Episode 356 Scott Adams: China Trade, Louis C.K., Walls and Climate Debate

Date: 2018-12-31 | Duration: 47:17

Topics

Louis CK hits the offensive Trifecta Climate change debates least rational feedback Climate change believers don’t act like they believe President Trump’s tweet about the experts deciding border security Border Patrol people aren’t engineers, but their input is key Gordon Chang says China growth may have slowed or is retracting America is more customer than supplier to China Huge trade war advantage for the US North Korea’s nukes were an advantage just a year ago In 2019 they seem more of an enormous money drain They prevent trade advantages and cost a fortune CNN’s “Walls don’t work” isn’t an opinion…it’s just dumb Walls are friction, friction always changes behavior President Trump’s statement about military pay raise Did he innocently get his facts wrong? It was a mistake, but is it important? The Left cares about “fairness” A subjective standard that can never be achieved

I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a "boss" somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I'm trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.
See all of my Periscope videos here…
https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1nAKERDOwylGL
Find my WhenHub Interface app here…
https://interface.whenhub.com

> [!note] Rough Transcript
> 
> This is an auto-generated transcript and may contain errors.

## Transcript

[0:06]

boom-boom-boom-boom you know I think I look the wiser when I wear a sweater I think I've reached that age where if you don't wear a sweater you don't look serious so this is my serious sweater we'll be talking about serious stuff but not until we enjoy the simultaneous sip yes you're here because you like having coffee with Scott Adams that's me and so I invite you now to fill your mug you're a cup your glass your Stein your tankard your chalice if you will fill it with your favorite liquid I like coffee and join me for the simultaneous that oh
that's good stuff yes this is my mr. Rogers sweater this would not be the first time I have been compared to mr. Rogers let us talk about some funny things in the news so you may

[1:08]

some funny things in the news so you may have noticed that the news was giving a little bit slow because everybody's on on the vacation but every now and then it gives us a little gem and today was a gem so you might know that famous comedian louis c.k got in trouble not too long ago for some me to stuff so apparently he was asking first which he says is important but apparently is not as important as he wanted it to be he would ask first before exposing himself to various people he worked with so he got me to for that and then it turns out that there was a tape of him a few years ago joking around and it's sort of important that you know that one of the people he was with was Chris Rock who is obviously a friend and that in that context in joke around he used the n-word so now he's got he's got a me too

[2:11]

n-word so now he's got he's got a me too and he's on tape using the n-word now the n-word one of course was a private conversation with people who didn't care but once you're on tape you're on tape and you're in trouble and then today in the news yeah it turns he it turns out that louis c.k has hit the trifecta [Laughter]
you see he's also on tape Louie CK is for mocking the survivors of parkland oh so now he's got the trifecta he's been in the past you know one year Louis Louie CK has been me too I got caught on tape on tape using the

[3:15]

I got caught on tape on tape using the n-word and then caught on tape mocking the survivors of Parkland after I saw that he hit the the third the third item on the trifecta I just decided to buy something he's made like I don't know why yeah no good if he's got a book I'll buy his book or we're all watching what a special or something but but yeah so here's the thing if you do one terrible thing well you're that person who did that terrible thing if you do two terrible things Wow you're twice as bad you're the person who didn't do just one terrible thing you did two terrible things but by the time you hit that third terrible thing I start rooting for you again

[4:15]

you again he's gone he's gone so far so far into the bad behavior that I started liking him again anyway I I don't know if you'll ever see anybody else gets caught with with these three horrible behaviors all in the same year so the thing about comedians that make the the thing that makes comedians funny is their flaws you would agree with that right your funniest comedians are the ones who are most broken so the more broken they are the more we enjoy it because they make fun of their own you know their own flaws and you know we're laughing with them etc louis c.k is one broken guy

[5:18]

yeah not not just because of these stories but I'm sure he's got some other problems but I don't know he's he's so broken I'm starting to like him again anyway so that's enough about that uh as you know I tweeted around some of the the best arguments pro and con for climate change and I'm getting lots of interesting feedback from it I'll tell you some of the least rational feedback the least rational feedback and I'm watching people debate the topic in my Twitter stream is the people who say well let me show you my link to a top expert explaining climate science to you you idiot you know if you would just look at this one clip of a top expert who really knows what they're doing with real science and real data if you watch this you will be convinced that climate science is exactly what the scientists tell you it is what's wrong with that

[6:23]

tell you it is what's wrong with that does that sound reasonable on the surface it does write on the surface you would say to yourself well if you try to understand a topic you would want to watch a well-made video of somebody explaining it really clearly who is an expert that's exactly what you'd want right but it's a trick and it's a trick that almost all of the country has fallen for and the trick goes like this watching one side of an argument doesn't tell you anything nothing it is exactly as good as nothing if you hear the other side of the argument and they can't respond to all the points in the first argument well then then you have something so you've seen the point you've seen the counterpoint and you've judged that the the critic is not as strong as the original argument well then you've got an R then you've got an opinion that's based on something rational but if you

[7:23]

based on something rational but if you say to yourself I don't want to listen to these skeptics because everything I need ISM is coming from the scientists you're not part of the rational discussion you can't be right and you can't be wrong you have not participated you didn't win the game and you didn't lose the game you never played now I understand the argument that says you don't necessarily want to listen to people who are you know you know you don't want to treat seriously somebody who thinks that chemtrails are real you don't want to treat seriously somebody who thinks that Q is you know deep state insider with special knowledge there are some things you don't want to even bother treating as if they might be true so I get that but climate science is sort of a special case because if the people who are who are the most concerned about it are right the only

[8:25]

concerned about it are right the only way that they can save themselves and the entire planet is by convincing the people who don't believe it and that's different than any other kind of argument every other argument is important you know it's important depending on the argument you know there are lots of important arguments but according to the climate let's call them the alarmists my cats make a lot of noise here but according to the people who are most worried about the climate it's a it's an extinction event you know it's maybe not extinction but it could be calamitous now in that case if you have a calamitous situation you really really need to convince the other side so if the only thing you're doing is showing your side and saying I'm done I'm done you have destroyed the earth although let me say that again if you believe that climate science the the

[9:28]

believe that climate science the the majority climate science opinion is correct that the earth is warming that humans are causing it and that the rate of increase is unprecedented because of humans and that we're on a pace to destroy the planet if you believe those things and you only show your argument without addressing the critics you're part of the problem you are part of destroying the earth because you have not even entered the game if all you've watched is one side of the argument and you say I'm not even going to talk to the other people that doesn't matter you've missed the most important thing you need to do to save the world which is convince the other side how would you ever convince the other side by not engaging with their criticisms and how are you helping if you think climate science is real you have to address the critics specific points you need to get

[10:31]

critics specific points you need to get it on the internet so that everybody who is a critic whenever they say bla bla bla criticism there's somebody else will say here's the specific argument against your criticism here's the link this shows the critic is wrong and why now you might also need to include and why the critic says your link is not as good as it should be so it might be a little a little back and forth there but if you have not addressed the critics you're not in the game and if you're not in the game you do not care about climate science so stop pretending you care while doing exactly what you wouldn't do if you cared all right if you're acting in every way like climate science isn't important don't expect us to take it important as it's important if if you yourself won't treat it as an important topic and you believe it don't expect the people who are still questioning the science we're

[11:32]

questioning the science we're questioning the models or whatever the questioning don't expect them to believe it because they have not been presented with a capable argument and if you're not willing to present a capable or even do you believe it I make the same argument about religion I said in one of my books long ago that saying you believe in God and saying you believe in heaven should cause you to act a certain way here on earth and if you're not acting that a certain way do you really believe in God if you believe in God and an eternity in heaven or hell if you really really like literally believe those things are true shouldn't you be acting like it because if you say you believe them but you act exactly the opposite which is you're selfish and you're not helping the poor and you're not you're not giving of your time you're not you know giving away all your

[12:32]

you're not you know giving away all your extra money you're not inviting people to live with you if you're not doing those things you don't believe in the afterlife because the afterlife is forever it's forever you would take an 80 years sacrifice to improve forever you know forever with God versus forever in hell that's an easy choice if you believe those things are real you would act like so the people who so I think there's a there's a similarity here between climate believers and what I would call the the fake religious believers a fake religious believers someone who goes through the motions they call themselves a believer they they read the book they go to church whatever but if you look at their life they don't live a life they don't live a life that would suggest

[13:33]

don't live a life that would suggest they believe same with climate science if you're telling me it's important and it's the biggest thing in the world but you won't do the most basic thing you would do if you believed it to be true which is convince the people who don't believe and to do that you have to address their specific criticisms without that don't tell me you care don't tell me you care about the planet because you're acting like you don't all right so the worst argument is go look at this one video that shows one side of the argument if you're saying that you're not part of the you're not even in the game you're not even playing so get it in the game will you you might need to save the world here by the way let me tell you my my current thinking on climate change so I've been you know digging a little bit deeper into the criticisms and and trying to understand

[14:34]

criticisms and and trying to understand as much as a non-scientist can and I would say that I'm totally on the fence meaning that I wouldn't be surprised if you know someday we we know the truth certain about climate I wouldn't be surprised if it went either way I wouldn't be surprised if it's completely true and weird a lot of trouble it wouldn't surprise me a bit but it also wouldn't surprise me if the data is fudged and in a little warming is good for the world that wouldn't surprise me either I can't tell so if you look at me as you're you know in some ways for this argument I'm kind of a standard because I haven't taken a side now I have taken the side that long-term models are always useless but that's not so much about climate science that's a that's a statement about complicated long-term prediction models they're they're always bad but still

[15:36]

they're they're always bad but still there might be a problem you know independent of whether the models are good or bad we might have a real problem how would I know unless you show me both sides and nobody's willing to do it all right so don't act like you care about the said that here's that's my new mantra for you the next time you get in an argument with somebody who really cares about climate change ask them why they won't engage them the only thing you would do if you really believed it which is convinced the other people which is to address their argument if you don't address it you're not in the game you don't really care all right too much about that the president has tweeted today let me read the president's tweet so you can see it in all this magic and glory so he tweeted about the border wall as he does on a regular basis and here's what he said

[16:44]

this morning I believe so there was a you have to know the background there was a report that said that the President had had long ago abandoned the idea of an all concrete wall so that was the reporting so he's responding to the report that allegedly the White House had long ago abandoned the idea of a solid concrete wall the president says and all concrete wall was in all capitals never abandoned as has been reported by the media some areas will be all concrete but the experts here comes the fun part but the experts have Border Patrol prefer a wall that is see through thereby making it possible to see what is happening in both sides makes sense to me so here you see the president saying that the experts should decide what the wall was made of and you know and how you do border security and he's saying makes sense to me in other words the president is saying let the experts

[17:47]

the president is saying let the experts decide what is concrete what is not concrete they hadn't designed it out enough now I had said I've been telling you for days now that the first politician who says politicians should not decide let the engineers decide is the winner is President Trump the winner almost but not he just missed it's a swing and a miss all right and here's why the experts in this case are the experts who work the border the Border Patrol people themselves the people who work border patrol are not engineers they're the people who present the specs so they're part of putting together the specifications that you hand to the engineer so the specifications in this case as described by the president is

[18:48]

case as described by the president is obviously preventing people from coming in that's the first specification so I should do the best job of Canada at discouraging people from trying to get over it but also it should be see-through and then obviously there's a requirement for you want the best price and something that's practical and you know survives the weather and all that stuff so the experts are not the engineers the experts are the ones who tell you what specifications they want should be see-through should stop people should be a certain cost those are the specifications he needs to take it one level further or somebody does the first politician who says this wins now there's no point in winning yet because you can't win yet until Nancy Pelosi is sworn in until Nancy Pelosi can engineer I'm sorry until she can negotiate from a position of you know power she's not going to negotiate so

[19:50]

power she's not going to negotiate so there's nothing there's nothing to win until the government changes and then they can negotiate but once that happens the first politician who says politicians should not be deciding let the engineers decide they win now many of you are asking me isn't he really talking about the engineers because he's talking about experts experts could include engineers but it's still not specific enough because and here's the problem everyone thinks there is everyone thinks they're an expert the problem was saying let the experts decide is that we all think we're experts don't you don't you think you could go down to that that border and look at it and say yep I'll put a little wall here you know this part over here probably some drones you know we can leave this part to last we all think we're experts so saying

[20:52]

we all think we're experts so saying that you'll give it to the expert it's a movement it's a movement in the right direction but it's not persuasive yet however if you said politicians should not make these decisions let's let the engineers do it how many of you think your engineers we all kind of think we're experts but we don't all think we're engineers it's more persuasive and as soon as you say let the people whose job it is do the job you're in strong territory now what's the strongest argument that the anti-trump errs make all the time about the president the strongest argument they make about him about let's say climate change is that he's not listening to the people who know climate change so the biggest problem that they have with the president and climate change is that he's not listening to the spirts the scientists it would be impossible for other the anti choppers

[21:52]

impossible for other the anti choppers to argue that we should not listen to the engineers because they've painted themselves in that corner were there that they are the party who listens to the experts that's their brand so all Ultron has to do President Trump by the way I always like saying president Trump I don't like seeing Trump unless it's you know unless I've already said president Trump in a body of writing or something as respect to the office if not the person and somebody's gonna say engineers and then it's over all right Gordon Chang was on I think he was with talking to Maria Bartiromo and he said that reports are that China the rate of growth may have slowed down to 2% or less and possibly that our economy is contracting think about that

[22:55]

economy is contracting think about that China's economy is now below the politically stable level it's below politically stable that's my own take on it I'm the one who's saying politically stable but if they don't have a certain level of growth which they are clearly below right now their system doesn't stay together they need a certain level of growth just to keep society cohesive and they're below it now let me ask you this question if you're working for a big company let's say you're working for a fortune 500 company and your employee comes into you and the employee says hey CEO you're the CEO I just promoted you and your employee comes in and says I changed suppliers for some stuff that we normally need and we used to use this supplier but I've changed to a new supplier and I've got a better deal what happens to that employee are they fired

[23:57]

happens to that employee are they fired for changing suppliers or are they promoted for making a change that's advantageous because they got a better deal promoted now let me give you the same situation you're you're the CEO of a fortune 500 company and your employee comes in and says hey boss I hate to tell you this but I just personally lost our biggest customer the one that makes everything work I lost our biggest customer what happens to that employee fired right now when the United States who is a gigantic customer of China more customer than supplier has a trade war with China which way is it going to go there's only one way it can go as long as President Trump holds

[24:59]

go as long as President Trump holds tight and as long as the as long as you and I who are the CEOs in this case so in in my analogy which is of course a crude analogy you and I are the CEOs and president Trump is our employee if he changes suppliers meaning that the United States starts buying our stuff from you know let's say Vietnam are you gonna fire him probably not but if you are if you're the citizens of China and President Xi says um we just lost our biggest customer the United States so from now on we're our economy is going to be contracting and there's no end in sight even though he's the what is the president for life or whatever his new title is does he get to keep his job if you lose your biggest customer no matter how is secure your job is do you get to

[26:01]

how is secure your job is do you get to keep it you don't even get to keep that job in China so there is no way we lose this as long as we stay with it we are on an unusable path while China is on an unwinnable path should they not negotiate with us but as as that situation would suggest both sides are negotiating and probably heading toward something that will be better we'll see Gordon Chang also notes that North Korea's Kim continues to work on their weapons Albia not testing them publicly but continuing to refine stuff and get make their weapons better I think he describes that as somewhat you know humiliating for the president and you know and sort of more of the usual and he might be right the way I look at it is that we've already gotten past the

[27:05]

is that we've already gotten past the point where they might nuke us so the value of their nukes went from high to negative so right so remember a year ago North Korea's nuclear weapons were a plus for North Korea their nuclear weapons were nothing but an asset an advantage it gave them it gave them some power that they wouldn't have had without today unless let's call it 2019 because we're almost there in 2019 our North Korea's nuclear weapons and asset or a liability well they're sort of in transition but I would say that they're already far more a liability than an advantage because as North and South Korea give friendlier and they you know they gradually open up their their borders and as they become friends as as Kim and president Trump give friendlier as they have more summits etc the value

[28:07]

as they have more summits etc the value of North Korea's nuclear weapons goes from extremely valuable like the difference between surviving and now surviving to already a mixed bang - every day that goes by they become worthless because who are they gonna nuke what why would they nuke the United States we're working with them and the only thing those nukes are doing is preventing them from having a robust trade that's it that's all they do they just prevent us from having good trade with North Korea so those nukes are no longer a strategic advantage they're in enormous strategic disadvantage and it just takes a little while for that to sink in so North Korea like China has only one path all we have to do is continue to keep some trade restrictions on and wait because time is on our side their asset

[29:08]

because time is on our side their asset is becoming less and less valuable every day but our situation is unchanged our economy is fine you know for the most part our military is strong we don't have any pressing reason to hurry up so the longer North Korea waits for a deal the less valuable will be their main of their main bargaining chip does it really matter if they've you know developed it a little more if they have a little bit more you know refined nuclear or whatever probably not all right I'm seeing people argue about the wall and there's one opinion that you see a lot on CNN and from the anti-trump pers that is so dumb that my head just goes bubble a little every time I hear it now I'm gonna make a distinction

[30:09]

it now I'm gonna make a distinction between things which are just a different opinion things which people have different priorities different philosophies so there are lots of people there are lots of reasons that people can disagree with me maybe they have different information maybe are better informed so there are tons there are tons of legitimate reasons to disagree with me and I don't call those people dumb just for disagreeing but there are some just really specific things that are nothing but dumb and here it here it is walls don't work walls don't work it's not an opinion walls don't work is not because somebody has better or different information than you do there's nothing like that happening here walls don't work is just dumb and here's why anything that causes friction for humans

[31:10]

anything that causes friction for humans reduces reduces the you know how much you do it adding taxes to cigarettes causes some people to quit cigarettes not all of them building a wall keeps some people out not all of them it was our goal to keep every single person under all conditions period no that was never the objective the objective is to reduce the attractiveness of people coming here illegally to make it harder to add friction does a wall and friction yes yes
yes not everybody can climb over a wall not everybody will take the extra time and the chance and they that you know nobody would not everybody will have the equipment it might take a while to get over a wall you know if a caravan came up to a wall and decided to breach the wall well they could do it right because it's a caravan they have lots of

[32:11]

it's a caravan they have lots of resources so they could get there the ropes the ladders but it would take a long time in best case scenario it would still take a while for a whole Caravan to get over a wall and what would we do in the meantime we'd have you know people there and we would just stop it so the wall is not supposed to stop every drug in fact it won't stop any drugs because you can just you know hand them through the fence so those are those of you on the pro wall side if you're arguing that walls will stop drugs maybe you should stop arguing that because you're you're hurting your own credibility there's I don't see any scenario where a wall is gonna make much difference to drugs because you can literally just throw them over the top you know you just have to have somebody on the other side and how hard is that you know and drones will be flying over etc but if you're talking about people

[33:12]

etc but if you're talking about people if you're talking about people walls are pretty good even if you had a tunnel let's say let's say the the Coyotes dig a tunnel under your wall even the bad guys are gonna let everybody in the tunnel if somebody tunnels under you all and that tunnel works well for let's say delivering drugs are they also going to use it to deliver people probably not because drugs are way more profitable and you don't want to have a lot of witnesses who know where your tunnel is so even though somebody can build a tunnel the people who built the tunnels are gonna want as few people as possible using them because it's the criminals who built the tunnels they want to control it so they're either going to charge you an enormous amount to use their tunnel or they're just gonna use it for drugs and they don't want any other witnesses who have seen their

[34:12]

other witnesses who have seen their tunnel so I think that would be less worried about tunnels than just the fact that ome buddy can build a tone it's hard to build a tunnel and if you do build one that you're going to protect it and you're gonna make sure not many people use it because otherwise you have witnesses now if you have a tunnel and you also have drones you're probably going to catch people coming in and out of the tunnel openings too so you've got some control there so I think you need drones in walls but when people say walls don't work the answer should not be yes they do that's bad persuasion so let me give you an example I'll bring them Dale Dale the anti-trump er says Scott oh I use sarcasm instead of thinking so let me explain to you about walls walls they don't work

[35:13]

don't work you just get a ladder all you need this is a ladder have you heard of tunnels Scott have you ever heard the word tunnel - um al ll I don't know how many else are in tunnel but have you heard of tunnels how about ladders how it ropes how about how about climbing scott have you ever heard of climbing and seen if your response to Dale is walls work you're not doing a good job because Dale will just say hole will they work here's a picture of somebody crawling over a wall look here proof proofs that walls don't work here's a person climbing over a wall here's a picture of a fence Scott here's a picture of the fence here's a picture of the ladder one plus one equals two ladder wall defeats it so do not say walls work say instead that whenever you

[36:18]

walls work say instead that whenever you add friction people change behavior can you argue with that if you raise taxes people change behavior if you threaten people with a penalty people change behavior not all of them we're not building a fence to stop every drug because it doesn't really work for that and we're not building a fence to stop every person you're making it harder friction always changes behavior say that and you've won the debate and I would like to invite people to use my app the interface by one hub app if you are a climate scientists and you're willing to be on one of these periscopes and you can defend specifically against the critics attacks and specifically against the critics attacks that the temperature data has been manipulated in

[37:20]

temperature data has been manipulated in the past so if you can address that specifically and some other the critics complaints I would like to talk to you and you can you can advertise your availability of the interface by wind hub app it's free just sign up you can even put a price on it for your time and I will call you and pay that price if you're a real expert and it will learn something about it so I would also like an expert on the Middle East so if you really know what's happening over there you know you can describe what's happening from from Yemen to Saudi Arabia to you know Hezbollah if you're conversant with all those things I would love to have you on the app as an expert and here's the thing I'm I'm trying to establish that my startups app interface by one hub should be a source for experts whenever there's a news story that requires those sources so for

[38:21]

that requires those sources so for example if there's a let's say a plane goes down and the news always wants an aviation experts and they usually want a VA tion experts who are experts on that exact model of aircraft so wouldn't it be great if you see a news story you happen to be one of those experts you just sign up on the interface by one hub app and then anybody in the media knows that they can pay you for your time or you can set it to zero so if you want to do it for free that's that's fine and you could set any price and say anybody in the world NBC ABC CNN if you want to talk to me dial be up on the app if you want to put me on you know on TV so I'm not on the app will negotiate that you're an expert radiologist all right
Trump what about Trump lying about oh yeah let's talk about that so the story is that Trump president

[39:24]

so the story is that Trump president Trump told the some members of the military that he was getting them big raises when in fact that is not true they're getting raises but not ten percent or whatever he said and I think there was one other thing related to that but there were I think there were two statements that the fact checkers say are not true no this is different from normal fact-checking problems because of what his job is you know the head of the military and he was talking to the military so we we put a different level of appropriateness and how the military is treated and probably should so people are saying is that acceptable well here's the thing how you feel about that depends on mind reading somebody says it was a blatant lie with capital letters L ie blatant lie
lie how do you know that how do you know

[40:25]

how do you know that how do you know what the president was thinking when he said it because that's what matters right yes if he was just mistaken if he had heard this number 10 percent but it was a multi-year number it wasn't the one-year number and he just got he just conflated him maybe he hadn't even thought about talking about that topic until he was live on stage and he just thought I think that sounds right and he just threw it out would you feel the same as if he said to himself yeah they'll never know the difference I'll just tell them they get a degrees well that would be stupid and evil and bad but you would have to assume that you know what he's thinking in order to have an opinion on this if you're thinking he got his facts wrong I would say now that's too bad you know it would have been or if he hadn't got his facts wrong and it probably is worse because he was talking to the military so I wouldn't give him a pass you know I wouldn't give

[41:25]

give him a pass you know I wouldn't give him a free pass for giving some facts wrong in front of the military on an on an issue that the military cares about so I'm not going to say that's good I'm not going to defend that but you have to decide did he say to himself I think I'll lie about this and see what happens or did he say to himself I think I got this right where it's close enough I'll just go with this it's close enough they feel very different and by the way have you seen anybody in the media say it the way I just said it have you seen anybody treat it as as though the important part is what is internal thought process was that's the distinction that makes you decide if you hate it or like it or how you feel about it all right
so what he said that on Fox News at least he admitted it and corrected

[42:26]

least he admitted it and corrected himself right actually I don't know has he corrected himself
that's the sort of story that I frankly don't care about too much because I agree with the people who say that was a mistake and that we wish it hadn't happened but is it important one of the biggest differences between I would say Democrats and Republicans is the difference in what's important people on the Left would say that how you talk about people you know the words you use the whether or not you've offended them is important people on the right would say yeah I get that offending people is not ideal but it's also not terribly important now things are never black and white and so it depends on the situation there are plenty of times when using an offensive word is important it does matter who you're insulting and

[43:28]

it does matter who you're insulting and why but generally there's a generally there's a difference in importance I was I'm trying to think if there's some general overarching difference between people on the left and the right and of course there are millions of differences but when I'm looking for the one that sort of describes it best it comes down to this and see if this rings true to you the left cares about fairness so fairness fairness and race gender hell comes just fairness the right puts a higher priority on process and more process and a system and the process of the system is based around always

[44:28]

the system is based around always incentive so the the ultimate boiling down of left versus right is that the right cares about creating systems that recognize human you know human flaws in other words they build incentives into their system for people to do the right thing on on the Left people want fairness but the problem is fairness is a completely subjective standard so the left has as a guiding principle fairness that cannot work in other words their philosophy is sort of dead on arrival because if you follow a fairness to its logical extreme which is where it where it has to head because if fairness is your goal you don't stop until you have it and you can never have it because we'll all disagree what is fair is it fair that I'm rich but I'm also short well that's not fair should

[45:33]

also short well that's not fair should if I if you and I are deciding who has the better outcome do we measure how much money I have or how happy you are what if you're happier than me but I have more money than you do I owe you money or should you work harder and give up some of your happiness to help me get happy fairness is a completely unusable standard but on the right they're sort of incentive based systems right we've got a constitution that's the system we've got a democracy or a republic that's a system so if you've got a system and you've built the right incentives into it you've got something that's gonna work out and you can't really get fairness per se fairness is sort of out of reach the best you can do is incense people for the right kind of behavior that that lifts the average person so it feels like that's the main difference between the left and the right is that there's fairness is the

[46:36]

right is that there's fairness is the standard completely unworkable on the left even though we all recognize that it feels like a good thing to have as a stand as a system it completely fails because we all disagree about what it means but a good system works I would say the Constitution even if you don't like some parts of it you'd have to admit it's a good system it's lasted for hundreds of years and it's made the United States thieves strongest among other things the strongest nation in the world so that's a good system all right that's all I got to say for today and I am going to talk to you later