 We will talk about one particular speech because I listened to it about how after it was given. And all I have to say is, no, I have a lot more to say about this, but this is a good start. Wow, endavos. Well, anyway, for that matter. Wow, I mean, just wow. You know, I almost never have anything good to say about politicians and definitely have nothing positive to say about any politicians. Speeches and Mille just gave a great speech. Now, granted, granted, it had flaws. It could have been better from a number of different dimensions and other perspectives. There were things I really, really, really would have liked to have changed. But you have to focus on the positives because the positives are so overwhelmingly good as compared to the negatives that, wow. I highly encourage you to watch it. I'm sure you've watched a lot of politicians' speeches that you just thoroughly hated. I'm putting it here in the chat. You can go watch it. It's simultaneous translation. So you get the English translation of it. And I just want to highlight a few things. First, let me just say, he really needs to take my public speaking course. This was not well delivered. It was not, I mean, the whole sections of it that I'm sure the audience fell asleep in, it could have been so much better. Just with a little bit of refinement, both a little bit of editing of the talk itself. And I'm not here talking about philosophical points, just pedagogical, public speaking. And then I know how good of a public speaker me late can be. I've seen him. And he's talked on radio and TV. He's brilliant. And he needs to get away from this. I'm a Davos. Therefore, it's a really, really intimidating audience. Therefore, I need to wear my glasses at the end of my nose and read a paper bed speech in a boring monotone fashion. So he needs to get away from that. But the content for the most part, I'll highlight a few things where I think he could have done better. But the content for the most part was just excellent. He starts out by basically saying, all the problems that you have people are because you're moving towards socialism. And OK, this probably makes Scots and other people's day. He's attacking the left isn't this great. But then he does something really, really, really cool to undermine the Scots of the world. He actually talks about what he means by socialism. And what he means by socialism is not just the left. What he means by socialism is the logic of what I'm meant by socialism. He means statism. And he says socialism means, yes, the traditional socialist. But it also means the woke. But it also means the nationalists. It also means all these different forms of collectivism. It's all you collectivists. You're all socialists. It's not just about the left. It's equally about the right. And a number of his examples, when he lists the examples of socialism upon the right. And wow, how many people have that understanding of socialism? A socialism understood as statism. A socialism understood as collectivism. A socialism understood as state intervention. And he says, we used to think that socialism meant the state owns the means of production, but no more. Now the state has discovered that it can control the means of production without owning them. Yeah, fascism. So brilliant, brilliant in a sense that expanding, not being narrow, not affiliating yourself with any political position. On stage, he calls himself a libertarian. Now I don't think that's ideal, but it's so much better than calling himself a conservative or calling himself a right winger or calling himself any of these easily put into a bucket. And he defines libertarianism in a reasonable kind of way without it coming across as wacky or crazy. He constantly talks about freedom, freedom, freedom. Freedom is what makes you rich. Freedom is what I'm about. He talks about the evil of collectivism. Constantly throughout the talk, he talks about collectivism and that it's evil and it's wrong and that the alternative is not some kind of right wing nationalism. The alternative is individualism. He names it. There were parts of the talk, I have to say. My wife was sitting next to me. I was like, either he or speech writers or somebody close to him has watched my videos. There's just stuff that he said and even the structure of a part of the talk. There are two moments where this happens. One is when he talks about, he really structures it. Look, here's the practical case for capitalism. It works, it produces the wealth. But that's not about, it's the moral issue. And that's what everybody attacks. It's the morality of capitalism. But capitalism is moral. Now, he doesn't give a very good explanation why capitalism is moral. He fails there, which is tragic. He needs to do a much better job there. But he doesn't, it's not all for what he does. But it's just not good. But that structure, that follows my morality of capitalism talks. And then the second one is, it's a throwaway line where he talks about the pie. He says, the pie and the fact that the pie is not static, it grows. And the pie on a static is not grows was, again, right out of my inequality talks. So I don't know. And I've been to Argentina several times. I've given these exact talks on inequality and on morality of capitalism several times. People in the audience, there were a lot of small libertarians, or big L libertarians in the audience, who knows what the connections are, but it's there. He talks about morality. He talks about the fact that the economic case is unequivocal, but the real attack on capitalism is a moral attack. And then we need a moral defense of capitalism. Again, I think the moral defense he provides was weak and a little quick and a little kind of couched over. And the consequence of that is, of course, that he doesn't really, I don't know that he gets it, or I don't know that he wants to give it to the audience. But that was pretty quick. But then the closing of the speech, God, the closing of the speech is so inspired by Inrant. You know, a little bit of Israel Kutzner, who he mentions in the talk, but really inspired by Inrant. The closing of the speech is truly unbelievable. It's not libertarian. Libertarians don't talk this way. Libertarians don't talk about this ever at all. This pure Inrant, she was the only one, to the extent that libertarians talk about it, it's because of Inrant. He talks about the businessman as being a hero. And in this sense, it's the best in terms of getting close to a moral case of capitalism. He talks about the businessman being a hero. The business being the greatest benefactor to humanity. Who says that? Who says that except Inrant? Stunning. I'll give you a few of the things that I think were wrong both stylistically and in terms of content. But he's a politician. He's standing up in Davos. You know who introduced him? Do you know who introduced Millet to give this particular talk? He was introduced by Klaus Schwab, the founder, the CEO, the chief behind the World Economic Forum. One of the most evil status out there. Somebody who is the essence of the kind of socialism, the statism, really fascism, because Schwab is really a fascist. That Millet is arguing against the worst kind of, I don't know, call him an intellectual, that you could imagine. He's the one who introduced Millet. He must have been in the audience listening to this given the context, given the place, given the audience, given all, you know, and given the quality of it. You can't, you can't, I mean, we could quibble on the details, but, you know, he is, I mean, this was a great speech. Sorry, this is one of the great best speeches a politician has given on a broad, kind of as a broad philosophical outlay. You know, again, so what do I, what am I against? I take two points, I mean, really one point stylistically. And a couple of places, he goes into professor mode. I'm gonna teach you how, you know, too many numbers, too many stats, when he's trying to describe the growth of the, of wealth in the West, you don't need those numbers and stats. You can, you can, I mean, you can do it in a much easier, much more easily, digestible way than what he did. He then goes into a long explanation about why markets don't fail, can't fail, which is completely right, but it just becomes too professorial, too a little bit academic, too slow, you know, you lose the audience. So those are stylistic points, nothing he said, but either one of those topics is wrong, both actually right, if anything, he underplays the benefits, the economic kind of benefits that capitalism has provided the West, there's ways to illustrate that it's even much greater than the numbers he illustrates. But he's completely right on both points. It just, it comes across as a little too professorial. He needs to, he needs to, he needs to watch, as Michael suggests here, he needs to watch Milton Friedman a little bit, do economics and do economics for the layman. Nobody was quite as good as Milton Friedman in taking economic concepts and making him digestible to the common person. So that's stylistically mainly because there was nothing, content wrong. Actually the content points, weak on the morality, just didn't get it, didn't get there and it felt like he was rushing it. Again, I think there's an inherent discomfort with a moral point. I think he, you know, he attributes rights to God, it's a quick point. He implicitly, it doesn't make a big deal out of this, but he implicitly suggests abortion is evil. Yeah. I mean, those are the big ones that I can recall right now. The things that I would, I, you know, I love to see gone and redone and replaced. But so, so yes, so there were some weaknesses. I wish he'd spent just a little bit more on the morality and dug a little deeper into that and linked it up to his argument for individualism, individualism, individualism and his argument against collectivism because his argument for individualism against collectivism has to be moral at the end and he needs to figure out what that argument is. He's gonna be troubled by, if you can link it to individualism and then one other complaint I have and this relates to his libertarianism and that is the way he accuses the state of doing things. Sadly, it reveals this kind of anarchism. Reveals his anarchism, it's the hatred of the state which is motivating. I just wish, wish I had, and given that he's new to all these ideas, remember Millet was a Keynesian 12 years ago, he was a statist 12 years ago. He's new to these, I wish had time with him to talk about the anarchy because I really think he's smart enough, intelligent enough to get it and to overdo it and when he says the state, which is, I mean if you limit it to the current state, absolutely, but the way it's said and in the context it's said, it's an accusation about the state per se and I think that weakens your case. It would be great if in one of these talks, he articulated a moral case for a state and the proper role, the proper role of the state and if he did that even in a sentence, then blaming stuff on the state would be fine because the context is the improper state, the not right state. So again, I think that's too bad and it reveals these weaknesses, the anarchist weaknesses, but given all that in particular, his just praise of the businessmen in the last segment of his speech in his closing was so good and very appropriate for Davos in the sense of, I mean some of the best leading, most innovative businessmen are at Davos, you can criticize them all you want, but they are there and to give them that kind of boost and to connect it to liberty, to connect it to an attack on collectivism, to connect it on attacks on statism in all its different forms, to collect is fantastic and I think has the potential to have a real impact on business leaders globally, which would be massive, huge in terms of the potential impact. The speech, I'm sure, will be viewed a lot and that's great. And generally, I'm excited to see how this develops. I wish Millet got himself to the point where he's comfortable in front of an audience like this and the same thing happened in his auguration and other formal speeches and be less formal in his delivery. He needs to loosen up, he needs to embrace his own passion, embrace his own style without swearing, still being dignified, all of that, but just bring out that personality that in the end won him the election, right? In the end won him the election and got people excited about him. I don't think it helps this case to be so stiff and potentially boring. So I hope I get a chance to meet Millet. I'm happy to do a short public speaking seminar for him. It wouldn't take more than an hour and we'd be done. It really isn't that hard because he has all the skills. You know it because I've seen him do it before.