Episode 393 Scott Adams: Democrats Once Again Winning the Game No One Was Playing

Date: 2019-01-27 | Duration: 1:01:14

Topics

The only valid comparison to President Trump, is President Hillary Would her border solution have been as good or better? What would her solution have looked like? 80/20 Rule applies to our future border security solution Improve the worst 20% and get 80% improvement Dems are fighting the President, not a secure border Everybody wants better border security Lots of historical video shows Dems agree with the need Dems just don’t want the credit to go to the President President Trump’s border security strategy He’s put ALL his political capital on the line for this Result will be a substantial improvement Even critics will agree solution is even better than his promise Never underestimate Dems ability to shoot themselves in the foot How do we improve healthcare, without it costing everyone a fortune? Lowering healthcare cost is the key Diff Rules, regulations, startups potential can lower costs If Government makes a big push for better healthcare, lower costs Objective: Universal Healthcare for all…without increased cost If everybody’s healthcare was tracked, would help all Giving up your privacy, isn’t necessarily a bad thing Gays used to be in the closet, was that a good thing? NO Staying quiet and privacy was a problem for acceptance They “gave away” their privacy by coming out of the closet Coming out…benefitted their community immensely

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

[0:02]

Sunday version of coffee with Scott Adams I'm Scott Adams this is my coffee you probably have something like this too might be a different beverage but I'll bet you have it in a cup or a mug or a glass or a Stein probably a chalice maybe a thermos but it's time now to join me for the simultaneous it raise your mug your glass your thermos and join me good stuff so I keep hoping for different news you know a little bit of new news something something we haven't already talked about but it appears that that's not gonna happen so let's talk more about the government to reopening and border wall security now I heard Rick Santorum say something on CNN with

[1:02]

Rick Santorum say something on CNN with Anderson Cooper that was it's one of those things that makes you feel bad because you didn't already think of it so I tweeted it so some of you have already seen it but think of it of how mad you are that you didn't think of saying what Rick Santorum said and here's what he said he said that that if you're blaming Trump for keeping the government closed you can't also blame him and say he's doing the wrong thing by opening it or to put it in his words yes if not doing what Nancy Pelosi wanted was wrong and then he does the reverse it gives Nancy Pelosi of what she wants which is opening the government they can't both be wrong and I watched if you watch the clip that's great because Kirsten powers

[2:02]

clip that's great because Kirsten powers and Maggie Abram and who are you know big anti choppers they're sitting there listening to that to thinking yeah that's sort of a point I don't know how to argue against it can't be wrong if you're not doing a thing and then when you do the thing that you're still wrong both ways if it really exposes what's going on which is that there's some kind of horse race thing going on has nothing to do with the good of the country etc so I thought that was kind of brilliant here's the other thing I'm thinking about the what people are saying is caving the president is carrying he's caving he's caving in and I'm thinking if you were playing a chess game and you sacrificed a pawn would the people watching the chess game say he caved in

[3:03]

watching the chess game say he caved in he caved he caved in whoo we celebrate celebrate or with the people who know how to play chess and say you probably want to wait till the game is over because that chess will that porn was not very important so do you remember when the president was a candidate Trump was running for president and what he was running for president he said if you elect me I will close the government and not pay 800,000 people do you remember when the president promised us he would do that now he didn't nobody promised that nobody probably stood it at all so if he reopens the government that's not exactly a big thing because closing it was never a promise opening it was never a promise none of these things were terribly close to the thing that people

[4:05]

terribly close to the thing that people wanted when they elect them which was better border security now here's the other thing there's another cognitive blind spot here that in a way is hilarious and I think it's a blind spot but it could be just the other side trying to persuasive and acting like they can't see the obvious but here's the setup the Trump supporters say they want a wall and want a wall but it's also true correct me if this is you know if you disagree but hasn't President Trump that said from the beginning that it's not one long continued continuous wall but that there would be you know smart choices based on where you put large structures etc and then it would be a variety of solutions is it not true that President Trump has been saying that from the beginning now he has D emphasized that for persuasion purposes

[5:07]

emphasized that for persuasion purposes he'll just call it the wall but when he's pressed consistently and every time he'll say no no not a wall 100% of the way so that's always been true and I'm pretty sure that his base has at least you know in the past year or so has certainly heard it that way they've heard that was never meant to be a continuous solid concrete wall now if the president promised better border security in the form of a wall and he doesn't get that but what he gets is an expert panel who says for the amount of money that we can get whatever it is five billion or somewhere in that in that range whatever that turns out to be the best way to secure the border is to allocate this five billion dollars the following way some of it more skimming maybe you do something with having some judges you know because everybody agrees fewer kids in cages and in a better

[6:09]

fewer kids in cages and in a better system would be good for everybody and they might say and they might say that what the experts are going to deliver assuming that they're really experts is the most cost effective way to give voters what they wanted when they said we want a wall
so how hard is it for Trump to sell the following the following proposition to his base I promised you a wall we got a lot of money and the experts said we can give you something better than a wall for the same five billion we'll build something that's far more far more suited for the terrain far more focused far better use of the money because you don't want to be building a wall in places that no wall is needed how hard will it be for Trump to sell to his base

[7:10]

will it be for Trump to sell to his base a better solution a better solution unambiguously better solution than what he promised so the democrats have decided that they're in the the victorious lane now because they forced the president into accepting a better engineering solution for what he wanted that looks like where we're headed it looks like at the end of this there will be some money allocated there will probably be some other comprehensive you know elements of immigration that might be handled at the same time we'll see but nothing really cared about that much so it seems to be that the inevitable direction of this is that experts will say you wanted a wall here's something a little bit better and the Democrats are saying how are you how is he possibly going to explain to his base that he

[8:12]

going to explain to his base that he spent the money better than he promised and got a more effective solution because he listened to the experts is that really problem that's the problem is that's kind of the problem I want yeah I've heard the phrase somebody just said smart wall I as the president used the phrase smart wall that's something somebody else is saying because it kind of works it kind of works smart wall is sort of what we're gonna get and I don't think that's a terrible explanation of it now here's the next point that I need in the tweets and I made yesterday president Trump has never been competing against Nancy Pelosi that's not the that's not the comparison that makes sense he's trying to work with her and she's not she's not helping which is different from competing with her you know if I used this example

[9:13]

her you know if I used this example yesterday if I hire a plumber and the plumber doesn't fix my leak you would not say that the plumber competed with me and won you wouldn't say that you'd say I hired a guy who didn't do his job the president there's a higher rank than the Speaker of the House he's trying to get her to do her job in a way that he wants and she's not she's not coming through that's not winning that's not doing your job so and then I've said provocatively that the real the real comparison that you have to make here is when voters said we choose Trump over Clinton in the election a big reason they did that is that Trump's version of border security and immigration was the one they liked compared to the Hillary Clinton version does anybody believe that if Hillary Clinton was president we would get as much of whatever is going to come out of this as much immigration

[10:14]

to come out of this as much immigration spending and as much of an emphasis on it does anybody believe that because you would have to believe that Hillary Clinton would have done as well or better than president Trump getting border security of some form some kind of smart wall or any other kind of improvement somebody says wrong good argument wrong so a number of people came to me and said Scott how ridiculous you can't compare a plan like president Trump's plan to an imaginary president you can't compare him to an imaginary present no CEO somebody said on Twitter this morning no CEO is compared to an imaginary CEO who doesn't have the job to which I say yes they are every time every CEO is compared all the

[11:17]

every time every CEO is compared all the time to the CEO you have in your mind the one that the one that's the other one and the moment that CEO that you have is in your opinion less good than the CEO that could have had the job the imaginary one you fire the CEO every time that CEO is always competing against the imaginary CEO they're not competing against the CEO is not competing against the secretary not competing against the you know the people in Quality Assurance the CEO is only competing against your imagination of what another CEO would do in the same situation that's it if I give you a proposal for an investment and let's say I'm in a big company and I say one spend a million dollars and we want to do it this way the first thing your boss says if your boss is qualified is what's the

[12:17]

if your boss is qualified is what's the second best thing we could do for this let's say in the same domain to solve the problem and then you say the second best thing the second best thing is imaginary does this the one you're not going to do and the proposal that you you've made is also imaginary when you're when you're considering proposals you're always comparing two imaginary propositions that's the only way it's done people are telling me you can't compare imaginary things to which I say now that's the only thing you can do because we're talking about the future the future hasn't happened if you're comparing plans for the future they're always imaginary that's it there's no exception to that there's no such thing as a real plan that's happened in the future that's why it's the future so when people say to me no no you can't compare a President Trump to the imaginary situation where Hillary

[13:19]

imaginary situation where Hillary Clinton became president I say if you learn how to compare things let's say you took economics let's say you have an MBA a lot of people with engineering degrees will confirm that this is true it's the only comparison that makes sense President Trump now - what you would have gotten if you voted for the other candidate that's the only comparison that is smart relevant and coherent and said somebody says I'm moving the goalposts all right here's why that's dumb okay so so what somebody saying is oh oh you're moving the goalposts because now you're saying you're comparing him to an imaginary person I have always said this right so you can't compare what I'm saying to what people who were not me have said at different times who had different goal posts you can't compare

[14:20]

different goal posts you can't compare my consistent goalposts there from day one has always been comparing a president to the imaginary president is something I've said in public it is literally written in my book that I just handed in in the first draft it has always been my preferred way somebody says goalposts move yet again try to listen try to focus a little bit harder on my words my goalpost has never moved it has always been the only smart comparison just to the president you didn't get if this president gets more security than what you think you would have gotten from the other one that's the only goalposts I've ever had so if your complaint is that someone who is not me had a different opinion you're not really in the logical conversation here because I'm not really responsible

[15:20]

here because I'm not really responsible for the opinions of strangers I will acknowledge that strangers had different goal posts than mine which have always been the same okay we get rid of you so when you when you hear me say stuff like this you can see the critics coming in and they're just so mad but they don't have reasons do they if you're accusing me of moving the goal posts you're a very thin ice because what you're trying to do is compare my goal posts that have always been saying to some stranger I'm not responsible for somebody else's goal post why would I be now would it have been fun if President Trump had prevailed that Nancy Pelosi had said my god I can't keep this government closed one more day the pressure is too hard I give you your budget and here's your wall that would have been cool and

[16:22]

wall that would have been cool and unambiguously I would have sat under that into the situation hey I guess he did a good job of negotiating there but president Trump never promised us an open or closed government president Trump never said if you elect me I will defeat Nancy Pelosi in a immaterial contest it was never my goal post it was fun to watch and I would have enjoyed it if it'd go in a different way but the way it went gets us to this current situation here's the part that the pundits and the anti-trump is especially somebody's calling this BS suspend I'm so sorry I'm so sorry for the people who think this this is spin if if you think you'd spend you're gonna have to answer to why is it that all economists and MBAs would

[17:23]

that all economists and MBAs would compare things the same way I am why is it that my goal posts have never changed fact is you know it's written and I've talked about a long time and you would also have to explain why I've been saying since maybe some of you have a better idea how long I've been saying how long I've been saying that the only way this would end up is with the engineers you could say the experts but the experts the engineers are the same working group essentially how long have I been saying that this is where it would end up so because I'm the one who predicted it and as far as I know the first person in the world to say that this is definitely going to go to some expert group does it's the only way to get out of the political argument you have to move it over to the the technocrats engineers don't break budgets yes in all caps so somebody says Engineers don't make budgets and finally that's a

[18:26]

don't make budgets and finally that's a good question so finally I get a criticism that's a good criticism now here's my answer to this working group is going to be a combination of experts about border security engineers who know what things cost and what's the best way to do things and then political people who will be the primary ones who are negotiating the budget the experts will give them a range of a range of options if you spend this much this is what I'll get you if you can spend this much I'll get you this if you spend this much I'll get you this so whoever said Engineers don't come up with the budget you're absolutely right the engineers come up with with the cost and then the political people are going to have to decide how much of that cost they want to commit to if they commit to this much they're going to get this much wal if they commit to this much to get this much wall but in every case it's the engineers and the experts will tell

[19:26]

the engineers and the experts will tell you what's the reasonable way to spend that much money so yes you're right the the budget decisions political decision
all right yeah and people keep yelling at me but the engineers can't do it alone you have to have experienced Border Patrol people and of course that's true the correct people to have in the room are engineers border security experts that people actually do the job of border security and the politicians were going to make some budget decisions those are the ones who should have been in the room all along and it was obvious that we would eventually get here I'm the only person who told you this is where we would end up so if you telling me I'm moving the goalposts these that might goal posts all along I am NOT going to take responsibility for anybody else's bad guesses about what's going on wall is permanent so some

[20:34]

going on wall is permanent so some people are saying that the wall is better because the wall is permanent versus and the other thing you do that's not a wall would be not permanent have you heard of a gate there's no such thing as a permanent wall there's no such thing as a permanent wall if the next administration wants people to not be stopped by a wall do you think they're going to say to themselves my dad we built a wall but what we really want is people to get through it I can't imagine any way to fix this maybe open the door maybe stop trying to stop them when they climb over maybe let them leave in a ladder against both sides a wall doesn't stop anybody unless the human beings wanted to right it's not the physical wall that stops everybody it's the physical wall plus the humans who want the world to work if the human said yeah

[21:36]

the world to work if the human said yeah we built a wall but we don't really want it to work it wouldn't that's the same day that the government said we have a wall but we really don't care about it working the the immigrants would come up with ropes and ladders they were throw it over the wall and they would just leave those ropes and ladders there because the only thing that stops people from going over wall is you know rigging up some way to get over it that isn't immediately taken down by humans if the humans want people to get over a wall someday in the future they just won't take down the ladders they just won't remove the ropes they just won't lock the doors it's easy to let people through a wall so perhaps that somebody says walzwerk you're out you're such a different conversation yeah of course walls work in terms of creating friction of course they do but they only work if the people who built the wall are doing the human

[22:39]

who built the wall are doing the human part of making the wall work short of that the walls do not work and citizens can overcome the state and remove the ladders I suppose I suppose citizens could do that but inevitably if the government stops enforcing border security it's not going to help you that a wall is there it just won't people will just go somewhere there's no wall all right
border security is a dead issue and nothing's going to change well let me ask you this if we get maybe somebody can in fact check me on this the reason Trump is asking for 5.7 billion in the budget and the reason it's being resisted correct me if I'm wrong is that it is not the normal maintenance level of just the ordinary improvements to the wall am I wrong that

[23:41]

improvements to the wall am I wrong that the 5.7 billion is is by everybody's understanding more than would have happened if the baseline budget had just continued and they some you know ordinary maintenance in there that probably isn't the budget so what Hillary Clinton had said oh we need more than just baseline maintenance that's already in the budget let's add another 5.7 billion I don't think so probably not and when we're talking about the two hundred miles of new security how important is that on a 2,000 mile border it's only 200 miles well here's how I would look to the 8020 rule to answer this first of all half of the border probably you couldn't put a wall there anyway because there are mountains under there's there water hazards so you're really talking about a thousand miles so

[24:42]

really talking about a thousand miles so you're talking about 200 miles that you're improving and of a thousand miles of that thousand miles we should assume that much of it is already secure at least the parts that were the most important I would imagine that the 200 miles that need extra help are the most critical on the border because why else would they put it there unless those are the critical places so probably there's an 8020 rule going on that if they if they do a good job and they twenty percent of the border that's problem that's the biggest problem they'll get about 80 percent of the benefit so does it make sense to spend you know 20 percent to get an 80 percent benefit yeah of course of course it does talking about the Starbucks guy yeah so I forget his name the Schultz Howard Schultz CEO

[25:46]

his name the Schultz Howard Schultz CEO founder of Starbucks is reportedly considering a third party rotten and if he did people think it will suck off votes from the Democrats and cause them to lose again and I thought I don't see it happening it's Howard Schultz not Charles Schultz I don't see it happening because I I don't see a world in which Schultz can be so popular for creating Starbucks right it's a pretty popular thing to be the founder of Starbucks I don't see him going from the popular founder of Starbucks to the guy who got Trump re-elected do you think he wants to do that I just don't see it happening now I suppose it falls into the category of anything can happen now if I were him I would make the following calculation the calculation would go like this

[26:48]

the calculation would go like this Trump you can hold Trump to 30% of the vote you could hold maybe the Democrats to 30% of out and he could still win so I think the only way he would get in as a third party is if he thought he could he could split both parties so if he did some polling and he said oh I can take I can take enough of the Republicans that I can actually degrade both sides and have a plurality now if he thinks that that's that would be to me it seems highly unrealistic I will say it was an Andhra gang I don't know well did he phone is Andrew yang the founder of Yahoo oh is McAfee campaigning

[27:59]

yeah yeah a lot might depend on Ruth Gaynor bins from Ginsberg because if if she isn't healthy enough to go on that is going to definitely focus everybody's attention on the Supreme Court let me let me ask you this so at the end of this three weeks or in my opinion it will probably get extended again so I don't think the three weeks is going to hold I think it'll get extended at the end of it is there anybody who thinks we'll have worse border security than before we started here's what voters are going to look at when they look at Trump yeah tell me which part of this is unlikely okay which part of this is unlikely its 2020 where you're getting ready for the vote in the re-election and the president's

[29:03]

in the re-election and the president's president's supporters know the following things to be true number one thing that's true yes that this president promised them tight border security in the form of a wall that's true next thing is true is that he gambled all of his political capital to get it done let me say that again while we watched this president who other people say is obsessed with popularity you know just check that assumption right this president who is critics say is obsessed with being liked and being popular gambled his entire legacy and his reelection on this one promise true or false the president gambled to everything right in front of us and intentionally to deliver this one thing

[30:06]

intentionally to deliver this one thing now do you think that his do you think that his base hasn't noticed the risk that he took to deliver this succeed or fail it looks to me obvious that he gambled at all he didn't leave anything on the table he gambled it all now in terms of effort could he ask for more than that well of course you want him to succeed right you would like to him to get everything maybe he thought he should have done something a little bit differently but on this on one dimension of did he put his skin in the game did he gamble his entire legacy his personal fortune in a sense you know his reputation his brand did he gamble it all to give his base the thing he promised him the answer is yes he gambled it all because that's why the the Democrats are fighting us so so hard

[31:08]

the Democrats are fighting us so so hard they're not really fighting it because of the issue the Democrats as has been well reported Democrats like border security - you know maybe in a different way but they're not fundamentally philosophically opposed to border security they're very opposed to the personality of the president and his success so the president gambled it all right in front of you put it all on the line now no matter what you think about the wall of border security I just don't think you could argue that point he put it all on the line he gambled everything he had built his entire life to deliver this one promise nice that's the first thing I think I think he can sell that because it's just on the big your Sleater we gambled it all a gamble it's a gamble it might be the wrong word I would say he may be gambled but he he put his skin in

[32:13]

may be gambled but he he put his skin in the game and he put everything at risk yeah he risked it all right better better where his wrists he risked it all to deliver the promise how many politicians have done that when it was the last time you saw a politician who said maybe not explicitly but saying well I made this promise during during the campaign and I'm just gonna gamble it all on this yeah I think maybe you Obama and Obamacare possibly that's a good good analogy sorry I wouldn't I would not deny that Obama did the same thing with Obamacare but maybe not is not as dangerous and not as big a risk that's that's the first thing here's the second thing at the end of this process will people will reasonable people say even the critics will reasonable people say at whatever is the end of this problem this this process that the president improved border security in any cost-effective way

[33:16]

security in any cost-effective way probably yes I don't see any scenario where he doesn't get substantially more money something in the low billions and that they do something that the experts endorse that is actually more efficient and a better use of money than the wall so here are the three things people are going to know he risked at all for the voters they voted for me risked at all everything everything he cares about according to his critics he put it all on the line for this one promise it was that important to he will get more than Hillary Clinton would have gotten and three the specific form of what he gets will be by even his critics opinion a better solution a better use of the money than what he promised so he's going to put it all on the line he's going to have something that looks like substantial improvement border security

[34:18]

substantial improvement border security and he will be able to reasonably argue that even his critics agree he delivered a better solution than he promised
which of that is wrong which part of that isn't not true now of course the Assumption here is that they wouldn't have this working group unless they unless they plan to get something that wasn't going to happen anyway right it may not be 5.7 it may be more money for scanning than it is for walls but if the experts say that's how to spend the money is Trump going to go to his base and say well the experts said we should do it this way and that would give us the most bang for the buck reducing crime reducing immigration so I decided to agree with the experts is his base gonna say no I wanted a wall because I'm so dumb I cannot accept a

[35:19]

because I'm so dumb I cannot accept a superior solution when it's offered the the big assumption the big assumption that the critics are making is that Trump supporters are so dumb they will not accept a superior solution do you think that's true do you think that Trump's supporters are so dumb that when the experts say a wall will get you something but it's very expensive and these other solutions this bag of solutions including better scamming and some other things is actually a better use of the money this is basically say no we are experts at walls we we are so smart we're smarter than the experts on border security and we should we should build a wall instead will they if somebody says yes well the answer of

[36:20]

somebody says yes well the answer of course is in sub wealth so some percentage of his supporters will actually be that dumb but I'll think most of them I don't think most of them will be that done I said we'll find out now hood president Trump sell his base if he hasn't let's say a year to work on him before the next election if he has over a year to work on him can he convince them that a smart wall is better than a dumb wall and can he convince them that there's more border security than there would have been and can he convince them that listening to the experts and putting the money where it makes the most difference was smarter than just by building a big dumb wall I think that's the easiest sale anybody made ok it's the easiest sale anybody could ever make all right what about the State of the Union State of the Union I guess is

[37:23]

the Union State of the Union I guess is just a wait and see so Bernie Sanders is apparently good run for president he doesn't have a chance but you know the thing I tweeted I think yesterday is you can never underestimate the ability of the Democrats to shoot themselves in the foot so when we're trying to when we're trying to imagine what's it going to look like when it comes to the election day and it's Trump versus whoever the Democratic candidate is aren't you imagining that the Democrats just sort of don't make any big mistakes they just pick their best person you know that person doesn't make any guy Ganic mistakes and then they go into the election and then but your imagination of President Trump is that there will be all these you know weaknesses that they'll rub against what happened what

[38:24]

they'll rub against what happened what happened this week when president Raman showed respect for Pelosi respect for the house and actually agreed with them to open the government get back to negotiating and do what reasonable people wanted him to do he's working pretty hard it looks like it looks to me that the president has changed his approach for the election let me put it this way when he was running for election being outrageous was an advantage okay let me say that again when he was first running for election had never been president the more outrageous he was it was sort of an advantage because he got all the attention sucked all the attention away from competitors etc now he will have been the president for a full term by election day it's a different game and it's a different persuasion set of variables as president his best play is

[39:26]

variables as president his best play is to be less outrageous and to be more standard so with somebody say he caved you're coming in late so when somebody says our president negotiated with Pelosi and then decided that the humane thing to do would be to open the government do you say to yourself my god that wild band he agreed with the Speaker of the House and he opened the government because it's humane and most smart people thought it was about time to do it who is going to say that's a problem right the most dangerous thing that Trump could do between now and Election Day just act normal the most dangerous thing you do is just act normal do you know to to ratchet down here's you know DEFCON 10 level of flight-or-fight instinctive that people have been in for the last several years

[40:27]

have been in for the last several years just dial it down it's the strongest play because the biggest complaint about Trump is he's a big ol crazy unpredictable impulsive you know madness if he gives us if he gives us 18 months of not being crazy impulsive madman who looks to be a dictator if he just doesn't be that person for 18 months it's good to be tough for Democrats to have something to run on because what did they get a run on kinda just health care and the health care problem is that nobody knows how to do it all right there's no there's no there's no way to make the you know the money worked now if I were running for president and especially if I were running as a Republican but I think I would do the same if I ran this independent to where I ran as a Democrat if I ran for president I would probably run as a Democrat which you're gonna hate but I probably would and only

[41:28]

hate but I probably would and only because it easier to win and I would say the following about health care I think that in our modern world we should make it a goal that we don't know how to achieve that's the important part we don't know how to achieve it and we can't get there just by raising taxes but we should make it a goal to get as close as we can to 100% health care coverage for all citizens now I think that the way to get there is through you know regulation changes more competition startups who are lowering the cost of things etc there are a whole bunch of devices now you can connect your smartphone to do everything from EKGs to blood tests to you can do you can test your oxygen your blood your EKG a whole bunch of stuff so the cost of doctoring

[42:30]

bunch of stuff so the cost of doctoring is going to be potentially dropping fast and the government could be part of encouraging that without actually creating a department or anything but just putting attention attention to where attention helps in the capitalist system the capitalist system so in my view the the most forward-looking thing to do is to say that sort of a moving shot we don't know how to get there but it should be our goal as a just humane society to take care of each other at least where it comes to health care now you don't want to go socialists because we know that does work and it turns you into that as well right so there's nobody here who says it's probably nobody on this periscope we're saying yeah you full socialism nothing like that if the only way you could get to universal health care is just by raising taxes to you know thirty two trillion dollars more or whatever it is

[43:31]

trillion dollars more or whatever it is then I would say it doesn't work so it's not my suggestion that we do it a way that doesn't work the suggestion is we figured out a way to make it work and nobody's figured that out yet but I don't believe that is undoable let me just say I think it's doable I think we could get there by being smart and it might take a while but it should be it should be a crystal clear goal whether you're Republican independent or anybody else that you would like without paying for it without without it coming into your pocket you should want your fellow citizens to have good health care and I think you do right you just don't want to pay for it so how can we get there without you paying for it and maybe even here's the good part maybe even your costs would go down too because if you can figure it out if the government can figure out how to get low-cost health

[44:33]

figure out how to get low-cost health care to people who can't afford it that almost certainly is going to lower your costs as well because you know whatever it does the lower costs for poor people will probably lower costs for rich people as well for example if somebody invents a gazillion dollars and if somebody figures out how to make one for a fraction of that that helps poor people but it also helps people who were paying for health health insurance so the the best way to help the poor or the low-income get health care is to make it cheaper for everybody know you want that you should want that right it could be that capitalism will get us there but I think the government needs the far more far more part of the process without creating a new bureaucracy part of the process by putting a light on it it doesn't cost the government much to focus on things in focus because

[45:35]

focus on things in focus because probably what would get you there the insurance companies yeah there's there's probably a lot one can do by changing regulations and rules and getting rid of artificial constraints and that sort of thing now I think I told you that I was in favor of New York City apparently New York City who's the mayor bilasa de Blasio is wants to have universal health care within this city and you know that Gavin Newsom wants to have universal health care in California that's probably a much bigger task but I'm totally in favor of somebody trying it whether it's New York City that's probably a good choice actually whether it's New York City or some other smaller city I'd like to see somebody try it let

[46:36]

city I'd like to see somebody try it let me give you some anecdotes to tell you what what it looks like to drive down health care costs I've been involved and I'll give you details but I've been involved lately with situations in which the biggest part of the healthcare problem for a person was to figure out what the heck is going wrong right so the biggest problem that might take years in both of these cases it took years for somebody to find out what their real problem is what is the real thing that's causing the problem I've been having for years and this seems to me that if we got enough people tracking their health care data as well as their their lifestyle choices that you would be able to spot oh I have this problem and all the people who drink grapefruit juice while jogging 10-mile today have the same stomach problem so

[47:37]

today have the same stomach problem so you can find out I mean that's a ridiculous example but if you have enough data about people with just their lifestyle choices and their outcomes your you'll be able to eventually mine that data and find out wait a minute there are all these people have exactly the same problem I do and when you look for what we have in common we just found it we also have let's say this you know this blood blood test comes out a certain way you plus we're you know + or certain age you know there would be a certain number of maybe genes right so we're approaching the point where information should lower our health care costs substantially I mean maybe if I had to put a number of it better information would probably lower our health poor choice health care choices by 40% is that does that seem like too

[48:37]

by 40% is that does that seem like too much think think how often you take meds that turned out not to be the right ones and you just get rid of that because you have a better idea what are the right ones suppose you know you go to the doctor ten times to figure out what you could have gotten on one try if you had better data so probably something like forty percent of all our healthcare costs are involved in information and that information is definitely going to improve so I do think ok let me let me give you let me give you an example of a government effort that could lower health care costs potentially suppose the government made a big push on the information side and it might be working with you know Amazon and and Berkshire Hathaway and and chase

[49:43]

and Berkshire Hathaway and and chase whatever they call it now so I might be working with one of these big companies that is good with data and in figure you know having get enough people tracking their data suppose the government sent this all right let's put it this way suppose the government said it is going to be a government planned to get the universal health care but without raising anybody's taxes but we're gonna we're going to do everything clever and weekend to get there we just don't know how but it but it's like a moonshot we're gonna figure it out we're just not going to raise your taxes I suppose the government said all right we could probably lower everybody's healthcare costs if more of you were tracking your lifestyle and health outcomes if you get enough people voluntarily doing it you will all have better outcomes if the government said that that said look here are the ways you can track it you know it's not us it's not a government tracking and the government actually might not even have anything to do with it but suppose the government said we all want to get here

[50:45]

government said we all want to get here here's one way you can really help how many Americans would immediately go out and get a Fitbit and get some kind of a diary get an app and start tracking their health care outcomes if the government that said it's an important like it's a patriotic thing to do and we should all be working in this direction and this is something that you can do right away just track all your outcomes a lot of people are doing you don't need everybody to do it somebody says Big Brother no big brother would be mandatory what I'm suggesting is that the government says we'd love it if more of you would volunteer but it's not mandatory if you do volunteer we'll get enough data that we can have better better health outcomes at a low cost
all right only health-conscious people would do it I think you could get enough of everybody why can't poor people have

[51:52]

of everybody why can't poor people have yeah and if it's if it's optional poor people don't have to have fitbit's and poor people don't have to be monitoring anything somebody says it's not mandatory until it becomes mandatory would that be true for everything are you afraid of everything that's optional because it might become mandatory and if it did become mandatory would you really hate it I don't know about the tracking apps offering the option to share it with the government I don't even know if it's the government you want to share it with you know I suppose no matter who has it the government can get to it so the carrot the government can get to anybody's database so it doesn't matter if the government has it I guess they

[52:53]

if the government has it I guess they can get to it
23 and be tried and the government stop them you know I I did the 23andme if you haven't done this is really fascinating I did the 23andme test and they continued to send me updates because they're learning more about what it means to have my set of genes so everyone someone will send an update and said oh we also found that you do or do not have a propensity for this is that a health problem and they're actually updating as we go even though I only did one test so to me it seems the 23 me is already helping my outcomes through information because it's telling me what I do have to worry about and what I don't based on my genetic propensities and so the good news for example is I do not have a propensity for Alzheimer's that's good to know keep my DNA private

[54:04]

that's good to know keep my DNA private I don't know that I need to do that
I I'll just tease you that there's a chapter in my upcoming book about privacy and I think we may get it wrong on privacy quite often let me give you a quick argument years ago before gay rights gay people were in the closet so to speak so if you were gay you had to keep it to yourself because it'd be too dangerous was that a good environment for being gay the answer is no it was the worst because you had to you know your true identity hidden and if it came out you know you could lose your job people who discriminate there's the worst thing the world so if you look at the experience of gay rights privacy was their problem

[55:12]

right privacy cause all of their problems how did they solve for the most part how did it how did gay activists solve their biggest problem of getting equal rights they gave away their privacy voluntarily so the first brave activists who came out and said I don't care what you say I'm gay I'm out you know I'm queer I'm proud whatever they said coming out of the closet and giving up their privacy solved their biggest problems right now you're watching the same thing happen with the the transgender community it's happening right in front of you and you're seeing a repeat of this transgenders who probably used to you know maybe try to I don't know what the right word is but maybe not make a big deal of the fact that they change from one thing to another thing and and I

[56:14]

one thing to another thing and and I want to I don't want to accidentally use the wrong language because I know there's there are a million you know minefields here about saying it in an insulting way so I want to avoid being insulting but it seems to me that the transgender community is is following the the gay rights path yeah I saw the the other day a transgender person who was on the news and was essentially a head at the closet it was somebody who look like my guess is born as a man and had was in some part of that some part of the becoming a woman officially I guess and again I apologize if I use any of the Rome language here I'm genuinely empathetic to anybody who's you know outside the you know the dead average of society whatever that is you know anybody who's off the average for any reason whether it's trans and gender

[57:15]

reason whether it's trans and gender again any other reason you know differently abled anyway I have empathy for all that right it's no fun to be off the dead average you have the boring average it's just no fun that can you can cause you trouble so I have empathy for that but I would say the transgender are giving up their privacy as well and it will have a good outcome there are probably as many situations in which giving up your privacy helps you as there are giving up your privacy hurts you the worst situation is when some people have privacy and others don't alright so that's your dangerous situation and that's why it's misleading if only a few people have privacy and other people don't that's a real problem because the people don't have privacy you're gonna be disadvantaged but if if everybody in the group say gay people just to use a same example if they all or or most it

[58:19]

example if they all or or most it doesn't have to be everyone but if most of them give up their privacy it's like hey I'm gay I'm gay that's a good situation all right I personally give out all my passwords to strangers yeah I don't think you can compare giving out your passwords too well you know what actually I'm going to argue with you somebody said you don't want to give out your passwords but you know why giving out your passwords is a problem giving out your passwords is a problem because other people don't if everybody gave up all their passwords you wouldn't need passwords now your first reaction to that is what that's crazy if I gave out my password somebody would go get go get my money but if you gave up all your privacy you would know who got your money everybody would know so they couldn't do it because you go

[59:21]

so they couldn't do it because you go over to their house and say oh you took my money give it back or I'll kill you or the law will come and get you so I'm not suggesting this but let me just challenge your assumption your assumption is it would be a mistake to give up your password I would say I agree as long as we live in the world where everybody else is not giving up their password hypothetically and we would never get to this world but it's just so it's just a mental experiment if everyone gave up all their passwords and anybody could check anybody's bank account anybody can see you who took what and put it where nobody could steal from you because you would know they stole from you right the reason that people don't commit crimes in a crowd you know unless are crazy or mad or something but nobody commits a crime in front of lots of witnesses independent of whether the law is there because the

[1:00:23]

of whether the law is there because the citizens would take care of it you know let's say you go into a crowd of people and you start beating somebody up for no reason it's not going to work the crowd will pull your work so a complete giving up of privacy would make all of your passwords unnecessary anybody who tried to troll you anybody you're trying to pretend to be you you'd know because they would give up their privacy too so it's sort of an interesting test of your assumption about privacy and and always go back to this test if you're the only one who gives up your privacy that's probably terrible but if everybody gave up their privacy you might not have a problem all right that's all for today and I'll talk to you tomorrow