 Ready? Ready? Sure. How many people do you want living in your country? How many people do you want living in your country? Is this being an important question for all of you? Because it's time to notice the things that matter, Taka has told us. And one of the important things to matter is how many people do you want living in your country? And what are you going to do about it? What are you going to do about it? Let's say you want five people living in your country. Does that mean we should kick out a bunch of people so you can get what you want? How many people should decide how many people should live in our country? Should we vote on it? If a majority of the people want more, should we force people to have babies? Should we allow immigrants in? If a lot of people want less, should we have a one-child policy like China has? Hat doesn't have it anymore. Panicked. Bad decision. One-child policy. How many? Who gets to decide? This is a really, really, really important question, according to Taka Colson. The size of your population matters very much. Why? The size determines a nation's character. It often determines its fate. Yet we don't talk much about the size of our population. We probably should. The United States is growing faster than most Americans understand. If you were born in 1969, as some of us were, you arrived in a country with a little over 200 million people in it, there are now 334 million people in it. So in 1969, there were 200 million. Now there are 320 million. So it's over 50% growth in how many years? How many years is that? I don't know if anybody did the math at Taka Colson's. I'm going to do it now in my head. That's 50 years. 50 years we've gone, we've grown 50%. Oh, God, where's my calculator? 50 years we've gone 50%. Is that a lot? To grow 50% in terms of your population in 50 years? Doesn't seem like a lot. Does that seem like a lot to you guys? 50 years? Am I getting the math right? So is this a vast growth? Is this what's responsible for wokeism and the left and Donald Trump and all the bad things that have happened in America in 1911? All the bad things, financial crisis caused by this 50% growth in the population? I don't know, let's say if the population of America grew 1% a year over the last 50 years, how much would that be? I mean, really, how do you, how do you, is this a lot? Now, it sounds like a lot. Oh, my God, we went from 200 million to 320 million. Wouldn't that just be caused by a healthy fertility rate? Yes, we've also had immigration and our fertility rate is plummeted, but why is that a lot? By what standard is that a lot? I mean, the new rate, people like Yoram Khazani, Sahih Bamawi, and Soha Bamawi, and many others complain constantly about the low birth rates of Americans. Well, if Americans had birth rates like the new rate would like, I don't know, to point something, we'd be at 300 million with zero immigration. So what is the issue here? Why is population growth a problem? And is the growth in our population since 1969, which he has said has changed our character? Where's the proof of that? It's a 50% growth in 50 years. That's an awful lot of new people in an awfully short time. How many people is that exactly? Well, it's nearly twice the population of the entire Western United States. That's 13 states, including California. In 50 years, Yoram, again, a birth rate that was above a replacement, you know, that is not vast, huge population growth. And of course, we had immigration, luckily, because otherwise we would have shrunk. That is massive and incredibly rapid demographic growth. No, it isn't. And it's accelerating immigration. Now, as a percentage of the population, that is 50% in 50 years, what are the numbers from 1900 to 1969, far larger in terms of percentages? What are the numbers from 1776 to 1900? I mean, what is the magnitude larger than the population growth here? Was that a bad thing? Should we have stayed small? Maybe we should only have the population we had as 1776. How does one decide? What is now at the highest level ever recorded in American history? Immigration is at the highest level it's ever been. It's certainly not true of this year, certainly not true of last year. Maybe it was true in the mid-teens in terms of a sheer number of people, but in terms of a percent of the population, immigration is nowhere near its peak. The peak were in the 1870s all the way to pre-World War I. Immigration declined significantly after World War I, but as a percentage of the population we had far, far, far higher immigration growth in the, you know, 100 years ago, 100 plus years ago than we do today. Just inaccurate. So was the number of foreign born already living here? Number of foreign born already living here is about the same as it was at the late 90s, early 20th century, at the heights of American power during the period where America became the richest country in the world, became the most powerful military in the world, the time that America became an industrial and powerhouse, a wealth-creating powerhouse. This is, and yes, there were about 14 percent of Americans were foreign born back then. It's just under that right now. Was it a bad thing in the 1890s? Is it a bad thing today? By what standard? Is Tucker Carlson giving us a standard? I mean, maybe the standard is that back then the foreign born were all white Europeans and now they're not white Europeans and that's the standard. 14 is the same as it was in the late 19th century, early 20th century. I checked. It doesn't, it's not that hard to check. You can Google it. You can get multiple sources, so you're not getting any biased sources. About 14 percent. We're close to the highs today. So by what standard is that bad? What is the standard? Has Tucker given us a standard? Over just the last year, roughly 2 million people from the Third World came across our borders illegally. It's not true. That number's not true. But anyway, exaggerating these common numbers is exactly what Tucker and the White does. All of them arrived with the blessing of the White House. And then why were they sent back? So many of them sent back in spite of the blessing of the White House. It's, hey. Do you wonder what sort of economy Joe Biden imagines we're going to have going forward? Domestic manufacturing is in steep decline, automation is not true. Domestic manufacturing is at its peak, maybe not post COVID, but pre-COVID, domestic manufacturing was at its peak, with fewer people producing more goods than we'd ever produced in American history. It's replacing many of the low-skilled jobs that still remain. That's right. We've got automation. Tucker would have a stop, the automation, in order to save those jobs for those hard-working Americans instead of letting the economy reorganize and creating new jobs for people, as it always does. I mean, here is where Tucker Carlson is exactly the same as the left, automation, technology, destroys jobs. What's the difference between him and Elizabeth Warren exactly? So what are these millions of new people going to be doing for work 20 years from now? Really? Is that the problem you have? What were the millions of people coming into Hong Kong? What did they do for work when they immigrated to Hong Kong? There were no jobs. What are the millions of people who came to the United States the late 19th century do for work if there were no jobs? Not enough. You couldn't see the jobs, but when people come in, they create jobs. They create new consumers. Jobs come with them. Indeed, if what you cared about were jobs and what you cared about was wealth and what you cared about was economic activity, then the number one, the number one and easiest way to create economic growth in the United States, the easiest way to create economic growth in any semi free country is to increase immigration. More people equals more economic growth. Everything else held constant, if you will, that one way you could almost instantly increase wealth across the entire planet is to open up voters and let people go to where they could be more productive. You're taking people who work in low productivity economies, bringing them to the United States where they could work in high productivity economies, wealth globally would increase almost instantaneously, including the wealth of Americans. That's just economic reality, economic fact that Tucker Carlson used to about 10 years ago understand and now is willing to lie about for political reasons. Malcolm, thanks for the support. I'll look for the question in a minute. So no, immigrants don't cause the economy to tank. Immigrants don't take jobs. Immigration, I mean, supposedly we've heard that immigrants, immigrants have been flooding this country. And yet, before COVID, unemployment was historical lows in spite of the fact that immigrants have been flooding the country supposedly. 1980s, lots of immigrants came in 1990s, lots of immigrants came in yet unemployment's not really been a problem in the United States since the 1970s. So, so what's the issue? What is the damage that immigrants do? Except that they don't look like Tucker Carlson. And we don't like people who are different than us. We don't like the other from economic perspective. Immigration is not a harm. Now, Tucker doesn't mention that about a million legal immigrants come into the United States. And most of those legal immigrants come in and fairly high-paying jobs, they do fine. But he doesn't want them either. Because just having that legal immigration for 50 years, a million people, just that would get us to half of the increase in the population from 1969 to today. Tom says, Tom says, I wish leftists were actually poor immigration. They're hardly as poor immigrant as they and right-wingers make them out as. I agree completely. It's the left that's always traditionally been anti-immigration. The left is the one that stopped George W. Bush from actually endorsing a big pro-immigration bill. It is the left because of the connection to unions. Always resisted immigration. Unions don't want the competition. All right. They can't all be Nancy Pelosi's housekeepers. They can't all bust tables at the French Laundry and Napa. Well, then let's pass a bill that zeroes out welfare. Or let's pass a bill that allows immigrants to come in if they can find a job. And let's make a bill that zeroes out welfare so in 20 years they won't have anything if they don't get a proper job. Why is it Tucker Carlson's problem? But this fallacy about 20 years from now they won't have jobs. Again, he sounds like a conventional leftist. And not all of them will, thank God. In spite of the Democratic Party's best efforts to import a permanent surf class to serve its donors, some of these immigrants will rise higher than Nancy Pelosi expected. Yeah, they will. Yes, they will. Some will fight their way to the top of our society with the usual combination of inborn talent and grit. And honestly, bless them for that. No one invited them here. We didn't want them to come, but we will be sincerely glad when they succeed. Will you? And you didn't want them to come? Somebody wanted them to come. Somebody's paying them. Somebody's employing them. Somebody's taking their services. Somebody's enjoying the fact that they're producing and creating. And yet, a country is more than the success of a handful of people inspiring as that always is to watch. Sheer numbers matter too. Even if every single person who snuck across our southern border this year goes on to win the Nobel Prize in chemistry, it would still be worth worrying about the effects that mass immigration have on our total population numbers. Really? Really? Now, there you're just endorsing a zero sum view of the world. If every one of those immigrants won a Nobel Prize in chemistry, or whatever it was, the equivalent, would the rest of the population in the United States be worse off or better off? If every one of those people were that productive, were that creative, were that entrepreneurial, would the rest of the population better off or worse off? Much better off. Much better off. And of course, we did not go from $200 million to $320 million because of illegal immigration. Maybe there's 11, 12 million illegals in the country today. We grew from $200 million to $320 million. Remember the context? Because he's setting up this context. The country has grown significantly. This growth has changed its character. And these illegals are coming across the border. And the implicit assumption is, well, it's the illegals who have caused this huge economic growth, this huge growth in a population. Where? Only 12 million illegals in the US. So the growth in a population either because we have babies, or because we have legal immigration. And I thought legal immigrants are people we want, are people we invite in. But he can't hold, he can't hold both. He has to assume all immigrants are illegal so he can paint them all as uninvited, sneak across the border, and imply that that's how the country grew to the size that it is today. So the question is, how many people is too many? In Washington, you will never hear that question. More bodies in a country mean more power for the people who run it. Really, are there more bodies in the country means what? More bodies in the country. Big nations need big governments. Politicians always want more people to rule. So the incentive for unrestrained population growth is baked right into the system. That's bad news for the rest of us. Really, so big government is a phenomena of big countries? So small countries, I don't know. Israel only has 10 million people, so it has a small government, pro-liberty government. Denmark, which has a small population, very small population, has a small government, freedom-loving, you know, I think, I don't know how many people live in North Korea, probably not that many after they killed so many. Does that mean that North Korea would have a small government? So there's a correlation. There are a correlation between the size and the size of government? First and most obviously, big governments don't treat their citizens very well. Yes, that's a Reagan-era talking point. It's also- Yeah, he apologizes for that. Notice, God forbid. God forbid we have a Reagan-era talking point. True. Thank you for listening or watching the Iran book show. If you'd like to support the show, we make it as easy as possible for you to trade with me. You get value from listening. You get value from watching. Show your appreciation. You can do that by going to iranbookshow.com slash support by going to Patreon, subscribe star locals and just making a appropriate contribution on any one of those, any one of those channels. Also, if you'd like to see the Iran book show grow, please consider sharing our content and of course, subscribe, press that little bell button right down there on YouTube so that you get an announcement when we go live. And for those of you who are already subscribers and those of you who are already supporters of the show, thank you. I very much appreciate it.