 Ok, so first, primero, vamos a tener traducción simultánea porque Yaron no habla español, Yaron, you need to learn Spanish, así que todos aquellos que no les veis muy claro también, les vamos a pedir que hable lento, speak slowly, pero aquellos que quieran intentar mejor, tenemos traducción simultánea y los aparatitos allá al fondo, así que pueden ir por ellos. Si piensan que se van a perder algo, pingan los empatajitos porque Yaron realmente es un mago, es un muy buen speaker y vale la pena no perderse ninguna de las palabras que va a decirlo. So Yaron, thank you very much for being here. Yaron es el presidente del board of I am an Institute, gran speaker, autor de varios best sellers y gran detención de la libertad. Así que Yaron habla de la moralidad de el capitalismo y de los que dicen gran. So Yaron, this is yours. Thank you. Alright, thank you everybody. This is not, what's that? They are translating, if you want there is a, you got it? Alright. Alright, good evening everybody, I am doing this in English, only language I can do this in, sorry. We do have translation into Spanish, show if anybody needs it, we have it available. It's good to be in Colombia, it's my first time in Medellín, not my first time in Colombia. Beautiful city, so congratulations, it's gorgeous. And it is, it really is beautiful. So one of the great mysteries in the world, one of the great questions that I think we all need to be challenged with is, why is the world not freedom? Why do we not have more free markets and generally freedom for the individual than we have today? Because the reality is, if you look around the world, the reality is that there is a direct correlation, a direct relationship between how free a country is and how wealthy a country is, how satisfied the people living in that country are. Freedom works, freedom produces results, it actually generates wealth and it allows people to flourish, it allows people to pursue their own values and to live a better life. In countries that are free, people live better lives than in countries where they are not free. So why is freedom so rare? Why is freedom the exception? I mean if you look at human history, we've been free very, very, very little of the time that human beings have been around. If human beings have been around maybe, I don't know, million years or several hundred thousand years, freedom is a concept, freedom is an idea, capitalism, free markets, even the idea of voting, the idea of democracy. As a white spread phenomena, is what, 200 years, maybe 250 years out of a million? Almost all of human history we have been unfree. And as a consequence, throughout almost all of human history we have been poor. Almost forever, human beings, I mean the normal state of being for human beings is poverty. It's to be poor. It is truly an exception. It's truly unusual and rare for us to be rich. And if you look around this room, even in Medellín, Colombia, we are rich. By every standard of human history, we are super rich. We live longer, you know, life expectancy just 500 years ago was 30. In rich countries for then it was maybe 39. Wealth, 90% of the population lived at $2 a day or less. Imagine today, living at $2 a day or less, maybe the poorest people in Colombia lived like that. Certainly nobody in this room does. We, by every measure, are incredibly rich as compared to any period in human history. We drive cars, we have electricity, we have air conditioning. Most people in this room are richer than the richest person in the world 100 years ago. In terms of the actual quality of life. Just the idea that you have running water and electricity. What made all this possible? What made possible the riches and the wealth that we all have and we all benefit from? Because again, it is the exception in human history. Not the common thing. What makes it possible is the idea of freedom. The idea of freedom based on the idea that each one of us as individuals has the capacity to take care of ourselves. We don't need mother government or experts or philosopher kings telling us how and what we should do and how we should live. Each one of us has a mind. Each one of us has the capacity to live for yourself. Has the capacity to choose your own values and to pursue those values using your mind. You're not dependent on others. You're not dependent on people dictating to you what to do. But for thousands, hundreds of thousands of years, you were told you're impotent. You were told you cannot think for yourself. You were told you need experts. You need other people to tell you what is true and what is not. What is good for you and what is not. Is there any way to shut them up? It's hard when somebody is talking to the back of my ear. So the idea that you can think for yourself. The idea that you can live for yourself. The idea that you can follow your own values. That is an idea that is necessary for the idea of freedom. And when the tribal leader runs the tribe, he doesn't want you thinking for yourself. The king, the pope, the authorities, the politicians in Bogotá. They don't want you thinking for yourself. They want you to believe you need them. They want you to believe that you can't live without them. They want you to believe that you are dependent on them. That's how they maintain power over you. So it's only when individuals recognize and acknowledge the idea that they live and they can live for themselves. And they have the power to live for themselves. They have the ability to live for themselves. They don't need those authorities. Only then do we demand freedom. As long as we believe them and think we're dependent, we're too weak to demand that freedom. But this idea of living for yourself is a very controversial idea in the history of mankind. What do our religions teach us? Who should we live for? God. What does Marx teach us? Who should we live for? The proletarian. The nationalists tell us you should live for the state. Your mother tells you you should live for your neighbors. Everybody always tells you, everybody. All the secular philosophers, all the different religions, all the political philosophies tell you the purpose of your life is to live for others. Outruism is the dominant morality. It is a morality of otherism. The idea that your life should serve other people. The idea that people think of a purpose greater than yourself. What do they mean when they say that? Every politician in history has said, you should all live for something greater than yourself. What do they mean by that? The state, society, the proletarian, God, something above you. Ain Rand tells us no. She tells you, she asks a simple question, she asks you to ask a simple question. Why should I live for other people? Why are other people's lives more important than mine? I'm alive, I'm here, I'm me. Isn't my life to me more important than your life? I mean, I have to tell you for me, I'm more important to me than you are to me. I care more about me than I care about my neighbors. I do. Most people do. We're just ashamed to say it. Kids are drowning in the pool and your neighbors' kids are drowning in the pool. Whose kids do you save first? Who saves the neighbors' kids first? Nobody. You save your own kids first. But most people feel guilty about that. Why? It's your kids. It's your life. It's your happiness. That should always be your priority. That's what Rand teaches us. She teaches us to care about our own life. She teaches us to value our own life. And if you value your own life, then you demand the ability to make your own choices. You demand the ability to make your own decisions. You demand the ability to follow your own path, to achieve your own values. Not values that other people chose for you, but that you choose. Why? Because you care about your own life. Politics starts with the decision of who do you as an individual care about. If you care about you, then you demand what? You demand freedom. Freedom is a consequence of caring about yourself. Because if you care about yourself, you want to be able to pursue your values. You don't want mother governments sitting on your shoulder saying, uh-uh, don't drink that, too much sugar, don't eat that, too much fat, you want to be able to make those decisions for yourself based on your own values, based on your own choices, based on your own mind. So if we know that we have a mind that is capable of making choices in the world, and if we value ourselves as individuals, we seek freedom. We seek getting the authorities off of our backs. We seek getting rid of people telling us how we should and how we must live. So you need a society, a people who value their own life, who have self-esteem, who want to be happy and successful based on their own choices and their own values, and who have confidence in their own mind to achieve those values and to be successful. That is the foundation of capitalism. That is the foundation of freedom. And that is the foundation of a moral society. Because a moral society, morality is applied to society, should be a system that allows us as individuals to choose our own path. An immoral society is a society that tries to impose its values on us, tries to impose what we can and cannot do, tries to tell us how we can and cannot live, regulates us, taxes us, redistributes our wealth, controls us in a million different ways. So ultimately, capitalism rests on this idea of the autonomy of the individual, on the self-esteem of the individual, on the individual's capacity to take care of himself, and when we don't have a society like that and no society in the world has people who respect themselves enough to say, get off my back, leave me alone. But that's the essential maravu to freedom. It's the value in your own life. It's respect for your own mind. It's respect for your own ability. That's the foundation, the moral foundation of a capitalist system. We live in a world where you're told you can't think for yourself. We live in a world which says you should live for other people. So then it's just, we have competition between politicians. Some politicians tell you you should sacrifice for the poor. Some politicians tell you you should sacrifice for the state. Some politicians tell you you should sacrifice for God. And then there's just a competition between who you should sacrifice for. And there is nobody out there in the political world with a voice for the people among us who say we don't want to sacrifice. We want to be left alone. We want to be free. And it is this philosophical foundation that I'm missing because if you just look at the economics, if we forget about these philosophical ideas, if we just look at economics, the only system in human history to bring people out of poverty is capitalism. What percentage of the world population lived in $2 a day or less before capitalism? 95%, almost everybody. If you look at countries that are wealthy, what is the difference between them and countries that are poor? How much freedom they have? The more freedom, the more wealth, the more resources. It's not about natural resources. Everybody know Hong Kong? Hong Kong is this little island. It's a rock in the middle of nowhere. No natural resources, nothing. It used to be a fishing village, just close to China, but with nothing. And then the British came there. And the British said on this rock we protect property rights, we protect contracts, and you can do whatever you want. We don't allow violence, we don't allow fraud, we don't allow the bad things, we don't tax much, we're not going to regulate it all. No free healthcare, no free anything. And that's it. They just left the rock, like that, just government did. Kept people safe. Millions of people came from all over Asia. Why? Because they were free. So why don't we all want to be free? They could pursue their values, they could pursue their happiness. And in 70 years, 7-0, this rock with no natural resources and nothing on it has today 7.5 million people, more skyscrapers, tall buildings in New York City, and a GDP per capita, income higher than the United States of America. They're richer than Americans. Why? Why don't we all want to be free? Why don't the people out there don't want to be free? Why don't they want to be Hong Kong? It should be easy. People ask me, how can we turn Colombia or any country? How do we make the country rich? And I say, just do what Hong Kong did. Get out of the way. Let people live. Let people build. Let people create values. And again, the reason they don't want it, the reason they won't accept it, the reason they fight against it is because they won't accept these philosophical ideas. They won't accept the idea of their own capacities. They don't have the confidence, the self-esteem to live free of the authorities guiding them, helping them in their lives. What will happen if we have real freedom? Good things. Really good things. So I encourage everybody who's interested, really interested in their own life, interested in the world, interested in success and wealth and prosperity for themselves and the people around them. I encourage everybody to read Ayn Rand because Ayn Rand really has the answers. She gives you the tool as an individual to live the best life that you can live. She gives us the tool as a society to create the maximum opportunities for people as individuals to live the best lives that they can live. She gives us the tools as a society, the intellectual tools to be successful and wealthy and free. So how do you make the world a better place? Fight for freedom. Fight for freedom and liberty. Not just on the economic arguments. Those are easy. Those should be obvious. Those are not convincing in the end. Fight for these ideas on the philosophical foundations. Fight for them because it's good for you. Fight for these ideas because your life will be better for achieving them. Fight for these ideas because you as an individual want to be free. Fight for freedom. Ultimately, we'll achieve it. Thank you. I think they said I should take some questions. Happy to take questions about anything from anybody. We've got a microphone, we've got one here. If you want to ask in Spanish you can ask in Spanish and somebody will translate so don't worry. Nietzsche. So no, it's not. Nietzsche talked about a superhuman. He talked about their quote above morality. Morality doesn't apply to them. They can do whatever they want. He also talked about the will. You know, an emotionalist kind of seeking a power. That's not at all what Ayn Rand is talking about. First of all, Ayn Rand says we all must be moral. But she's redefining what moral means. Moral doesn't mean what our preachers y philosophers have taught us. Morality means the system of values that we should embrace to achieve our own flourishing as human beings. Our own success as human beings. That's what morality is. So she's more, if you know philosophy she's more along the lines of Aristotle. Achieving eudaiminea through virtue. Eudaiminea meaning in Greek meaning flourishing, success, success at living. So Ayn Rand rejects the idea de superpeople who have a different moral code than the rest of us. No, we are all bound by the same morality. We must all survive and we should all strive to be happy and successful and live a good life. And to live a good life we need certain principles. We need to live a certain type of life. And that's what morality gives us. It gives us those principles. It presents us with a kind of life that will lead to flourishing and success and prosperity. And she rejects, the other thing she rejects is Nietzsche's focus on emotion and will as a guide to your values. For Rand everything must be guided by reason. Everything must be guided by your mind by rationality. Rationality is the measure of truth. To achieve truth you need to be rational. To discover truth. So to discover the right way to live you must think not feel, but think. So she rejects kind of the emotionalism that's inherent in Nietzsche. You say an example about Hong Kong how by being free they achieved a lot of wealth and every time I talk about how the government shouldn't intervene in things in the economy and so on. A lot of people a lot of people come back to me with an example of Singapore now that's a very rich country but it's not free. So I really don't have an argument I was just wondering if you didn't have an argument about Singapore. Sure, so Singapore is free in certain dimensions and not free in other dimensions. The dimensions that apply primarily to wealth creation, to business to business and entrepreneurial entrepreneurial activity Singapore is very free. If you look at the economic freedom index of the world there are two organizations that do competing ones but the number one and number two before China took over Hong Kong were always Hong Kong and Singapore. So from an economic perspective Singapore is very free one of the fears. Now it's not perfect it's not 100% free it could be richer if it was 100% free but it's let's say 85% free whereas in America we're 60% free and you in Colombia maybe 40% free they are 85% free that's pretty good now the dimensions in which they're not free like for example don't chew gum in the street in Singapore if you know chewing gum if you chew gum in the street in Singapore you can get arrested you can't speak about politics you can't speak about anything else but you can't criticize the government too much those are dimensions that still affect our quality of life they still affect our ability to pursue our own happiness as individuals but that affect the economics less now I believe that long term Singapore has to choose it either becomes free across all dimensions of human activity or it will become more status in its economics it can hold this free here but not free there I think something has to give and will but the world creation is a product of economic activity and economic activity about as free as any country in the world is today I can't but think about the parallels with Marxism and communism because both say people if they act morally will make decisions that will benefit themselves and others so Anne Rand says if everybody is moral then this free economy will not only bring benefits to the person creating a business but also I'm assuming to everyone else Marx also says the greatest miracle in the modern world is the factory written in the pyramid itself and he comes to a different conclusion and for all moral we can all work for the common good and the working class who actually provides the labor will benefit so my question to you is we right now in some economies have freedom from regulations some of them I know you want more honest I would not want less and we see for example child labor until very recently child labor was common right now in the United States which I think you're from there was a big train derailment for a lack of regulations in people in a town or suffering pollution which if a factory owner is allowed to do what they want they might do more now you can argue they don't have the morality that Anne Rand is talking about by making decisions that are in the best interest of everyone but it seems like you're advocating to remove regulation where this morality doesn't exist and the result is death and often poverty and people are very discontent with the current state of capitalism right now because it is hard to afford things and the freedom that they have is just the freedom to consume and choose between various tastes of ice cream or makeup so I find that to be kind of the conflict here because our capitalist system causes people to beg in the streets and the young man who said oh I want to help this person but that is the reality of what we see and we also see the United States with homeless encampments sure oh wait, there's a lot there so let me try to let me try to unpack this a little bit, one yes there is a similarity between Marxism y Inran in the sense that both systems are based on morality I think every system in the world is based on some moral code some ethics, that's true of Marxism that's true of every single idea but some moralities are true and some moralities are false some moralities actually promote human life and some moralities destroy human life the morality that Inran bases her ideas on is a very different morality than Marx bases his ideas on any day over Marx and pretty much over anybody else for a couple of reasons, one Marxist morality rejects the individual denies the individual, denies the individual any sovereignty, you don't have a say in your own life ultimately the proletarian decide for you what you do the proletarian indeed decides for you what is truth there is the dictatorship of the proletarian in which you don't get to make decisions for yourself that's you know and secondly again sacrifice to other people why not live for yourself there is no ultimate answer to that question let me get to the child believe me we'll get to the child so to begin with I don't expect anybody to sacrifice for me and I will not sacrifice for anybody else that is a moral code that results in freedom in a capitalist version so morality always leads to a certain political system you cannot have a political system with no morality every political system assumes something about a moral code and I'm arguing that the moral code of Marxism, the moral code of statism the moral code that exists today in America and the moral code that exists today in Colombia all wrong because they're not, I ran and in consequence we have political systems that are horrible that are bad, that are wrong that I ran rejects and I reject brings me to the question about about what about America well first put aside the morality of America we don't have capitalism in America people like to call anything they don't like capitalism but the reality is what does capitalism actually mean capitalism means a separation of state from economics capitalism means a system where the state doesn't regulate some, the state doesn't regulate at all not capitalism means private property the rule of law the protection of contracts and no regulations no intervention by the government if you allow intervention then it's a mixed economy some socialism, some capitalism in capitalism there's no welfare state in capitalism there's no social security Medicare, Medicaid and a million other government programs and I know the common definition dictionary definition of capitalism is describes everything in the world today but that's not the capitalism I ran talks about, it's not the capitalism I talk about the system in the United States today is rotten it's better than a lot of other places but it's rotten but let me just make this comparison with Marx because you brought Marxism in the closer we get to Marx the more people die not just kids working we'll get to kids working in a minute but literally kids dying by the tens of millions that's the Soviet Union that's China indeed every country in the world that is socialized farming that is socialized food production suffers from famines and death and destruction just look at Venezuela right now socialism kills and it kills in large numbers now socialist always say well we've never tried it fully we've never gotten it right but the closer you get to it the more death and destruction there is capitalism on the other hand the closer we get we've never really achieved it but the closer we get the more wealth the longer life the more successful people are and indeed the fewer people die of starvation the fewer poor people they are and the fewer children work but let's talk a little bit about child labor one of my favorite topics what did children do before capitalism what did children do 500 years ago they worked they played children played the children didn't play they worked on the farm and parents would have 10-12 children why do we have so many children back there one because they needed to work but B what was the other reason we had so many children back there they died half of them didn't make the age of 10 50% of children didn't make the age of 10 so you had a lot of children so if you would survive they would be cheap labor on your farm children have always worked when did children stop working only one period in all of human history in that 100,000 years of human history children stopped working only once you can answer the question that's bullshit so so so let me answer the question because that is that is complete mythology now there's let me finish let me I have an answer that's complete nonsense every single country if you look at the countries in the world when they reach a certain GDP per capita y when children are no longer working in factories governments passed laws to exclude children this happened in England, it happened in the United States it's happening right now in Indonesia Malaysia and Asia when parents can afford to keep the kids from work if they can afford to send them to school then they pull them out of the workplace they send them to school and the government then takes the credit for it after the fact by passing a law check your history you can see this in every single country it's always at the same GDP per capita always at the same place there's a little book just about child labor in sweatshops by from Texas Tech University I'll think of his name in a minute that documents empirically the exact relationship between child labor and when the laws pass the reality is the children have always worked they stop working when capitalism makes them so productive that they now make enough money to be able to feed their children without the child working because what happens if today you shut down sweatshops in poor countries what happens to those kids what's the alternative instead of working what's the alternative for them there is no schools there are no schools in these places so what would they do yeah that's a root to poverty very very fast and speedy root to poverty you see how the mythologies survive it is fascinating to see how in spite of all the empirical evidence in spite of all the history of the last 150 years in spite of the fact that socialism and nationalization have been disastrous every single time they've been tried every single time they've been tried we still latch on to them because we don't have the self-esteem and the confidence to believe we can live for ourselves we don't have the self-esteem and confidence to believe that maybe you believe that you can live for yourself but oh no those other idiots out there they can't survive if the state doesn't help them we leave them alone to live for themselves you know much better how other people should live than they know about their own life so you want to dictate their life for them every single example of state nationalization of industries has failed empirically just ask François Mitterrand who was the socialist president of France in the 1980s and who nationalized the entire banking system and four years later had to reprivatize them because it was such a disaster ask the Kibbutzim in Israel who were these beautiful socialized farming communities that seemed to be incredibly successful until it was discovered they were completely subsidized by the government and as soon as the subsidies ended they all failed and today there are no Kibbutzim in Israel you can go industry after industry after industry when they're nationalized they fail, they die they disappear you want a success? look what happens when you privatize industries then they go through the roof but the reality is the child labor is what happens when we're poor as soon as parents get rich enough we pull our children out of labor and the alternative children have is to work or to die and it's only rich middle class people from relatively wealthy backgrounds and wealthy countries who sit back on their nice cushy sofas in comfortable countries who think oh my god those kids shouldn't work over there really my kids don't work so their kids didn't work without having any concept of what life is like in these countries and why these kids have to work in order to survive I'm sure there are parts of the question I didn't answer but yes are you going to ask in Spanish and somebody will translate I think unfortunately oh you haven't finished yet, go ahead I'm loving liberty to be free to love liberty so I think liberty I think liberty, capitalism freedom so I think freedom liberty are the political philosophy of love I think you're absolutely right I think that love is the key attribute to explain all of this but who do you have to love to say I love the world or I love other people or I love you or whoever who do you have to love first before you can love somebody else you have to love yourself and what does it mean to love yourself it means to respect yourself it means to acknowledge and to have confidence in yourself and to have confidence in your ability to live successfully to achieve happiness to achieve values to live a flourishing beautiful life and if you can achieve that for yourself if you can believe that you can achieve that for yourself if you love not just yourself but you love life and you love living and you love valuing then as a consequence you would love the world and you would want everybody to be free to be able to love themselves y live up to their own potential so love is a fundamental sense of yourself of the world that is a requirement for a free society you won't get a free society unless people love themselves you won't get a free society unless people value their own life their own time their own effort their own abilities you won't get a free society until people start loving that which is good in other people that which is productive that which is creative that which is building and how do we trade how do we relate with a loved one what is the relationship like do we sacrifice to our loved ones do we ask our loved ones to sacrifice for us what would happen if I told my wife I'm not doing this for myself I love you not because I care about myself this is a sacrifice for me this is I'm losing by loving you I'm worse off by loving you would that be a compliment no the essence of love is win-win the essence of love is mutual benefit you're both winning from the relationship now note that that is the essential characteristic in trade in a free society it's the idea of win-win relationships and indeed a loving free society is a society that maximizes win-win relationship voluntary win-win relationship and I think I think Ayn Rand's philosophy is the philosophy of love because it's all about loving it's all about valuing it's all about achieving it's all about making your life the best life that it can be which is about love of course thank you very much for making your dream here I think you are elevating the debate and it's definitely very interesting a lot of people here I appreciate your presence here welcome to Colombia thank you unlike many people here I have lived in Venezuela and I have lived in Panama and I have lived actually in Hong Kong and some of the countries and I kind of have pretty clear where it's better to live Venezuela where everything was nationalized and the trade unions took their victories and it's a nice league let me tell you if you want to give me a try there's a reason why we're here and not in Venezuela today I hope you can do one time go to many cities in Venezuela but first what tools or what's the best way to defend freedom apart from facts because facts is pretty straightforward but apparently it's not very well understood what tools have you seen around the world that are better to defend these values it's not obvious but maybe it's not obvious it's not obvious partially I'm going to repeat myself because I'm going to say facts are all on our side I mean literally all the facts are on our side there's no country there's no place where everything is nationalized and controlled and regulated that you would want to live that doesn't mean America's heaven because America's not capitalist America's not free America's also heavily regulated more regulated than a lot of places in the world so the facts are all on our side they're not just the facts the economic theory is all on our side we've had Nobel prizes in economics people who agree with us on liberty and freedom we won the economic debate Keynes lost, Marx lost Hayek to some extent won Hayek, Mises, those guys won in economics but where have we lost? we've lost in what I've been talking about this evening we've lost a moral debate we keep losing the moral debate the morality of altruism the morality of otherism the morality of self sacrifice the morality that says the group is more important than the individual the state is more important than the individual the tribe is more important than the individual the others are more important than the individual that your purpose in life is to sacrifice that morality won es ser fuerte por dos mil más años, nadie es capaz de desafiarlo. Muchos de ustedes, incluso si no, no pueden desafiarlo dentro de sus cuartas, dentro de sus cuartas. Pero hasta que eso se desafíe, hasta que se desafíe la moralidad de sacrificio, que, últimamente, creo que es la moralidad de la muerte, no vamos a mover el nido en libertad y libertad. Vamos a seguir circulando en el mismo, en el mismo lugar. El breakthrough va a venir cuando estamos dispuestos a aceptar una nueva moralidad radical, la moralidad de la muerte, el interés, la moralidad de el individualismo. Bienvenido, bienvenido. Y desagradable. Y desagradable. Y quizás te dieras una diferente visión, a partir de que, creo que lo que te advertiste es una nueva forma de feudalismo. Y es tan simple como eso. Hay una razón por la que te digas sobre la nacionalización y todo eso. Lo que hemos estado haciendo, finalmente, es socializar el riesgo de bancas. Así que, mira en el 2008, ¿cuáles son los que bailaron las bancas? Esa era nuestra tasa de tarjetas, ¿ok? Bien. De nuevo, ¿qué se ha hecho en Suizna? La Suizna, la Suizna. Mira, mira. Y también, de hecho, te digo. Sí, es mi evento, no es tu. Te digo, te digo. Te dices un gran hablar sobre la nacionalización y la privatización. Pero lo que sabemos es que, en cada 8 o 10 años, el capitalismo nos pierde, y hay un ciclo de boom y bust constantemente. ¿Y quién son los que terminan sufriendo? Es el pueblo en el fondo, ¿ok? Y vamos a, sabes, te dices estos ejemplos sobre los Estados Unidos y todos estos otros países. La venta, la venta está en una dirección diferente. Es, sabes, ¿qué, ¿qué tenemos? Vale, ¿qué responde? No, hang on, déjame, déjame, déjame, déjame hablar. So, ¿qué vemos ahora mismo es, y el, los cálidos de Iron Rant, los Hayek y la Comisis, quiénes your name, el cargo, la razón por qué, te digo Iron Rant, la razón por qué ella está en el frío de cualquier tipo de common sentido, la razón por qué ella ha sido completamente, No hay una persona serio que está aquí y que dice que estoy en el rato, ¿ok? Seguramente... Así que, la manera en la que te digas que me insultas, es la manera en la que te digas... No, por supuesto que te digas, no hay una persona serio. El presidente de Bernie Sanders hoy tuvo una reunión con el CEO de Starbucks, ¿ok? Sí, lo vi. Y lo viste, fue genial, ¿ok? Entonces, lo que vemos ahora es que las personas están rejando esta gran forma de capitalismo, ¿ok? Y se están cansando de esto. ¿Qué hay de las personas que están haciendo? Los senators como Bernie Sanders están manteniendo en cuenta el CEO de Starbucks, ¿ok? Para unirse y estirar. Y te dices una buena hablar, por favor. Al final, por favor. Te dices una buena hablar sobre... ...unos de estos, ¿no? Lo que has completely forgotten about is the importance of distributing the wealth equitably between people, ¿ok? When you have a huge concentration of wealth at the top of the pyramid, and you believe in this sort of, you know, wishy-washy idea, which economics, by the way, has proven to be completely... Completely wrong, absolutely. ...completely wrong. ...showing down sort of economics, which, you know, has been discredited, by the way. This is like point three, yeah. We know exactly... The thing is, why I'm smiling at the end of this is because, you know, the way things... Great. Thank you very much. $1,000, how can we distribute wealth? We need to create wealth. So that's just my kind. So you asked why we're not winning. I mean, he has a great example, right? What they do, this is a technique that is done by the opposition. They take the current system, they take what happens in the United States in the great financial crisis and say, see capitalism fails. As if, in 2007, in the United States, we had capitalism. As if, in 2007, banks in the United States were unregulated. Banks in 2007 in the United States were the most regulated industry in the United States. And I would challenge anybody, just a list of regulations, I can do it. I'm sure you can't, but I can list every single regulation that exists. Every single bank in the United States to this day is regulated by seven different regulatory agencies. No industry, probably in the world, is more regulated than American banks are. Guess what happens? American banks keep failing. Their crisis in American banks constantly. Why? Because they're not free. There's no free market in banking. There is the exact opposite. Now he laughs, but he can't give you one piece of evidence to suggest that banks are actually free. Facts don't matter to them. They know what the conclusion has to be, because their philosophy leads to a certain conclusion, and then they fill it in. But I actually know all the regulations. I did an eight hour course, you can find it on YouTube, if by chance you're interested, on the causes of the great financial crisis. And the causes of the financial crisis are not greed on Wall Street. Wall Street is always greedy. The causes of the financial crisis are regulations, government policy, the Federal Reserve. All of that led to the financial crisis. The reason banks failed is because of the way they are regulated. When you have a mixed economy, to blame every single crisis on a little bit of freedom instead on the massive amount of controls that this industry faces is basically dishonest. I have done at least five debates on the financial crisis with leftist economists. I would challenge you to go watch those debates and tell me that I lost, because I did not. The facts, indeed, are on my side. You can find some homeless people in San Francisco. But God forbid, ask the question, why do we have homeless people in San Francisco? Why are they homeless people in San Francisco? Because they can't afford the housing in San Francisco. Why can't you afford housing in San Francisco? Because the state, our electros, democracy refuses to build cheap housing in San Francisco. It's not at least they don't want cheap housing in San Francisco. It's democracy. When we vote, we vote no tall buildings in San Francisco, no what do you call it, cheap housing in San Francisco. So you take away the bottom of the housing function, which capitalists are happy to provide. If you actually have freedom in San Francisco, freedom to do with your land as you please, lots of entrepreneurs would love to build cheap housing because they could rent it out and sell it. Indeed, before the homeless crisis existed, there was lots of cheap housing in New York and San Francisco. So what has caused homelessness? Regulation, control. Regulations controlled have caused homelessness. Who's wealthy you're going to distribute? So, okay, my last point, if he's willing to be quiet, maybe not. Don't argue with him. See, she's disturbing. Don't act, don't. So last point, wait, wait, wait, last point, last point. He said we distribute wealth and he said, why do some people have a lot and some people have a little? Because some people create a lot. And who are you? Who are you or anybody like you? To take my money. I work hard for it. I've used my mind to create wealth and now you decide, you know what? You know what? The workers make the money. No, the workers don't make the money. It's nonsense. There are no workers without entrepreneurs. You need to read beyond marks. You need to take your reading a little beyond marks. But the fact is workers don't, you don't create wealth. Ideas create wealth. Entrepreneurs create wealth. Businessmen create wealth. Guys, so thank you very much. We have a great discussion right here. Thank you and thank you. We're shutting it out. So we have a presentation, some guano for you to enjoy and have everyone a great...