 Welcome to a discussion of radical fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, laissez-faire capitalism, and individual rights. The Iran Book Show starts now. Good afternoon everybody and welcome to actually to the last episode, the last, the very last episode of the Iran Book Show, on the blaze, which kind of makes me sad. I mean, I'll miss you guys. But of course, you can keep listening to me. I'm not going away completely, just going away from the blaze. You can follow all of my different podcasts and different shows and different lectures and debates and media interviews on iranbrookshow.com. You can also, of course, find much of, you can follow me on Facebook, Iran Book, on Facebook, or on Twitter. And you can, let me see, what have I forgotten? You can subscribe on YouTube as well. So you can subscribe, you can follow, you can like. You can go to the website, you can even support me financially and help me with my independent show as we move forward by making a contribution on patreon.com. So a little bit of a sad day, but that's okay. We go on and we continue on the battle. I want to return today, given that this is my last show, it's a few themes that we have talked about on the show over the last six months. Themes that I keep repeating. And I want to focus on a few topics where we can illustrate these themes, but I really want to leave you with these basic thoughts and really it boils down to what we talked about last week, what we talked about over and over and over again. And that is kind of what America, what America is, what it makes America special. But more broadly, what is it that's acquired for human success, for human flourishing? And there have really been two positives and two negatives that I've emphasized and I've tried to emphasize to some extent in every single show that I've done. The positives are that to be successful as an individual one must be dedicated to reason. Reason is our means of knowledge. Reason is the way in which we learn about the world. Reason is the way in which we know what is true and what is false, what is false, what is right and what is wrong. Fact, reality is our test, not emotion, not revelation, not what's written in books, not what the President of the United States says, not what an economist said, not what a radio talk show host says, not what anybody says. Reality, facts, logic, that is the standard for truth. And a dedication to the truth, a dedication to facts, a dedication to reason is what makes an individual great. So let's make each one of us great again by rededicating ourselves to the truth, to facts, to logic, to reason. But to do that we need to dedicate ourselves in a sense to ourselves. The other thing that makes this country great or makes any country great that practices this or is necessary for individual success is to view the primacy of the individual, to take your life seriously, to strive to make your life the best life that it can be. Now how does this apply politically? Politically, the unit of importance, the only unit of significance is the individual. And the political theory that advocates for this, the political theory that animated the founding fathers was individualism, the idea of the sanctity, the primacy of the individual. And that's the way to think about everything in politics. Every issue that comes up, one must think, what impact does this have on the individual in principle? And the way to think about that is through the idea of rights. The government's job is only to protect the individual's rights, to protect him from forced fraud, to protect him from other people trying to steal his stuff, take his stuff. And of course the government is the biggest thief of all, has been throughout history. So the whole idea of individual rights is to protect us from our own government. So on any issue in politics, and we'll cover a few controversial ones today, the idea must be, the thought must be, how does this relate to individual rights? How does this relate to the government's job in protecting our right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness? How does this relate to the government's job to protect my freedom, my ability to act in pursuit of my own rational values? Is it hooding that? Then it's wrong. Is it helping it? Then it's good. So since most talk radio and most podcasts and most of what's being talked about out there, I guess not most podcasts, but most of what talk radio is about politics, let's focus in on politics. So when one looks at what a politician might be recommended, might be suggesting, the standard must be how does this impact the issue of rights? How are the lives of individuals? How is individual freedom affected by what is being proposed? Is this good for individual freedom? Or is this bad for individual freedom? That ultimately is the question. And if it's bad for individual freedom, it must be rejected. If it's good for individual freedom, then it should be embraced. So let's take a topic that I think some of you might be already bored with. I know I talk about this a lot, but I really want to go deep and I really want to cover it. Given my last opportunity here on The Blaze, I really want to cover it. It's in the news in greater depth than maybe I have in the past. And I'd love to take your phone calls if you have an opinion about this. And that is the issue of free trade. Because I think this is so important and so crucial because it represents these two issues that I've been talking about. Reason versus emotion. What does reason tell us about trade? How do we emotionally respond to trade? Individualism versus collectivism versus tribalism. How does this affect the individual? How do we think about trade from an individualist perspective? How do we think about trade from a collectivist, tribalist perspective? America should be the land of reason and individualism and should reject anything that is based on emotion and tribalism. And yet we have a president who is constantly, constantly hopping on emotion and on tribalism. So let's look at, you know, so Donald Trump right now is in Davos. Davos is a town in Switzerland. I think it's up in the mountains. I think it's a ski resort where once a year the elites, the elites that he constantly, constantly opposed and spoke up against throughout the campaign meet every year to chat and discuss and have presentations and talks. Yesterday, the day before yesterday, George Soros spoke, you know, the Chancellor of Germany spoke, Bill Gates is there, everybody, all the who's who of the world, political, business and even intellectual elites are there. And of course Donald Trump couldn't stay away. And Trump, Trump gave a talk yesterday and it was basically this mishmash of stuff that really is, means nothing. I'll give you a great example of this and this relates to trade. Of course he's going there representing this idea of America is open for business. But of course just the day after he's placed barriers to entry and tariffs on washing machines and solar panels. We'll talk about that. This is a day after he's increased trade barriers. He's going there to say, well, open for business. We want lots of trade. And of course he's going into a place that is very pro-trade. The global elites are very pro-trades. So, you know, he's got a bit of a hostile audience in front of him. So this is a sentence from Trump just to illustrate kind of what I consider the insanity of this president. He says, I'm paraphrasing that, quote, US supports free trade, he said, quote, but it needs to be fair and it needs to be reciprocal. It needs to be fair and it needs to be reciprocal. Now, I don't know how trade can be unreciprocal. By definition trade is reciprocal. Now, he might be saying that the free trade needs to be reciprocal. That is the other party has to engage in free trade, which means they have to have no barriers. Well, if that's his intention, he doesn't seem to be going about it the right way. By raising tariffs here, you're only encouraging the unreciprocality from the other side of them raising tariffs. And the fact is, and we'll talk about this in more detail in a minute, that it doesn't matter whether the other side is reciprocal or not, free trade is good for us. Whether they're reciprocal or not, it's better for us if they're reciprocal. It's better for everybody, but it's still good for us even if they're not. And what does fair trade mean? I mean, fair trade, this one boggles the mind, if you will. It's a term, and I've said this before on the show, it's a term invented by the left. Invented by the left to suggest that trade is somehow unfair. If, let's say, the other party is paying their employees lower wages than you are. Or if, I don't know, the environmental regulations in the other country are different than environmental regulations in your country, then it's unfair. This is a purely leftist term that was invented by the worst kind of progressive leftists 20 years ago to go after trade and now embraced completely by this Republican administration and by Donald Trump, who, you know, when it comes to economic, many economic issues is ultimately just a leftist. So what I want to show today is that fair trade, the only kind of fair trade is free trade. There is no other fair trade. And that free trade is, should be unilateral. And, you know, it would be nice if it was reciprocal. And of course, that all trade is reciprocal. You give up something and you get something. That's the nature of trade. And it's fair, fundamentally, at the core, because both parties are engaged with it. Now, one of the accusations I get a lot when I talk about this topic is, oh, you're on, you're just an idealist. Yeah, in a perfect world, free trade would be great. But we don't live in a perfect world. So it doesn't work in a non-perfect world. So one of the things I want to refute is that claim. No, free trade is good right now in the unperfect world in which we live. It's always the preferred, the better solution. It's practical and moral. It's the only answer based on reason and based on the individual's well-being on the rights of the individual. All right, so we're going to delve into that. We're going to start with what an individualist approach to trade has to be. How do you look at trade as an individualist versus as a tribalist? And we'll do that right after this break. In the meantime, you can call in 888-900-3393 with all your challenges, all your questions, all the examples you have to show me I'm wrong, to show me what an idealist detached from reality I am. Go ahead, looking forward to it, 888-900-3393, and we'll be right back after these messages. Hey everybody, we're back. By the way, those of you who might be in the South Carolina area for whatever reason, I will be giving a talk at Clemson University in South Carolina on Tuesday, on this coming Tuesday. It's going to be a lot of fun. The title of the talk is Capitalism versus Socialism, which is the moral system. I think you can all imagine what position I'm going to be taking in that debate. But it's open to the public. You can come. You know, it's worth the drive. So if you live in Columbia, or you're certainly in Greenville, come over to Clemson University 530. So you'll have to take off and work a little early. But I promise it's going to be worth it. Hopefully, I'm hoping, hoping that a bunch of socialist students show up and challenge me on this. I love debating socialists, particularly if they're young and innocent and naive. I soon get them to not be that anymore. And then they have to real choice on their hands because they are then confronted with the truth. Capitalism versus Socialism, which is the moral system at Clemson University 5pm on Tuesday. This coming Tuesday, yes, in three days, I'll be in Clemson, flying from Puerto Rico direct into Charlotte and then driving down to the wonderful, beautiful, amazing University of Clemson. Unfortunately, I can't say this year, national champions, they didn't quite make it. All right. So what would an individualist approach to trade be? How do you think about trade? Well, the first thing to recognize. The first thing to recognize and the first point to make in every discussion about trade is the very nature of trade, one-on-one, between two individuals. Always bring it back to the individual. Why do you trade with other people? And the purpose of this is to dismiss the notion that Marxists are trying to perpetuate in the world around us. That trade is as it was some game. That if you benefit from trade, the other party has to lose from trade. So the point is the trade is, or at least in its intention, you go into trade, trying to make your life better off and so does the other party. Trade is a win-win transaction, at least in intention. Sometimes you buy a lemon, sometimes you're fooled, sometimes you make a mistake. But the intention is always win-win. Trade is not zero-sum. When I buy an iPhone for $300, I've used this example a million times. I know my life is better off by more than $300. That's why I get into the trade. And Apple is better off. Apple's numbers are better off because they valued the $300 more than the phone. They made a profit. I won. An Apple won. Nobody lost. There was no losing. Trade is win-win. It's voluntary. It's reciprocal to use Donald Trump's words. And it's fair because as long as there's no fraud being committed, I get what I expected. I pay what I promised. Everybody's a winner. Everybody's better off. So that is the most important concept to get. Trade as a good, value-added, positive thing for the individual. For all the individuals who participate in it. And that at the end of the day, the reason to engage in it is to better your life. Either by gaining money, by selling something so that you can use your money to buy something else that's more valuable to you. Remember, at the end of the day, money is there in order to buy stuff, in order to consume, in order to enjoy life, in order to have fun. Yeah, you can save some. It's important to save some so that in the future you can consume. There's no point in money left over when you're dead. Well, unless you want to help your kids and grandkids. But the purpose of making money is to consume. So the individualist approach is first to identify the benefit from trade. And then to recognize that only individuals trade. Countries don't trade. Collectives don't trade. Tribes don't trade. Individuals trade. I go to Walmart and I buy stuff. I don't know. You know, let's say you're not in Walmart, wherever it is. I bought this preamp to improve the quality of sound from my podcasts. I don't actually know where this preamp was made. And I have to admit, I don't care. Somebody somewhere in the world made this preamp. I benefit because I got the preamp, which is more valuable to me than the money I gave up. This person and all the people who are into meteories from the store that sold it to me that happens to be in the U.S. To the supplier who supplied it from China, let's say, who happens to be China. To the individual who actually put this together, to the guy who had the idea of how to put it together, to his boss, to everybody in between, all made something off of the transaction. We're all better off. I'm better off. The Chinese guys are better off. Why do I care that I just made a Chinese person better off? Rather than a Russian person or rather than an American person. My goal in trade is not to improve your life. It's to improve my own. When I go into a store and buy something, I don't think to myself, oh, great. This is an opportunity to help the owner of the store make a profit. I don't go into the store thinking, oh, cool. This is an opportunity to make some textile company in South Carolina better off. I don't care. I really don't care. I go into the store to make my life better off. That's it. Period. End of story. And what if you told me, look, by going into that store, you're not going into the other store. You're hurting the other store. That's bizarre. That's ridiculous. I'm trading in order to improve my life. That's the purpose of what I do. I'm not in the business of trying to improve your life. That's your job. That's your responsibility. I'm not in the business of carrying which store goes bankrupt and which survives. That's not my business. I want to buy the best product for the best price for me. I'm not interested in what's going to stimulate this economy and not stimulate this economy. I'm interested in making my life better. And indeed, any one of my decisions is a positive stimulus to the US economy. We'll get to that. So trade is done between individuals for the purpose of bettering themselves, not for some altruistic, collectivistic, tribal, nationalistic, macroeconomic reason. Trade is for me, making my life better. I buy nice clothes. I buy nice shoes. I buy my iPhone. I buy my preamp to improve my lot in life. I don't think when I go and buy stuff, was this made by a robot? Oh my God, I can't buy it. It's destroying jobs. No, I'm buying the best product that's the cheapest price. That's what it means to be an American. To improve your own life, to value your own life so much that you go in, you go and buy stuff that is going to make your life better. All right, now I know there are tons of objections, but we'll get to that. We're coming up on a break, so if you're calling about miscellaneous topics, I will get to you but much later in the show. Right now, I will prioritize callers on trade. You're listening to your Unbrook Show, we'll be right back after these messages. You're listening to the Unbrook Show. All right, so of course in the chat, I've already been accused of twisting the president's words to undermine the message and act like he doesn't know what he's talking about. Now let me be very clear about Donald Trump and trade. Donald Trump doesn't know what he is talking about. He is the most ignorant president when it comes to economics that the United States has ever had as far as I can tell. Now maybe they've been more ignorant once, but he doesn't know anything about economics. And he certainly about trade, he doesn't know anything and he contradicts himself all the time, but he certainly, in his double speech and everything that I've heard him say, he is wrong on trade. He is wrong on trade and as to the example that the person then follows up with, I will get to that, I promise. But the fact is that you don't know anything about trade. You're wrong about the economics of trade. All right, now again, if you want to call in about trade, go ahead and do it. If you want to correct me about Donald Trump, go ahead and do it. But I've got two callers. I've got Joseph and Skyler. And they want to talk about something I think completely different and I'm going to wait on you. It might be to the last segment of the show because that's when I open it up to general questions. But I've got a lot to say on trade and I want to finish it. I want to cover everybody's objections. So this is a place you send your friends to when you want them to defend trade. By the way, if you want to read about trade, I think the best writer online about trade is Donald Boudreau. Donald Boudreau, an economist out of George Mason University who's excellent on this issue. He actually, I think, writes regular letters to the editor responding to Donald Trump's stupidities about this issue on a regular basis. He's excellent. All right, so trade, win-win, I go into it in order to enhance my life. I don't really care about who's losing their jobs in one store because I'm in the other store. That's not my business. It's not anybody's business. It's not the job of government either. What about trade deficits? Well, again, think about it, there's from an individualist perspective. Each one of us runs a massive trade deficit with the grocery store. Every day, you go to the grocery store and you leave cash there and you get stuff. And that's what a trade deficit is. The United States, quote, supposedly has a trade deficit with China. We buy their stuff just like you buy stuff from the grocery store and we leave dollar bills in China. So what? Trade deficits make zero economic difference. Now they're reflective of all kinds of economic phenomena. They're reflective of the fact that the Chinese want to buy American stuff and invest in America. So they sell to us so that they can get dollars, so they can use those dollars to buy our stuff and to invest in our country. Just like the grocery store is getting our dollars not so we can accumulate dollars and stuff from the mattress so that the owners of the grocery store can pay their employees who can then go and consume. The owners of the store can make a profit so that they can go and consume, you know, I don't know, their yachts or their fancy cars or whatever it is. But there is no zero economic argument anyway in the economic literature that argues that trade deficits are a bad thing. It just doesn't exist. Certainly not if you believe even a little bit in free markets. And again, from an individualist perspective, you're the only one trading. There is no country. The country of America does not trade with the country of China. You as an individual trade with some Chinese guy. You have a trade deficit with this Chinese guy. So what? I have a trade deficit in my mall. I have a trade deficit with everybody except my employer. Where I give him my hours and I get for that money. So trade deficits are irrelevant. They don't make any difference. They don't make any difference. Again, no economist with anything has ever claimed that trade deficits are a bad thing. And Paul Krugman who now claims that used to be very pro free trade. That's what he got his Nobel Prize in economics for. And indeed, one of the things Don Boudreau does on a regular basis is point out how wrong, how Krugman today contradicts Krugman of the past. But that's because Krugman is a political hack. He is no longer an economist. I like to call Paul Krugman the former economist, Paul Krugman. Now imagine that you go into a store and you find their products particularly cheap. And you kind of ask around what's going on. I mean they're really good and you buy stuff. And then you ask around and it turns out that the reason the products are cheap is because the owners of the store are running a losing money and that they have a rich uncle who basically subsidizing, basically gives them money so that they can continue to run the store. In other words, providing them with subsidies. Now the other stores in the mall don't get that subsidy. Only the one store with which uncle gets the subsidy. And therefore they're underpricing their goods. That's why they can afford to lose money. And other stores are losing business as a consequence. Would you stop going to that store? They're offering you cheap goods, good goods. Why is it any of your business? I wouldn't stop. I don't think any of you would stop. I know none of you inquire. None of you try to figure this out. Who cares if they're getting subsidized by their uncle? So the whole idea that if you're subsidizing their industry, if you're subsidizing then you shouldn't buy from them. Why? It just means it's cheaper for you. Who's going to lose from the subsidy? Uncle is losing a lot of money. And ultimately the store will go bankrupt. Ultimately the store can't run itself. And now uncle is never going to return the capital he invested. It's a bad business practices. They go out of business? That's their problem. Again, not mine. All right. Before we go on, there's a lot more to say. Before we go on, let me take a couple of questions. All right. Naveen and Minneapolis. You're on the book show. Hi. Here on how to question about monopolies, the common objection that comes about monopolies, big guys and little guys. So this is around copyright infringement and those kinds of things. So what is the government's role in setting up good judicial structure so that the little guys are not, they don't copy the products of, let's say, Apple. Yeah. And fairly. And then a big company doesn't shut them down, even when they're not copying. Yeah. So first, I don't buy the whole monopolies argument. Again, in a free market there's no such thing as monopolies. In a free market, in a free market there's always competition and you can be big, big, big, but you're going to be competed against. So I don't worry about monopolies. I don't think they're a phenomenon. If there's a monopolist in China, that's China's problem. So I don't, you know, as long as their prices are low, as long as the quality is good, then they will maintain their market share. If their prices go up, as monopolist prices usually do, and if the quality to two rates, then competition will arise. It always happens and it always will happen. That's the nature of markets. The nature of markets is for companies to strive to become, to strive to become a monopolist, or companies strive to become a monopolist. That's how you make profit. And competitors to take away monopoly profits from the monopolist. That's the nature of markets and that's a healthy process. So I'm not worried about the monopolist. Now the second issue is a worry and it's the one constraint I would place on trade because it's the job of government to protect rights. So if a company is violating rights by stealing, stealing intellectual property, for example, as many companies in China do, then it's appropriate for the government to step in and say you cannot bring your goods into this country because they're stolen goods. So for example, if the government knew that there was a Chinese company that was stealing stuff at the harbor and shipping it back to the United States under a different name, they would stop it because that's just stealing and we know that. Well, the same is true. If the government knows that a Chinese company is stealing the intellectual property of an American company like Apple and it's trying to sell its goods in the United States, then it should be stopped. But that's not about tariffs. It's not about imposing a ban on Chinese goods. It's about identifying the products and the companies that are guilty of copyright infringement and banning them and banning people from trading with them. That's much simpler and much easier. And it clearly identifies the real issue, which is the crooks. We shouldn't be trading with crooks. The same would happen if the store in the mall. If the store in the mall was selling dresses labeled Chanel, but it was actually not Chanel, they were just copying Chanel designs, then the government would step in and arrest those people as they should. That makes sense. So are you saying that the government should voluntarily look for these kinds of things? Yeah, no. It's part of their law enforcement responsibility. It is to look into these things and to discover the crooks. And now, you know, without being overly intrusive, but these things are pretty obvious when they happen, and then ban those particularly goods. And the Chinese would get the message if we did that. But of course we don't do that because, not because we're not tough on trade, but because we're not tough on property rights. And the government doesn't know what to do. The government is not today dedicated to protecting the individual rights, particularly property rights of Americans. Does that make sense? Okay. Yeah. Thanks, Navi. Yep. Bye. All right. We're going to take a quick break when we come back. We're going to go to Frank, who's calling from New York, who wants to ask if tariffs are good or bad. You're listening to your Unbrook Show on the Blaze Radio Network. We'll be right back. You're clear. The Unbrook Show. All right. So let me just say a couple of things. I'm talking about trade today. And for those of you who don't know, my last day on the Blaze, and by the way, if you take one thing from my show, and we'll talk about this a little bit later, one takeaway from my show is go read Iron Rand. If you haven't read Iron Rand yet, go read Iron Rand. And we'll get to you, Terra, in a little bit. And Frank, just give me a couple of minutes here. I want to say something about the monopolies from earlier. If you worry about monopolies, it is wonderful because what you're creating is global competition. It's not just the companies in your own country that are competing with one another. Now, it's open up to the world. So for example, Boeing has a monopoly over airplane production in the United States. But when you open up globally, suddenly you have competition from Airbus and maybe from a Chinese plane manufacturer in the future. And now you have competition and less risk of the bad consequences of so-called monopolies. The second thing I wanted to say, oh yeah, let me just say this. So the example I gave where you go into the store and the prices are cheap because the uncle is subsidizing it. Imagine if you found out that this uncle was actually a senior person in the mafia and that he was using basically the proceeds from the mafia to fund this store. Now, at that point, you could have real objections and you could say, yeah, I'm not going to shop at the store, right? I don't want to support people who are involved in the mafia and that would be legitimate for you as an individual to do. It would be illegitimate for the police to say we're shutting down the store because we think your uncle is part of the mafia. It has nothing to do with the owners of the store, he's just giving them money. As long as it's declared, it hasn't broken the law, that's not the issue. But you can make the mall stand and say I'm not going to shop here because everything he has tainted. I don't want to buy it. So take Chinese companies that are state-owned. If you as an individual don't want to buy stuff from a state-owned company because you know that state-owned companies are basically using taxpayer money, theft, in order to produce stuff, then don't buy their stuff. But it's not the US government's job to prevent you from buying. That's the choice you get to make. I'll give you an example. I refused to buy an American car. I refused to buy an American car, particularly General Motors. Why? Because they were bailed out. They were bailed out. My tax money was used in order to bail them out. I'm offended by that. Even more so. I refuse to buy a Tesla. I don't care how good Tesla is. I don't care how wonderful the screen is, the technology is, how pretty the car is, how fast it is. I will not buy a Tesla. Because I'm offended by the fact that it is heavily subsidized by the US government. Now, note that if you really took that seriously, and I don't luckily take that seriously because my life would be over if I did. Your life would be over. Because everything is subsidized. Everything is regulated. Everything is controlled. Everything is given favor, too. Whether it's in China or in Germany in the United States. Unfortunately, the sad truth is, we don't live in a free market. Inside the US, never mind free trade. So my policy is, unless I know explicitly from some source, that this product was created through immoral, illegitimate activities. Supported, for example, by the government. I have no problem. And when it comes to foreign goods, I have no problem buying stuff from anybody. Now, again, I won't buy stuff from North Korea. I won't now go visit Cuba. I will not support communists. China is not communist. Not anymore. Not anymore. It's not the job of the government, though, to tell me. Unless the country is an enemy state. If the country is an enemy state, then the government can restrict trade. Other than the cases of enemy states, the government has no job in trade. No responsibilities vis-a-vis trade. Zero tariffs is the only policy, and that brings me to Frank in New York. Hey, Frank, how's it going? Hi, how you doing? Yes, this is Frank who posted the other day on Facebook about the tariffs reacting to what President Trump was doing with the washing machines and the solar panels. So I've done this before. I mean, whenever he talks about this, I want to say, like, Mr. Trump, you're showing us that you're not really for capitalism. What are you doing? Tariffs are not really free trade. And I also posted something about the Smoot-Hawley Act of the 1930s. Maybe you could tell the people about that. And you did make a comment on my post the other day, too. And I thank you for that. So I don't know if I ran, really, when she was in the 1930s writing her plays, working how he would have thought about this. Well, she didn't really do much economics, particularly not in those days. She was much more concerned about writing her novels, about deep philosophical issues. And economics, she didn't really get interested in more of the policy, the politics of economics, writing about those kind of things until the 1960s. I mean, although she was involved in some political campaigns in the 30s, she didn't write much about these kind of issues. So no. So thanks, Frank. I really appreciate it. Look, tariffs are just a tax. And they're not a tax on China. They're a tax on Americans. And I thought we all understood the taxes were bad. The taxes restricted economic activity. So when I go and buy something from China and there's a tariff on it, I'm paying that tariff. It's not the Chinese guy paying the tariff. I am. It's holding me directly. Who are you penalizing with tariffs? Americans. Okay. So this brings me to the bigger question. I want to go over some of these points, some of these points quickly. Whenever government intervenes in a trade, whether it's domestic or foreign, it does damage. It doesn't matter if you're buying something from a Chinese person or buying something from somebody from Kentucky or from somebody across the street. If the government steps in and intervenes, it raises costs, it destroys jobs, and it distorts the marketplace. Always. And this is what tariffs do. So for example, President Trump raised tariffs on solar panels. So jobs are going to increase, supposedly, in solar panel manufacturing. Although that's not clear because almost all of those plants are now moving to robots. But it turns out that thousands of jobs are probably going to disappear in solar panel installation. And that's always the case. Tariffs, taxes, regulations, controls. Yeah, they might benefit a few, but they destroy for the many. Two minutes. Always. What happens when we raise tariffs on steel to protect steel jobs in America? Oh my God, steel. Yes, we might protect a few hundred or maybe even a few thousand jobs in the steel manufacturing business. But by raising the price of steel, which is what tariffs do, we're destroying jobs in all those places that use steel. Auto industry, washing machine industry, any industry, construction industry, any industry that uses steel now sees that costs go up and jobs are going to be destroyed. Always. Tariffs, taxes, controls, regulations imposed by government destroyed. They don't add. And it doesn't, if you call a tax a tariff, it doesn't make it good. It doesn't make it virtuous. It doesn't make it pro business. It doesn't make it pro the economy. It doesn't help anybody. Not in the long term, not in the totality of things. It reduces productivity and therefore ultimately it reduces wages. It increases costs even for the people whose jobs you're protecting. The cost of the stuff they're going to buy is going to go up. So their lives long term are worse off. 20. Alright. We are heading towards a break and when we come back, this is a long break. When we come back, we'll talk more about trade but we're also going to take some of these calls. So stay on the line. You're listening to your Unbrook Show on the Blaze Radio Network. Welcome to a discussion of radical fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, laissez-faire capitalism and individual rights. The Unbrook Show starts now. Alright everybody. You're joining me here on this weekend, on this Saturday afternoon. We're talking about trade but really the point I'm trying to make here is that you got to look at the facts. You got to look at reality. You got to look at the science. You can't go on emotion and I know it's emotionally pleasing to think we're saving American jobs. We're going to screw those Chinese. We're going to raise tariffs. But that's not the reality. That's placing emotion above facts, reason, reality and the science of economics. Or you might be thinking this is good for America. We got to make America great again. But that's wrong thinking. First of all, it's not good for America so even on that standard it's wrong. But the question is, is it good for you and me and that other person and that other person over there and its answers uniformly know the individualist approach to trade is leave me alone. Let me trade with the way I decide to trade. And that's what we free marketers believe in, right? That the government is supposed to leave us alone. That the government shouldn't be deciding who we should trade with and who we shouldn't. If we're offended by some manufacturer because we don't like their practices then we stop trading with them. It's not the business of government to tell us any of this. Unless there's a violation of rights unless there's clearly theft involved or fraud involved why is the government intervening? And I don't understand this because this... I mean a lot of this is presented as if this is a position of people who are pro-capitalist. Donald Trump claims to be pro-markets but he's not. So let's be real. Let's call him what he is. He's a mixed economy president just like every other president has been. He's not a free market guy because you cannot believe in tariffs and believe in free markets. You cannot believe in subsidies and believe in free markets. You cannot believe in bailouts and believe in free markets that Donald Trump believes in tariffs, subsidies and bailouts. So he's not a free market guy. I mean it's not an issue of liking or not liking Donald Trump. Just be clear about what's involved. There is no good side to tariffs. There is no legitimacy for the government to tax our consumption arbitrarily. Any way, but certainly arbitrarily. Some goods are not other goods. It's completely arbitrary. There's no good side to tariffs. And the last time we got into a trade war which was smooth holly by the Hoover administration it spiraled the world into great depression. Trade is a massive part of the world economy today. Massive. Much more than in 1929, 1930-31. This whole attitude towards protectionism, this whole attitude towards tariffs has nothing to do with reality or factor economics. It's tribalism. You're offended by the fact that the Chinese government is doing things that you don't want them to do. Fine. It doesn't justify the US government getting involved. So let's be clear on what a proper trade strategy is. Proper trade policy would be unilaterally to lower all tariffs on all goods to zero, zero. And indeed there's one country in the world that does that today, Hong Kong. And even though Hong Kong has no natural resources and has no advantages really, the fact that it has zero tariffs has made the citizens of Hong Kong on a per capita basis adjusted for cost of living richer than Americans on average. And they did it in far less time than we've had with far fewer resources, with far fewer everything. How did they do it? Because they're free. Hong Kong has zero tariffs unilaterally. When England became a real superpower economically during the mid-19th century it was because they adopted Adam Smith's view of unilateral free trade. They repealed, originally it was the corn laws, they repealed tariffs and they drove them down to close to zero and ushered in an era of unimaginable economic success all over the world. Indeed the United States had tariffs much of its history but that has stilted growth. That has hurt us. If you go to Korea, South Korea it has lots of tariffs and trade controls. That has restricted their ability to grow. They would be a lot richer if they actually had like Hong Kong. Free trade. You don't need it to be reciprocal. All you need to do is not tax your own people. All you need to do is not penalize your own people. Free trade in your neighborhood is good. We don't go around boycotting people from the other street because we don't want to buy their goods. Even if their goods are cheaper we don't restrict trade among states even though some states subsidize their businesses. California subsidizes Tesla extensively just like the Chinese government subsidizes some of their companies but we don't have the government restricting the ability of people in Texas to buy cars in California because the California government is acting stupidly. We don't restrict trade luckily. Not yet. Across states. The only reason I think we don't restrict trade across states is because the Constitution prohibits it. Still one of the things... I mean we do restrict some trade between states unfortunately. I can't buy a health insurance policy in Texas if I live in California. I'm here in Puerto Rico and I can't buy an insurance policy that covers me in the United States in like Texas and in Puerto Rico. I have to either be in Texas or in Puerto Rico. So I mean the United States has lots of protectionist policies even between states but nobody thinks those are good things. Nobody on the free market side thinks those are good things. The socialist thinks those are good things and when you align when you align with President Trump on trade when you align with President Trump on tariffs you're aligning with socialists. That's basically a socialist policy. There's no, again, free trade justification. There's no, sorry, capitalist freedom justification for tariffs or any kind of restrictions on trade. So at the end of the day what we want is a right to protecting government. At the end of the day we want to govern off our backs and that is true of trade just as it is in any other realm. All right, when I come back I'm going to take up some objections quickly and then we're going to wrap up the discussion of trade. I'm going to take a few of these calls and we'll wrap up the show. We're almost there. Thanks for listening. You're listening to Iran Book Show. We're on the Blaze Radio Network. We'll be right back. Hi, you're listening to Iran Book Show and I want to make one more I want to make one big point and then just some refutes some of the mythologies around this. One of the things that Donald Trump said in Davos was and Gary Cohen said it made me best he says, we want the world to invest in America and to create jobs for hard-working Americans. So basically they want the world to invest in American business, invest in American companies. How is the world going to get dollars in order to do that? The only way for them to do that is from trade. Investing in America is the flip side of trade. One of the notions that people have is when we buy stuff from the Chinese the dollars go to China and they disappear. And they say the same thing about remittances. When the immigrants who come here send checks to Mexico the dollars just arrive in Mexico and then they disappear. All those dollars are useful. All those dollars basically flow back to the United States ultimately. What are they used for? They used either to buy American goods or they used to invest in America. The only money foreigners have to invest in America is money they got from selling us stuff trade. They sell us stuff, we give them our pieces of paper called dollars. They don't actually do anything with those pieces of paper. They either use those pieces of paper to buy stuff from us or they use those pieces of paper to invest in our companies to buy equity or bonds from us. But one way or the other the money all comes back. So if you want a world to invest in America you have to be willing to buy stuff from the world. And the more you raise tariffs the less dollars the world has to invest with you before the less they're going to invest. So again this is Gary Cohen they don't know economics. I'm sorry, they're ignorant. They don't know economics. Not Trump and not his chief economic advisor Gary Cohen. The fact that they're both businessmen the fact that they're both businessmen is great. That does not guarantee knowing economics unfortunately. I wish it wasn't the case. I wish it was the other way around. Alright let's see what a few more points that I want to make about this issue One of the reasons by the way that we need foreigners to invest in America to invest in our companies to buy our bonds is that we don't save and we run a massive deficit which the Trump administration is only increasing. So we have to, our government has to borrow huge quantities of money and since Americans are not saving, Americans are only consuming their money has to come from outside. We consume by buying foreign goods that those dollars then come back and buy our government bonds. If we stop consuming and saved more then we would have a different trade deficit right but is that good? I mean it's nothing wrong with trade deficits there's nothing wrong with consuming consuming is fun. And as we get older that's what we should do with our money what are we going to put in the mattress and die sleeping with it? Alright a few objections that I always get. What about Steve Walker who loses his job? Yeah he loses his job but the economy is healthier more jobs are being created and therefore he'll probably find another job. The fact is by lowering tariffs to zero you reduce prices in the economy and you increase the number of jobs in the economy so yes a particular steel worker might lose his job but almost everybody else benefits and that steel worker will ultimately benefit from a healthier, more productive higher standard of living because that's the kind of economy that's generated when you have a zero tariffs environment. If you don't have a job and you have a lot of prices true get a job but the fact is that places like Hong Kong and places like the US if it had free trade true free trade then there would be plenty of jobs plenty of jobs think about all the solar panel installers that never had a job in solar panel installation before we started importing massive quantities of solar panels into the US now there's also the issue of the US government subsidizing that but we'll put that aside free trade requires that all trading parties practice free trade not true all free trade requires is that you practice free trade and you gain all the benefits from it the other party is screwing themselves they're causing damage to their own economy their own consumers and their own producers long term they will become uncompetitive and they will lose whatever economic edge they have economic growth in the United States was fueled by high tariffs not true again the high tariffs that existed in the past in the United States always were inhibitors on economic growth never supportive of economic growth high wage countries are at a disadvantage when competing against low wage countries not true high wage countries are high wage countries because the productivity of their labor is higher and because the cost of living in those countries is higher a low wage labor in China is low wage because they're less productive and because the cost of living is lower that's not what gives them the advantage with free trade rich countries unfairly exploit poor countries that's a typical leftist claim again quite the contrary what rich countries are doing by importing is creating jobs in those poor countries which benefits the poor people there the individuals there trade should be free only if it is fair there's no such thing fair trade is free trade free trade is fair trade there's nothing there's no concept of free trade separate sorry a fair trade separate from free trade the playing field is in level it never is grow up trade deficits are bad for us no economic theory behind that one trade deficits are evidence that other countries are cheating a trade simply not true all it means is that we save less they save more they want to invest in us we want to consume more by buying their stuff that's all that's what it means alright as I said the only real issue with trade in these contexts is the issue of stealing intellectual property and the proper way of dealing with that is both through foreign policy and through boycotting those products and the government banning those products explicitly identifying those companies and banning them look while economics can be complex and I'm not pretending that I've given you all the economic arguments and the proof economic proof that this is all true if you view things as an individualist it becomes very clarifying trade is good for me trade is good for me I am buying stuff from somebody in China that's great it's increasing my standard of living the stuff from China that I'm buying is cheap it's good if if you put a tax on that my cost of living goes up my quality of life goes down my standard of living goes down that's simple that's all you need to know about trade everything else is garbage all you have to know is how it affects you personally and how it affects every individual personally does some people benefit from tariffs those people whose jobs are being protected artificially and they're only benefitting short term long term they're suffering because long term their cost of living goes up long term the options in terms of jobs are going to go down and long term because their businesses are being protected like in auto companies they're probably not going to do well they're probably not good businesses so they're probably going to lose their job anyway that's the individualist perspective but we live in a tribal world it's made in America it's outright versus their tribe we don't like their tribe so we're going to only buy outright stuff that's communism that's fascism that's collectivism that's not America America's about making your life better it's about buying the best stuff that you can buy for the money no matter where it is made in the world and demanding that the government stay out of your way demanding that the government not impose a tax on your purchases that's America that's individualism and that's what we should all be demanding alright I see some of my callers gave up I apologize I'm going to take your calls back in so I apologize for holding you on so long but you weren't calling about trade alright we're going to take a call from Tara in California who's calling about a completely different issue but an important one hey Tara I wanted to thank you and I will relate it yeah I'm here I wanted to thank you a year ago I listened to a debate between Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson and I do admire both of them they're very smart but it was such a frustrating conversation they were talking about what is truth and Jordan Peterson would defend free will but he denied basic basic logic didn't think we could know what reality is and Sam Harris defended reality and logic but he said we don't have free will we're the same as a toaster it didn't make any sense to me and I thought how can we defend the enlightenment if we can't agree on both logic and free will and is there no one who will defend this is there nobody has worked this out and it wasn't until I listened to you and I never read it in rent because you know when I was young I was a socialist and I was biased and I didn't do it but you challenged and I said okay so I did it and I was like oh my gosh this is the answer I've been searching for for like a year by this point so I just wanted to thank you and I am a historian and I agree with everything you said about the history of trade it's absolutely true and yet I was still always confused about these issues until I understood the ethical principles underlying the economics and the metaphysical principles underlying the ethics so thank you so much because it's clarified so many of these confusing things like tariffs which I could always just get tangled up in before and you heard me through the blaze I saw one of your things on youtube on youtube okay that's where most people find me well that's a wonderful story and it makes my day and it's why I do what I do it's with the hope of having an impact like that on somebody's life so that's fantastic I really appreciate and I really appreciate letting me know that that's how you found Ayn Rand yeah I mean my life was changed when I read Ayn Rand and I encouraged everybody out there to go read Ayn Rand and many of you who've read her go read her again or read something new from her because there's a ton of stuff she wrote a lot and you always learn something new you always always always learn something new so thank you Tara thanks for calling I really appreciate it it is the ethical principles at the end of the day it is this idea of individualism and taking care of yourself and pursuing your own self-interest that it's a heart of this it is those kind of principles that basically much more important than any economic argument I could make at the end of the day it's none of your business you being the majority of voters who I buy stuff from and I could expand that to apply to at least some aspects of immigration it's none of your business who I employ I mean this whole idea that employers should check whether the employees are legally legal immigrants is despicable that's the job of the government not the job of employers I should be able to hire anybody I want and as long as they're not violating your rights why is it any of your business why is it any of your business what I buy them from whom as long as they're not violating rights as long as I'm not violating your rights it's none of your business that's America America's about leaving individuals free to make decisions for themselves about the choices they make it's about free will exercised by free individuals free of government coercion free of government force free of government imposition free of government authority free of government taxation that is trying to trying to get me to buy American that's tribalism again that's not individualism not individualism so you know the whole ethical perspective one minute of thinking about what's good for you making that the standard questions in politics not what good for you in the short run not what's good for you materially right now but what's good for you from a freedom perspective the standard is does this promote freedom of the individual or does it inhibit freedom of the individual and tariffs are easy tariffs restrict my freedom they take my money they impose the government's will on me and therefore tariffs are out trade restrictions are out I demand freedom the founding fathers fought a war over taxes on tea and other impositions on freedom far less than what the US government today and any administration imposes on us we'll be back after this alright we're back and I have to say some of those commercials other people shows drive me nuts um you wants to see a wall that you can see from space why who are we trying to protect ourselves from who's invading who's trying to take over the United States I mean is Mexico an enemy that we need a wall I mean I can understand somewhat the walls in Israel because people want to kill the Israelis they're invading the United States maybe even the walls in Rome the barbarians were coming didn't help them much those walls but what's this wall what's Mexico going to protect us from who is out there to destroy us who is going to kill us all Mexicans right now Mexican unemployment is lower than it is in the United States right now Mexicans are not crossing the border into the United States illegally they're just not there there's just no no benefit for it fact is if you look at the numbers illegal immigration from Mexico peaked between 95 and 2000 at about 3 million and then after that about half of that came in in the next five years and the five years after that even less so by 2007 by 2007 right most of the immigration between Mexico and the United States was moving from the US to Mexico 1.4 million Mexicans returned home 1.4 million Mexicans returned home the actual population of Mexicans in the United States shrunk from 6.9 million to 5.6 million from 2007 to 2014 because almost none of them came here almost everybody went the other way so are we building the wall to prevent Mexicans from leaving because we need them to build our homes we need them to pick our strawberries we need them to be our gardeners I mean it's insanity it truly is insane we're going to spend $22 billion $22 billion that we suck out of the private economy which would be allocated based on profit productively and instead we're going to give it a bunch of bureaucrats to build a stupid wall which is going to be unproductive going to serve no purpose for what because we're afraid this is again emotion over reason we're afraid our culture our country has become a country of whispers afraid of a few immigrants coming across the border one of the reasons illegal immigration from Mexico was so high in those days because Mexican both rates used to be something like seven children per woman and what happened was when healthcare improved in Mexico in the 60s and 70s suddenly these kids were staying alive suddenly these kids actually weren't dying which is why we used to have lots of kids in the past because most of them were dying and now they didn't have jobs so they cross over into the United States today average Mexican family has 2.4 kids it's per woman which is about replacement costs and unemployment in Mexico is about 3.3% which is lower than in the United States the Mexican economy is growing faster than the US economy we're gonna beg them to send people we're gonna beg them to send people now let me know some of you in the comments really basic economics people when the government takes money away from the private sector either through taxation or through bonds it is taking money away from individuals making decisions and a proper allocation of capital and then when the government consumes it that is consumption and waste even if by consuming it it pays private enterprise it's that capital instead of being invested productively is now being invested unproductive that's why Keynes is wrong that's why government stimulus doesn't move the economy because paying people to dig ditches and then fill them up they're not government employees is wasteful it's taking money out of the private economy and applying it to wasteful government consumption and that's what a wall is that's what a wall is emigration out of Mexico is way way way down it used to be 144 for every 10,000 Mexicans we're leaving the country now it's under 39 per 10,000 but we're afraid of them oh my god they're going to change our culture they're going to vote for Democrats they're going to destroy America although it's not going to be Mexicans it might be Hondurans, it might be Canadians, it might be Norwegians but it's not going to be Mexicans because Mexicans are not coming here illegally by large numbers anymore there's just no incentive to do so indeed as I said many of them are going back home and now the wall is going to prevent them from doing that not that the wall will ever be built properly to prevent anybody from moving anyway so alright let's you know what let's take an early break and then when we come back I'll open up the lines for any questions you have and we'll take Skyler and Stuart when we come back so you're listening to your own book show we'll be right back after this break I'm telling you I really think the Republican Party and conservatives in general are going to crucify themselves they are going to commit suicide in mass over this immigration and this wall issue the tribalism implied in it the hysteria, the emotionalism the anti-reason, the anti-economics the anti-individualism in all of it is just stunning that this is the number one issue that conservatives and Republicans have made it into it is going to kill the party it's going to kill any efforts to actually produce a free market in this country because people for forever are going to associate the free market with anti-trade and build a wall anti-immigration rhetoric of Donald Trump and his supporters and it stuns me that people who should know better are caught up in this hysteria about illegal immigration by the way, again secure the border, the border is pretty secure I haven't seen anybody invade this country anybody invade this country across the southern border almost no terrorist activity that's been initiated by somebody crossing the border illegally I don't know what they're talking about secure the border from what? from people coming here to work? even that is down dramatically it has been coming down since 2000 and certainly since 2008 that is the problem in America it's not regulation it's not government control it's not the tax on free speech no conservatives are joining the tax on free speech by calling for the breakup of Facebook Google, Amazon they're joining the tax that's real issues that's really important this discussion of immigration is a sideshow yet the Republican Party has staked its entire message on the issue of immigration and I think it will kill it I think it will kill it even if there's truth in what they say which there isn't the single-mindedness of it is self-destructive it's self-destructive and that's that's tragic that really is tragic alright let's see let's take the call from Stuart and then we'll go to Skyler Stuart, you there? speak up okay so I want to ask you about a protectionist argument called the race to the bottom I want to ask you about your opinion on a particular rebuttal to it yeah I mean it's completely nonsense and it's hard to even take it seriously because what they're basically saying is that competition drives wages down and drives the value the quality of products down when all of history and everything we know about trade suggests the exact opposite is drive wages up and drives the quality of products up and drives the prices of the products down and it doesn't matter if that competition is within a border or outside of the border it's exactly the same thing so it's just a completely bogus argument that has no basis in reality none and again this is the kind of stuff leftist ignorant leftists usually promote and it's stunning to me that people in the white and I'm bracing these kind of arguments well I want to ask you about a rebuttal by Benjamin Powell and Oren Bodvarson they say that even if immigrants don't start their own business the very fact that these immigrant workers spend money on the amenities like food clothing and shelter helps create jobs for domestic workers because when they come to the United States and they compete for jobs and then they earn money it's not as if they just sit on the money they have to spend the money too yeah no I think that's right although people say but they send it to Mexico but their now argument is money has to come back I don't like these economic arguments because I mean the economics is simple the only detriment to immigration from an economic perspective is welfare is the idea that they consume more welfare than they they pay into the system supposedly but then let's do all the way with welfare and the economic data is mixed on this point but I don't want to argue the economic data I want to argue that welfare is bad and I've said this often I'm actually more offended by an American taking welfare who's grown up with the system who has benefited from this wonderful system we have in America than an immigrant who's come here to work and have fallen in bad times now if they come here just for the welfare then don't give it to them ban all immigrants from receiving welfare I'm fine with that but any other argument is just a silly argument now that some people lose because immigrants come yeah just like some people lose because of robotics and some people lose because of trade in the short run but it enhances the economy at lowest prices it increases standard of living and if you're ambitious and you're willing to learn and you're willing to switch jobs and you're willing to move then immigrants are not a threat to you they're actually a positive for all those economic arguments that Powell makes alright thanks Stuart you know I think go ahead so I think that so I noticed in the comments people are saying that terrorists are catalysts and I think it's silly the terrorist manipulates you then the tariff is welfare for me the tariff is just a tax the tariff is just a tax it's just a tax it's not anything but a tax and to view it in any other way is stupid and if people believe that it's right to manipulate Americans through the tax system to behave in this or that way to hire this person or to fire that person then they have a distorted view of the role of government and then they're not good people and they're not even founding fathers people because the idea of manipulating people through the tax system, through coercion is wrong it's morally wrong and it's politically wrong great Stuart thanks for the call let's go to Skyler hi you're on the book show hey Skyler greetings Dr. Brooke if I'm correct this is your last show on the blaze it is my last show on the blaze well congratulations on your one sir my life has been in rich and enhanced by you being on this platform and I'm looking forward to seeing you on other shows and platforms in the future well I appreciate that Skyler thank you thank you yes sir alright my question is in regard to the president he has said on more than one occasion how the black unemployment rate has dramatically fallen and my questions pertain to does it matter should we say black unemployment is that a legitimate thing to say well in an ideal world no I'd like to get to the point where nobody even measures that we don't look at anybody's race for any purpose the only reason it's interesting today is as a sociological issue if black unemployment if unemployment among blacks is higher than other groups then the question is why for example is it racism is it the culture within those black communities and so on it's only not an issue for the president of the United States I think it is an issue a sociological issue that people legitimately can study and come to conclusions and if it's if it's racism they might be educational things that some people might want to do in order to defeat racism if it's cultural then we might want to go into those into the cultures that that for whatever reason there's more employment there and help those cultures along so that they don't inhibit employment so I don't think it's an issue for politics I don't think it's an issue for government but I do I can't imagine that it could be an issue for sociologists absolutely and economists you know who are interested in these kind of phenomenons and interested in the way culture and the way culture impacts things like unemployment does that make sense and that goes back to again yes sir and that kind of reminds me of what you were saying when your children were born about why you had to fill out the forms of what race they were is that is that like similar to this situation I mean I find it I find that separating people out identifying people out based on race is despicable it's disgusting and the fact that the United States of America you have to list a race when you fill out the form so I for example when I get the census I refuse to fill out the section about race I just leave it blank and then they always come knocking at my door and they say you know you have to fill this in and I say no arrest me you know I'm not filling it in and they usually just go away and leave me alone but I refuse to fill that in it is not the business of the government to define me based on some arbitrary criteria of race you know and it's not it's not the business of the government it's not anybody's business so whenever I see any kind of question at the doctors anyway and it says what race are you I either leave it blank or if it's like a online thing where you have to fill it in to go to the next question I put other right absolutely which makes them assume I'm some kind of I guess mixed race person and that confuses their statistics and good you know so so yeah I think the whole obsession with race that we have in this country and unfortunately not just in this country is it's just horrific it's just horrific so but you know it's gonna be a while and this goes to the theme thanks Skyler I really appreciate to call and appreciate your support on the show and by the way the fact that this is my last blade show doesn't mean you can't listen to your own book show the show continues will continue on blog talk radio on YouTube on Facebook on iTunes on Stitcher on every platform pretty much known for man except the blaze so the show would continue and you know if anything we're gonna intensify and we're gonna do more and we're gonna try to increase our reach out there into the world with this idea this idea that I mentioned early on which is related to what Skyler just called about the idea that at the heart of what America is is the idea of the individual skin color shouldn't matter race shouldn't matter nothing should matter other than your qualities as an individual your character and I believe in free will I believe in our ability to shape our own lives and to shape ourselves and as a consequence I believe that people should take responsibility over their own lives stop worrying about people in China and stop worrying about yourself make your life the best life that it can be strive to improve yourself and the only way to do that the only way to do that is by embracing reason by embracing facts by embracing reality by not letting emotions guide you and emotions dictate the world to you not let other people dictate the truth to you the truth you have to discover and you have to figure out by using your own mind nobody else can do it for you nobody else will do it for you don't believe the president of the united states don't believe your congressman don't believe your professors don't believe anybody figure it out for yourself even your doctor if it's a crucial diagnosis go do a research go get a second opinion we need to re-embrace in this country that attitude of self-reliance a personal responsibility for our own happiness there's nothing more important in life than pursuing your own happiness than achieving your own happiness and to do that we need to be free we need to be left alone we need to be free to use our minds use our reason to guide our life our own selfish happiness and that's what I fight for every day that's what you guys should fight for every day get the government off our backs so that we each one of us as an individual can choose who to trade with and who not to trade with who to communicate with and who not to communicate with what to read and what not to read and how to live for ourselves and if you want to understand these ideas better if you want to get a deeper understanding about these ideas then read the greatest author of the 20th century and the greatest thinker of the last millennium Ayn Rand Atlas Shrugged The Fountainhead The Virtue of Selfishness Read Ayn Rand that's my parting wish to all of you of course you can also read my books Free Market Revolution Hey, I've enjoyed being on the blaze I've enjoyed having all of you as listeners I hope to meet up with you on other platforms in other places I have a great life and all the best to this greatest country in human history the United States of America Thank you all and I'll see you somewhere