 So, you know, it's, it's, I both like and hate Paul and Tom Palmer, you know, he's, it's difficult to follow because he's so good. But I like following him because he's just giving you this amazing amount of data and this amazing amount of knowledge about the real benefits of trade. And he's right. And not only is he right, it's not that hard to get that he's right. And I go back to kind of the theme I talked about yesterday. We're losing. The world is shifting away from free trade. You're seeing it in, in the United States, you're seeing it in traumatic fashion in the United States. And the response of China, it's not being, I wish, imagine a response like this from China. You know, imagine if China had said to Trump, you know, they said, you want to screw Americans by raising tariffs? Go ahead. We're not going to screw Chinese by raising our tariffs in response to that. We're going to have to lower tariffs in response to your raising. But no, the Chinese are playing the game. We're going to screw, you know, you shoot yourself in the knee in the foot. We're going to shoot ourselves in the knee. Okay, I'll shoot myself in the stomach. You know, it's, it's, it's, every one of these countries is adopting these notions about trade. We're not seeing, and we're not seeing a focal opposition. You're not seeing rally calls. Even the Wall Street Journal kind of is hedging its support for free trade. It used to be real adamant about the special free trade. And now they tend to be hedging on their editorial page. Time and time again, we're seeing an iteration in our basic understanding of these economic principles, our basic support, I think the understanding is still there, not there, but our basic support for these economic principles. I mean, much of, and much of the challenges that are happening in the European Union, which I can somewhat understand why you would want to get away from Brussels. I mean, Brussels is an awful entity. But some of the motivation for Brexit, some of the motivation, not all of it, some of the motivation for Brexit was, yeah, there's free trade stuff. And yeah, there's free immigration stuff. And yeah, there's free flow of capital and stuff. It's too much. We don't want it. It's not just about sovereignty. It's not just about the over-regulation of Brussels. I wish you much. Maybe. Indeed, the British government has repeatedly said that after Brexit, no matter what, how cracks it happens, they're going to stop all the regulations in Brussels that impose them there just to get it forward on it themselves. So again, self-inflicted pain is better than paid inflicted by, I guess, people outside. But this retreating from the ideas of free trade, of free movement, capital, labor, goods, and its own, and it's causing itself economic harm. Economic harm is almost all economists recognize. And yet, they're not willing to stand up to defend the system. And the question we have to keep asking ourselves is, what are we missing in our communication? We're missing a lot the motivations of people. Is it economic knowledge? And it certainly is, to a large extent. People out there are ignorant. They just don't get it. They just don't get it. They just don't get it. That's an advantage. I think to say it's difficult. But yeah, it's not intuitive. You don't just get it. You have to go through the numbers a little bit. You have to have it presented. But you know, every economy class, everyone, high school colleges, they have to have it in advantage. If you're 250 years, you'd think that after 250 years, this would suck in in the cultural, whatever, zeitgeist. I mean, certainly, a bunch of them are harder than the bad advantage and nobody is challenging all of them. So why are they challenging in economics, basic math, basic principle that work? Complexity. Partially, it's complex. You know, you hear this story, and I think Tom related to it. You know, it's Chinese sub-stocks. So it's not fair. Except that impacts the fact that I'm getting a cheap good and the huge benefit of that cheap good. The 40 to 1. Although, you know, the 40 to 1, what if it was flipped? What if I was protecting 40 at the expense of 1? We would still be against it. It would still be bad politics, economics, individual rights. It would still be bad policy. So why? What is it? And again, I want to return to something I said yesterday. And you can see there's so much of the rhetoric that's going on in the world out there. I'm going to feed off of what Tom talked about and relate this to the issue of trade. The world is turning back to collectivism. The world is turning back to trade. To a period in which we see ourselves not as individuals but as members of a group. And that group identity has become what is most important. An individual mind, a decline in the respect for individual sovereignty, individual rights, this idea of individualism is under attack constantly. But trade is a reflection of the fact that runs a trade deficit with China. Ever traded? Who would ever use some Chinese guy somewhere? Usually through warm arms of a Best Buy or Apple or something. Traits. With an individual on the other side, why is it any of the government's business or your business? Who are you buying my stuff from? My stuff. Not your stuff. Not American stuff. And if I want to trade with somebody in Bangladesh or somebody in Ohio or somebody in Mongolia, why is it anybody's business? Business, no. My American country's business, what the hell is that? And my government's business, why? Because rights. I haven't shot anybody on the way. I haven't stolen anything from anybody. I've committed a crime. I bought something from somebody who lives in another country. Now I think that if the person lives in another country he's an enemy. They're all going to kill us. They're not supporting an enemy. Okay. But China's not an enemy. And by the way, one of the reasons Donald Trump has to designate these countries as enemy countries is to make this case. You're supporting the enemy by trading with them. But none of these countries are enemy. Not Canada, not Mexico. Not even China. Not unless we make them one. We're well in the way, I think, to creating enemies more than we are solving anything. But individuals trade it. Now countries don't trade. Countries don't. Countries are an abstraction. It's a political convenience, right? We've got certain borders. These are the laws. These are the rules and these borders. There's a different border set over here with different laws in this set. I, as an individual, have lots of trade deficits. They really piss me off, you know? I go to the grocery store every day. I leave my cash there. I get stuff. And they never hire me to give a talk. I want my money back. I mean, I want trade balance between myself and the grocery store. It's just wrong, right? But now I leave my cash there. I get the goods. And nobody worries about that trade deficit. But individuals have larger trade deficits. We don't. Because nobody circulates back. And we prefer to have the goods than the cash. How do we know we prefer to have the goods than the cash? Yeah, I gave you the trade. I exhibited my preference for goods over cash. What we talk about is become this is bad for America. You know, American jobs. Is there such a thing as American jobs? What does that even mean, the Americans? But why is my job related to your job? I mean, this is part of the problem of talking about aggregate statistics and emphasizing aggregate statistics and constantly obsessing about GPM and employment and these aggregates that don't mean that much. You know, I was just reading on the way, on the flight here, somebody sent me an email, a quote from about Hong Kong. And in Hong Kong, for decades, the government collected no aggregate statistics. They said, we don't care. Cracks and to create an environment that makes economic activity feasible. And that's it. You know, unemployment. It's GDP. What does it mean? And they collected no statistics. And at one point in time, there was pressure on it. And the legislature in Hong Kong wanted to pass a new law that set up a statistics office that started collecting GDP numbers and all these aggregate statistics. And the governor of Hong Kong, his credit, said, no, we don't need those statistics. They don't impact what we have to do. Our job is not to manage an economy. Our job is not to increase GDP. Our job is not to lower unemployment. Our job is to protect property and contracts and leave you alone to do your thing economically. And he refused to have it. I don't know when statistics were started collected in Hong Kong, but that wouldn't be surprised if you could see a direct correlation between that point and a slow deterioration in economic freedom in Hong Kong. One of the things he said is, once you collect the statistic, we'll start targeting economic policy for the statistics, not towards freedom, but towards the statistic, towards maximizing GDP or minimizing this or that. You can see right now in the United States what should the Fed do? Should it lower interest rates because job creation is lower? Should it raise interest rates because they've been printing money like crazy for 10 years? What do you do? Well, as I think we know, there is no right answer to that. There is no right answer to the questions of central planning. There is no right answer to the questions of these aggregate statistics. The best thing the Federal Reserve could do is dismantle itself. And return on the creation of money and the determination of interest rates to where they belong, to individuals in the marketplace, to supply them and that's inconceivable because America has to have a central bank. If you move towards more and more tribalism, more and more collectivism, you will see more conflicts. You will see more conflicts around immigration. You will see more centralized planning. If we're all one just group, if we're not individuals, how do you make decisions as a group? How do you make decisions as a group? How does a tribe make decisions? We're not supposed to do it as individuals because we as individuals don't count as the group. How do you make decisions? You can vote, but voting is not very efficient. It's much more efficient to do what? Of course, the efficient way a group can make decisions. Let's pick a leader. He'll make decisions for us in any way. The reasons we chose the group is because we don't trust our own mind as individuals. We don't trust our own reasoning. We don't trust our own ability to make decisions. We need somebody to be able to commune with the spirit to tell us what's good for the group. Why in communism do you need a dictator? You're supposed to do everything for the good of the parliamentarian. What's good for the parliamentarian? You need somebody to be able to commune with the spirit of the parliamentarian to be able to tell us what's good for the parliamentarian. And what about the Aryan race? Anybody know what's good for the Aryan race? The fact is, the reality is, there's no such thing as good for the Aryan race. There's no such thing as good for the parliamentarian. There's no such thing as good for the group. Good can only apply to the individual. Once you establish a standard, it's the good for the group to figure out what that is. And we need to obey his commandments and follow his commandments. We need to obey his commandments. We need to obey his commandments. We need to obey his commandments. And follow his commandments. Our moral state, the individual's ability to make decisions about the individual's own government is to protect our rights of freedoms rather than to sacrifice us for some greater good. The politicians left the brain, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. They all preach to us, what? The greater good. The public interest. The common good. The dictators, the democratically elected leaders. It doesn't matter. We as individuals do not count. What counts is the collective. The collective is going to be. It's the state, whether it's the parliamentarian, whether it's the race, whether it's what you belong to or we all belong to these days. And in America, the tribes are getting, you know, very... And you can see it on the left, right? Identity politics. Anybody heard of the intersectionality? Anybody heard of intersectionality? It's really popular in American campuses. It's this whole doctrine that basically rants people based on how oppressed they are. Yeah. So, you know, I like... I'm not one of the worst oppressors, according to the sectionality, even though I'm white and male. That's the worst, right? Because I'm joyous to that. That gives me a little bit of bonus credits because I've been oppressed in my history as if I was oppressed because my ancestors were oppressed. Again, collectivism, right? I think it's transient and black. I can't tell you the groupings to make you the most... But everybody has a box now. Everybody belongs to a particular box, a particular tribe. And you're laying based on how oppressed you are. An individual. You're not who you are. You're not your values. You're your specific tribes' values. And you're seeing a bad passion from the right. We're saying the right is basically saying you want to try and end any politics. We're still the majority in the U.S. We're right. We're right male. We're right this. We can do that as well. And you're seeing a growth in this tribalistic mentality both left and right. It's the fundamental idea of tribalism characterism. It's more important than the individual. It's okay to sacrifice the individual for the group. And then we can talk about the hierarchy of the different groups. And who's more important than whom? The collectivism is destroying the world in which we live. Collectivism is blinding people to their own self-interest because they're not seeking their own self-interest. I know people who say, yeah, yeah, I'm better off by trading with China than America. America, we need to protect all of this mentality every front and has them far in every dimension. Ultimately at the core of collectivism. Ultimately at the core. Well, one, as I said, a disregard for reason, a disregard for our individual rational faculty, a view that says that we can't actually, as individuals, call reality, we need the safety of the group to help us discover the truth. That's our moral core to this idea of collectivism. It's particularly appealing to most people. Sacrifice, your sacrifice, the French philosophy, said that morality is about means to devote your life to serving others. And the more you serve them, the more you sacrifice yourself for them, the better human being you actually are. In serving others, it crosses your mind to get some satisfaction from them. That you're going to be in some dimension better off for helping others. It's not moral, and he coined this term. He gave it altruism. Now today we use altruism in a variety of different ways. But the first person to use it philosophically is trying this idea of selflessness. There's no idea. There's only us. Because self added is pure, you know, Augustine Kant sense of selflessness. That sense, you know, people reject that. Nobody actually wants to devote their entire lives, unless you're maybe Mother Teresa, to just other people and to suffer as a consequence. Nobody actually wants to do that. So we don't actually live by that code. We still regard it as, you know, it's right, it's moral, it's good. But that's the idea. So we feel guilty when we don't live up to it. So many people feel guilty because they don't live up to it. In our modern context, it's not about helping others. We're the greatest beneficiaries of all of the history in terms of mankind. The poor more than anybody else. The beneficiaries of mankind has ever seen. They have brought more people out of poverty than anyone raised the standard of living. But it's making a billion dollars. Like dollars, not Mongolian currency, because a billion is not that much. Or Korea, where they view a seven-figure number as constantly. I don't care how they do the math. But how do you become a billionaire? A dollar. How do you make a billion dollars? But it pays me a billion. It's not enough to give the people what they want. Which people? How many people? What do you give them? Creating a lot more than a billion in value. Yeah, create an enormous amount of value for whom? So if you look at billionaires, they usually touch the lives of hundreds of millions of people. That means they train with hundreds of millions of people. Hundreds of millions of people. My favorite example here is, and I usually use this in my talk, I named it Cori, but it's such a good example. JK Rawls. Everybody know JK Rawls? Do you read Harry Potter and Mongolia? Harry Potter? I don't see the Mongolians reacting. Yes? But these amazing books, I mean, I love them. I really enjoyed them. But you know, Harry Potter is a real problem. Because Harry Potter has dramatically increased in equality in the world. I figured I've spent $3,000 to $4,000 on Harry Potter. You know, there were seven books. I had about two. Because I went for each of my sons. Guilty for me. Rise in Disneyland. Music box and stuff like that. Thousands of dollars I spent on Harry Potter. I was poor because of Harry Potter. And what happened to JK Rawls? What happened to JK Rawls? She became a billionaire. Now, you laugh, but this is exactly what JK Rawls does. What all the equality bumbo jumbo economists do. They look at my bank account and they see my bank account went down by several thousand dollars. And they look at JK Rawls' bank account and it went up by several thousand dollars. And they say, look, inequality's increased. Now, am I poor because I bought JK Rawls' books? No. Well, it depends how you measure poverty. If you measure it in dollar terms, I'm poor. I have several thousand dollars less. There's amazing spiritual value. My life is richer. My life is better off for having treated with JK Rawls. Just having two sons did red. That's cool. And enjoyed it. And enjoyed it. The joy you get out of an experience like that. So I'm better off. JK Rawls is better off, but so how do you become a billionaire? JK Rawls case. You spiritually enhance the lives of millions because he's made the world a better place for hundreds of millions of people. And yet, how much moral credit? How much moral credit? Morality happens. Do we give billionaires? Zero. Zero. You mean generous. Zero billionaires is the culture in which we live. Hey, guys, they're exploiters. There's some people. Yeah. There's no statues outside of Bill Gates, the jobs. They don't belong to the military. She helped a few thousand. Not hundreds of millions. But she didn't benefit from it. So she's a moral saint. And they seem to be enjoying it. And that can't be right. You can't be moral and have fun at the same time. There's a conflict without economics. Morality is saying you should sacrifice. And economics say you should trade it. Economics, I think morality tends to win. Morality places the center of gravity on the other, on the group. And it takes it away from the individual. We're supposed to be selfless with no self. Do we think I'm moral? I think this is why we lose. Because it's really hard. Thousands of years of being taught and preached to that they should be selfless servants of fill in the blank. Teachers of it. But look at how one understands it when we talk because they have benefits. If you should hear, it's underappreciated. She reframes the debate about morality. It's not about sacrifice. It's not about being selfless. Morality should be about what it can be. Morality should be about living the best life you can. Achieving your own happiness. Not other people's expense, but through creating win-win-trade relationships with other people. Morality should be about making the most of your life. It should be you who has projected morality in ethics. It's to figure out the virtues and values that you as an individual should practice to achieve your domineering, to achieve your flourishing, your happiness as an individual. It continues that. And indeed, morality shouldn't be the science. It should be a science that teaches us as individuals what leads the success in life and what leads the failure. Because we need help. We need guidance. It's hard to live. We need principles to guide our lives. And when we have bad principles, at least the bad outcomes, including bad economics, and we think of all principles. We think of all principles in terms of our own individual well-being. Long-term self-interest. I think that's redundant, because I think self-interest by definition is rational and long-term. It's a morality-appropriate for individuals living another life. It's a morality to lose. You want to be a traitor for themselves. Don't want to be told what to do. Don't make mistakes, and they will fail. Sometimes, big deal. You learn from your mistakes. Self-respecting individuals wants paternalistic government on their shoulder telling what they can't encounter. What they can't produce, create. To me, this is at the core of the struggle. The core of the struggle is individual freedom. But we need to be able to justify individual freedom in terms of morality, in terms of ethics, in terms of its justice. The left is very good at dealing with sources of religious right. Those two are very good. AOC, you know what AOC? I'll cause you a quartet. My favorite politician on the left. Because she's smart. So people say, pay for this. You want a green, you know, new deal. Are you going to pay for it? You know what she says? She turns around to the interviewer, and she says, if this is the right thing to do, if this is the moral thing to do, if this is good, then we'll find a way to pay for it. But that's absolutely right. She's absolutely right. If it's just, if this is what morality demands, then of course we should do it. You don't get it, Alexandria. What you're advocating for is evil. What you're advocating for is wrong. What you're advocating for is immoral. Forget the money. The money's irrelevant. What's really relevant is the fact that you are advocating for evil, honest, individual rights that violate the freedoms of individuals that live their lives to say, see fair. People in America, we talk about Medicare for all social health medicine, because it costs so much. It's not about money. It's not about car. Sheer violation of individual choice. The sheer violation of the rights of doctors and nurses and patients made the choices about their own health care and about who they, how much they charge and how can they do if you're a doctor? It's about the rights of producers and the rights of consumers. It's not about the money. It's not about costs. Because hey, the Europeans do it. It's about morality. It's about what's right. It's damn evil to have social health medicine. We can figure out the economics afterwards. But let's fight on a moral foundation. Let's fight for the rights of individuals that live their lives free so that they can make decisions about their own well-being. About what makes them happy. About guiding their lives based on their own reason. In pursuit of their own values. Somebody dictating to them how to live. Underlying everything. It's all over the place. It's selflessness is somehow noble. You see, your pastor is just watching your pastor. He was selfless because he passed the ball. Really? You mean he doesn't want to win? He passed the ball because he wants to win. Winning is a higher value than dribbling. But it's infected anyway. Selflessness is good. Self-interest is bad. Why? You only have one life. You only have one life. This is it. I don't know. I guess some of you might believe it reincarnation. I don't. And it's way too risky because I might come back as a cockroach. So I, you know, I'd rather think of this life. What? This is it. The freedom to live it. That's where the battle is. Thank you. Questions? A couple of things. It seems as though what we have in the world a lot today is, you know, battles between large-scale tribalism and small-scale tribalism. And secondly, how do we keep free trade agreements from becoming corrupted? You know, the United States Constitution was a free trade agreement and now it's morphed into all these other things that it never should have been and was never intended to be. So, yeah, I agree with you about the tribalism. I haven't thought of it in terms of scale, but that's true. You've got certain people advocating for big tribes, for large tribes, and then people wanting to break up into their little tribes. You know, I was in Montenegro I don't know if you know Montenegro, but there's this little country in the Balkans, 400,000 people. How the hell do you have a country? Oh, because we're this tribe of Montenegro instead. Who cares? Like you share culture and language with these other people. What differences do you have? No, no, no. And that's the little tribe and then there's a big tribe, the European Union. And I see it in America. America is breaking up into little tribes now. And America, this is the difference between America and Europe. I think America is the anti-tribal country. America is the anti-collectivistic country. Europe is based on a division of nationalities based on ethnic origins. Based on what tribe you belong to in the past. That's unfortunately from the beginning of of nation ruin, Europe is stuck to that. And if anything sometimes they consolidate countries and then they pick them up. Like there was a Czechoslovakia or no, no. We're Czechs and they're, you know, Slovaks or whatever. Really? I mean, and this is worth conflict or this is worth more separation somehow? So you've got you've got many tribes in Europe because Europe is stuck. The nation's state was founded on the basis of the ethnic culture. It was not founded on the basis of ethnic culture. The sense of slavery. America was founded on an idea that individuals are equal before the law. As individuals. Not, you know, with copyrights. For all of that period we hated the Chinese away from period we hated the Irish and the Jews. So we closed our borders. Closed the borders in the 1920s. Was it? Which with tragic effects. Really tragic effects. But generally, America because it built an idea, dissolved tribes. You came to a melting pot. The whole vision of a melting pot was the tribe went away. And you didn't join a new tribe. You became an individual. You got to live your life. Your life as an individual. And this is what scares me more than anything else right now. Is that I always viewed that element in American society as sacred and elastic. And then, you know, stateism and governments left, right, they come and go. But this idea of individualism was part of what it meant to be American. And it was deep rooted in the American spirit. And that's what I see dissipating and going away, right? Because of both left and right, I see it across the entire political spectrum. And it's philosophical and it's deep now. And it's going to be very difficult to reverse this trend. And I think that has global implications and had implications for everybody. If America loses that vision of what it means to be an individual and treat people as individuals, what happens to the rest of the world? Yeah, Tom. I'd like to ask your general thoughts about the complementarity between different kinds of arguments for freedom. So I presented a bit more of the data driven, I have some to check that are all, who presented the right of the individual to live or his life. Those are complementary, but they're different. So let me read to you a statement from 1844 from Swedish Engels that outlined in the critique of political economy, which appeared in the same issue as Carl's anti-Semitic diatribe on the Jewish question. Are you attacking all of us? Yes, so you should all read it. It's amazingly anti-Semitic. His fundamental attack on capitalism was it turned Christians into Jews. And then they turned Jews as money-grubbing and he says they worship money. He allegedly says Jews are selfish. Therefore they are capitalists. They're money-grubbing. And Christians are becoming Jews and the solution to Jewish poverty is to get rid of the Jews. But what he meant by that is not just the Jews. He meant by that get rid of capitalism and selfishness and individualism in totality. He represented that for Carl. Well, here was Engels, his buddy, attacking bourgeois liberalism, that's us, for being in favor of peace. Quote, you have reduced the number of wars to all the leader of profits and peace. When have you done anything out of pure humanity from consciousness of the futility of the opposition between the general and the individual interest? When have you been moral without being interested, done harboring in the back of your mind, immoral, egotistical motives? So that's very strong support for your approach to go to the question of it's okay, it's good to try. You should be interested. You should be interested in your life. Given that, what is the proper balance for someone wanting to advance freedom between the empirical arguments about the utility of freedom and the uplift and the wonderful benefits and the peace and then the more I don't know if I put, almost psychological arguments that you have a right to pursue what is good for you? How would a good person balance those? philosophical arguments and I actually think we're missing some psychological arguments because I think they're both psychological arguments and why people with certain psychologies are more attracted to freedom than others and how we can encourage psychological health, which is risk-taking and freedom and so on. So I think you need all of the arguments as we click. I think you need all of them. I don't think we're going to win if we just focus on one. And I think in a presentation but to a new audience, if you will, I think it's good to combine them. So I always give a taste of the empirical stuff. I love the graph of the GDP going up and I focus on the model. I can understand somebody just primarily focusing on the empirical stuff, but I would urge you to say something about the model, to give it some more freedom. It's not just there's a morality to this idea that individuals are coming out of poverty. This is really, this is here people now are getting an opportunity to live their lives as free individuals. This is amazing. So I think we need to do all of it. I think we're going to do a differently weighted empirical and some of them are going to do the model with some empirical. And then I'd love to see if people do more psychological because I think there is a psychological difference. I'd like people to do I mean, I think we have to attack this every dimension. I know we don't have enough historians. We're all the historians of, you know, I'm always looking for that really good book that gives a good, accurate description of what happened during the Industrial Revolution. And there shouldn't be one book. This should be like this is the most important century of all of human history in my view, 19th century. In terms of, I mean this is where we came out of the dark ages of in terms of income and wealth and aid and wages, right? And yet there are a few books but there should be a whole, you know there should be a library of books about all the different ways that the industrial revolution improved human life. So we need historians and we need economists and we need philosophers, we need ethicists. I think that we underway as a group we underway them all at once because we're uncomfortable. We don't always agree on morality, right? I mean some of us are coming from a religious perspective and a religious perspective emphasizes a certain morality that I probably disagree with, right? And it's probably more similar in some respects to obviously cars than to argument. I think you know, I know some of you will disagree but I think one of the great tragedies of the free market movement in the 20th century was that people didn't take it any more seriously. I think that'll be the tragedy if people about the statue of Jesus and Hyde had taken a moral argument seriously. We would be 50 years ahead of where we are today in terms of influencing the culture. I think one of the great tragedies is they didn't and I think we will we won't live to regret it but our kids and grandkids might live to regret it. The fact that we didn't take she is a true genius when it comes to philosophy and she truly made some profound profound discoveries and contributions to philosophy particularly morality and epistemology and we focus on the politics and we should be looking there and I think it will enhance our defense of freedom which we most of us agree is a good thing if we took those philosophically ideas seriously and used them more. So I would argue use them more. Whatever we do we would not do enough philosophy. We do a lot of the other periods. We need to give it more of that but you first need to agree with them often. You first need to believe it's true. Excellent speech and I totally agree that the businessmen are the people who made much more than anybody else to put people out of poverty but still business is broadly accepted as something dirty and the businessmen they squeeze something out of society and there is this notion that they can give back and there are three magic words corporate social responsibility but this is their chance this is their chance to pay back after all the all the damage they created what's your take on it? This is exactly the point instead of seeing businessmen as the producers of the great world we all benefit from as Tom said to make a billion you have to create trillions of wealth you literally have to create trillions of wealth people have done the calculation of Bill Gates it's trillions of dollars in wealth for all of us for their 70 billion which is the wealth of Bill Gates can't even imagine what the number would be for Amazon. Just think about Amazon has changed our lives every one of our lives everywhere in the world even to the extent that other companies like China mimic Amazon so they don't get directly from Amazon mimicking their idea so the fact that Jeff Bezos pre-divorced has 146 billion dollars quite a bit less after-divorced is peanuts it's nothing as compared to the amount by which he's enhanced our lives but instead of that and that's again underestimating think of think of the number of people employed think of the suppliers think of all the small businesses that sells through Amazon and now I'm a business because they have a distribution channel which is Amazon I mean you can go on and on and on and the ripple effect of what business has on our entire world it's changed the world in profound positive ways and yet they squeeze society who in health society where the people they squeeze yes some mom and pop shops once are closed okay but that's competition right that's the way the world works you can't compete you close but even the people who shop for clothes is life is better for having Amazon which competition drives innovation and therefore the standard of living is right in every dimension this is a good thing and yet they have to give back what businessmen say to us what the hell did you take you care of yourself I once attended a lifetime achievement award luncheon for businessmen in Charleston, South Carolina so no lefties in the room these are all good conservatives and all businessmen who've made achieved something in their lives I think there were three or four recipients of the award and they were these long biops these long biographies of who this person was and what they've done they spent in a ten minute biography they spent the first minute and a half on a business achievement and the next eight and a half billion minutes on the community service and charity and then I got up to speak and I was a few years I said I cannot be in this community service and charity it's really nice it's pleasant it doesn't matter who makes you a good person that's not what changes the world what matters is what you produce what matters is how you apply your energies, your thought, your life and taking care of yourself and your family and you did a magnificent job of that you did such a good job of that that you hope everybody in your community you're important people you create a value you're made the world of that place while helping yourself you feel guilty for that so you don't do the charity in the community service because you love it for making all this money and you can see them all squirming in their seats they give me a standing ovation at that but they want comfortable it's uncomfortable because it's true it's exactly what's going on for them and one of the examples I get if you take the United States in 1776 America in 1776 was a poor place it was a third-rate I mean the British didn't really fight they had bigger problems with France Spain or whatever they had certainly 40 years by the breakout of World War I was the richest economy in the world the powerful military turns out in the world just an amazingly rich place how did that happen? because of charity in community service because Americans are charitable so they built the economy on charity now it's because of business men it's because of all those rubber barons they built America and how many statues do we have to walk a fellow mechanic, Carnegie, Melon J.P. Morgan got from it now he's a good guy and in the business side I'm not talking about his politics but his ultimate compromise is the same compromise he supported at the Federal Reserve but his ultimate compromise was the same kind of compromise that Bill Gates made in lobbying J.P. Morgan was bought in front of Congress and said how did you save this economy in 1907 how did you as a private bank have so much power how did you have so much money and he's a famous series that he participated in 1913 and his conclusion from that was they're going to establish a central bank they're going to screw me I might as well participate maybe it's the wrong conclusion that we wouldn't have come to but it's certainly understandable that I don't blame him for that blame the politicians and the intellectuals for allowing it to happen and the people who built America and the politicians it's not Mother Teresa's it's not charities Carnegie's remember for giving his money away great what he did to the American steel industry that is amazing the railroads, the building of America that's his real contribution that's what he should be remembered for so you know businessmen are heroes without culture stuff receiving business was his heroes stop if you're out there stop feeling guilty stop being proud and start declaring your pride publicly you'll take some heat for it it's worth it because there's nothing more than 100 John Allison's COBBNT in the United States people like that standing up and saying no I don't feel guilty and I won't feel guilty and you won't make me feel guilty that will change so in the beginning he raised the question how can we communicate individualism and liberty let me give you one tip in the form of a question have you ever heard of professor Claire Graves emergent, cynical levels of existence spirit of human development and I would argue it's not enough to know about individualism and libertarianism we also have to understand value systems change dynamics paradigm shifts how can we effectively communicate with people and meet people where they are I mean I think that's absolutely right I think we need to learn I mean I'm not endorsing that particularly because I don't know anything about this I don't want to be perceived endorsing it but we need to understand the world the more we understand the world the more we understand people the more we develop our communication skills and our ability to present these ideas in a context that is that people can understand how to be about any kind of deterministic mechanistic kind of system because that sometimes can deter people from acting because change will happen anyway because it's determined I think it's up to us to change the world it's not going to happen by itself and we need to get better at it we need to become better communicators but we need to be better in terms of the ideas and again I repeat that I think what is missing to a large extent from the free market movement all the philosophical ideas the moral ideas the psychological ideas that are necessary to support free markets to support individual freedom and all the rest that we believe in so let's get better at what we do I'm not criticizing anybody in particular I think we've got a group of amazing amazing fighters here but we can all get that and I think that means in this case getting deeper and getting too way I mean learn from our example I would learn from them make it about these moral issues add on the empirical because we don't want to devalue that that's important but the other thing is we're right, they're wrong we have reality, truth empirical evidence and any other real science on outside so we should win so let's take advantage of all of them and let's go