 We have this motion by more than a hundred lower and middle income countries because clearly they can't afford it. I mean, just elaborate on that concept. Sure that people in the United States get the concept of like the country just can't afford to produce these vaccines as the way it is now constructed. Our vaccine regime. Wouldn't it be interesting to actually pivot the conversation to why these countries can't afford the vaccine? But notice the need, the fact that they can't afford it, necessitates that they be helped, necessitates a sacrifice, necessitates that they become a priority for those who can afford them. That's because these countries have been plagued by capitalism. So they've been plagued by capitalism. These countries can't afford them because capitalism has plagued them. Sort of extractive colonial practices. So it's really interesting because this is a history I did not know. It's good that Anne is educating us here. For a long period of time. Didn't you know that before colonialism, let's say what 1600 or so, India, I don't know, all of Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Africa. These are rich, thriving, technologically advanced societies that were then exploited and by the colonials who extracted all that wealth, who stole all that wealth and became rich over it. And as a consequence of that, all these countries, all these countries who otherwise could afford a vaccine because they used to be once upon a time rich, now cannot afford a vaccine. Because of the exploitation by the capitalists. For I remember my history right, Africa, Southeast Asia, India have always been poor. I mean China, the exception of China, which has often been richer than the West, but even that over the last few hundred years has not been true. But certainly if you go back to 1200, 1300, 1400, there were periods where Islam, the Muslim world was richer than the West, but that's a long time ago as well. But since then, not because of the West, but because of their own actions, these countries became a lot poorer than the West. Colonialism, which did a lot of evil, a lot of harm, a lot of bad, did not make these countries poorer. Indeed, history suggests that they made these countries richer. They taught these countries that they had resources before they were just in the ground, useless. Now they could actually be extracted and used, used by whom? By industrial societies. It's only industry, capitalism, that makes resources valuable. Remember oil used to reduce the value of your land because it was useless. It was a pollutant. It made growing stuff impossible. It's only industrialization that made oil valuable. For example, sheiks in the Middle East. So no, these countries are not poor because they were exploited or because of capitalism. They're poor because they haven't embraced capitalism. They haven't embraced private property. They haven't embraced the idea of making money. An idea that I'm going to articulate tonight was shrugged in the money speech. The idea of making money. That idea is what changes the world. The idea of making money is good. It's the idea that makes you rich. And then allowing people the freedom to live up to that idea. That's what makes you rich. But no, Anne thinks they're poor because they've been exploited. And again, this is one of those lines that the left repeats over and over and over again. Completely detached from reality. Completely detached from facts. But they repeat it often enough. It just becomes institutionalized. Everybody thinks it is the reality. These are economies that are not as robust as ours. And that's of course relative. And they're countries with populations that do not live the kind of lifestyle that we live. Yeah, why? The global south is a very different place. And in part that is because of the global north and our rapacious history. Maybe it's because they observed the global north's philosophy. They observed the global north's success. And they chose not to emulate it. They chose not to emulate it. That's why they stayed poor. I mean, Argentina, I don't know if you've ever seen this graph of Argentina basically almost having the same GDP per capita as the United States in 1914. At the start of World War One. And since then, the United States way outpacing Argentina, which basically has almost not grown in GDP per capita since then. And the difference is that Argentina went the populist, authoritarian, socialist drought, status drought. And the United States stayed relatively, I emphasize relatively free. And that made all the difference in terms of wealth creation. It has nothing to do with the people there. They kept up with the United States through the 19th century and early 20th century. It has nothing to do with their ability. It has nothing to do with natural resources. It has nothing to do. It has everything to do with governance, ideas, sets of beliefs. I didn't say pro-onism is socialism. It's authoritarianism. Pro-onism is a form of socialism, but it really is, you know, a form of fascism. Which, again, is a form of socialism, really. It's a form, all of them, a forms of statism. All of them are anti-capitalist. And so what these countries have been doing, and India in particular, after independence, the country said, we are establishing laws that favor our people over these colonial paradigms. That's right. India did that after it achieved its independence and stayed dirt poor. And indeed, for decades, there was this massive frustration that we were now free of our colonial masters. The British had left. They'd left us alone. And here we are. We continue to be dirt poor. And it's only in the last 30 or so years that India has come out of that poverty, and he started coming out of that poverty, and that correlates completely with liberalization, with opening up with institutions, instituting some of that global north's ideas about private property, about capital movement, about trade, about capitalism. We want drugs to remain affordable. And in the past, companies like Novartis have gone to the Indian courts and said, we do not want any of our drugs to be generics. We don't want Indian manufacturers to reverse engineer them and make them affordable to more people. And they have continued to lose because the Indian Supreme Court has held its line. So in India, they make illegal, less and less so, but they make illegal generics of drugs developed in the west that are under copyright, under patent in the west. So what's interesting is that India has no biotech industry. It has no R&D into original. I mean, a lot of the generics that are developed in India are developed by the largest generic manufacturer in the world, which is an Israeli company called Teva. So India, unfortunately, in the biotech field, in the pharmaceutical field, is a copier. It has no original research, and as long as they don't respect property rights, as long as they don't respect patents, they won't develop original drugs. They'll just be copiers. But not a lot of countries have that kind of toughness when it comes to resisting American imperialism and power. So American imperialism means protecting property rights, protecting patents. That is imperialism. And so they're left at the moment, and I know that we can get into the current structure, but they're left at the moment to kind of beg for drugs that indeed when India, when countries can't get enough vaccines, we all suffer because the longer this pandemic goes on, the more chance there are of strains developing and that virus coming back to us. So that's kind of the self-interested argument. We should help all of them because new strains are going to develop in these other countries, and it's going to come back to us to bite us. Maybe, maybe by then Moderna and Pfizer and these other companies will have given us booster shots to cover the different iterations of the viruses. Maybe, but does that mean that we should stop vaccinating ourselves and give the drugs to these other countries? That doesn't mean that we should give up intellectual property rights, the patent system, the system that made us rich in order to give these drugs to anybody who wants to make them. Notice that even if he did that, we had Adam Asif on the show a week or so ago, and he talked about this, even if we did that, even if we did away with the patent system tomorrow, they still couldn't produce these. These are very, very, very, very difficult drugs to produce, to stall, and to ultimately administer. But all of that is ignored. I mean, again, you saw this with the debate with Varsh yesterday. Production is simple. Creating drugs is simple. Creating vaccines is simple. Distributing vaccines is simple. You just have to get the capitalist out of the way, and all this just happens. They have no conception of what it takes to produce, or what it takes to have a supply chain, what it takes to distribute, what it takes from an idea to a shot in the arm, what that process takes. Just no conception of that reality. They think that products just show up as magic. What kinds of, what are the countries that come to mind that are experiencing outside of, we're talking about India's COVID surge, but that are bearing the brunt of not really having, I guess, the court infrastructure that India does in order to push back against the power of these manufacturers? There aren't many that can. I mean, the larger countries with bigger populations. But it's really, these companies exist in the global north. And as we've seen, they've been protected by their home countries. I mean, the entire operation Warp Speed was kind of a reining of resources, like $10 billion down on six individual companies. And, you know, even the Pfizer drug that was developed with BioNTech, a German company, they've received $444 million from the German government. So this is like a global north monopolization of this resource that is necessary. Monopolization of a resource. So notice this. This is what's interesting. And this is really important because it relates again to the Vosh debate and it relates again to the whole way in which left us think about the world. A vaccine that was developed by scientists, then engineered, produced, tested. All complex, difficult tasks that require real innovation, real ingenuity, real productive ability. To them, it's a resource. It's like, it's like coal. It's like, I don't know, just sand. It's just there to be picked up. And the global north, talk about racism, but the global north has monopolized the resource. They cornered all the sand. No. These vaccines were developed by companies that happen to be in the north, that happen to be in the north here represents free countries. The global north represents freedom. So here are countries that developed these drugs. They're protected by a system of property rights, which made the north rich. They're developed by, they're protected by the fact that they are free, which is what made the north rich, which he's choosing to evade. But it's just a resource. The vaccine is just a resource that needs to be allocated. And people need it in their poor countries and therefore should be taken from the global north and given to them, taken from free people and given to unfree people. Why? Because they're unfree. Why? Because they're suffering. Why? Because they're poor and therefore they should be sacrificed too. What we need today, what I called a new intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, wins or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism and impotence, and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist broads. All right. Before we go on, reminder, please like the show. We've got 163 live listeners right now, 30 likes. That should be at least 100. I figure at least 100 of you actually like the show. Maybe they're like 60 of the Matthews out there who hate it. At least the people who are liking it, you know, I want to see a thumbs up. There you go. Start liking it. I want to see that go to 100. All it takes is a click of a thing, whether you're looking at this. And you know the likes matter. It's not an issue of my ego. It's an issue of the algorithm. The more you like something, the more the algorithm likes it. So, you know, and if you don't like the show, give it a thumbs down. Let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes. But if you like it, don't just sit there. Help get the show promoted. Of course, you should also share. And you can support the show at your own book show. Dot com slash support on Patreon or subscribe star or locals. And show your support for all for the work for the value. Hopefully you're receiving from this. And of course, don't forget if you're not a subscriber, even if you even if you just come here to troll or even if you hear like Matthew to defend Marx, then you should subscribe because that way you'll know when to show up. You'll know what shows are on when they're on. You'll get notified. So, yes, like, share, subscribe, support, like share, subscribe, support. There you go. Easy. Do one know all of those, please.