 the radical fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest and individual rights. This is the Iran Brook show. All right, everybody. Welcome to Iran Brook show on this Monday, December 11th. Hope everybody has had a great weekend and a good start to your week. I know this is a little off in terms of time, a little earlier than usual, but bear with me and hopefully more people will join as we go. There will be a hard stop, so this show will be an hour and no longer at 12 o'clock East Coast time. All right, jump right in on Saturday on, well no, Sunday, yesterday, Milay was sworn in as President of Argentina. I mean, this was an exciting event, a huge upside, huge potential and you know, inspiring in many regards. Here's a guy who came out of nowhere, an economics professor, a real free marketer, an end cap, so we'll forgive him that for now. And somebody really has presented an agenda for liberating Argentina's economy from decades, decades of really 70 years of statist, authoritarian, socialist-like, fascist-like governance. Milay is a breath of fresh air. He is, you know, a real potential revolution. And somebody who is, somebody who is more consistently free market than I think any President of a major country has ever been. So to some extent, though, there is a real, a lot, writing on this to the extent that a lot of people are placing a lot of hope and a lot of, hoping for success, I mean, and I think to some extent, if he fails, the extent he fails, it will be more than him being judged. It will be the whole idea of free markets, of economic liberalism. So this is a big deal. This is a big deal. So a few things. I want to say a few things about this. One, the task he has taken on himself is massive. To take an economy as corrupt, as statist, as dominated by the state, an economy with 150% inflation, an economy that has been dysfunctional again for decades and decades, it's gone through periods of relative sanity, but overall being thoroughly dysfunctional. A country that is so where socialism and expectation for entitlement is deeply ingrained in the population, right? The population might have voted, a majority might have voted for me late, but he is going to have a vocal, a super vocal, aggressive, maybe even violent minority that will oppose everything that he does is going to be unbelievably, so taking that economy and liberalizing it, liberating it, is immensely difficult, objectively, immensely difficult. What do you do first? Do you cut taxes? Hopefully not. Do you do capital controls? If you do it first, you get a huge massive flight of capital. That won't be particularly good, but if you wait to do it later, you create a whole other set of problems, which Argentina is facing right now. Do you cut government spending immediately, dramatically? That is going to create a lot of unemployment, a lot of unemployed, government employees. I mean, the previous government has engaged in massive government spending, deficit spending, massive deficit spending, in building infrastructure all over Argentina. All those construction workers now lose their jobs. So do you do that first? Do you do it gradually? Which jobs do you eliminate first, the people out there or the bureaucrats in the office? Melea has promised to dollarize the Argentine economy and to close the central bank. Do you do that now? Do you do that later? When exactly do you do it? How do you do it? How do you dollarize? What is the mechanism? And you could go on and on and on. I mean, regulations. Do you eliminate them all at once? Do you do it slowly? What about corruption? How do you fight corruption, get it out of the system? And then there's privatizing, the airline, the energy company, the railroads. I read a quote from a pilot who said, if he's going to try to put us around with the airline, there's going to be blood in the streets, basically, he said. Union's very strong in Argentina. So first, let's set it up. He is facing massive challenge, a massive challenge. And I haven't even mentioned that I think $42 billion in dollars, not in pesos, debt to the IMF, debts to China, debts internationally, dollar denominated where those dollars are going to come from. There's no money. There's literally no money in the coffers. So what does he do? And this is going to be the real challenge. So the first thing he's done, the first thing he's done is he's worked to grow his political base, which is smart, right? The first thing he's done is expanded his political base beyond what you would call kind of the libertarians, the radicals, and expanded it to include center-right conservatives in Argentina. And here, he's tapped a lot of the people in his government. He's got a small government, but a lot of the people in this small government are actually people coming in from the center-right rather than from the libertarian side. He's got a bunch of people from Marquis, pronouncing his name, from a president who has a complete failure. But then, you know, like is the most important person, the economics minister, is a guy from that administration that failed completely, which I think he had to do politically because he has to have a base in parliament, and at least now he has the support. He's also backed off some of the more radical proposals he made. For example, he is not going to, he said he would get out of the Paris climate accord. The climate change was basically a hoax. He's not doing that. He's now sent somebody to cope 28 and is going to abide by Paris accord. He said he would break relations with China. He's not going to break relations with China. He's the Chinese ambassador was at his inauguration and he's trying to be cordial to the Chinese. He said he would close the central bank. It's now clear that he's not going to close the central bank anytime soon. He might do that. He might do it. But I think he realizes that that cannot be the first thing he does. He needs to bring more dollars into the economy before he closes the central bank, before he dollarizes, they actually have to be some dollars. So he has to the first thing he has to do and I think he realizes that is reduce government spending. I wish some Republicans learned something from him. So the first thing he wants to do, he says he wants to do and should do and I agree completely is reduce government spending. I would add to that dramatically reduce regulations and as quickly as possible simplify a crazy complex and insane tax system. I mean if he could implement some kind of flat tax that would be huge in terms of getting rid of some of the corruption. A lot of corruption happens through the tax system and simplify investments and the lives of Argentinians. So I think there's a huge amount of upside in getting that right. First, cutting spending, cutting regulation, cutting a lot of regulation. Again, the sequence in your cut regulation is important. I hope you have somebody good who understands the process by which you cut it. Getting rid of simplifying the tax code and ultimately getting rid of capital controls but again that's going to have to happen over time. He has to first build confidence in the Argentine economy, in the fact that he's cutting spending, in the fact that oh and one other element that he should do first, right together with cutting spending, he should do from day one privatization. He should be immediately starting the process of auctioning off state-run enterprises across the board. Now again, some of them you need to do smart, some of them you just need to do quick. Like the airline, zero reason Argentina needs to have an airline. Zero reason Argentina should have an airline that's owned by the government. So just privatize it with the alternative being just closing it, shutting it down. Plenty of other airlines will fly into Argentina if the Argentinian airline goes away. There's plenty of competition in Latin America. So try to sell it, sell it to the highest bidder. It doesn't matter where they're from. This is another important thing about privatization. Don't just sell it to Argentinians. Sell it to whoever's willing to pay. So sell the airlines, sell the trains. Trains are a little trickier because they're perceived to have monopoly power. It's not easy to privatize trains but privatize them in mail and then energy, everything you can privatize. All the low-hanging fruit, that is the low-hanging fruit that are bringing foreign exchange, that are bringing dollars and that'll get stuff off of the books. These are overwhelmingly losing enterprises under government control. So reduce government deficits, bring in money and reduce the number of bureaucrats you have to have. And then on top of that, then turn around and start cutting. Now one of the first things he did was more symbolic than real but important symbolically, is that he's already cut the number of government departments from 21 to nine, to nine. Yes, to nine. Now he originally said there would only be eight. I'm not sure what additional department he saved but anyway, the nine from 21, that's huge. But this is the point. If all you do is cut the departments but consolidate their activities under fewer departments, you've done nothing. I mean you've maybe gotten rid of one small layer of bureaucracy. What really needs to happen is those department needs to be shut down. And shutting them down means shutting down their activities. That means firing their employees. And until we start seeing dramatic large scale reductions in actual staffing of these, it doesn't mean a lot. It's symbolic, important. Symbolism is important. But what you actually want to see is people being laid off. And then secondarily, budgets eliminated, budgets gone. And that he's going to need parliament to help him. So I think he's bringing in parliament to the session. I think they go into session in two days, I think on the 13th, with the idea of cutting government spending dramatically. In his inaugural address, he focused very much on there's going to be a lot of pain and this is really, really, really important. And this is a final point I want to make because I'm spending a lot of time on this. There's going to be a lot of pain. There's no way to do this without a lot of pain. And the pain will be felt by former government employees, but not just massive numbers of people in the private sector who have become dependent on government law, just contractors, you know, poor people, if you cut social spending, it's going to be widespread throughout the economy. And it's going to be, and they're going to be strikes and they're going to be demonstrations and they're going to be riots. And one of the most important things he is going to have to be do and he's going to have to do it well. And here, I think his years of being a television commentator and being just in the public eye will help. He needs to be a master communicate. He needs to be able to communicate the message, what he's doing, why he's doing it, why this will pay off. And it was great that he started off in his inaugural address by saying there's going to be pain. None of this is easy. Before we can resurrect this economy, we're going to have to go deeper into recession. And he said there's going to be stagflation, stagnation and inflation. It's going to be super ugly. I think that's good. I think that's right. I think there's no choice. That is reality. You can't transition this. You have to pay the piper for all the bad stuff that's happened. There's no easy way. And this also involves massive redistributions of wealth. Now, I'll just note that he's not the first person to do this. Others have done this before, whether in Latin America, whether in Chile, to some extent Peru, in Eastern Europe. So he's got models from which to learn from. He would like to go further than any of those experiments went. And that's great. But you know, start, you got to start with somewhere. And so I mean, courage, he's got smart people around him. I hope he doesn't sell out. And I just want to make one last pessimistic point and then we're on. And that is, if he succeeds, not in turning Argentina, unless if you haven't, because, but if he succeeds over the next four, five years, and I can't remember what the second election year it's assumed for, or in dramatically shifting Argentina to a free economy, it gets gets spending under control and everything's moving forward. And yet he holds this radical agenda of what he wants to do in the next four years. He might very well lose. Because the reality is that the Argentinian culture is not quite, I don't think ready, and prioritizes a radical laissez-fait economy. They just wanted to get rid of the crazy. If he gets rid of the crazy and puts it on a right path, you could see him actually struggling from public, this is Churchill winning World War II and then losing the next election. Anyway, let's hope that isn't the case. But let's hope first that he succeeds, because the Argentinian people, it would be important, and I think just important generally to see somebody moving towards greater freedom as a means to greater wealth is going to be huge. So, so good for him and good luck. Good luck to me, Leigh. All right. Quickly, I want to talk about, this is going to be quick either, I don't know how we're going to make this in an hour. All right. Quickly, I want to talk about what's happened over the weekend. The president of the University of Pennsylvania resigned. She was one of the three presidents of the universities, Pennsylvania, Harvard and MIT, went in front of Congress other week and just disgraced themselves in terms of the inability to communicate and in terms of showing the world the hypocrisy in the standards that they that they claim that they abide by. She has resigned. So did the chairman of the trustees of University of Pennsylvania don't know exactly why he resigned, but he also resigned. So she's gone. There's a battle going on at Harvard, huge amount of pressure to get the president of Harvard to resign. By some estimates, donors have pulled over a billion dollars from these Ivy League universities. One of the reasons the president of Penn resigned was a donor threatened to withdraw $100 million gift that he was committed to giving at Harvard. Just at Harvard, they talk about somewhere close to a billion dollars at risk. The challenges that these resignations are not enough, not close enough, not near enough, and that I fear that these donors and these will be appeased by it and settle for it. I mean, what will happen is a new president will come in, they'll set up an anti-Semitism center on campus, they'll commit to dealing with anti-Semitism, maybe they'll even categorize Jews as a offended class, as a oppressed class, and that'll be it. And that is exactly the wrong, worst thing that can happen. So I want to read you from a tweet published that was put out by Jonathan Haidt, because I think it's this, it's really, really, really good. And I couldn't say it better, so I'm just going to read him. Now he's quoting, I start with a quote from Andrew Sullivan from his latest column, which is excellent. Again, read Andrew Sullivan's column, read this tweet from Jonathan Haidt. I'm going to copy the link, I'm going to put it in the chat. This is definitely worth, worth reading. So I'm going to read this because this is right on point. This is from Andrew Sullivan's article. Freedom of speech in the Ivy League extends exclusively to the voices of their oppressed. They are also permitted to disrupt classes, the platform will shut down controversial speakers, who are obscenities, force members of oppressed groups, that is Jewish students and teachers in the latest case, interlocked libraries and offices during protests and blocked from classrooms, Jewish students, yeah, Jewish students having been assaulted at Harvard, at Columbia, at UMass, Amherst, at Tulane. Assaults by woke students used to be rare such as the 2017 mob at Middlebury, but since 10, 7, they've intensified. If a member of an oppressor class says something edgy, it is a form of violence. If a member of an oppressed class commits actual violence, it's speech. That's why many Harvard students instantly supported a fundamentalist terrorist cult that killed, tortured, systematically raped and kidnapped Jews just for being Jews in their own country because they've been taught it's the only moral position to take. They diligently read their fan and must be puzzled over what the problem is. Palestinians are victims of a colonial white settler state and any violence they commit is therefore justified. Now that's brilliant. That's great writing, concise, and he captures everything that I and others have been saying for a long, for a long time, but this is Jonathan Hayd continues. In other words, the only way to end anti-Semitism on campus is to end the identitarianism. Absolutely. Don't be satisfied by university president who promises a new center or commission on anti-Semitism. It won't have much effect on campus culture as long as a critical mass of students, let's say five to 10%, are taught to see everything through oppressor victim glasses in which punching up is virtuous even when the punching is not metaphorical. And if these new centers try to incorporate Jews as a new victim class, as some of them will, it will just make things worse and it will harm Jewish students. Young people who embrace identitarianism become disempowered, depressed, and difficult to work with. Sullivan's prescription is much more challenging than just endowing another center. And I quote again from Andrew Sullivan. And DEI in its entirety, via all the administrators, whose only job is to enforce its toxic orthodoxy, admit students on academic merit alone, save standardized testing, which in fact helps minorities, and it's the best way to distinguish smart poor kids from stupid rich kids. As Steven Pinker said this week, if it's still grading so that it actually means something again, expel students who shut or shout down speech or deplatform speakers, pay no attention to race or sex orientation or gender identity of your students, and see them as free human beings with open minds, treat them equally as individuals seeking to learn if you can remember such a concept. That's a great line. All right, Jonathan Haidt again. Whether or not you agree with all these measures, I think Sullivan's insight is the key to getting this right. Antisemitism was spout wherever the soil supports it. It always has, it always will. The spores are everywhere, especially in the age of TikTok. The cure is to change the properties of the soil, not just a plant and use center for the study of antisemitism in the soil that is fertile ground for antisemitism. I expect that the IVs will implement only superficial measures to placate donors, but please don't give up on the entire higher ed sector. The cultural evolution that swept across academy in 2015, 2016 may have met its Waterloo last Tuesday. God, let's hope. In that congressional hearing room, now is the time to support schools that break from the pack under bold leadership. Now is the time to support organizations that are supporting reforms and reformers. The outlook for higher ed is dark right now, and trust in the sector continues to fall, but I'm excited by the new possibilities for major change that have opened up in the last week. Now imagine if those billions flowed to new higher education projects, flowed to the organizations who really understand what is going on at the universities, flowed to initiatives, to dismantle DEI across the board in American universities. And when that is done, corporations will fall into line. I mean that nothing less than that is required. I saw and I tweeted a segment by what's his name? Zechariah, who's a mainstream leftist commentator on what is it MSNBC or CNN arguing basically the same thing, getting rid of DEI. Maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe the tide has finally turned. Maybe this was higher education's Waterloo. Maybe this was DEI's death knoll, we can hope. But to the donors among you, to the alumni among you, stop giving money to universities as long as they have a DEI staff, as long as they have DEI administrators, as long as they have these crazy professors teaching this nonsense. But start with getting rid of the administration, getting rid of the support the institution provides institutionally to these crazy professors. It's only by getting rid of postmodernism that you're going to change anything here. What it will replace, what will replace it, I have no idea. But it's hard to imagine things could get crazier than this woke CRT postmodern, postcolonial BS that is being taught today at universities. All right, let's see. Yeah, I highly recommend reading Solomon's article. It's truly excellent. Once in a while, he writes, you know, I learned, really learned and understood intersectionality from his stuff. He is really good at this. He's bad on other stuff. As you might remember, I debated him at Clemson University a few years ago. He's bad on other stuff, but on some stuff, he is excellent. And as such, should be supported, you should read him, he's got a sub stack. And this, this is truly excellent. All right, what do I want to do now? I don't know if I have enough time. All right, let's do these quickly. Okay, Binance, I talked a little bit about this last week, when the Justice Department got the deal from Binance and basically got them to admit wrongdoing and CZ is going to be going to be sentenced and all that CZ is the CEO of Binance. But what I wanted to focus on for a minute, and if I don't have time, then we'll make this the final topic, is what all that really means, both for Binance and I think generally, because they've opened up the agreement between the Department of Justice and Binance. And what is reflected in it is just an unprecedented, really unimagined, imagine a bill, level of state intervention and state oversight of a private company. I mean, the Department of Justice and a variety of different elements within the Department of Justice are basically going to have control over every decision made at Binance. They're going to sit in on everything and they're going to have access to all the data, all the data. Now, I think this basically means Binance is dead. I don't think Binance could survive this. Why would anybody use Binance to deal with the crypto when everything, everything will now be transparent to the US government? Binance is not even a company incorporated in the US. And this is only the beginning because the SEC is now going to go after Binance, all kinds of other crimes, so this could be only the beginning of Binance's problems. But there is this kind of oversight, quote, oversight. For the government in a private business, we had to litter some of that with Microsoft, but this is now taking it to a whole new level. This is fascism writ large. It is an unmitigated disaster. This becomes a precedent for how to deal with issues. Now, it's already true, and I've said this many, many times in the last 15 years, or 10 years of whatever, that I can't remember what the number is. 250 regulators go to work at JP Morgan Chase every day in the JP Morgan Chase building in their offices. The United States already has massive oversight, control of our big banks. Now they want oversight slash control over crypto. Who else are they going to want oversight and control over? I can tell you, if it's left up to Josh Hawley, then the next oversight and control push is going to be on AI. We are living through, and it's a slow evolution because it started a long time ago, at least with Microsoft, but probably even before that in terms of the big banks. The complete transformation of the American economy into a fascist economy, an economy with, quote, oversight, control, regulation of private business dominates. And at the end of the day, decisions are not made by entrepreneurs, not made by CEOs, not made by business leaders based on, I don't know, profit motive, something new like that, but based on political considerations, based on macroeconomic central planners. And this is never unwound. This is not the kind of thing that you're going to see a Republican president unwind without real, a real radical agenda. We need a melee in somebody with a real radical agenda we need in the United States. Somebody is willing to challenge these things and bring laws, past laws in Congress, that unwind and undo this unbelievable amount of control the government has through the Justice Department and through regulatory agencies over American business. It really does need to end and it needs some really dramatic, dramatic action. We'll see. If we have anybody who's willing to take this on, all right, I am going to skip the next two topics. We'll try to cover them tomorrow to take on because we've got quite a few super chats. And as I said, as I said, we have a hard stop at one o'clock. I do want to mention that Einwand Institute is a sponsor of the show. Einwand Institute is holding a conference in Austin at the end of March. You can apply to attend the conference. Some of you can get scholarships and those scholarships, you have to apply for those scholarships, you can apply for them at Einwand.org. And please use that website in order to apply so that they can see you came from the show. It's a website that only, I'm the only person pushing people to. The conference will have, as some of the teachers, Greg Salmieri and Ben Behr, it'll be pretty intense, but it'll be a lot of fun. And of course, Austin is a great city. So I hope in March is a great time to be in Austin, not too hot, not too cold. It's perfect. I hope you guys consider applying, whether you're a student or not, whether you want to be a future intellectual or not, sign up to the conference. I particularly urge anybody who has any kind of intention to become an intellectual in the future to try to get a scholarship and get into the conference. All right, thanks. Let's jump into the questions. Savanos, thank you for $50. What is the origin of Palestine? By what I mean, do we know by who or how the region came to be identified as such, looking for ammo to dispute the claims of colonialism? I mean, it's not a relevant really question, right? Palestine was a name, I think, given to the region by the Romans, when the Romans occupied it. And I think during the Ottoman Empire, it was also referred to as Palestine. Part of the Romans' incentives was after the destruction of the second Jewish temple in 70 AD, and the expulsion of the Jews from this territory was to disassociate it from the Jews. That was part of the Roman ambition because they didn't want the Jews. The Jews kept harassing them. They kept revolting. They kept engaging in revolution to try to reestablish their state there. And the Romans wanted to end that, and they ended that by basically taking the Jews and forcing them into exile. They sent them all over the world. A big reason why they are Jews all over the world is because the Romans scattered them and did not allow them to go back to what they labeled Palestine. I think that's the origin. It was called that under the Ottoman Empire, and then was called that. Under the British, when the British got a mandate, Palestine was, for a period, Jordan was part of Palestine. The whole region on both sides of the Jordan River was called Palestine. But there's never been a Palestinian state. The Ottomans never recognized and the Arabs before them, never recognized such a thing as the Palestinian people. Islam is a universalist religion who doesn't believe in nationalism and believes in a one-world government ruled by Sharia. Man-made law is unacceptable, and therefore you don't need different countries because there's only one law, and that is the law of the Quran that should apply everywhere. Nationalism is a new phenomena to the Palestinians. It came about with the rise, you know, when Arabs and Palestinians included went to study in the West, they learned about nationalism in the late 19th century, early 20th century, and Palestinian nationalism is a relatively new phenomena of the 20s and 30s, maybe the teens of the 20th century. So I think that is the origins. But there's no colonialism because Jews didn't colonize anybody. They came there, they bought land, and they started living there, and there were enough of them at some point to try to start a country, and Arabs were welcome to stay in that country and vote and be equal citizens in that country. But Arabs rejected that and launched wars, and many of them left. So listen to my, I don't know if they've been released yet, but I did four questions that Alex Epstein asked about exactly this topic, and I gave long detailed answers, and I think those are coming in short videos. I have to find out from Christian where they are because those are important to get out there. But those kind of cover the history of the conflict, and I think you can use that as a good leverage against people arguing about the colonialism issue. Jeffy says, another great shirt from Iran. Thank you, Jeffy. I'll tell my wife. Liam says, Millay got elected in a deeply Catholic mystical culture. The renaissance happened under such authoritarian conditions as well, makes me think objectivism is a good chance of rising in a semi-free society like the US. Yeah, I mean, the question is, can Millay survive the Catholic mystical culture? And for how long? And as he becomes more radical, will he survive? I'm not convinced. Millay, to a large extent, rose out of desperation. The Argentinian people were desperate. Americans are not desperate. And therefore, there's no way a Millay could be elected today in the United States. Americans are just not desperate enough. And then we'll learn from the Millay presidency whether somebody elected out of desperation can actually survive. And I would not compare Millay getting elected to a renaissance. I do not believe there's a renaissance going on in Argentina yet. Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but I would not compare the two. It's very, very different. Shay, he spoke about the need for a shock rather than a gradual approach and is inaugural and warned that the country that there will be pain and massive spending cuts. Yes. And I think I covered that. And I think that's the right approach. I think they all in for a shock, no matter what he does, but anything meaningful is going to lead to a reduction in employment in the short run. No question about that. And an increase in poverty, short run. Again, no question about that. And he better do the shock therapy, otherwise he will not be successful. Thanks, Shay. Mark, please ask listeners to check out and share the transcription of your excellent answer on the 700,000 Palestinians who left their homes in 1948. Can post link in super chat, but I CC'd you on Twitter. I haven't seen it. Okay. I'll look for it. And I really want, I really want that those videos posted. I'm not sure why. Okay. I'll figure it out. All right. Shelly says about your solution with Palestinian issue, wouldn't that be a very similar to what the CCP is doing to the Uighurs minus the camps and the organ harvesting? People would be yelling cultural genocide from day one. No, I don't think it is. Well, I mean, it isn't it isn't right to the cancer to the extent that they're trying to do cultural change. Yes. But the Uighurs were not at least the majority of the Uighurs were not a threat to China. The Palestinians are a threat to Israel. And of course, the organ harvesting and the camps and the violence and the the the the executions and all of that would not be part of what Israel is doing. But yes, they will be accused of a million things that will be accused of cultural genocide without any question. I don't I don't see any way around it though. That that the only way to do it is to risk or to not risk guarantee the fact that they will come after you in that way. Harper Campbell, which philosophers other than Rand have offered any kind of serious critique of Kant. Oh, you know, I don't I can't name them right now. But a lot of, you know, Phyllis, I've got one book. Let me see. I think this was it. No, this isn't it. Oh, there is. Here's one called Goethe Kant and Hegel by Walter Kaufmann, who is a philosopher, you know, Professor Philosophy, who critiques Kant and in many respects, not completely, but in many respects similar to Rand's critique. There are others, there are plenty of people who look back, philosophy professors who understand, you know, read Kant, studied Kant, and who are very critical of Kant. But that's a good question to ask somebody like Greg or Ankar when they're online, when they're on here. Clark, are you going to make a priority to have one-on-one meetings with Millay before he gets corrupted by more moderate voices in his circle deep into his term of office? You know, I'm going to try, but there's no guarantee he will see me. I don't see how and why and I'm not sure why I would have any influence on him. But I certainly will try and use whatever context I have in Argentina to see if we can make that happen. But I'm not sure why he would, I mean, I'm not, I'm not any, from his perspective, not any force that he needs to really listen to. Why do you think every young person is expected to go to college? Well, it's a credential, it's a degree, but few and few Americans are going to college. The number of Americans going to college is declining, particularly men, women, large percentages of women go to college. Men is significantly declining over the last 20 years. So it's becoming less so, but it's a, it's a credential, many jobs require it. It's, there's a perception that it requires that it's, it's the only way to advance or to succeed in life, to advance career wise. I think that is the reason why everybody goes to college and parents think all of that. Ed says, how would you rate Margaret Thatcher privatization in Great Britain? You know, I don't know on a scale of zero to 10, graded a seven, something like that, maybe an eight, seven, eight, I don't know the details, but I wish she'd done more, but she probably did as much as she could given, given the politics of the sign. And some of the privatizations just didn't go far enough in terms of the way they were done. There was too much, too much, what do you call it, too much regulatory power was maintained in spite of the supposed privatization. We just have $11 to make our goal for today. So if anybody wants to step in with 10 and one or two fives or five and a six or whatever the, whatever it takes, please do so because we're almost out of time. Daniel, did you see Bernie Sanders say he didn't know how a permanency fire could be possible with Hamas who constantly threatened to commit an October 7th? Again, the progressives have to be pissed. I mean, look, Bernie is an old time socialist, kind of socialist, not really a full blown socialist. He's not one of the kind of nihilistic burn it all down. Bernie struggled with BLM. He's not an identitarian. He's not woke. You know, Bernie is an old line kind of influenced by Marx. And he's not a modern, crazy leftist as crazy and as horrible as I think he is. He resisted. He had a really hard time with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, of the fall left because he doesn't get it. It's not his ideology. He's much more aligned with kind of a Marxist view of history than a woke view of history and a post-colonial view of history. So, yeah, I think in a lot of issues, he pisses off people. Gale says, I agree. We are close to four fascism. I'm sorry. Yeah, I mean, it's sad, but true. Thank you, Charlie. Thank you, Luke. Thank you, Catherine. Thank you, Jeremy. Thank you, Sivanos. Thank you, Jeffrey, of course. I really appreciate it. We made a goal. I appreciate that. We're going to end here. I will move these two topics, the AI regulation in Ukraine and China, to next time. And I will see you all tomorrow. It'll be later, but I'm not sure exactly what time. I will let you know by Twitter or by Facebook. But have a great rest of your Monday. And I will see you soon. Bye, everybody.