Episode 2203 Scott Adams: I'll Show You The Gears Of The Machine Before I Get Fully Canceled
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, President Biden, Biden Quiet Quitting, VP Harris, AI Left Bias, Glenn Beck, Cancelling Conservatives, Peter Zeihan, Ineligible Voter Database, Microplastics, News Bubbles, Trump Indictments, Political Lawfare, Maui Fires, Climate Change, Comparison Analysis, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
Clearly the best thing you're going to do today.
And if you'd like this experience to be, well, at levels nobody even thought were possible, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tankard, a chalice, a stein, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure Don't beat it at the day of the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Ah, that's good stuff.
How's the volume over there on YouTube?
Do I?
I saw somebody say it was too high, because my mixer has a high setting on there right now, I noticed.
I have a cleaning crew.
I always worry that the cleaning crew, when they dust my equipment, they're changing the mixer settings, but I don't think so.
I think it's all good.
Well, let's talk about all the things.
We'll get to the politics, of course.
Of course.
We'll get to me, of course.
But first.
The study that says 50% of people have quit a job because of a bad manager.
Now that was on CNBC.
50% of people have quit because of a bad manager.
You know what that means?
That means that 50% stayed despite having a bad manager.
Because there are only bad managers.
Did you have to wait for me to tell you?
I mean, I am the creator of the Dilbert comics, so who better?
But you do understand that the entire point of a boss is to make you work harder than the pay suggests you should.
You know that, right?
So how can you be sort of good under those circumstances?
You're either bad at managing, because you're letting everybody sloth off, or you're good at managing, and you're somehow making people work harder than they think they ought to for the pay they're getting.
I don't know.
I enjoyed being a manager when I was one.
But I have to say, it's kind of a sketchy business, getting people to do things they wouldn't have wanted to do on their own.
All right.
On the West Coast, there's apparently a hurricane is forming and should be coming up Baja and toward California.
It's named Hurricane Hillary.
I'm not making this up.
I swear to God, I'm not making this up.
They actually named the thing Hurricane Hillary.
Now, if I were the one naming the hurricane, I would have called it Hurricane Monica.
I'll wait.
I'll wait.
If there's anybody there you need to explain it to, I'll wait.
Hurricane Monica.
Yeah.
Okay.
That's all I had on that.
There was really no other purpose than just to say that.
All right.
Biden continues his quiet quitting.
You all know the phrase quiet quitting.
So it refers to an employee who is not quitting the job because they can't afford to quit, but they're sort of retiring in place.
So they're just not working.
The biggest story about Biden is he said something weird about ice cream yesterday.
That was it.
That was the news that the President made before he goes off to his second week-long vacation.
I guess this is one and the last one was two or something.
But he's going to Lake Tahoe.
As you know, his staff is telling him that Lake Tahoe is actually Maui.
So it'll feel like he's doing some work.
There's going to be a beach.
There's going to be water.
He's not going to know the difference.
And that's all good.
So just put him on the beach there.
But as you know, the real problem here is everybody, let's see if you all think this is the problem.
Don't you believe that Biden has already been told he's not running, but they can't figure out how to handle the Kamala Harris situation?
Because the last thing they want is for her to be in office for six months or so.
Because that's going to sort of make her the obvious choice for the candidate for president.
And it gets worse.
If she's not the obvious choice for president, you're going to feel a little uncomfortable if she is one.
You know, if their own team doesn't want her to even run for president, how delighted will they be that she's sitting in the job for six months if that were to happen?
So to me, I think the solution to Biden starts with a solution for Kamala.
I'm talking about the Democrats' own strategies.
So do you think That there might be some kind of bullshit Kamala Harris story that's being brewed up about why she simply can't run for office or something.
Because, I don't know, something something came up.
Something like that?
I don't know what's going to happen, but I think they have a complete losing situation.
That removing Biden is terrible, because it puts her in the spotlight, and keeping him in there is even worse.
See, the biggest wildcard is what is Biden's actual capability right now.
And it seems to me that that's being hidden from us.
I do believe that they can pump him up for some moments when he's reading a teleprompter.
But I think he's down to a few minutes a day in front of a teleprompter and nothing else.
Am I wrong?
It looks like his only capability is teleprompter, barely, and only for a few minutes and nothing else.
How in the world are they going to pretend that he's just hiding from COVID or something instead of campaigning?
I don't know.
I just can't see him being the final candidate, but we'll see.
Depends on Kamala, maybe.
So there's new information that says AI is biased to the left.
We all knew that, right?
How could it not be?
Isn't the bias of AI entirely based on what data set it learns on?
Do you think the people who made it trained it on a bunch of Republican opinion?
Do you think there's a whole bunch of Republican opinion that they said, you know?
We're going to put this training data and make sure you spend a lot of time on Breitbart and Fox News.
You want to get a good healthy dose of both sides.
Do you think anybody even thought of doing that or cared or wanted to?
That sounds more like something you would avoid if you were a good Democrat working on AI.
So the problem is that, well, it's one problem I guess.
Wouldn't you say that the Democrats are sort of the be-nice-to-everybody party, generally speaking, and that's the best way to frame it, and the Republicans are more of a tough love, you know, you're gonna have to prove yourself and make your own way.
We'll give you the tools, glad to help, but you know, you're on your own.
So if you were deciding what to teach AI, You would teach it the nice version, wouldn't you?
Because you wouldn't want a mean AI.
So if you teach it the nice version where everybody's equal and equity and we should be good to each other, you're going to get a system that can't possibly work for humans because basically we need incentives and ass kicking to do anything.
So you probably have created an AI that lacks the necessary, I'm going to call it toughness, To be useful.
Because humans can't deal with too much kindness or too much niceness.
That's not how we're built.
We need a little competition, a little free market, a little pushback, a little tough love, a little dad is home, then everything works.
So that's the problem.
I think they'll work through it, but it's a problem right now.
All right, here's the update on my book.
So as you know, For a few days, Amazon's KDP group, that's a subgroup within Amazon, so only the subgroup that handles the publication of independent publishers.
So it's basically the onboarding and filtering before it gets on the big Amazon.
So it wasn't the big Amazon that ever cancelled me.
It was the subset, you know, the subpart, just the publishing arm.
And so the story was the last several days I've been getting emails from them saying I was banned for life and the reasons were some unclear Story about me not owning the rights.
But when I ask questions, I seem to be getting automated responses, but I can't tell.
They had names of people on them, but the responses didn't seem responsive to any of my questions or responses, or the fact that we had originally sent documentation showing my ownership.
So from the beginning, they had documentation, which they ultimately accept.
The ban has been reversed.
But they always had the documentation.
It didn't require any new documentation.
So I don't really know what happened.
And I don't have any way to know.
I do know that if you have a million followers on X, and you talk about your situation, that that activates an executive response.
Now the executive response, big companies have this, if you didn't know this.
Big companies have an executive response team that's monitoring any social media or PR problems.
And I'm a social media PR problem.
So I made myself a social media problem.
Because I knew it would activate the executive response team.
And exactly the way it's supposed to work, the executive response team said, oh shit, we don't need this hanging out on the internet.
So they apologized and immediately reversed it.
So the first time that a human was involved that I can confirm, It was immediately called out as an error on their side.
I didn't have to do anything extra.
I didn't need to submit anything or prove anything.
They had everything they needed and they understood that and apologized.
So, here's the problem.
At the same time, Oh, and by the way, the book is available in Kindle form, but not yet softcover or hardcover.
Those will happen in a few days.
As soon as the softcover is available, I'll push out the links and promote it.
So you can buy it today if you want to go look for it for Kindle only.
Softcover maybe today or tomorrow.
I'm waiting for Just waiting for some system stuff to happen.
And then the hardcover, maybe in several days, I have to approve the prototype.
And then we should be good to go.
So the Kindle is the usual Kindle format.
Anyway, Glenn Beck, coincidentally or not, at the same time I was having my band for life that's now been reversed, Glenn Beck was removed from the Apple iTunes store without explanation.
Now, I got an explanation, but it didn't make sense for my situation, so it was kind of like I didn't get one.
And he didn't get one either.
The alleged, maybe, explanation, if you search the internet when they talk about the story, is that there was a trademark dispute.
Do you believe there was a trademark dispute for Glenn Beck's materials?
Do you believe that?
Well, somebody may have complained.
I don't know about that.
But I think Apple realized it was a mistake, and has reversed it, I understand.
So I think he's back in business, and I'm back in business.
But both of us have this interesting technical glitch.
Now let me ask you, what would happen if that technical glitch had happened to you, and you didn't have over a million followers on social media?
You would be fucked.
You would be absolutely fucked.
Because there's no way you were going to get anybody alive.
There's no way you would have gotten a human being to help you.
If you didn't have a million followers or whatever Glenn Beck has, I'm sure it's much more.
You're out of luck.
Now, ask yourself how important is Elon Musk right now?
Do you think that Glenn Beck or I Would be back in business if Elon Musk was not running Twitter, because I probably would have been kicked off of Twitter by now, right?
It was my only recourse, I think.
I mean, that's my opinion.
It was my only recourse.
And probably his too, right?
If we didn't have the big profile, We would have been slapped down.
Now, it seems like a little bit of a coincidence, doesn't it?
That two people sort of similarly situated in the media situation would both have a technical problem that had to do with some IP and it's kind of complicated and we can't really explain it, but you're banned.
Kind of a coincidence.
You know, here's the problem.
It probably was a coincidence.
It probably was, because coincidences do happen.
But in the current media environment, how am I supposed to believe it?
How would I believe anything that anybody says in 2023, no matter who they are?
Am I going to believe a corporation?
Am I going to believe a government?
Some government entity?
Who exactly should I believe about anything?
So we have this very precarious situation where an ordinary, what could be, what could be, just an ordinary technical glitch, That's probably what happened to both Beck and to me.
And here's what I think is happening, by the way.
There's a, I think, just speculating, there might be a story behind both of us that's not about political intrigue.
It might be, but it might not be.
And here's how it could be.
I know that the big entities that have content, They're having problems with AI-generated content.
So there was a situation recently where somebody wrote a book with AI, put some known author's name on it, and tried to get money for it.
Now imagine being Amazon, and you've got to police that.
You have a whole new gigantic problem of AI content that somebody might slap somebody else's name on.
And I think that they ban AI books, or at least audiobooks at the moment.
So I don't know what their policy is on AI generated content.
But imagine trying to police that.
Now Apple presumably would have the same problem.
So Glenn Beck might have been getting scooped up by, here's what I think.
I think that both Apple and Amazon are likely, likely to have recently implemented some IP checking AI.
In other words, there might be an AI looking for other AI content, or looking for stolen trademarks that would also come along with the AI fuckery.
So it's possible that there's an oversensitive AI, recently implemented in more than one place, that is just catching things that didn't need to be caught.
Because it might be even worse to let too much through, because it would just spoil the entire content situation.
So that's probably what happened, but we have such a low-trust environment that how could I depend on that?
How could I possibly depend on it was just an accident in 2023?
Now Beck and I are both notable political voices, and let me ask you this, because I actually don't know what your opinion would be.
You're biased, but we'll see what happens.
If you were to rank my political influence, and say it was in the top million or top something, so you pick the number, is my political influence in the top what?
Give me your number.
I see top 100, top 5, top 10, top 5%, top 50, top 100, top 1%.
So most of your numbers are top 100.
Some of you are top 15%, but I don't know that's 15% of what?
Of influencers?
Top 8?
Top 40?
All right.
You know, most of your numbers are top 100.
Some of you are top 15%, but I don't know that's 15% of what?
Of influencers?
Top 8, top 40?
All right.
Now, wouldn't you assume that on both sides, if there is both sides, of the political world, at least the top 40 on each side are being targeted?
that Is that fair to say?
Now, I don't know that there's like some coordinated scheme.
I'm not saying that.
I'm saying that both sides are looking at anything the top 40 on the other side does.
And they're saying, oh, I found a way to go after you.
Take my situation.
I got first cancelled in newspapers worldwide, but really that was the Washington Times leading that.
If a smaller newspaper or several had cancelled me saying, I don't like what you said, it just would have been a few newspapers, I wouldn't even notice it.
But when the Washington Post, which is the, by the way, if you didn't know this, it's the most important newspaper that also carries comics.
Because you could argue the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal might have more clout, but they don't carry comics, so they didn't have anything to do with my situation.
But when the Washington Post says, we must cancel you, then everybody has to cancel me.
So the Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, and the Washington Post is famously politically biased toward the left.
What do you think the Washington Post thought about me for the last five years of calling them fake news while they paid for my comic?
Do you imagine that they cover that in their news coverage?
When the Washington Post cancelled me, I didn't look.
But do you imagine that they said, and by the way, he's been criticizing the Washington Post by name for being obvious fake news for years while we paid him.
Was that in the story, do you think?
Now, whether or not they cancelled me for political reasons or not, and I would say the evidence suggests that was probably the top reason.
And I say that because no Republicans ever cancelled me.
Ever.
There's not a single Republican outlet, media person in the country who wouldn't have me for an interview.
Or handle my content if that's the business you're in.
Or buy it.
There's not a single person on the right who cancelled me.
And it's not because they agreed with what I said or not.
It's just that it was a political cancellation and they didn't have a reason to.
Because they didn't have a reason to cancel me politically.
And the content was something that nobody would have cancelled me over just for the content of anything I said.
And you know why I know it wasn't the content of what I said?
Nobody ever followed up to say, why did you say that?
I mean, a few podcasters I talked to did.
But the major news that canceled me, they never even asked.
There was no curiosity whatsoever of why somebody would say the most provocative thing you could say in public.
Now, my plan was that people would ask me why I said it, and then it would be this really useful conversation that came out of it.
But instead, it turned into just an excuse to take a political voice off the field, and so it happened.
Now, given that Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post, and that situation clearly has never been explained to the public, you would agree with that at least.
At the very least, the public was denied The understanding of the context.
At the very least, that's true.
And then, suddenly, Amazon, the only thing, you know, one of the few things I have left that didn't cancel me, because publishers, you know, the publishers, I'm sure, only a few except, I'll name a few, there were some publishers who were asking me for the, you know, to work with them.
But they were, tend to be the free speech types.
The biggest publishing houses I would be poisoned because they'd be all Democrat-leading.
But there were some other publishing houses that were not, you know, Democrat-owned who said they would work with me, sure.
You know, if we could make a deal.
So I went the independent publishing route, Joshua Lysak's helping make that happen.
And so Amazon was really, really important to my future career ambitions.
And it's owned by Jeff Bezos.
And then suddenly I was banned for life.
Now, what would you think if a Jeff Bezos property got your entire regular career canceled?
Because that blew over also to the publishing.
Publishing could have ignored me until the Washington Post cancelled me.
I think my publisher would have said, oh shit, I wish you hadn't said that.
And then we would have just ignored it and go on.
Because I don't think anybody cared.
I think they may have had some DEI groups that were part of the process, but I'm sure nobody cared.
Except as a political thing that they could use for their own thing.
So we have such a low trust environment, along with big corporate ownership of major entities, that it's a very precarious situation.
You just don't know what's true anymore, and who to trust, and what is political, and what is technical, and what is just the free market.
Now, would you be surprised to learn that the very first review for my book is one star, and that it tells you you should never go near it?
It's because I'm a political figure.
Do you think that the one-star review read the book?
Because it was posted pretty much the same time it was available?
No, of course not.
Yeah, I hope you're all aware that for a political figure, and that's what I am now, a one-star review doesn't mean anything.
It just means that you're on the other side.
You could argue that the five-star reviews are just as biased as people who like me or something, but read them.
They'll tell you what they like.
The one-star review is just going to be stupid.
The five-star reviews We're probably going to add some detail, and look at the detail, not the star, I would say.
In my opinion, this might be the most important book that's ever been written, because it literally is the secret to programming your own mind with words, which we've learned from AI, is doable, because that's what a super prompt is.
A super prompt All right.
the words that made up the large language model.
And a reframe is how you train your own brain from a unproductive arrangement of words in your mind to a productive arrangement of words in your mind.
I'll talk more about that later.
All right, let's talk about climate change.
Bjorn Lomborg is reporting that the UN asked 10 million people their top priorities.
Where do you think climate change was dead last?
Climate change was dead last.
And remember, this is the UN asking.
The UN didn't want this answer.
So normally you wonder, well, is this poll motivated by money or something?
Is it biased?
But believe me, the UN didn't want this answer.
Guess what was the number one priority?
Number one priority.
Now remember, this is around the world, I assume.
In the world.
Well, you know, here's the messed up thing.
Do you think that they polled anybody who was starving?
I'm pretty sure it would have been food if you polled starving people.
But I feel like they just don't ask the starving for their opinion.
I hate to say it, but I just don't think that happens.
So, it would have been food.
I think it would have been food, but it was education.
Now, I think the wisdom of the crowds is coming through.
Isn't this kind of impressive?
That despite massive brainwashing operations, just massive brainwashing, to tell us that the top priority was the environment, because that allows them a whole set of power and funding and influence, etc.
Although some believe that really is the big problem.
And I'm not saying it isn't.
To me it's more of a, I don't know.
I love the fact that by a large margin, education just killed.
Education wasn't barely first.
It was first with a bullet.
Like way first.
So the public, according to this poll, 10 million people around the world are entirely aware of what the real situation is.
They're completely grounded.
They're actually seeing things the way they are.
Now, I don't know who they... I think in America this wouldn't have worked.
Or maybe it did.
Wasn't there also a poll in America that had climate change near the bottom?
I think there was, actually.
So, this should tell you that the climate change, let's say, framing of it being our biggest problem is probably politically motivated rather than socially driven.
And we know that scientists are the least credible part of society.
They're basically the marketing department for corporations.
So, and by the way, not all scientists are corrupt, just apparently most.
Most.
Or at least the ones we hear from.
I wouldn't say it's most of scientists, but the ones we hear from Probably slightly more than half are just corrupt or idiots or lying or something, something like that.
So I don't believe scientists or even any studies, because it's 2023, and believing them would be sort of naive at this point.
But suppose, suppose instead of thinking that climate change was our biggest risk, just what if We treated our biggest risk as our biggest risk.
And by the way, it's probably not education.
It's probably demographics.
Now, you could argue it's always education, because education gives you the tools to fix all the other problems, and that's not a bad argument.
If we were better educated, we'd be able to fix all the other problems a little bit better.
Maybe.
Maybe, unless we all became woke because the colleges are broken and we just fight each other.
But suppose you agree with Peter Zan that Russia and China have a gigantic demographic problem that there doesn't seem to be a solution for.
It looks like it's unsolvable in terms of it's going to drag down their countries.
The United States also has a problem, but we have one advantage that Most countries don't have.
We're not using it, but we have it.
And that advantage is we could choose the best people from every country and let them in almost without control, you know, as long as they brought talent and resources and, you know, they were bringing the things we wanted.
We could actually be the only country that thrives while demographics are destroying our competitors Around the world.
But we'd have to do it by massive pro-immigration of the right people, meaning qualified and adding value, while severely restricting immigration of criminals and drugs and stuff like that.
So you'd have to do both.
You'd have to vastly, vastly increase immigration.
Vastly.
Just probably to survive.
Because I don't think we can reproduce fast enough to be a country in a hundred years.
In a hundred years, everybody's going to be in trouble, unless the robots are doing everything for us.
So imagine if our organizing principle for our laws and our priorities, you know, our money, suppose it was all around the demographic bomb.
Because that's the big one.
Now that doesn't mean we should stop mitigating against disasters, developing green energy within the free market.
We should do all those things.
Improving education?
Absolutely.
But as an organizing principle, climate change might be the worst.
What do you think?
Because we do sort of say climate change no matter what you're doing.
Let's make a law about littering, but make sure it's compatible with climate change, right?
So right now everything we do is within the frame of climate change being the umbrella risk.
We can't do anything under the umbrella if it's competitive with the umbrella, right?
But suppose our umbrella instead was demographic death spiral.
And then everything we did within that had to support the fact that our competitors are going to die from demographic starvation.
Now, our advantage is that we have a flexible system and we can, in theory, elect leaders who would give us the priorities and the solutions we need.
In China, that's just not the case.
I don't see China, Japan, Russia just opening up immigration and saying, well, all right, if you want to be a citizen, come on in.
And I don't think that they could filter to get the best people the way we could.
Hey, best person, you're really good at programming.
How would you like a job in Russia?
What?
No, no, no, I didn't mean Russia.
How would you like a job in China?
What?
Ah, just kidding.
How would you like a job in the United States?
Where?
Chicago.
No, I'm just kidding.
No, nobody goes to Chicago.
But there might be some place you can live in safety in the United States for a while.
So I'm just going to put that out there that we don't have any candidate on the left or the right who is calling out what a lot of smart people, and this would include Elon Musk, Peter Zan, and a lot of smart people, would say is our biggest problem.
The biggest problem.
Demographic bomb.
Nobody's saying that.
They are saying, oh, climate change isn't as big a problem as you think.
But it's a bigger problem than it's the biggest problem.
If it becomes the organizing principle that determines how much money and energy you have for all your other problems, that's a real drag on everything.
So you've got to figure out what your biggest problem is and get that right.
All right, well, we might fix that with robots and military automation and Here's a story.
NBC News says the conservative election activists have created this new database called Eagle AI.
It's backed by a Trump-aligned lawyer.
Cleta Mitchell, to search for ineligible voters, but they worry that that system will be unreliable.
So it can be a problem if the Republicans have a system that says, hey, these voters are ineligible because they lived in another state, or they're under 18, or they're dead, or whatever.
But if the database itself is unreliable, Then you would have an unreliable database trying to monitor an unreliable election system.
And this was reported to us by the most unreliable news, NBC.
So an unreliable news entity, NBC, reports that there might be an unreliable monitoring system for the unreliable elections.
Has there ever been a more 2023 story than an unreliable news entity talking about an unreliable solution to an unreliable database?
It's just kind of perfect.
How about some good news?
You know how microplastics are killing us all?
Because the oceans and water, our water supplies.
Apparently most of our drinking water has microplastic in it.
But now researchers at UBC Found that they've got some kind of solution where they can add tannins, a natural plant compound that makes your mouth pucker.
I don't know why you'd put that in your mouth, but you know, I guess it's part of food or something.
And they could put this on wood or wood shavings and the plastic just sucks to it and stays there.
So they've actually found a thing that can suck microplastics out of water.
That's kind of a big deal, I think, because I don't want to drink too many more microplastics.
Now, they claim that there's nothing about what they've discovered that can't be scaled up, because all the materials are easily obtainable, and really all you're doing is adding something to sawdust.
It's basically a pile of sawdust, add some stuff to it, and you've got a filter for microplastics.
So pretty awesome if it works.
Maybe you have to cut down every tree to get enough wood to get rid of the microplastics.
But hey, that's another problem.
That's for later.
All right.
I've said this before, but it's the best idea I've ever had.
So I'm going to say it again.
We need some kind of a show.
TV or internet or YouTube.
In which people who have been denied access to the news get to see it for the first time.
So it'd be like a reaction show to see what happens to people when they learn the real news for the first time.
And don't get cocky, because you could do this with people on the left or the right, right?
I remember a long conversation I had with a now deceased relative who, when Obama was in office, he told me matter-of-factly that it was a fact that he was a Muslim.
And I said, what?
What, you think the President of the United States is a practicing Muslim?
Or a secret Muslim?
No, a practicing Muslim.
Everybody knows he's a practicing Muslim.
And I said, what?
He's a Christian.
Now I hear what you're saying, that he has some Islamic influence, but are you actually saying that he like goes to the, he goes and he prays three whatever times a day?
He's like, yeah, he's a practicing Muslim.
Now this was an adult who followed the news closely, and he believed that the news had told him very clearly that Obama was a practicing Muslim.
Now, we don't need to get into whether he was a sacred Muslim, because that wasn't the claim.
The claim was overtly, publicly, he was a Muslim.
I watched his face when I said, um, no, and I think I Googled something and showed it to him.
You should have seen his face because he'd never seen that before.
He had never heard that Obama was a Christian.
Never heard it.
It wasn't denying it.
Never even heard it.
Isn't that amazing?
Now, imagine what it is on the other side.
Do you know how many people think that Trump did collude with Russia?
And he's got investments with them.
I hear all kinds of wild stuff that I think, have you never seen the news?
Have you really?
Are you serious?
You've never seen the news?
How in the world could you believe these things?
But of course, it's because of our bubbles.
But it would be a fascinating show to see, let's say, somebody on the left have their bubble burst, and then do it with somebody on the right, just so you can show that it's everybody, it's not just one side.
Alright, so here's what it would look like.
The host of the show might say to the, let's say a Democrat, did Trump try to steal the election in 2020 using a fake slate of electors?
And let's say the person would say something like, well obviously, he should be jailed for that.
Yeah, obviously he tried to overthrow the country with his fake electors.
And then what the show would do, for example, is play the compilation clip Of the 2016 election with, you know, Ari Melber and MSNBC and Hillary Clinton basically saying that this alternate slate of electors is normal business.
It's normal.
It's in the Constitution.
The presidency is the one place that this makes sense.
Yeah, you could totally do that.
And just see what would happen to someone who had been told that this is, you know, clearly stealing the election to find out that the very people who are saying it's stealing Are the people who just a few years ago said, oh, it's perfectly acceptable, this is normal procedure.
What would happen to the person who saw that for the first time?
Or any of the Trump compilation clips that show that the thing they've been taught was a Rupar video.
You all know what a Rupar video is.
It's a video in which if you remove a part of it, it reverses its meaning.
It doesn't just change its meaning, it actually turns it to its opposite.
That's a Rupar video.
So you show the, you ask some Democrats, so do you think Trump did this or that?
The famous one is, do you think he mocked a guy with a disability of his arm?
Every Democrat thinks that's true.
They all think he did.
And then you show the compilation clip from years going before that, where he was doing the same gestations about Ted Cruz, and there was some general he talked about.
And you can see that it's just a thing he does.
What would somebody do if they saw that?
Well, cognitive dissonance.
So you would also have your show, you'd have a psychologist there, an expert in cognitive dissonance, or a hypnotist, and that would be part of the entertainment, is that the expert would say, you're experiencing cognitive dissonance.
Your beliefs have been clearly disproven and debunked, and you can see it for yourself, and you know that it's been debunked.
But you're having an experience in which you're hallucinating, and then you just say what you're hallucinating, because everybody hallucinates in that situation.
Hosted by John Stossel.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah, John Stossel would actually be perfect for that.
That's a perfect suggestion.
Because he's not, John Stossel is not, in my opinion, either left or right.
I actually don't know what he is.
He seems to go after things that just objectively it's a problem.
He doesn't seem to go after things that, you know, might be a problem if you're a Democrat, or might be a problem if you're a Republican.
Yeah, he's a libertarian, I believe.
So he goes after, like, an actual physical problem in the world.
So he doesn't seem to be biased at all.
He'd be perfect, actually.
Alright.
Let's see what else is happening.
And likewise, I'd like to see how to interpret the news.
You know, some of the stuff that I do where I say, all right, the news story has one anonymous source.
And then you say, do you believe it?
And then the person would say, often, yes, I do believe it.
That sounds true to me.
And then you sort of lead them through how one anonymous source never means true.
It's closer to a guarantee it's not true, an anonymous source.
So you basically have people training people how to understand the news with the understanding that it's all fake.
All right.
We have an interesting situation coming up where, let's say it's Biden versus Trump.
I don't think it will be.
I just realized I forgot to put my garbage out and the garbage trucks are going by right now and I'm going to be really in trouble tomorrow.
Because I have no place to put my garbage now.
Damn it.
Anyway, but back to you.
So we're going to have either a president of the United States or a prisoner of the United States.
So it seems to me that if Biden got reelected, they'd make sure Trump went to jail.
And it seems to me if Trump got elected, he would go after the Biden crime family and there's a good chance they would go to jail.
So we have a situation in which the loser has a very good chance of going to jail.
Can we put up with that?
Now, I know you want to say, but it's all Biden's fault, because he's the one falsely accusing Trump, you might say.
And he's the one doing the Biden crime family stuff.
So it's really a problem on one side.
It's just affecting the other side.
Of course, you could say that.
But the others would say Trump's the real problem, not Biden.
So you'd never solve that.
But we do have a situation where, by design, we can predict now That no matter what happens, no matter who wins, if it's Biden versus Trump, we can predict riots.
Would you agree?
Because one side is going to jail the other side, or they're going to try really hard.
That should give you riots.
Now, we should have fixed, and I'm not recommending riots, I'm very much against that, so no violence.
I'm just saying that if you design a system What else could happen?
What else?
There's no second thing that happens.
Am I right?
What's the second possibility if the loser is definitely going to jail?
There's no second possibility.
There's going to be riots.
We just don't know which side's going to riot.
Because the media has set us up to believe that whichever outcome happens, it's illegitimate.
The media has basically trained us that if our side doesn't win, whichever side you're on, if our side doesn't win, it's rigged.
What are you going to do?
Now, it's also maybe a trick to make Republicans overreact.
You know that, right?
They might be just trying to get Republicans to overreact.
Because one more Republican overreaction, imagine a Biden win, but it's close, and it's disputed, and there's yet another big event with Republicans acting poorly in some cases.
That could be just the end of Republicans.
You could imagine the Democrats just jailing everybody who tweeted anything supportive.
There would be just nothing left of the Republicans.
So it could be a kill shot for the entire Republican Party.
They may be setting it up for the ultimate kill shot.
But I tend to imagine that there's no leader of any of this stuff.
What I see is a whole bunch of people acting along what they think is their best interest and collectively it gives the look of somebody being in charge who's the devil.
Just listen to what you just said, Scott.
That doesn't help me.
There's a comment on YouTube.
Just listen to what you just said.
I'm going to need more than that.
A little bit more of a hint.
All right.
41% of likely US voters, this is Rasmussen, believe it's more likely Trump will be elected, but 38% think it's more likely he'll be sentenced to federal prison.
So almost the same number of people think he'll be elected president as sentenced to prison.
Not just tried or indicted, but sentenced.
Who do you think the 38% are?
Mostly Democrats, of course.
So the Democrat news is saying Trump, of course, is guilty.
He should be in jail.
What happens if he doesn't go to jail?
The Democrats will say, well, things are so evil that the gloves are off and we can do anything, legal or illegal, because look what the other side is doing.
Yeah, everything about our current situation is aiming at riots.
Now, if I were a conspiracy theorist, I would say, well, that's what the elites want.
They want us to burn down everything so they can buy it back cheap and control everything.
And they'll use that as an excuse to clamp down and surveil us and control us forever and cut off our money and give us digital currency and all that.
Now, I think all that could happen.
All of that could happen.
But I just don't feel there's like a boss.
Do you?
And if it is, who is it?
Is it Klaus Schwab?
Is it Hillary Clinton?
Is it Soros?
Is it you?
I see somebody saying it's them.
Is it Putin?
Is it Obama?
See, the problem with Susan Rice, the problem with Victoria Nuland, CIA, the problem with somebody at the top is organizing it all.
The problem with that is who is it?
If we don't agree on who's organizing it, it's probably not being organized.
But I do think lots of people might say, well, I don't mind a little sloppiness here, and I'm going to hurt the other side any way I can.
I feel like everything we're seeing is just the result of people following what they think is in their best interest.
I do not think it's coordinated at the top, with the exception of the legal moves against Trump appear clearly coordinated.
Did anybody catch the Fox News timeline where they showed all the four Trump indictments and they followed within 24 hours of every really, really bad news cycle for Biden?
Now, it could be that they were all going to happen anyway.
But that the Democrats, you know, on top of that were timing it.
So the timing might be not a crime or evidence of a crime.
It could be simply a political move on top of a, you know, a normal criminal activity or criminal investigation or indictments, right?
Now that's one view.
The other view is that the charges themselves are complete bullshit, which I would say they look like it.
Now I'm no legal expert, but if Dershowitz says there's nothing there that the Supreme Court won't overturn, I would say that the judgment that the charges are bullshit and completely political are very strong.
Very strong.
I do not believe there's anybody who's worried about the criminal activities of Trump in the past or the future.
I don't think anybody cares about it.
No matter what they believe he did, I just don't think they care.
I think it's just a political expedient thing to take a competitor off the field.
Well, Dershowitz is getting old, but he's the smartest old I've ever seen.
Have you ever seen anybody's brain who worked better at that age than Dershowitz?
Is he 80?
What is his age now?
Give me his actual age.
He's not 87.
He's not 85, is he?
Is he 85?
Wow.
Well, I just listened to him the other day and he talks like a 20-year-old.
If you can find me a 20-year-old who can speak as clearly and sharply as Dershowitz at mid-80s, whatever it is, you show me.
I've never seen it.
He's still at the top of his game.
It's incredible, actually.
And I would think that he's a good example of if you continue working and keeping your mind sharp, you can actually do really well with managing your mental cognitive abilities.
So he looks like somebody who's just used his brain so well and so often that he has maintained what looks like full capacity to me, which is amazing.
Full capacity.
Mental capacity.
All right.
All right, well, trouble's brewing.
If I were going to guess what would be the perfect third act for Trump, because as you know, reality, for some strange reason, follows the path of the most entertaining movie.
So Trump's in clearly his third act.
The third act is where it's impossible to get out.
Four indictments, total lawfare attack, And a system that he probably thinks is rigged, he does think is rigged.
What would be the best third act?
Well, I've already told you the best third act would be, and I'm not, and by the way, oh, oh, I'm not going to say it, and I'll see if I get banned.
So did I mention that YouTube started automatically demonetizing me again?
Do you remember the last time they did that?
When was the last time they automatically demonetized me no matter what I said?
It was in the run-up to the last election.
After the election, when my voice wasn't as important, I did not get demonetized for a long time.
At all.
Is my content more dangerous or inaccurate than any other thing that I've done ever?
No, there's no difference.
Same kind of content.
When I talk about See, the problem is there's a topic that if I mention it, I'm going to get demonetized.
You know what it is, right?
Do you know the topic?
It's not the pandemic.
Not the pandemic.
Yeah.
You know what it is.
So let's do a test.
I won't mention the topic, but you already know what I think about it.
I won't say the name.
Let's see if I get demonetized for it.
But one possible third act would be that Trump maybe had some information that would suggest that a thing I would never talk about on YouTube was not exactly the way people thought it was.
So you're going to have to do a little work to figure out what I just said because if I say it out loud I could be kicked off the platform for just talking about a topic.
When I say kicked off, I mean demonetized.
If I got demonetized, I would stop using the product, of course, if I were totally demonetized.
So that's one possibility.
But I'm seeing people start to wonder if the legal treatment about Trump is making the black American community feel some connection to him, as in agreeing that the system is broken.
And I'm not quite ready to say that black America is going to back him.
There was, I saw some survey that suggested his support had gone up.
I saw a podcast video of a black American saying that it was his opinion that black Americans would recognize this as a somewhat obvious use of the law to punish somebody.
And you know who feels that the law is being used to punish somebody.
So the black community might, on a purely sort of emotional connection level, feel that they have a common enemy.
The legal system.
And specifically, as one podcaster was talking about, the fact that the Democrats are the people behind the legal system that's bothering Trump, as well as the legal system that's been the bane of many of their existence for a long time.
So I'm not ready to say that this trend is real, but I will say that Trump has an avenue to make it real.
He just has to say we have a common enemy.
And he just has to say Democrats have always been the common enemy.
It's just obvious now.
Join me.
Now, I think he'd have to promise something that would get to whatever black America wants, especially with the legal system.
If there's anything he could promise that hasn't already been done, such as, you know, we'll fund, I don't know if this is necessary, but we'll fund body cams.
So that no traffic stop has no body cams.
But there's several other things that are sort of in that domain that he could just say, all right, I'll get you federal funding to reduce this problem or that problem.
But I think he could make a thing out of this.
I think he could actually turn it his way.
All right, be nice.
No bad comments over here.
Mary Trump, Trump's niece, had some bad things to say about Trump's state of mind and personality and character.
Does Trump have the worst niece of all time?
You know, my nieces, they never say things about me like that.
I mean, I haven't checked lately, but I'm almost positive I've never had a niece who called me names on TV.
He has the worst niece I've ever heard.
If there were some competition for the most terrible niece anybody ever had, it would be her.
Alright, that's all I had to say about her.
Apparently, this is terrible, the names of the grand jury members who did the latest Trump indictment have somehow been circulating.
I don't know how they got... Oh, I guess they're not...
They're not leaked, right?
It's actually published in Georgia after the decision?
Somebody said that their names are public.
That seemed wrong.
They were published by the government?
by the state, by the clerk.
So I guess I don't understand the story.
Because I know that there was the thing about the fake indictment outcome was published.
But was that the same thing that had the names of the jury?
It was the same?
All right, there's something about the story that doesn't make sense to me.
But I guess... Here's the bottom line.
If in fact those names are floating around, This would be like hugely damaging to the credibility of the system because you don't want jurors who have to worry about their lives for their votes.
Would you agree?
We don't want a system where a grand jury has to worry about their lives because of what they voted.
Would you agree?
I don't know.
I'm not sure I agree.
Here's why.
Because there is a limit.
There is a limit.
Now that limit is extreme.
But it could be that these people have fraudulently and knowingly, knowingly and fraudulently, created a situation where there will be riots in the country.
Or they've contributed to it.
Do you think that they were trying to find the truth?
Do you think that the information was presented to them in a way that they could even know that they had enough to make a good decision?
Now remember, they're only saying, I think there's something here.
They're not saying if he's guilty or innocent.
They're just saying, yes, there seems to be evidence that should be followed up on with a trial.
Yeah, I think this is an edge case for me.
I'm still leaning toward there's no situation where you want a juror to be threatened.
Because, you know, ultimately the mafia would start threatening them.
But under the extreme situation where it looks like you're in the middle of a coup, do the rules apply?
Because to me this looks like a coup.
To me it looks like using lawfare to take a political player out and that the charges are known by the people pressing them as bullshit.
Not that they're not technically true.
There might be some technical crimes there.
But there's nobody who thinks that the reason it's being pressed is for the benefit of the rule of law.
Nobody believes that.
We all believe it's political.
We all do.
You can say nobody's above the law But somebody sent a meme around of Nelson Mandela.
Was Nelson Mandela above the law?
Has nobody ever been jailed unfairly?
Have you ever heard of a black American who was ever unfairly jailed because of eyewitness reports?
It's pretty common.
Pretty common.
So, jailing people falsely, unfortunately, is not rare enough that you can rule it out.
It's not that rare.
It's just not that rare.
So yeah, nobody's above the law, but the law is not straight.
It's sort of like saying, don't shoot at the monster because nobody's above the monster.
Well, it might kill you, so maybe think about it.
All right, well, I'm going to go with it's bad that anybody has the names of the grand jury.
I think if anybody messed with the grand jury, they should just be shot.
I mean, not literally, but if you're messing with a citizen who is just trying to do their job, I'm not going to be too happy with you.
But it is true that we don't know if they did their job.
They may have been presented such a biased set of facts that there was really no question which way it was going to go.
In that case, they're just citizens doing their job and they should be held blameless.
But you can't tell in 2023.
You don't know if they really even tried to do their job or did they just vote their opinion.
All right.
There's a plea deal that's going on for the 9-1-1 architect, that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, so that he might actually not be executed.
Does it look like he could be freed?
Is the other possibility, if he's not executed, is the possibility he could be freed?
There's no possibility he goes free, right?
Because I was thinking that the ultimate penalty would be to set him free, but he can only live within New York City.
It's sort of a double penalty.
Number one, you'd have to put up with all the crime and degradation of the city.
But number two, good luck.
Good luck.
All right.
So, do you think that the Maui fires were evidence of climate change, or evidence that climate change alarm is bullshit?
Which was it?
Now forget about the cause.
Forget about the cause.
Because even if it was arson, or even if it was a, you know, a blast from space, it wasn't.
But even if it was, The amount of damage from the fire is its own separate situation.
So independent of cause, forget about the cause, the dryness is what caused it to be bad.
So it doesn't matter if it was one match or one power line, that's not the conversation.
What matters is the situation was such that once it started, it was a disaster.
I would say this is the strongest evidence yet that climate change can be mitigated, or at least any damage from it can be mitigated, because this is the cleanest example I've seen where people had plenty of warning and they knew exactly what to do to avoid this.
And then they didn't do it.
So the reports are coming in that they've known since 2019 that their power lines were sparking.
Something about gas nearby.
They'd seen the sparking.
They had tried to correct it but didn't do much about it.
It wasn't really funded apparently enough.
There was also a thing about the water being maybe limited.
I think that story is fake news.
In one sense.
Not fake in the sense that they didn't have water.
It seems true that they didn't have water in the hydrants.
The fake news, I think, is that the person in charge of releasing the water, I guess, was an Obama type of guy.
And he thought that protecting the water as a resource was sort of a Almost cultural, holy requirement.
And so the right are blaming him for trying to withhold his sacred water at the expense of burning up a city.
Now, I don't think that's what happened.
We do know that there wasn't enough water, that seems true.
But I'd really have to hear from that guy before I think he didn't allow you the water because he wanted to protect the sacred water.
I saw the reports.
I saw the reports, I saw the videos.
I'm just saying, I need to hear from him.
Because if he says, I tried but there was a technical problem, well, let's look into that.
But if he says, yeah, you know, the fire was bad but we have to protect our sacred resources, maybe.
I mean if he said it directly, I'll agree with you.
But I don't think so.
Doesn't it sound a little odd?
Let me ask you this.
Let's put it to the test.
Let's run it through the fake news filter.
A little too on the nose?
A little too on the nose that the Obama appointee denied water because he was a climate change lover and not a practical person?
Is that too on the nose?
Come on, you know it is.
You know it's 2 on the nose.
You don't want it to be, because you want it to be guilty, right?
No, that's 2 on the nose.
It's way 2 on the nose.
Now, could it be true?
I suppose.
The fact that it's 2 on the nose doesn't mean it's impossible.
I would give it a 5% chance of being true.
5% chance of being true.
5%.
5%.
Because it's two on the nose.
How many times have you seen the two on the nose filter work?
Have you seen it work 10 out of 10?
I mean, every time I've used it, it's worked.
I think.
Has it ever not worked in any situation where I brought it up?
Has it ever not worked?
I don't think so.
I think it's worked every time.
So, if you're betting against 2-on-the-nose, just know that you're taking the long shot bet.
But we do know that they could have cleared the brush, and I would say this is just a perfect explanation of why Climate Change Alarm is bullshit, and RFK Jr.
and others, they're on target when they say, just do all the things you're supposed to do to protect the land and the water and the air, and everything's going to work out.
The free market will work out the CO2 part.
Mary says, Scott, let me read this comment.
Mary says, Scott, consider the possibility that it is as clear as a nose on your face.
All right, let me do that.
Consider that it is as clear as a nose.
So it's a hundred to one likelihood that it's two on the nose, but consider, consider.
All right, I'm considering it, Mary.
Done.
I have considered it.
Request accepted.
All right.
And Vivek is talking about the same thing.
He's saying that the DEI agenda may have caused this person to be in their job.
Maybe it had something to do with poor response to the fire.
Certainly, going back to my original point, if climate change is your organizing umbrella principle, and everything below it has to be subsidiary to it, is that what burned up Lahaina?
I don't know.
Probably not.
Because I don't think it was that water problem.
I think it was the not doing the brush.
So I don't think that Climate change per se was the problem unless, unless, the money that would have gone to mitigating the fire risk, if that money went instead to some climate-y kind of green thing that didn't work out, well then you could make the argument that your umbrella concern made money go from the thing you desperately needed to the thing you didn't need at all.
That may be the case.
But the larger point is that as long as you have an umbrella policy that everything has to be compatible with climate change, you're going to get a certain set of outcomes.
And I think you'd get a very different one if your umbrella problem was your demographic time bomb that's probably the deeper risk.
That Is what you should keep in mind.
All right, did I miss anything?
Is there any story that you wish I had talked about that I forgot?
Oh, I guess Biden is allocated $700 per resident.
I guess that's what he's doing.
You know, I don't have a problem with that.
I don't have a problem with that.
You know, everybody says it should be more.
It should be sooner.
It should be more.
Let's just say that about everything.
Oh, you should have done it sooner.
You should have done more.
Do I think the residents need more?
Yes.
Yes.
If he gave them $10,000, would I think it was enough?
No.
Because a lot of people lost a lot more than $10,000, and they're going to need a lot more than that to get back to where they were, if you think that's a goal.
So I hear what you're saying, and I don't disagree.
The $700,000 sounds low.
It sounded low to me, especially in the inflationary world.
It seems low.
Per household?
Oh, per household, even lower.
My take on that was it was $700 just to get you to the point where the food supply and maybe FEMA could take over.
Maybe it was just like a little temporary thing, but really you need the bigger solutions.
The bigger solutions are the real thing.
But temporarily, $700 would be kind of useful on the ground.
So I'm not going to say it's enough.
I'm not going to say you did a good job.
I'm going to say Just know it's never soon enough and it's never enough.
So it's true, but I don't know.
It's not where I'm going to make a big point.
All right.
So comparing to Ukraine is bad thinking.
You could look at it.
Here's how you do it.
You should not look at your other projects as your comparison.
That would be a mistake.
You should look at them each individually and say, is this worth the money?
If they're each individually worth the money, then you fund them both.
But if one gets funded and then the other doesn't, it shouldn't be because of the other one.
It's because there was only one good idea or people thought so.
So this is something I learned in my journeys through economics and business school and doing budgets and stuff.
If you're going to do a should we spend money on this project, you don't compare it always to a specific unrelated use.
Instead, you compare it to a discount rate.
Now, without getting too technical, comparing it to a discount rate means you're comparing your current project to the average of things you could do with the money, not to a specific thing.
That has nothing to do with your project, but to the average of other things you could do with money in general.
If the thing you want to do, your project, is better than the average you can do in general, you do it.
If it's not as good as the average, you don't do it.
Now, a special case would be if you're trying to decide between two things in the same domain.
If they're in the same domain, then you do compare them.
Because you can either replace your computers, or you can live with them for another year with upgrades.
Those are same domain, so that comparison you do head to head.
But you don't do a comparison of, should we spend money to upgrade our computers, or should we beef up our DEI group?
Those are different domains.
So each of them would be compared against the discount rate, the average of good ideas.
Now the DEI one you probably wouldn't put through an economic filter, but you should.
At least mentally you should.
Did everybody get that?
It's a political point.
To say, you know, Ukraine versus Maui.
They are not a proper comparison.
Each must be looked at on their own merit compared to the average that you can do with money, not to each other.
But it's a good political point.
All right, well there's something that some of you learned for the first time.
How many of you knew that?
How many knew what I just explained already?
I'm kind of curious.
So a number of you knew it.
So one no.
Some said you're wrong.
No, I'm not wrong.
I'm definitely not wrong.
This is my area of expertise, by the way.
I did it for a living.
I'm not guessing.
I'm telling you the proper way to analyze it.
All right.
It was new to some of you.
So this is interesting because the people on locals mostly said they already knew.
The people on YouTube who see less of me, it was a little bit more new to you.
You've got to choose where to spend your limited funds.
That is incorrect, Drywolf.
That's where you're wrong.
You do not have to choose where to spend your limited funds.
That's exactly the error in your thinking.
Funds are never limited.
That's the problem.
In politics, we act like they are, but they're not.
They're not.
Because we can borrow until we go out of business.
And you can borrow unlimited money if the thing you're using it for... No, you can borrow unlimited money if the thing you're using it for pays you back more than you borrowed.
For example, if you're a business and you have two things, let's say two pieces of equipment you want to replace, but you have limited money and your budget is limited, what are you going to do if there's two things you need to replace?
And let's say the replacement of each will save you a lot of money during the year.
Can you do both?
You've got limited money, only enough money to do one, but both of them will make you money.
You can do both.
You do not have a limit that's imaginary.
Because you can borrow.
You can borrow whenever you have a good idea that's going to pay itself back and the bank can tell that's a good idea.
If you get rid of that inefficient machine, put in the new one that everybody else uses, we know it reduces your expenses by 50%.
Oh, you could totally pay back the loan.
You're going to have all kinds of cash because you reduced.
Now, good ideas always get done.
They do not compete with other ideas except in our minds.
Good ideas pay for themselves.
Bad ideas are just bad ideas.
Now, in the real world, you're saying to me, yeah, that's nice theoretically, but in the real world, your boss doesn't want to ask for extra money.
And I would push back on your pushback.
No.
In the real world, I've been the budget person who didn't have enough money, and I didn't have a single good idea that wasn't funded within the corporate environment.
I had bad ideas that weren't funded.
A lot of them.
Bad ideas.
But no good idea was unfunded.
Ever.
It just didn't happen.
And we had limited resources.
But everything good got funded.
When you couldn't fund it within your group, You took it to your boss's boss, with permission, and then the boss's boss would say, oh yeah, you don't have enough money for that, so I'll give you some extra money.
And if it went up the line to the boss of bosses, and they thought that the thing was important enough, they'd raise money in the capital markets, or borrow money, or something.
But a good idea gets funded.
That's just a good general rule.
Bad ideas do not.
We hope.
Sometimes they do.
All right, anything else?
I believe I've gone on long enough.
YouTube, are you entertained?
I'll tell you about my book a little bit more tomorrow, I think.
