 Thank you for inviting me here. This is quite a unique venue. I've never spoken in a gallery of sculpture before, and many of the sculptures here I know and love, so this is quite a unique experience for me. So thank you again to the organizers and to everybody who helped put this together. The last 250 years or so, the human race has been running an experiment. Really an experiment on what social, economic ideas work, and what social, political, economic ideas. And by look I mean what ideas lead to human success, to longer life, to more wealth, to the poor doing better, and what ideas lead to death and destruction. And the experiment is clearly, I think, obvious to anybody who really, honestly, is willing to study history and to look at the facts as they are. 250 years ago, pretty much everybody on the planet was poor. There was a small group of aristocrats who were doing pretty well, and everybody else was poor. Most of us were subsistence damage, which means we farm and eat what we produced, and that was about it. No surplus, no saving, no vacation, no holiday, no restaurants. All by the way, modern concepts. And something happened about 250 years ago. This new experiment in a new political social system was tried for the first time. You know, if you do a graph of wealth per capita or income per capita, it doesn't really matter. This is much simpler than any right, so don't worry. If you do a graph, I'm going to do it in the air here, right? And he started, let's say, 10,000 years ago, and you look at income per capita or wealth per capita, hopefully you can see me in the back, I'll do it up here, as you can see me, right? Wealth and income per capita are basically flat and flat. They are flat so it's a little bit like, warm is a little bit of an uptake, and then the dark ages are down taken, and then it's up again during the late ages, and they start going up a little bit, but it's tiny, tiny variations. And then suddenly it goes like that, exponentially up in the west. And what is the date in which it starts going up like that? Like sometime in the late 18th century, I like 1776. For two reasons, established in the United States of America, that the first real political body that represents this new experiment of freedom, and a book is published in 1776, anybody know what book? Welcome Nations by Adam Schmidt. The first, if you will, real book of economics articulating the case for capitalism, and whether you think it's flawed or not, is irrelevant to the historical fact that it was an incredibly important book at the time. That's the beginning of capitalism. And through the 19th century, we came in many parts of the world close to capitalism, close to what I would consider pure capitalism, separation of state from economics, the protection of private property, the protection of individual rights, and we came in some parts of the world close to it. And what was the result? Incredible earthquake. The poor rising up, so that by the end of the 19th century, nobody is poor in England and in America as compared to the poor hundred years earlier. Life expectancy almost doubles. Quality of life across the entire income spectrum improves dramatically wherever capitalism is trying. And that is true in the 19th century, but it's also true in the 20th century, because an interesting phenomenon in Asia, this graph of the world of the capital, the economic capital, stays flat. And then somebody goes like that about 30, 40 years ago. When they adopt elements of capitalism, in contrast to that, we have regimes, we have governments that have adopted anti-capitalism, communism, fascism, and the story there is always the same. Death and suffering by tens of millions of people, economic stagnation and collapse, poverty, no progress, no innovation, no success. And then we have lots of countries in the middle, most of the West, Turkey, the police post-Soviet era. Some capitalism, some statism, we mix them up, right? Mixed economies, most of the world today, almost all of the world today, is some form of mixed economy. And even when you see these mixed economies, what you can do is you can graph them and you can say, how much economic freedom do they have? How much wealth per capita? How much income per capita? How successful are the people in those countries? And what you find is a pretty direct correlation. The more economic freedom to allow people, the greater the income. In other words, the more capitalism you allow, the more private property you allow, the better our economies do. The more successful people are. The wealthier people are. But this leads to a real mystery. If capitalism is this successful, if capitalism has been successful in the past and is so successful today, then why is it that so much of Europe and America are moving away from Canada? And it's not just Europe and America, it's just South America. And in South America you have two experiments going on. You have Chile, which during the 1980s and 90s became very pro-markets, relatively economically free. And its economy is fantastically well, the richest country in South America, even though it's a relatively small country in terms of population. Then you've got Venezuela, who is very rich in resources, but has adopted a populist socialist governance, and where the population is becoming poorer and poorer and poorer almost every day. And yet right now as we speak, more countries in South America are trying to be like Venezuela than are trying to be like Chile. And indeed Chile just recently voted for socialist president, who promised to undo all the free market reforms that have worked so well like Chile. That's a real mystery, it's very strange. If we care about wealth, if we care about quality of life, if we care about standard of living, if we care about how the poor are doing, we should all be capitalists. And yet very few people are capitalists. I'm a capitalist in a sense of advocating for a free market, consistent free market. Almost nobody is a capitalist. We have tiny minorities in almost every country around the world. And as I said, America and Europe are moving away from capitalism. More and more states, more and more regulations, more and more redistrictional wealth. Latin America is moving away from capitalism in spite of the fact that they can see Venezuela. They can see people starving. They can see people leaving Venezuela and coming back with suitcases full of toilet paper and soap, because there's no toilet paper and soap in Venezuela because of the socialist policies. It doesn't change anybody's mind. It doesn't matter. One I own it. We hate capitalism. That's a culture we hate. Now Poland might, you might feel, this isn't quite true of Poland. Yeah, because you've experienced communism recently now that you're still moving in the right direction. Wait 10, 20 years. You'll get a little comfortable. You'll have a good life. And you'll vote for the socialists very quickly, because that's the pattern of everywhere in the world. And I suspect you're not that different than the rest of the world. It's already happening. We don't have to wait 10, 20 years. So we have to ask the question why. We have to ask the question why, because our future depends on it. Because if I'm right, and I'm open to challenges during the Q&A about whether I'm right. But if I'm right, and capitalism is such a good system for wealth creation, for income, for standard living, for the poor, and so on, then why are we turning our backs on it? Why do we even sense it and hate it so much? What do we do hate it? When the financial crisis happened in the United States, before anybody had an opportunity to investigate, before anybody had an opportunity to check the economics of what happened. So look at the data. Everybody knew who was at fault. The headlines was what? Who caused the crisis? Capitalism. And who, like the capitalists, caused the crisis? Of all the capitalists out there? Who do we hate the most? Well, not so much the rich. The particular kind of rich people. Who do we hate the most? Always. In the West, we always blame these guys for every economic crisis ever. The bankers, of course, bankers. We used to be Jewish bankers, but now that's politically incorrect. It's just bankers, right? We hate bankers, and we hate capitalism. Even though there is no capitalism without banking, banks allocate us a capital of more responsibility for the success of the modern world as any other single group. And yet we hate them. So what is it about capitalism we hate so much? What is it about free markets that we resent so much, that we always turn our backs against inequality? I don't think so, because if you look at the United States, nobody cares about inequality in the United States. Poll after poll shows that Americans don't care. They admire the rich. They want to be rich. They want to be like them. NP is not what's right here. Something else, more fundamental, actually, I think, is the cause of NP is right here. So let me ask you. What's capitalism about? It's about hard work. But why do we work hard? I mean, it's not a cap. The NP can't be the hard work. What are we working hard to achieve? NP is a really nice thing to say. What do people go to work for? Money to make money. I know it's a little embarrassing to say. And I can see it's embarrassing for you. It's embarrassing for everybody else. It's so obvious. Why does Apple make this? To make a profit. The profit margin of this thing is 60%. If they cared about me, they could sell us a lot cheaper. They don't care about me. They care about profits. That's not just profit. You guys don't all go to work just for the profit, just for the money. What else is it about? It's about fun. It's about satisfaction. It's about passion. It's about doing something that you value, that you enjoy. And to have fun doing it. Steve Jobs had a lot of fun with this. But what is this eye from? Who was it made for? Who did Steve Jobs build this for? It was Steve Jobs to make money and to have fun. And it's a reflection of his passion. So, producers and capitalism. Produce. Because it's good for them. It's because it's in their self-interest. They're being selfish. We all know it's like this. It's not a selfish. It's about to make money. Now, we as consumers are mad at each other. Maybe not. But I guess when I went and bought my first iPhone in 2008, the US economy is probably out of control. And I wanted to stimulate the US economy. Because that's why you go shopping. You go shopping to help your fellow man. You go shopping to make sure people have jobs. Why do you go shopping? To make your life better. You're being self-interested. Markets. Markets for your unfree. Markets are places in which we go to pursue our own interests. Our own self-interest. Markets are all about the pursuit of self-interest. Markets are all about people who are self-interested, meeting together to exchange. And when I buy the iPhone, I'm better off. Why am I better off? Discuss with $300. How much is it worth to me? More than $300. Very good. Usually I get $300. No, if it was only $300, I wouldn't go farther, right? It's more than $300. So my life is better because I got something worth more than $300. And Apple, are they more soft? Because they lost the iPhone. They're worth more than $300. For them, the money is more important than the iPhone. So they made a profit, and I'm better off. By the way, that's all you have to know about inequality. Because by the way, when I bought an iPhone, inequality got worse. I got poorer by $300, and Apple got richer by $300. So inequality based on how competitive and all its followers measure it just got worse. But that's stupid. I mean nice. It's worse than stupid. It's dishonest. Because I didn't get poorer. I got richer. Because I got an iPhone over $300 to me. So I'm richer, and Apple's richer. But you can't measure that with data. Because you can't measure how much this is worth to me with data. There's no more in which it's measurable. So the entire inequality debate is a silly debate. And the entire way in which they measure inequality is a silly way of measuring it because of things like that. Alright. So capitalism is about the pursuit of self-interest. Why do we hit bankers? Because they pursue self-interest in a more obvious way than anybody else. When you go to work for a bank, when does a bank exist to make money? I can't even hide behind a pretty product like this. I can't say, oh, but look what I produced. I produced a pretty iPhone. Bankers make the iPhone possible, but that's an abstraction that's many levels removed. So they can't defend themselves by hiding behind a product. Markets about self-interest. What do we know about self-interest? Morally, ethically. What do we need taught since we were this big? And I know this is true because we're in Poland, which is Catholic. What were you taught about self-interest from this age? Is self-interest good, noble, virtuous? Did your mother tell you, always think about yourself first? Now, my mother never told me I was in the first place. Not morally. But when she taught me morality, she taught me, I'm driving my mother's Jewish. But I think there's similarities between Jewish mothers and Catholic mothers. They both figured out how to use guilt effectively. We'll get to guilt in a minute. Now, I was taught, and I'm sure you were taught whether it's explicitly or subliminally. If you want to be a good person, if you want to be moral, if you want to be a saint, you have to think of other people first. You have to think of yourself last. What is the essence of virtue in a cultural reliving? It's selflessness. It's sacrifice. Sacrifice is noble. Sacrifice is good. We don't have any happy saints. To be a saint, you have to have suffered. You have to have arrows sticking out of you, right? We'll be on a cross. The essence of our moral code is selflessness. So, sacrifice. Thinking of others, giving, sharing, contributing. That's good. Making money. Yuck. You're being selfish. Now that it tells us, I don't know any statues or any roads named after successful capitalists. Lots of roads named after sacrifices. People who did it for the common good, for the public interest, for other people. That's what we name roads on. That's what we build sculptures for. Those of you who can't hear me, Moses on my left and the Piazza on my right. So, let's take an example. Take Bill Gates. Everybody know Bill Gates is Microsoft, right? Bill Gates built Microsoft. And in the process of building Microsoft, he made for himself $70 billion. That's $70 billion worth of e-dollars. Richest man in the world. How much moral credit does he get for building Microsoft? I mean, morality. Not business. Everybody wants to be like him. You know, great businessman, everything. But moral, right? Ethical credit for building Microsoft. How much moral credit does he get? None. Or some negatives. Because how dare he make 70 billion dollars? How many people did Bill Gates help when he made Microsoft? How many lives did he change? Probably billions of lives. Bill Gates changed the world in profound, deep, meaningful ways he changed the world. He made the world a better place for most of us to live. Most of humanity, not just most of us in this room. There's almost nobody on that planet that is not better off, marginally, because of Bill Gates. Let me ask you again, how much moral credit does he get for that? None. Zero. Negative. Lightness. Right? We liked it when the Justice Department in the United States went after him, knocked him down a little bit. The greedy bastard who made $70 billion of himself. When does Bill Gates become a good guy? Because now he's like, how we like him? From a moral perspective. When he leaves Microsoft, starts a foundation and gives his money away. And he's giving his money away. Why do we like that? Because he's not making any money for himself. How many people is he going to affect by giving his money away? Maybe tens of thousands, maybe hundreds, maybe even millions. But less than a Microsoft. A lot less than a Microsoft. But here he gets moral credit. Why does he get moral credit for this? Because he's not being self-interested. Because it looks like he's just giving it away. And we don't give him a lot of moral credit for this. That's not exaggerate, right? He's still not a cynic. We're not going to name loads after him. We're not going to create any sculptures for Bill Gates anytime soon. Why not? He's giving his money away. He's helping people. He's not benefiting himself. So why won't we consider him a moral child? Two reasons. He's still got a lot of money. He's still rich. And the second reason is he's having fun giving it away. It looks like he's actually enjoying himself. So it's suspicious that maybe he's being self-interested. Even when he gives his money away. Now notice that Bill Gates knows this. So when he gives his money away, he's chosen as his causes. Those causes that are most removed from his life is possible. So he lives in Seattle, but his philanthropy is not in Seattle. That would be selfish. His philanthropy is in Africa, as far away from Seattle as he could get. There are lots of people in need in Seattle that he could help in Seattle, but they need the excuse of being selfish. So he has to go somewhere where he has no interest. Because our moral code says that to be virtuous, to be good, to be moral, you have to be self-less. You have to show sacrifice. You have to do stuff that you're not going to benefit from. If you benefit from it, it doesn't count moral. Now, so what would Bill Gates have to do to be commemorating the sculpture? He'd have to give all his money away. He'd have to move into a tent. And if he'd bleed a little bit, show a little bit of suffering, then we would make boulevards after him. So this is the moral code we live in today. It's a moral code that dominates the West. It's a moral code that says building, creating, making stuff at selfish occasion. Giving it away, that's good. Sharing, that's good. We teach our kids. You know, your kid, I don't know if you have kids, but your kid is playing in the sandbox, right? And some strange kid comes up and says, I want to share with your trucks. I want to play with your trucks. And what do we as parents say? You got to share. Johnny, you got to share. Don't trade. God forbid you should actually get something in return. No, you just got to give. You just got to share. That socialism, we're training our little kids to be little socialists and they were surprised that when they grow up, they grow up socialists. Next time, if you have kids, ask them to trade. Johnny wants to play with your truck. What does he have that you can play with? Right? We win. Just like Apple doesn't give these away and you don't give your money away. We trade as adults. So in my view, as long as this moral code exists, as long as we believe that the essence of morality, that the essence of goodness is sacrifice, selflessness, the essence of nobility is giving and sharing. Capitalism is dead. Capitalism doesn't ever change. And anytime we try it a little bit and we get a little rich and then we start thinking not just about money, not just about our quality of life, but we start looking about what's good. We reject it. We turn our backs to it. Rich societies can afford to be moral societies. And when you can afford to be moral, you turn your back to capitalism. You turn your back on the system of self-interest. Because that's what it is. We're talking self-interest is bad. Our philosophers teach us. Since Immanuel Kant, every philosopher said self-interest is evil. Our preachers teach that. All of the religions teach. That self-interest is bad. And our mothers teach it. And our teachers teach it. Now, no mother needs it, right? She doesn't actually need to think of yourself last. She wants you to be successful. And that was the point you were making, right? She wants you to be successful. But morality demands that you tell you that you think of yourself last but the mother supposed to be self-less. This is a moral code consistent with the left. It's not consistent with the right. It's not consistent with capitalism. And it cannot survive. Capitalism cannot survive. People do not vote their pocketbook. They don't vote what will make them money. People vote what will make them feel good. People vote justice. This is why Piketty and all inequality debate is framed in terms of justice. Not in terms of economics, but in terms of morality. People want to believe that they are good people, that they are just people, that they are virtuous people. So, for example, in the United States, right? In California, where I live, there was a ballot initiative that everybody voted on. And the ballot initiative said we're going to raise taxes on rich Californians by 30%, so from 10% to 13.3%. Right? This is on top of the federal taxes. This is just state taxes. So a big increase in taxes for the rich. How do you think rich people voted? They voted for it. They voted for it. Why? Because they want to be good. They felt that it was necessary to penalize themselves in the name of morality. And they were told, oh, if you don't give us the extra tax money, we're going to have to shut down some schools when I'm there. People welfare, right? So, rich people voted for their own taxes to go up because they feel guilty for making the money. Because what happens when you live your life being self-interested, but you're taught that morality is really being, I don't know, monetarized. But you don't want to be monetarized. Nobody wants to be monetarized. So we want to live our lives, but we know that morality demands don't be anything else. What is the emotion that that conflict creates? Guilt. Guilt is an incredible, powerful tool to control. This is what Jewish and Catholic mothers discovered a long, long time ago. And what statuses, what rulers, what authoritarians have discovered a long, long time ago, you control people by using guilt against them. So rich people in the United States voted against their interests all the time because they feel guilty, they're told, you see over there they're poor people and they need stuff. You have money, it's your mother's responsibility to give it to them. But you're too greedy, you're too selfish, you're not doing it voluntarily. So we are here from the government and we're here to help you be a better person. You're not giving them money voluntarily, so we're going to raise your taxes. Do you agree with that? Yes, yes, please. Let me feel good about myself by raising my taxes. Any words? Obama, who ran for president last election, on the promise to raise taxes on the rich, how did the rich vote? Eight out of ten of the richest parties in the United States voted for Obama. They voted to raise their own taxes, but that's okay, made them feel good. Now they're taking care of those people, they're supposed to take care of them and they'd be neglected. So that's one way in which the welfare state, the redistribution state is established because of morality, not because of politics, not because of economics. What about all the regulations, right? A big part of the state is regulation. Why do we regulate business? Why do we regulate business? But what do we need taught about self-interested people? What are we told that self-interested people will do? Steal, lie and cheat. Anything, they will do anything. They'll exploit you, they'll take advantage of you. They are bad, bad people. Again, we've been taught this from one word of this faith. Don't be selfish, but selfishness means lying, stealing, cheating and exploiting. That's what the alternative we've got in morality, we've got to be selfless or you could be a bastard. Those are the only two alternatives we have. None of us want to be selfless, so we're a little bit bastards and we feel guilty about it. But if selfish people are lying, stealing and cheating and we know that CEOs and bankers and business people are selfish they must be, just logically. They must all be potential lies, stealing and cheaters. So we need to control them. We regulate them. We need to make sure that they be in themselves. Preemptive. So in the United States, we're walking to an elevator and there's a little diploma on the wall that says this elevator is being inspected by a government bureaucrat and it won't fall into a queue. It doesn't literally say that, but that's the implication. Because we know that if we left it up to greedy businessmen we left it up to greedy companies that make elevators they would make elevators that kill you. Because the best way to make money at the capitalism is to kill your customer. You laugh at the assumption, why do we have food inspectors? Because if not food inspectors who are doing it by the way for the public interest, they're not selfish. They're doing it for the government employees and they're doing it for the public good and they have no interest here. If not for these food inspectors of the government McDonald's would poison us. Those Polish sausages would be left rotten. That's the assumption whether we think it's funny or not it's the reality. We are born into it as a culture. Businessmen inherently corrupt and we need to preempt them. We need to establish this whole regulatory structure and it's massive today on the West to protect us from these greedy bastards. And now there's a tension. We want these greedy bastards to make money because we realize that's how economy grows but we need to control them so we need to increase regulations to make sure that they don't like stealing cheese from us. So we get the regulatory state because of morality and we get the redistribution state because of morality. Morality is the driving force towards statism. Morality is the driving force against capitalism. It's not economics. It's not history. It's not the reality. It's our moral beliefs. And you have to ask about our moral beliefs. Why? Why is being selfless good? Why is self sacrifice good? Now nobody has an answer to that because there is no reason. Why is the life of somebody else more important than my life? I've once shot at this life. Why should I place the interest of other people ahead of mine? There is no reason. There is no reason to sacrifice. There is no reason to be selfless. We'll hear once on this planet. We have once shot at this. Why not try to make our lives the best life that it can be? Why not try to live, live, fully and completely? Why not be self-interested? Why isn't that not what morality is about? After all, Aristotle, the great Greek philosopher, he thought that's what morality was about. According to Aristotle, the purpose of morality is to teach us how to achieve eudaumonia. Eudaumonia means flow of single happiness. It wasn't about sacrifice. It wasn't about being selfless. It was about being self-interested in a way. One of the virtues and values that allow you to be self-interested in a way that achieves happiness, that achieves success, that achieves happiness. That's what I-Gran's message really is. It's we need to scrap the open value. We need to get rid of the old monocoque. And we need to establish a new monocoque, a new monocoque based on the idea that your life, your life is the most valuable thing to you. And then you have to figure out how to live that life. It's not easy. It's not easy to figure out what will lead to happiness and what won't. We need principles of morality to do it. And by the way, it turns out that lying, stealing and cheating are not good for you. They're not good for you. Why not? All they land you in jail often. That's pretty bad for you. They go into your business. You try lying in business. Lying in business. People won't do business with you anymore. You try cheating in business. And the same in life. Try lying to your spouse in a regular basis. See what happens to your wife or husband. It doesn't work. It's a crummy, stupid strategy for succeeding in political politics. Except in politics. But that's because politics is force and it's the one realm in which we expect lying, stealing and cheating and we don't mind it. Something's corrupt. Something's bad. In business, we wouldn't tolerate it. In our personal life, we wouldn't tolerate it. Politics, we just go at it. That's the way it works. It tells you that politicians are way too much power. Way too much power if we allow them to buy skewers. So what we need is a new moral code. A moral code that helps guide individuals in pursuit of their own happiness. In pursuit of their own fulfillment. A moral code that recognizes that there are certain principles that require an entity's success as a human being. But it's also true that each one of us is going to compromise and reveal those principles in different ways based on our own personal values. They're going to be different. And that difference to express itself requires what? Freedom. It requires us to be free from somebody else telling us but what is the most important value for a human being to be successful in life? What is the value that makes this is a pretty good building to be in? It makes all this stuff around as possible. It makes our clothes possible. The chairs you sit on. The building, the sculptures, the iPhones that you have or the Samsung's, whatever it is. What makes all of that possible? Yeah, there's only one thing that makes us uniquely human. That makes it possible for us to be successful as human beings. Because if you look around the room you can look at each other around the room. We're pretty pathetic out. We're weak. We're slow. We have no claws. We have no fangs. You and the Sabre II Tiger. You would lose every time. And you had the Sabre II Tigers in the museum that we win by using reason. Reason is what makes human life possible. Reason is what makes human progress possible. Reason is what makes all other human values possible. So if we want to value something, if we care about our own happiness, our own fellowship, then we care about our reason. And this is why lying is such a stupid strategy. Because lying is deception. Reason is about facts and truth and reality. Lying is about the opposite. There's a term in computers garbage in, garbage out. Lying is garbage. If you put into this delicate team that I would call your brain, your mind, your reasoning capacity, if you put in garbage you're going to get garbage. And you should care about your reasoning mind because it's the way in which you survive. It's the way in which you survive. The faculty that enables you to be successful in life. Now what does reason require in order to thrive, in order to be successful, in order to really lead to human flourishing? What is the enemy of reason? What is the thing that stops reason from being able to lead to success? Force, the gun. And this is why this is the non-initiation of force principle that libertarians talk about. They don't talk about it in no way. It's the principle of reason needing to be free in order to be successful, in order to lead to progress, to success, to flourishing of the individual. You can't, your thinking is meaningless and at the end of the day you cannot think when you've got a gun pressed for your back. This is why there's no integration of the communism. It's not up to the regime. She don't even try because pissing them off means a bullet in the head. Or jail time. If the authoritarian governments don't have progress, not because of the politics but because of the way the human mind works, the human mind cannot function under the threat of force. It shuts down. It's why we need to break the chains of the capitalist domination over ideas that are moving from burning people in the state to house arrest to leaving people alone that we get an exposure to science. Post Newton and even Newton was very careful in what he said not to upset the wrong people but at least Newton already knew that he was not going to be born in the state but discovering laws of physics. People a hundred years earlier were not broken. Everyone's broken. One, two, three. Maybe. So reason requires freedom. Reason requires freedom and the fact of individuals living for their own happiness for their own lives, they require freedom. If I'm an individualist, if I'm trying to attain my own happiness, my own success, I want to make choices for myself. I want to use my reason to guide my life and I'll make mistakes. I'll fail. Steve Jobs failed more than once and what am I free to do if I fail? Learn from it or not. Some people don't learn from their mistakes and they suffer and that's good. They deserve to suffer if they don't learn. They don't use their mind. They don't use their reason. Steve Jobs didn't. As a consequence, it was a huge success. But if we don't let people fail, then they never learn. So as a person who cares about my own happiness, my own flourishing, my own success, the most important thing I want is to be left alone. Not left alone in a sense and openly in the forest without any other people around because people are incredibly valuable to my life. People are crucial value to me. They build iPhones and I can then trade for them. Or they build sculptures that I can then enjoy. Not alone in that sense but alone in a sense of free for people telling me how I should live and not just telling me, forcing me to live the way they want me to live. Telling them, telling me which elevate I should use and which I shouldn't use. What clothes to wear, what not to wear. What food to eat and what not to eat. It's true, right? You still don't know how gay marriage can help you, right? It's not anybody's business who I married, it's contract. She never said it was immoral to begin with. She didn't like the idea of being gay. She thought it was unnatural but she never thought it was immoral. Immorality depends on whether it's a choice or whether it's not a choice and it wasn't, it wasn't obvious that it was a choice. Immorality depends on your, you have, two, three, there we go. Morality is my choice and by the way, I meant to be wrong. Not everything I meant said has necessarily been right about any particular concrete philosophically I think she's right about everything but not necessarily on every application. So the fact that I meant is that self-interested people, people who believe in a morality of self-interest, want freedom. They don't want what the government telling them what they can and cannot do. They don't want statism because statism, the essence of statism is telling you what you can and cannot do and unless, unless we replace the morality that we have today, unless we trash the morality of selflessness into the trash heap of history, where it belongs, we will continue to suffer under statism. We will continue to fluctuate into a period of relative freedom and abandonment of that freedom because we will never trust self-interest which means we will never trust free market, which means we will never trust capitalism, we will never trust the system of economic growth, economic success, economic prosperity. To get to the point where we trust it, to get to the point where we care about prosperity, when we get to the point where we care about freedom, we have to replace the morality of selflessness, of self-sacrifice with the morality of individual flourishing within the morality of rational self-interest. Reason is our primary value. So my book is called Revolution. But the revolution that I'm calling for is not a political revolution or even an economic revolution. What I'm calling for is much harder, much, much, much harder because it goes to the very essential values of a culture. What I'm calling for is a moral revolution, a moral revolution for self-interest and as a consequence for capitalism. Thank you. Yeah. Good. I was getting to that. First, a short question. Is that moral revolution means that we have to project moral religion as a society or a majority society? And second question, what are we going to do about closing our mistakes in the line where we are tracing our mistakes? Also, I agree that self-interest politicians are lacking in their self-interest. This can happen as much as possible especially when you are in a political system and you are in a party like in the US. So what we talk about is that there are a good number of Democrats by the way in more power than in the US. Let me answer the first question and then the second question. What we have to get is a question. Christian morality is a morality of self-sacrifice. You've got Jesus up there at the cross dying for not for his sins, that would be justice, but dying for your sins and that's what makes him a God if you will. The fact that he's dying for other people's sins and that is the symbol. That's what we should all strive towards. Sacrifice for other people. Now I know we're in a Catholic country because the Christian morality in my view is incompatible with capitalism. It's incompatible with freedom because it demands of you to sacrifice. Now we just... Capitalism is not about capitalism. It's about exactly the opposite. Now I know that in modern times Christianity has moved, if you will, particularly in America. I tell Christians in America you're American supposed to Christian second. What you've done is you've taken Christianity and made it American by making it okay to make money and to be capitalist and so on. But that's not, that's not really there. Your second question reminds me... What's that remind me again? Oh yeah, politicians... I would like to end this question. As I said their own interest is to increase the status of as much power in our lives as possible. And as we have seen even when there were politicians were claiming for freedom trying to reduce the government but it was at best only in terms of percentage of GDP part of government. In absolute numbers growth. It wasn't lowered. So what would... how would you create let's say perfect political system in a minimal state that wouldn't allow to back state it. In a democracy, in a monarchy, I don't know what would be your solution to have a minimal state that rule unlike U.S. at the beginning. So let me state first that I don't think politicians are selfish. That I'm out to receive them politicians are unbelievably self-destructive. Have you ever met a happy politician? A flourishing politician? I haven't. Have you ever looked at Bill Clinton's eyes? He's a miserable, pathetic human being as are almost all politicians sorry if there are any in the audience. Having power over other people is not in your self-interest. It destroys self-esteem. It destroys your capacity to appreciate your own life because how do we get happy? Where does happiness come from? Happiness is not some subjective thing that anybody can be happy in any given moment. That is not what happiness is about. Happiness requires certain objective actions in reality. It requires, for example, that you have self-esteem. Self-esteem comes from achieving real goals. Self-esteem comes from knowing you can take care of yourself and take care of your family in the real world. It doesn't come from manipulating other people. It doesn't come from mind-cheating and stealing. We just said that all politicians like she and Steve steal so they don't get self-esteem. So I don't believe they're self-interested and I know there's a whole week in our theory about how politicians are self-interested. Public choice is called it. Some of them believe what they're doing is good but it's not good and therefore they can't be happy. Even if it's positive thinking. All you have to do is think positive and that means wonderful. It's reality that matters. What actually happens in the world, that matters to whether you're successful as a human being or not. Some of them believe that what they're doing is good and we have to change their ideas. Some of them are power lusters. They want power not because it makes them happy because they're co-elected individuals just for the same reason that some people like stealing cheap and still do it. They can't control themselves. They're emotionalists. They've abandoned reason. How many politicians do you know will use reason? Very few. So, we have to be very careful about what we define as self-interest. In my view, self-interest is something very specific from a moral point of view. From a moral point of view it means behaving in a particular kind of way rather than getting published. So, try to get it in English. In English it's easy to get. The root of self-interest is the moral morality of self-interest and the morality that leads to human happiness and human flourish. Now, the second part of your question is about how do you establish a government that is limited? Well, look, nothing is sustainable, nothing is sustainable unless people believe it. That's not sustainable under any circumstances, in my view. But never mind if people don't believe in it. You might be unbelievable. I've heard some people believe in a monarchy. There'll be a revolution if people don't agree with the monarchy. Nothing's sustainable unless people buy into it. And this is why what I'm asking for is not a political revolution. When we change the Constitution, we change this and that. I'm asking for a moral revolution on a code that the people are going by. And if we change that, then the political revolution is relatively easy. I think the founding fathers of America got it pretty close. Not perfect, but close. You could rewrite the Constitution to make it clearer, more assertive, more clear about the role of government is only protecting individual rights and never initiating force, separation of state from economics from religion and ideas generally. And you would have a much much better Constitution than they have in the United States. But even that would fail unless the people, at least the intellectuals within the people, the people who teach at these universities were today almost all lefties, right? 80% of all professors in the world are lefties. And imagine 80% of all professors in the world were capitalists of the Constitution, right? Believe that a morality of selfishness and capitalism. It almost doesn't matter what the Constitution says, you'd have capitalism. You'd have a limited government. So to me, what's important is what the intellectuals believe because they rule the culture. They dictate what the culture is. When the intellectuals are leftists, we will have leftism. When the intellectuals are capitalists, but with a proper philosophy, we will have capitalism. Like in the original American Constitution, I would have very limited democracy. You could vote on very few things and then I would leave it alone. And I think it's sustainable as long as we perpetuate the ideas of which is the fundamental reason the American Revolution failed 200 years later to put up why it failed is because they never had a philosophical foundation. All they had was blocked. It was a great political philosophy and the ideology of metaphysics. We need a new foundation for the principles of political freedom and again. This is I Grant's contribution. I Grant's contribution is providing that philosophy on which we can ground real political limiting in this time that we sustain. That's because you said that some interests are good and some interests are not good. But what about private charities? Are they useless or are they tried wrong? What about other business? I give away money and I do better in exchange. Let me answer that first. It depends why you feel better. If you feel better because you have a piece of un-owned guilt then it's not good. Get rid of the guilt. Cheaper than giving money away. If you feel better because you're helping a cause you really believe in, you're helping something to really promote your values and therefore promote your life as I said, Bogage did more for the world building Microsoft than he ever did in charity. But take other examples. In 1776 the United States of America was a third-rate colony. I mean the British barely even fought the war. That's why America won, right? By 1914 America was the strongest more powerful richest economic power in the world. That did not happen because of charity. It didn't happen because of charity. Not charity existed, charity was nice. But what did that happen? What changes the world? What creates wealth? What helps the poor? Why is it a poverty? What annihilated slavery and annihilated child labor? Business. Business changes the world. Charity smoothes out the edges a little bit. And that's good. I'm all for charity. If it's motivated by self-interest then I'm all for charity. But I'm not for just arbitrary charity and I'm not for guilt because you made money now you have to give it away. Which is what motivates a lot of charity in America today. It's the guilt of the businessmen. Just to ask you a question on repeat. What do you think we should do to win the war of living or capitalise on this? Well first, so the question is those of you connected to the Poland, what should you do to win the war as quickly as possible? I think first, forget about winning the war quickly. This is not something that's going to be won quickly. This is a long it's going to require a long sustained effort because if you think it's going to be quick then you'll have a lot of energy in the beginning and then it won't happen quickly and everything will die. So the movement has to be built for the long run. So that's one. Second. I'm from the Iron Man Institute. I strongly believe that without Iron Man the Liberty Movement will lose because Iron Man, whether you guys want it or not lays the philosophical foundation for Liberty and nobody else does. Nobody else is close. Hayek doesn't. Indeed that's why Hayek believes in a mixed economy at the end of the day. He votes in September in many of these other works. He believes in a central bank. But yeah, there are no absolutes for Hayek. He changes his mind all over the place because he has no clear philosophy. Hayek cannot. So Hayek cannot be and will never be a foundation for Liberty. Sorry, I know Hayek is the most popular libertarian to think out there but he's not that good of a philosopher. He's a great economist, a genius economist. Mediocre social thinker. Unoriginal for the most part. Very conventional. You need Iron Man. A revolution. An epistemological revolution. A moral revolution. You need new ideas. The old ideas are dead. They're destroying us. They're on the state aside. Be real radicals. You want to be radicals? I'll need politics and economics. That's boring. The real fun is to be radical in ethics, to be radical in philosophy. That's where the real war, the real war is going to be fought. You have to come up with 90 minutes of philosophy, not just economics. And you have to bring to the whole thing a real passion, real love for it. A real love of freedom. But not just a love of freedom because you want to take drugs. It's not a good reason. It's because you want to prosper. Not just prosper. But prosper as a human being. The connection between reason and prosperity in my view is the most important philosophical connection that I ever got. Couldn't even conceive of because he undercuts reason when he can. It's the real connection that is so softly necessary to win this battle. Reason, self-interest, capitalism. That's the key. Okay. The end of Christianity is personal self-version and it's self-interest. It's personal profit. And the sacrifice is only a way to gain this profit. Christianity says that salvation is the largest profit that a person can earn. So the sacrifice is like when you're running a company and you sacrifice, you work hard, you're a customer because you want to earn millions of money in the future. The sacrifice is in the Christianity. You sacrifice because you want to gain salvation in the future. So why Christianity is done against the philosophy of objectivism? I see. It's it's I'm assuming you mean salvation in the other in store. I'm assuming what you mean, the payoff is to go to heaven. That's the payoff of sacrifice is to go to heaven. It doesn't look like you understand. What's that? I must be louder? I feel like I'm yelling. Do you mean that you sacrifice now so you can go to heaven? Is that the salvation? Yes. So you need some mystical reality that's not real. That's a fantasy that you don't know is actually going to happen. I have news for you. It's not. In order to justify your sacrifice, I live in this world. This world, the reality that is right here and now, I want salvation right here and now. I want happiness and prosperity and flourishing right here right now. I mean not right now, but here, right? In this world, I'm willing to invest in long term to motivate people by a promise of some afterlife, by a promise of some fantasy life. I mean that's ridiculous. And what if I tell you that statism is good in this life and you'll be free in the afterlife. So don't worry about freedom here, which is what the Catholic Church has been telling us for hundreds of years. No. What was the Dark Ages? What were the Middle Ages? It was the Catholic Church imposing will. It was burning people at the stake. It was putting Galileo in the house to rest. All in the name of, it's going to be okay in the next life. Don't worry about it. Are we going to argue about religion? So Objectivism is about this world. It's about your life, not what happens after you're dead. It's about living the most flourishing, the most successful life on this earth. And the only way to do that is by use of no reason. We talked about reason is the way in which as human beings we survive when we flourish. But faith is the opposite of reason. Faith is the negation of reason. Faith tells you to believe whether there's evidence or not. That's the essential characteristic of faith. Otherwise people wouldn't use the word faith to describe it. So when negating reason in the name of freedom, in the name of what? So I know you want to be Christian and Objectivist. Sorry. I'd rather you be just a Christian than not Objectivist at all. But to be consistently Objectivist not hold reason consistently with no compromise and no giving up, which is what I think is required to live the good life, you cannot have faith. Faith and reason are opposites. I don't know where the mic is. She has the mic. Yes. Okay. I have two questions concerning two points that you've raised. So I know that you guys like numbers. So I'd like to refer to this one number that I read in the Washington Post. 85 people uphold more wealth than 3.5 billion people in the world. Together. That brings me to the inequalities part. How can we be flourishing and call ourselves a flourishing percent of people in the world with such radical inequalities where 3.5 million people live in radical poverty and also So let me answer that before we go on to the next question because otherwise I'll be swamped. So I'll throw back a few numbers. One is that since Asia has adopted elements of capitalism, 800 million people have risen out of poverty from a state in which everybody is not poor anymore because of freedom. Second, 85 people 85 people have created more wealth than 3.5 million. That's the reality. Bill Gates has created more wealth than I'm trying to multiply how much richer he is than I am. But more wealth in terms of actual wealth than thousands of me or maybe millions of me. Gold in a material sense. Thousands or maybe millions times more than I am. He deserves every last penny that he has. Now if you take a farm in Africa with subsistence farming how much wealth is he producing? Zero. Bill Gates when he creates Microsoft how much wealth is he producing? Billions, I've got trillions of dollars. So yes, Bill Gates is an infinitely number richer disease, infinitely more productive than the poor guy in Africa. Now, why are there 3.5 billion poor people in the world? That's an important question. I care about poor people. I really do. I care about poor people more than any socialist I know on the planet. I'm serious. I love human beings. I love humanity. I love people because I love myself and I love life and therefore I love other beings and I think it's a massive tragedy that we have 3.5 billion people who are still poor and I know why they're still poor. They're still poor because we haven't bought the capitalist. You want to make Africa rich? Give the peasant property over his land. Give him property rights and let him start a business. You know how long it takes to start a business in some parts of South America or Africa? A month or two. A year ago in South America. A day. You should be able to file some document for I don't know for tax purposes or whatever that's it. Let's start a business. So we statism, socialism, welfare statism has enslaved the poor. We keep them poor. We keep them down. Capitalism is the only system in human history. The only, deficit on only system in human history to be beneficial for poor people. She's in the minority in the school. She's in the majority out there in minority groups with respect to how we can stand up and ask her questions. But that brings me to the second point. You said the way to enrich a poor farmer in Africa is to give him the land. Sure, I agree. I agree that Bill Gates has every right in the world took his wealth. So don't you think that giving, saying that giving a piece of land to an African farmer is utopia, the main argument that capitalists have against socialists is that they're utopians. You can't have everybody happy. You can't have everybody being wealthy. But that brings me to the last point and last question and that is how can we speak of utopia actually of capitalism. You said about people, the basis of capitalism being producing and being able to produce a product. Well, what would you do with all the people that could not produce the old people, the people who need help? Good question. So first of all, I mean it's ridiculous to claim that utopia went from three and a half billion other people it's already happened. Right? So it's already happened to a lot of people. In places like Rwanda, in places like I can't remember the country, I think it's about a Swando, I think it's about a Swando, I think it's about a Swando, I think it's about a Swando, I think it's about a Swando, but people are getting probably hurt. That is actually changing right now instead of sending Africa far on aid, which does nothing to help them and you could read about the corruption of far on aid and not lending their money into the bank accounts. Instead of giving them far on aid, let's go over there and teach them about capitalism. Let's teach them about property rights. We learned Europeans are not superior to Africans. We're not a different racially superior people. If we could learn the benefits of capitalism, they can learn the benefits of capitalism. Let's go teach them, let's go help them, establish them. Let's go to America instead of perpetuating poverty by handing them checks and telling them everything's okay. You don't have to change at all. You'll be fine, here's a check so you don't scarve them off. Which is treating them like children, worse than children. It's treating them as if we're racists, as if we're superior. There's a system that works for every European who's tried it, every country that's tried it, every race that's tried it, every core. 50 years ago, just like Africa. And in the Asian Tigers, these little countries established property rights, allowed for trading, allowed for free markets, allowed people to open businesses easily and legally. And guess what, they're all rich now. South Korea's rich. Japan, which was devastated by World War II, became rich because of capitalism. Not to mention, Taiwan was much richer than they were 30, 40 years ago. Why? Because they established elements of property rights. That's very realistic. It's happening every day somewhere in the world. I was just in Colombia in South America where there's still very poor people but they've turned a corner and they're starting to see real economic growth and poor people are starting to gain property rights and they're getting better. There was another part of the question. Now, this is the problem when you ask too many questions. I'm getting old and I can't remember them. Let me finish the part about Utopia. Utopians want to change human nature. They want to change the very foundation of human nature. I don't want to change human nature. I want to build the system for human nature. You see, I believe human nature is what Aristotle said human nature is. Which is, human beings are the rational animal. I want people to live up to their rationality not to change their nature but to live up to it to rise to the challenge of being rational and using their reason. That's not Utopian. That's just high expectations and I have high expectations of my kids, my coworkers and you guys. What happens to people who can't take care of themselves? First, let me say that we're talking about them. You mentioned old people can't take care of themselves but old people have had a lifetime to save so that they can hire people to take care of them. In capitalism, you make a lot of money you can save. Before the welfare state people used to save. I know saving is unpopular. We're told to consume. Go buy stuff. God forbid you should put some money in banter when you're old and you might need some help. There's a certain relationship of children and parents. Love relationship and I would say children don't care about your parents. Consume. And let your parents consume. The state will take care of them for you. So taking care of yourself is one if you can, some people cannot but if you can. Your children can take care of your family if we want to broaden it. If they can, some people can't. There's always going to be a small percentage so what happens to them? Now let me ask you people like this group of capitalists and media capitalists. How many people here want to see those people who can't take care of themselves dying in the streets? You guys have media capitalists. How many people here would be willing to put a few dollars, put a little money because it's not a lot because it's a small group to a charity to take care of these people. They really cannot take care of themselves. Now there's your answer. The answer is that if we in a capitalist society one of the things that happens and you can see this in 1916 in America is people are very benevolent. They care about other people. Capitalism is an economic system of love is a new one for you. Objectivism by the way is the philosophy of love. We love life. We love ourselves. We love freedom. We love reason. We love other human beings to contribute to our success. We don't want to see people dying. We will volunteer and help them. But we don't accept as capitalists as objectivists we don't accept the idea that you have a right to force me to participate in a scheme I don't want to participate in. If I want to help this person over here I don't feel well. You don't have a right as an individual as a group to put your hand in my pocket or Steve Jobs' pocket Bill Gates' pocket and take the money out and give it to them. If I want to help them Bill Gates has obviously wants to help people. He's charitable. There are lots of charities but you don't have a right to force me. Any more than you have a right it's mine. I made it. I worked hard for it. I might choose to give it to the beggar in the street. I might choose not to give it because my son needs an operation and I need the money to pay for his operation or he needs money for school or whatever. It's my values that dictate how I use my money not your values telling me how I should live. And this by the way is an ancient debate about what's good for us. Plato and Aristotle Plato said you know what guys you don't know what's good for you. You need the philosopher king to tell you what's good for you. You need them to tell you how to take care of the people you want to take care of what to do with your money what profession you should have who to marry and everything. And Aristotle said no each one of us has reason for the problem of life. I'm an Aristotle. I don't know whether it was it should be even like this and I wish you don't talk to me talk to me about it. Yeah. All right. So I want to refer back to what you were saying at the end of your lecture. Isn't it like the people adapt to the certain political system economic system daily like to pursue their own self-interest and just people don't order the best way that the system provides them to people don't automatically pursue their self-interest. If they did we would live under the laws of capitalism today. It's in their self-interest they have capitalism but they don't. We can close the capitalism in the 19th century and yet we turn our backs on what you are and doesn't determine what you will advocate for against them. People in Chile right now have done very very well on the economy that's relatively free and have twice now voted for socialist president committed to undoing all the economic progress that they have made and they voted for it. So it's not deterministic we're not determined by our economy we're determined to do with economics everything to do with morality so what I have to sacrifice sacrifice is good sacrifice noble so I'll make less money next year in the name of some social you know social utility some socialist grand plan people people people commit suicide every day spiritually and materially so you're not just because you established capitalism somewhere doesn't mean anybody is going to come it doesn't mean it's sustainable at all you need the philosophical foundation for it so why Americans voting for higher taxes more regulation more controls every single election why do they vote for it should they have the power if there was a movement in the United States to move away from statism look we get the politicians we deserve you can blame politicians for all your problems we get the people we deserve we choose them we elect them we don't want we don't participate and we get the people who represent the people politicians are comedians they don't have ideas they reflect back what society wants them to do that's what they are they don't come up with original ideas they're looking at you and saying I think you're like a tax guy oh that person he doesn't mind we don't believe in capitalism we would have capitalist politicians but we don't if you do survey after survey in the American street do you want smaller government are you willing to cut 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 no, no, no, no people don't really want to cut anything do you want do you want to do away with the federal drug administration that checks our food but I don't trust them I don't trust free markets nobody trusts free markets so it's a much more fundamental battle this is what I tell libertarians as long as you just stay on the economics you will lose we will lose because people don't care that much about the economics he wants the microphone so at some point cash attack what do you think my name is Michael I'm going to ask you about institutional issues of capitalism you told us about the banks and many people hate the banks actually I don't hate banks I hate the banking system because of the fractional reserve parking which is which capitalism is based on the banking system since the beginning of banking no, not since the beginning of banking beginning of banking all the capitalism based on federal reserve actually and we see not true we found that we invented banking we're issuing certificates we have a gold deposit and then they figure it out and they can even loan it at the same time fractional reserve banking came before central banking that's just a fact that's how it all felt today fractional reserve is actually privileged from government and I think it's unfair because if I want to have more money with more money I have to work hard when bankers want more money do you know how many hours bankers work? I bet you they work harder than you particularly investment bankers do you know what hours they work? do you know how to become an investment banker? when you come out of college it's 100 hours a week of work this whole fractional reserve banking with all due respect completely misplaced there's nothing wrong with fractional reserve banking in a free market in a free market there wouldn't be fractional reserve banking it's a contract the people depositing their money know what they're doing they know what they're getting if you want a bank that doesn't have any fractional reserve banking you can establish one and compete with other banks there's nothing wrong in spite of what Rothbard said with fractional reserve banking the guys in George's soldier were big advocates of free banking with fractional reserve bankers are hated not because of fractional reserve banking and not because they don't work hard because that's ridiculous bankers work very hard and they have regulators breathing down their neck the financial system is broken because of the central bank because of banking regulation and I hate the central banking I hate bank regulators bankers are trying to make a living to create profits to the extent that they're profitable it means to them that they're providing me a service without bankers I couldn't afford my house without bankers this never gets off the ground give a C. Steve Jobs when he got his first check from a venture capitalist a banker never see him he stung him he never showered he didn't believe in showers he had long hair he had a check and that's what we have to use these guys are geniuses I love bankers bankers need them but another question is you were telling me about morality and about freedom but freedom is connected with responsibility I do what I want to do but I follow the consequences so what do you think about limited liability corporations because many corporations have another privilege from government so again, limited liability is not a government creation sorry but it's not limited liability is a contract it's a type of contract that basically says that the bondholders cannot decredit us in other words cannot go after the shareholders if the company goes bankrupt and the bondholders know this in cases where it is not the bondholders where the credit is that it's a liability issue the corporate veil is often pierced what they call pierced and people go after the private entity so limited liability properly understood and properly practiced is a market phenomena it's a contractual deal all the government it is and that's its history the whole course of the corporation for those of you who hate corporations have like a four hour course online somewhere on my view of the corporation and explain great details why limited liability is not a problem again, properly understood and why it's not a creation of government but a creation of markets it's a it's a necessary creation of markets in order to raise large pools of capital so that we can create large ventures you have to have limited liability I'm sure you've read a book Creature from Jacky Nile by Edward Griffin and I think you have agreed with most maybe all of us with him could you tell us why he was so much against central banking and by the way do you agree with this what we're talking about Edward Griffin Creature from Jacky Nile so I am very much against central banking it's central planning over the most important sector of the economy you see I believe banking is the most important sector of the economy I think the financial industry is like a circulatory system it pumps blood right now hard to know veins and arteries pump blood to where it's most needed and it keeps us going it provides the oxygen and the nutrients every part of our body that the system does it takes money away from the calculator business it puts it into the computer business it takes it away from the computer business it puts it into the you know this business it continuously funnels capital to where it will produce the greatest return in other words create the most value for all of us so it's essential to have a well functioning profitable financial system that banks are part of that capital is part of that equity the whole thing central bank is basically an institution that places itself as the central authority the central planner of the financial system central planning doesn't work on anything Hayek was very good at explaining that the worst the most important sector is finance we don't want central planning so central banks are the most type the worst type of intervention in the economy possible now I am critical of the way he explains the creation of the Federal Reserve in the Eglinton Checker Island because he places a blame on the bankers and I don't think they deserve to blame I think the politicians deserve to blame them but central banking is an abomination not only if you just look at the data since the creation of the Federal Reserve has less stability from a banking perspective from an economic perspective we've had more cycles we've had more sharp declines in the economy than we did before central banking has destabilized made unstable the economic system so I would like to get rid of central bankers just like I'd like to get rid of all central planning and have a market a market in free banking a market in currencies a proper market where interest rates don't get determined by some group of bureaucrats where interest rates get determined by supply and demand supply of the loanable funds which means you'll save it and demand for loanable funds which means demand for business and consumers for lending and that would make interest rates much more rational a real twice signal in the economy and much more meaningful and therefore you would have a much more helpful economy than under central bank so I'm very much opposed to central bank unfortunately that was the last question today we are running out of time so once again I would like to thank Dr. Gruen for this very big lecture and Q&A session I have two quick informations for you on this little table back near to the entrance you will find those small let's say those are the essays by Adrian and Dr. Gruen as well so feel free to get a free copy there is something like a free copy no free lunch but a free copy and the second information is that please visit the official website of the A&M since the institute is launching it's European let's say I managed to give you one more thing follow me on Twitter like me on Facebook thank you listen to my radio show so check out the information about the establishment of A&M Institute Europe which will be launched next week in Copenhagen so thank you everyone for coming