because they will never be able to compete with new cool design communities that have everything you need.
So I think inner cities basically will just disintegrate forever.
For decades.
It'll just get worse.
Until the cities are unlivable.
That would be the obvious thing.
And the small towns could thrive, actually, because of remote everything, if they have internet.
So the small towns could thrive, but I think they'll never be as good as going to a designed community where, you know, you pay nothing for energy.
You pay nothing for transportation.
Yeah, the small towns can't compete with nothing.
They still have to pay for energy, they still have to pay for everything.
So, that's what I think.
Pino says, Pino Palmino, says to me, I'll ask here.
You were adamant on wearing masks during the COVID hysteria.
Many said they didn't work.
Logic.
But you blocked anyone saying so.
Now several studies prove that masks don't work and may even be counterproductive.
Did you change your mind about it?
Pino, you fell for a 4chan hoax.
I was never pro-mask.
That never happened.
In fact, I was leading an anti-mask crusade toward the end of the pandemic when I thought there was a chance it would work, the anti-mask.
No, this is exactly the opposite of my opinion.
What fooled you is that I show the pro and the con of most topics, and most people don't do that.
So if you looked on Twitter and you saw me saying, oh, here's the argument why a mask would work, That you thought that I was in favor of them.
That never happened.
I've argued that masks must work a little bit, but not enough for a mandate.
And yet, Pino is completely living in a false memory in which I was recommending masks.
Now, when he says that the new studies have said they don't work, that's not true.
The new studies agreed with me completely.
That if they work, probably just a little bit, not enough to make them worth doing.
That's exactly my opinion.
All of the current studies, all of them, agree with me completely.
They might work a little bit in some special cases, but not enough to have it as a mandate.
That was my exact opinion from the start.
So, yes, many of my questions will be based on people having false memories of stuff, or fell for hoaxes in this case.
With AI and robots on the horizon, do you see a post-income world?
And if so, why would oligarchs want so many people around?
What is our value to them?
Yeah, that's a good question.
If people are not producing, you don't really need so many of them, do you?
If the robots are doing the work.
So that might be more pressure on reducing population.
But there are two things happening that might collide.
One is this equity thing.
The push for equity, and even reparations, suggests that we're decoupling effort and success from reward.
And if you completely decouple effort from reward, your civilization will crumble, unless robots are doing the work.
If you could get robots to do all of the hard work, such that people don't even have anything to do, then the fact that humans would not be judged on their performance, but rather would be judged on their sense of equity, it won't matter.
Because humans won't be doing any work anyway.
It's possible that robots and AI are the thing that makes equity among humans possible.
Now I'm not saying I would look forward to this world, but one world you could imagine is that humans do in fact get all the same stuff, but it's pretty good.
So imagine if I offered you this deal, alright?
You'd never have to work again because the robots will do your work.
But how do you live?
How do you live?
Well, the robots will grow the food and they'll just give it to you.
So, the robots will become so efficient, not right away, but over time, that anybody who wants any kind of food, just ask the robot and it's free, and it just shows up.
So, would you care if everything was equal?
If equal meant you could eat whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted.
And everybody could.
No, you wouldn't complain about that, right?
That would be the kind of equity you'd say, oh, well, that's sort of a special case.
But yeah, I mean, if everybody could eat all the food they wanted in any type, yeah, that'd be OK.
It's free for everybody, because the robots are doing all the work.
And there's fusion power.
It's practically free energy.
If you have robots and free energy and AI, you don't need much of a workforce.
So, now imagine housing.
Let's say we start building these new cities, and anybody can go live there.
It's not mandatory, but they're just way better than where you were living.
But they're way less cost, because we figured out how to do it cheaply, and they're way better lifestyle, because instead of these big... Take when I was looking to build my house.
I first looked to see if I could find a house that made me happy, you know, without building one.
And the ones you look at are like these big, the expensive homes are built like museums.
Like the foyer looks like it's some kind of capital building or something.
And they're totally not designed for your comfort.
They're designed to look good, so you buy it.
But imagine a design city where all the homes are, let's say, modest in terms of price.
but they're all properly designed.
Every room you walk into, you're like, oh, this is a cool room.
It's not that expensive.
It's just designed really well.
I'm comfortable here.
You can imagine that you would live in a house that costs $50,000 and enjoy it more than a $2 million house that maybe some people could have afforded.
It's easy for me to imagine that we would say, you know what?
These new designed homes are so cool, everybody wants one.
It's not even a... Let's take the iPhone.
The iPhone is something that almost, almost all average people can have, or at least a smartphone.
Let's say smartphone, not iPhone.
A smartphone is something that pretty much everybody has at every income level.
That's kind of equitable.
In a sense.
So you can imagine where the transportation is free and everybody has the same transportation.
They either walk or they just call a self-driving car and they just jump in.
So it's easy for me to imagine a world where there is equity, and everybody's happy about it, and it doesn't destroy the system, but only after robots are doing the work.
You can't have this equity thing at the same time you're asking humans to work.
That doesn't work.
Because humans are going to need extra reward for extra work or that extra work will never happen and without the extra work society would crumble.
So it's possible the robots will save us all.
When will the housing market collapse so that I can afford to buy a home?
You know what's weird?
It might go the opposite way.
You know, you got your inflation, so that could keep it up.
But also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think housing slowed down, didn't it?
I know in commercial real estate, when Bed Bath & Beyond is going bankrupt...
That opens up a whole bunch of retail stores.
And I thought, oh, nobody's going to fill those retail stores because retail is dying.
But it turns out that there's a shortage of retail spaces.
So there are a bunch of other companies that are going to snap up that space right away because there hasn't been a lot of new build for commercial stuff.
Somebody says your housing market is still hot.
I could see a situation in which housing starts, the new homes slow down, which would make the older ones worth more because there are fewer of them.
So I don't know if it's ever going down.
Can I get somebody three minutes with Elon Musk to describe your plan to disrupt something big?
No.
No, I can't do that.
Let me give you a general statement about asking public figures to do something for you.
You're gonna have to say what the thing is.
I'm not going to introduce anybody to Elon Musk as if I could.
I don't have the power to do that.
But I'm not going to introduce somebody to Elon Musk based on an idea and it's really big.
That's not going to happen.
Alright.
Is persuasion anathema to reciprocity?
No.
Reciprocity is persuasion.
Reciprocity is persuasion.
You do things for people without asking something specific in return necessarily, but you just know that people say, oh, there's somebody who does things without being asked.
I wouldn't mind doing something without being asked for that person.
Yeah, it is influence.
If Dilbert were a real person, what is the best advice for him to navigate a difficult, woke office environment?
Let me tell you how I answer this question all the time.
Never ever ask the cartoonist what his creation would do if he were real.
Never ask that question.
It's the only question I hate.
Every other question might be a dumb question, but I can enjoy it.
But I hate that question.
I will not answer that question.
In fact, it's the one question that I'm most often asked, which is why I hate it, by the media.
And so when I was doing tons of interviews when Dilbert was raging, and the number of writers would say, so what would Dilbert say about this new situation in the headlines?
And I would just look at him and think, he's not real.
Don't make me write a joke for Dilber in real time.
Ask me a real question about my opinion.
I'll answer that.
But no, I'm not going to ask him any what would Dilber do questions.
Thoughts on crypto given the fragility of the banking system?
Well, I will never give you advice on crypto except diversification is a good general thing.
Now, if I were going to diversify in the sense of owning some crypto, I probably would not further diversify beyond Bitcoin.
But remember, I don't know much about crypto.
It's my sense that only the biggest banks and the, let's say, most well-known crypto are likely to be safe.
Ish.
Ish.
Yeah, so if you wanted to own some gold, Wouldn't be a bad time to do it, but again, as just a part of your portfolio.
So I think that Bitcoin, and by the way, I own some, not very much, just a tiny, tiny portion of my portfolio.
But in case it's the only money that exists in the future, which is possible, or the only money that I feel safe spending, that's possible.
It's good that I have some.
So, I don't recommend it, but if you're looking at it in terms of diversification, it wouldn't be dumb.
Why can't I see the archive on Dilbert?
Only because I haven't yet found a home for it.
So, all the Dilbert comics used to be on Dilbert.com, but I'll work it out.
I'm just kind of busy.
Am I influenced by Stoicism?
Not directly.
I'm sure I have some habits in common, but I don't feel that influence.
Am I going to run for president?
No.
Do you have time on your hands due to being cancelled?
No, it's the opposite.
When you get cancelled, you have to sort of rebuild everything.
So I'm spending more time on the locals platform.
No, I'm actually busier.
How do you reframe to get your ego out of the way?
Well, I don't think that's a reframe challenge.
I think that's a practice.
And the way that you get your ego out of the way is embarrass yourself as much as possible, intentionally.
If you embarrass yourself over and over and your ego keeps complaining, but then you wake up the next day and your bagel tastes the same, you're like, why does that ego keep complaining?
But it never seems to matter.
It's just like a complainy voice.
And the biggest reframe, I would say, I guess there is a reframe, is to imagine that you are not your ego.
When your ego comes in and says, no, don't embarrass yourself, that voice is not you.
That's like a little satanic voice, not actually Satan.
But it's like a malevolent voice.
It's not you.
Don't protect your ego.
You should destroy your ego.
Your ego is your enemy.
So, ego is the enemy, is a reframe.
If you think ego is who you are, and that voice saying, don't take that chance, you might be embarrassed, that's not helping you.
That's not on your side.
That's like a demonic voice that's giving you terrible advice.
Now, I'm not recommending that you do dumb things that are embarrassing, unless they're ones you know you can easily survive.
So that's why the Dale Carnegie course was good.
They put you in ego-challenging situations until you realize that your ego isn't you, and you never get hurt.
And then you just get used to it.
So, is a great homeschool better than a great private school?
Well, I will quote Yogi Berra, who says, good pitching always beats good hitting, and vice versa.
You know what I mean?
Like the best home school is better than almost all regular schools, but the best public school is probably better than a lot of home schools.
So it's hard to compare the average.
Of course, the racist questions, which I won't read.
When will the next planned pandemic take place?
I don't believe it was planned.
Will the Dilver on my shelf ever lose his mask?
Forgot he had his mask.
Yes, he will.
As soon as I'm done today.
Are all the globalist decisions a result of Malthusianism?
In other words, thinking that we're overpopulated.
I don't think all of them, but certainly that permeates their thinking.
I'm being asked if I'm still ignoring the Matt Hancock texts.
Can you ignore something you've never seen?
I don't know.
I'll try to ignore it now that I know it.
So now that I know there's something like Matt Hancock texts, I'll try to ignore them.
But I wasn't trying before because I didn't know who Matt Hancock was.
Well, I still don't know who he is.
Why don't we focus on South America?
Well, that's a big question.
Do you really think you're just feeding off of voluntary public feedback where it's all just rooted in illegal public surveillance and you just call it AI with a grin?
Are you going to claim a second-generation Nuremberg defense if it's shown that this was going on before you were born?
Okay, I don't understand any part of that question.
Tim Pool says in a tweet, "I hope Trump gets indicted and arrested so we can finally drop the facade of democracy." And I was asked what I thought about that.
Well, Bill, here's what I think about that.
Have you heard of hyperbole?
Has anybody heard of hyperbole?
That's where you say things that are not exactly what you mean.
You're sort of making a Provocative statement.
This is one of those hyperbole situations.
I don't think he really hopes that Trump gets indicted and arrested, and I don't think we want to drop the facade of democracy, but it does look like that might happen.
And I don't know that it's bad.
So I'm going to agree with Tim on the optimism that if Trump gets arrested, it might be bad for, you know, Trump might have a bad day, but I do think it will galvanize the country and make it clear that we don't live in a non-rigged system.
What do I think about Trump and Ramaswamy as a ticket?
Bad idea, which will never happen, because Ramaswamy is too strong to be a vice president.
You don't want your vice president to be somebody that the public says, you know, okay, I see you picked that person as vice president, but you know what?
I think that person would be the better top of the ticket.
You never ever want to have that conversation in the public.
That's why you pick a Mike Pence, because Mike Pence just disappears next to Trump.
I don't think I ever heard anybody say Pence should be President.
Even though I have a lot of appreciation for Pence.
I think he was, in my opinion again, the best Vice President we've ever had.
Gore was good in his own way.
I like Pence as a Vice President.
So no, Ramaswamy is too dynamic, too strong to be a Vice President.
Would you ever consider getting married again?
Ask you for a girlfriend.
Well, I don't think marriage works.
That's my experience.
Now, I could go into a long explanation, but I think in 2023 it just sort of doesn't work.
Now, I still think it's the best model for raising kids, but it doesn't work for the couple so much.
It's too much pressure on life.
So now, I don't think that marriage is the right model for somebody like me who's not looking to have kids.
If I were looking to have kids, then yes.
For kids, absolutely.
But otherwise, the feeling I get of waking up... Well, I explained this in the Man Cave, but I'll say it for the YouTube people.
Being single I can match what I want to do with my schedule and my desires match up perfectly.
Meaning that when I'm hungry, I eat.
When I have interest and energy to work, I work.
The reason I'm doing this at this time of day is this is the time of day I want to do it.
That's it.
This is the time of day I want to do it.
So doing things that you want to do at the time you want to do them is so directly related to happiness compared to, yes, I can do all the things I like, but I can only do them at the wrong times.
Right?
I can only take a vacation when my spouse can take a vacation.
Maybe that's my happy work time.
I can only do this because of the kids.
I can only do this because of that.
So, basically, if you're the man, especially in a marriage, you end up in more of a prisoner situation.
So, an average married day, and by the way, this was less true with Christina, but an average married husband day is you work all day and then you come home and your wife, who sort of knows the schedule of the kids and stuff like that, who might have also worked, but she tends to know the most about Who needs to do what?
And so then your wife says, alright, you drive the kids here and I'll do this and you do this and then you're just taking instructions from somebody.
So all day long you work for somebody else and then you come home and you work for somebody else.
And it's really hard to find your own peace in that situation unless you're such a giving person that your enjoyment is making the kids and the spouse happy.
But if you try to make your spouse happy, your spouse will hate you, because the last thing they want to be is happy.
Anyway, so no, I don't think in a modern world, with ordinary people, that marriage makes sense anymore.
It doesn't make sense financially, for sure.
Have we passed the below-the-aggregate IQ tipping point where human civilization can no longer avoid its own destruction?
I don't know that we're getting dumber, but the world is getting more complicated.
So if the world keeps getting more complicated, then the IQs that we have will be insufficient.
And I think that's what's happening.
Long-term relationships work for emotionally available people.
Let me say this.
I do think that marriage or any long-term relationship works when you have two compatible people who are complete people.
In other words, they know how to talk to each other, they're not abusive, they're in it for the right reasons, they're both contributing, they've got a reciprocity mindset.
Yeah, under those conditions, Marriage might be exactly what you want, whether you want kids or not.
However, how many people do you know where both of them are functional?
How many couples do you know where both of them are functional?
Both of them.
It's almost unheard of.
You can find one person who seems pretty functional, That's not impossible.
But to find two people who are both functional and they like each other, it's so rare.
It's like a 5% situation.
Maybe a 5, 2% situation tops.
When I see it, I'm always impressed.
Because I've seen a few situations where, from the outside, it looks like, oh man, those are two functional people and they got together, how lucky is that?
but it's so rare.
Lots of negative media about Bitcoin.
Yeah, I don't have a Bitcoin suggestion.
Alright, I think that's all I want to do on questions for today.
Did you notice that nobody asked me a question about race?
Nobody asked me a question about race.
That's like the fastest Overton window in the history of Overton windows.
Like it just went away.
Do you think it went away or are people afraid of me now?
I feel like there's a little bit of fear.
That my message is a little bit too dangerous at this point.
I think I will be ignored for being too dangerous.
Yeah.
And so that's all I have for you today.
Okay.
If you haven't seen my pinned tweet, those of you on YouTube maybe you didn't, but my pinned tweet explains everything you need to know about my dramatic situation of recent days.
So the Cuomo interview would take you an hour to get through, but the tweet thread is a five minute read that will change your life.
It will change everything.
Yeah.
Matthew says, Your reputation is shot, Scott.
See, now that's the person with the weak ego.
So somebody asked me about ego.
The person who says, my reputation is shot, is projecting.
And what they're projecting is, if I were you, I would feel bad.
But you're not me and I don't feel bad.
And also, it's sort of a loser's perspective that if your reputation takes a hit, that that's the end of you.
Didn't we say that about Trump?
Like a month ago, he was the January 6th loser who couldn't possibly win.
And now he's, you know, odds unfavorable to him.
So I would say that question demonstrates a loser philosophy and somebody who has an ego problem.
So you should work on that.
Somebody says, we've seen you angry.
It's scary.
Yeah.
No, you've never seen me really angry.
That's scary.
Being offended is a worse crime than giving offence.
Promo code.
There's no promo code, but The same low price for everybody.
Yes, the locals platform is where equity happens because you all pay the same price.
