 Then, as Elizabeth Warren suggests, they make at least some colleges free. And let's assume they then get out of the business. Then the real people who will suffer from this, you would think, are the debt holders that hold US debt. The ability to repay that debt got a little bit worse. Not hugely worse, but a little bit worse. And this is what the left is counting on. So let's say, let's say again, let's say again, that we just say you don't have to pay it back. You can keep it. What's going to happen? Nothing. I mean, nothing. I mean, a lot of things will happen, right? But at a first level, right? At a first level, what's his name, economics in one lesson, taught us that you don't just look at the first level effects, but the first level effects are, the gum and debt stays the same. What will happen is the US deficit every year will grow by the amount of what would have come in from the students paying it off and didn't come in from them paying it off, right? So if I would have paid my debt, that would have gone to close the deficit. So the deficit will grow by whatever the student debt payments are a year, several, you know, let's say it's, let's say it's, you know, you know, several billion dollars. It's probably 50 billion dollars. So the US deficit will grow at 50 billion. Nobody seems to care. Republicans don't care because they spent 50 billion dollars like that without caring about a revenue source. Democrats certainly don't care. They want to spend tens and tens and tens of billions of dollars. They don't care. Nobody cares. So I don't see how anybody's going to object to the proposal that we eliminate all student debt. Now, particularly when what Elizabeth Wan says is, look, I have a way to finance it. I have a way to finance this so we don't increase the deficit. And the way to finance it is a wealth tax of two percent on anybody who has more than 50 million dollars. So if you have 50 million dollars of assets, then we're going to tax you a two percent. And here's how she explained it. And notice how appealing this is. Now, I know it's not appealing to you and I know it's not appealing to me, but put yourselves into the shoes of just a just every day American and or even an everyday billionaire and notice how appealing the sounds and how appealing she makes it, right? This is quoting Elizabeth Wan, I think, from a verbal like a speech or something. She says, I started several months ago about a wealth tax, an ultra millionaires tax. It's two cents on every dollar, two cents on every dollar of the great fortunes above 50 million. So your 50 millionth and first dollar, she doesn't she's not taxing the first 50 million, only the dollar above 50 million. You got to pay two cents. And two cents of all the dollars after that, two cents. It's nothing. And he has the stunning part. If we ask the great fortunes in this country, understand that this isn't about trying to be nasty or say you're doing anything wrong. What it's about is saying, look, you had a great idea. You got out there. You worked hard or you inherited well, whichever one it was. And we say good for you that you have not gotten this great fortune. Good for you that you have now gotten this great fortune. But two cents. You've got to pay something back so everybody else gets a chance. And here's how the money works out. And I don't know, by the way, I don't know if this is true, but this is what she's saying. If we put that two cents wealth tax in place on the 75,000 largest fortunes in the country, two cents, we can do universal childcare for every baby zero to five, universal pre-K, universal college and knock back the student loan burden for 95% of our students and still have nearly a trillion dollars left over. Now, I don't think the math is right there. But anyway, think of how appealing that is. You take 75,000 Americans, the tiniest of minorities and they're super, super duper rich and they're the lucky ones, according to Elizabeth Wong, because she's a big believer in you didn't build it. They're the lucky ones. And you don't tell them the bad guys. You just say, you know, two cents, two cents, how much is that? And we get to give all these three things. So Elizabeth Wong has a way to pay for the debt forgiveness, the student loan forgiveness. But let's think about the other consequences of this. Well, first, if you do this, nobody's ever going to issue student debt again, right? And if the government continues to issue student debt, then people buying American debt are going to wonder because now it's another trillion dollars, it's another whatever, billions of dollars of expenses, hundreds of billions of dollars of expenses, they're never going to be paid back. And the deficit's going to balloon and mushroom. Now, so far, so far, the deficits have grown and grown and grown and the debt has grown and grown and grown with little observable consequences. Interest rates are still very, very low. The economic argument against huge amounts of debt, one of the economic arguments is, I mean, there are many, but this is one, is that interest rates would increase, but they haven't. Global appetite for dollar-denominated debt seems to be infinite. They keep taking it on, right? So, you know, it seems like this isn't a problem, but it has to end at some point. You can't continue this forever. It's God to go away. And then, of course, private issuance of student loans is never going to come back because the government is now forgiven all this debt and nobody's going to take the risk that the government will do that again. Now, you could get, again, the situation where private issuers issue the debt and then the government guarantees it, but then what? Then you get the same spiral of out-of-control costs, out-of-control debt. So, the actual consequence of this, this is what the Democrats are counting on, the actual consequence of this are not obvious and don't seem to be that dramatic. Indeed, if this is the case, if the government can issue student debt and then wipe it all out and nothing happens, then why shouldn't the government take over all mortgage debt? Why shouldn't the government take on all of our debt and then forgive it? We're all better off because we don't have this debt. The government has a lot more debt itself. It has massive deficits, but if there's no consequence of deficits, as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tells us, as modern monetary theory tells us, then so what? Now, the point is at some point there has to be a consequence to all the debt. At some point people don't lend you money because they believe you can't pay it back, but I have no idea when that level is, and it could be that they could get away with this for a long time. Now, think about what that teaches students, what that teaches individuals. You can be irresponsible. You can take on huge amounts of debt. I mean, this is what we taught the bankers in the financial crisis, but now we teach everybody. You can take on debt. You cannot think and we'll just walk. You can just walk away from it. I mean, what kind of a life are these people going to live as we move into the future where they have this attitude that the government can bail them out of everything? Now, what's the solution to the student debt? The solution is to privatize it. The solution should be to start by the government selling it to the private sector, selling this asset to the private sector, and giving the private sector a haircut so that maybe giving students a break on the student loans because hey, it's insane what's going on out there. So let's say the government rode off 25% of all the student debt and then sold the remainder to the private sector and got out, completely out, of issuing debt to students and of guaranteeing the debt to students. By the way, the government is already in the business of ensuring much of our mortgages. Many of our mortgages are insured by the government. So it's not a far-fetched idea that given that they're ensuring them just like they were ensuring student debts, they would one day say, well, who needs this middleman? Who needs these mortgage bankers? The government will just issue them directly. So at some point, you're going to have to pay for this. At some point, this system has to collapse and the system will collapse. It's hard to predict when. It's hard to predict how. But there's no such thing as free lunches. And every sect in the economy, if this happened, in every sect of the economy, interest rates would increase and loans would be harder to get because everybody would be worried that the government is going to do a debt forgiveness. And everybody will suffer. Students will be better off, better off in the short run, worse off because they would have learned the wrong life lesson. I'm not against writing off like 25% of the student loans because I think the government has created a real perversion here and then selling those out. Now imagine a private enterprise with out of government guarantee was actually issuing the loans. Imagine what would happen then. Then when you were interviewed, when you were filling out your loan request, they would ask you things like, what degree are you going to get? And if you were going to do feminist studies, your interest rate would be significantly higher. And the amount of money they'd be willing to give you, significantly lower than if you were going to get them engineering degree. Not because they're anti-feminist studies. Not because the bankers are nasty discriminators, although they'd be accused of discrimination and forced, therefore, to fund the feminist studies. And this is the problem. This is why it's very difficult to unwind a fundamentally systematically corrupt system, which is what we have today. Today, the system is so fundamentally corrupt. You have to get rid of so many laws. I mean, to really drain the swamp, to use a Trump term, you would have to do away with fair lending laws and all these laws that prevent bankers from actually assessing risk and giving debt based on risk and so many things. But imagine you lived in a world like that. Then banks would say, I'm not going to give you a loan to Harvard. You know what? Harvard is insanely expensive right now. And if I look at the rate of return on a degree of Harvard, it's too low, you're not going to make enough money after all the debt you take by going to Harvard. So you're not going to get a loan to Harvard. I'll give you a loan to University of whatever. And that would put downward pressure on tuition rates. Because Harvard would find it very difficult to attract students because the students would have to pay based on the risk. Other universities that were cheaper and offered a good quality degree would then be able to compete and get more students. And the competition would now be for lower because the market would be pricing the debt based on the actual value you're getting at the university. And if you were going for a crap degree, I'll give you an example of a crap degree. And not because of the content. Let me give you an example of a crap degree. Philosophy. I mean, I'm not against studying philosophy. But the fact is, the market reality is so many people go and get PhDs in philosophy. And yet, they're very few jobs. So the supply of philosophers far exceeds the demand for philosophers. And the reason for that is because there's a lot of money to pay for philosophy students to get philosophy degrees at no cost to them. And the market breaks down. Now, it partially breaks down because it turns out philosophers are not very rational. So they don't think long term. And they don't think whether they'll have a job or not. And it breaks down because people will need to fund them, even though the people funding them know they won't have a job. So again, there's so much distortion and perversion in the educational system because of where the money comes from and the money comes primarily from government. So get government out of student loans, privatize the entire system, put the incentives back. I know it's very difficult to state any philosophical principles like objectivism in a short period of time or to condense it. But can you give us some basic idea of objectivism and the principles of philosophy that you believe in? All right. Now, I'll make it very brief with the understanding that anyone who really is interested would look it up in my books, particularly in Atlas Shugged, because otherwise I can't give a long discourse and proof here. So just as mentioning the highlights, the basic principle of objectivism is that man must be guided exclusively by reason. Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by his senses. That's a form of definition. That reason is man's only tool of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his only guide to the choice of values. As a consequence of that, man's proper ethics or morality is a morality of rational self-interest, which means that every man has a right to exist for his own sake. And he must not sacrifice himself to others or sacrifice others to himself. That the achievement of his own rational happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life. As a consequence of that, the only system, the only political system which expresses this morality is the system of laissez-faire capitalism, by which I mean full unregulated, uncontrolled capitalism, a system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights in which all properties owned by private individuals. The principle which ties morality to politics is the principle that no man has the right to initiate physical force, violence, compulsion against other men. Men have certainly the right of self-defense, but no man, no group of men that includes the government has the right to initiate force and to force a man to act against his own judgment. Now this is the essence of the philosophy.