 The radical, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is the Iran Book Show. All right, everybody. Welcome to Iran Book Show on this, what is it? It is the noon over here, morning for most of you, maybe afternoon for some of you. Thanks for joining us on this Thursday. Hope everybody's doing well. All right, Miloslav is here today. He is the guy responsible for my super chat tracker, which is unbelievably helpful for everything that I do. So thanks, Miloslav. Miloslav is also adding time codes for the videos. So hopefully that will make browsing my videos a lot easier. So that is amazing as well. Thanks, Miloslav. All right, hopefully everybody is watching World Cup soccer. Those of you at least who like soccer, it's been a really, I think, really enjoyable entertaining World Cup. Yesterday's game between France and Morocco did not disappoint. France won, which is a good thing. But Morocco played well. And it was a very entertaining game. Morocco could have scored. The French could have scored even more. But it was a lot of fun. I really enjoyed it. And I'm super looking forward to Argentina, France, on Sunday. It's the two, maybe two of the best players in the world, the Messi and Mbappe are playing. I still think Messi is probably the better player. The more creative player, the player who can, of course, he's got a lot more experience. Mbappe is 23. And Messi is, what is he, 30-something, 37. But it's going to be a lot of fun. I hope Messi wins. I hope the Argentinians take home the World Cup. I think Messi's career trajectory kind of deserves it. And anyway, it's going to be a fun game no matter who wins. And it's going to be fun to watch. So don't miss the World Cup, guys. I love great talent and display. I played soccer when I was young. So I know a little bit about what it takes to play at their level, what it takes to control the ball the way they control the ball. It is truly spectacular to watch these athletes. That's why I love the Olympics. I love sports at their best. I love the very peak of it. Just to watch human ability at that level is fun. And you know that the kind of work and the kind of effort and the kind of training and the kind of thinking, I think that's underestimated, kind of thinking that has to go into that kind of quality of play and becoming an athlete at that level. So kudos to these great athletes of the day. All right, today's another one of our news roundup shows. It's kind of difficult these days. Not much going on in the world, I have to say. There's not like one big spectacular story. There's not a bunch of stuff. There's a lot of politics going on in Washington, D.C. We can talk a little bit about that, but not stuff that I find particularly interesting or particularly important because it all kind of ultimately plays out in stupid ways. But a lot of the news is economic news, and we'll talk a little bit about that. And I know, anyway, so we'll talk about the economy. We'll talk about the Fed. We'll talk about some other issues a little bit on Iran. And I guess we will go from there. All right, so a reminder to everybody, we do have a super chat goal, $250. You can ask questions, and that way you can shape the show. So if you have particular questions about the news of the day, please jump in and participate. You can ask about any story that you've read or anything that's going on, I hope. I know enough to be able to answer the questions. But please use the super chat at whatever level you can, $2, $250, anything in between to ask questions. And that way you get to be part of the show and you get to kind of shape the direction of the show. So that's great. All right, let's see where we want to go. Let's start with, yeah, I mean, we'll start with what we talked about a little bit yesterday. The Fed yesterday raised interest rates. We talked about this yesterday, right? Because they just done it. They raised interest rates by 50 basis points, by half a percentage point. So now the bank lending rate is between 4.25 and 4.5. And the market initially responded positively to that. But it was kind of expected. There was no big thing. But then Powell came out and did a news conference. And in the news conference, basically, Powell said, and he's been trying to play this game for months now. And investors are not convinced. Maybe now they're convinced, not convinced. But anyway, he came out and came out very tough vis-a-vis inflation. He came out as a tough guy on inflation. And the market just started going down. It started going down because, A, if he's right, an inflation is much worse than the number we got yesterday or the day before yesterday suggests, then the economy is going to be worse. Even if he's wrong, the fact that they're increasing interest rates so much and anticipating increasing interest rates even more suggest economic slowdown and suggest a potential recession. And so generally, his stance of being tough on inflation we're going to raise interest rates more. Interest rates will rise until inflation is crushed. It's going to be higher than what the market expects. That was not good news for the economy. It was not good news for the markets. And markets really took a hit yesterday. And I think this morning they were opening down the futures market. At least I didn't look to see. Let's do a quick update on the markets. But it looked like markets were taking a hit. Yeah, markets are generally down. Yeah, Nasdaq is down a lot. And the Dow is down a lot. S&P is down a lot. So they're all down 2% because basically all of this hits earnings. All of this basically is perceived as bad for stocks, bad for the economy, bad for companies, bad for the world. And stock market is down. I don't think I'm going out on a particular limb to say that I expect a lot of volatility, a lot of up and down in the stock market and with our economy over the next 12 to 18 months. I think the direction the economy is going to take is still very uncertain. I think the number of moving variables makes it almost impossible to predict exactly how things are going to shape up. But investors who put their money where their mouth is suggesting that things are not going well. Things are not going well economically. I've told you before. I'll remind you again, this is a good time to have a plan for what happens if a recession hits. This is a good time to have a plan for what happens if the economy gets a lot worse. Maybe you lose a job. Maybe your savings get reduced because the market goes down. What do you do then? Do you have a plan? Do you have a solution for it? So it's worth thinking about these things because you don't want to be surprised by them. And I think on the Iran Book Show, we will try to prevent you from being surprised by unpredictable economic events. Just to, this is not just an American phenomena. The European Central Bank is hiking rates as well. So is the Bank of England. This is across the board, inflation is across the board problem in the world generally, but certainly in advanced economies. And you're seeing most advanced economies. I don't think it's a big problem in place like Japan. But the European Central Bank is struggling, although its rates are still significantly lower than Fed rates. Their rate has gone from 1.5% to 2% while our rates are up above four. But Europe is struggling. Europe is afraid of a recession. Europe is increasing rates on the one hand to try to control inflation. On the other hand, as they increase rates, they start fearing recession. But generally, I think you should all expect a very volatile, very difficult global economy. So not just a US economy, but a global economy in trouble. So do with that as you will, but you're seeing it across the board in Europe, in the UK, and in the US interest rates going up, the economy slowing, and the real potential for a recession out there. So the European Central Bank followed the US Bank. That's all happened recently. OK, a few quick updates on some stories I know we've been following. Ukraine war, I mean the same stuff is happening, but what's interesting is the US now is suggesting that it will supply cell, I guess, in some vague notion of cell. To the Ukrainians, Patriot missiles, Patriot missile systems are probably the most advanced ground-to-air missile systems in the world today. These are the American ground-to-air missile systems. Not only are they great for taking down airplanes, it would basically make it almost impossible for the Russians to fly over Ukraine. The airplanes would just be knocked out of the air. The Russians do not have airplanes that can evade Patriot missiles. Even though the US has systems that will evade the Russian anti-aircraft missiles, the Russians do not have systems to evade the American ones. Again, as I described previously, American weapon systems are night and day better than anything the Russians have. Wes, thank you for the support. Really appreciate that. SuperChat is kind of trickling, trickling in. Somebody asked if you should really rob, you should really use the SuperChat for that. More advanced than Ayan Dome, Rob says, yes and no. Completely different. Ayan Dome is not an anti-aircraft system. Ayan Dome is not even an anti-long-range missile system. Ayan Dome is the best system in the world for short range, short-range missiles and elements like that. Israel has anti-aircraft. It has a very advanced anti-aircraft missiles. It has very advanced anti-drone systems. But those are separate than the Ayan Dome. The Ayan Dome is for homemade rockets, short-term missiles, very, the things that stay in there are very, very short periods of time because they're very short range. The Ayan Dome is a stunning technological achievement. And to be able to knock down the kind of small trajectories that we are talking about that the Palestinians use is truly amazing. This is very different. This is for drones and for airplanes. So in addition to be able to eliminate airplanes, the Patriot system can knock down drones. It can also, and this is crucial for the Ukrainians as well, it can knock down cruise missiles and other types of longer range, medium range kind of missiles that the Russians are firing against Ukrainian cities. It's a game changer. If they're provided with enough of these batteries, they can protect Ukrainian cities in dramatically better fashion than they can right now. It's also interesting because it is a defensive weapon. But the response to the United States saying that they will provide the Ukrainians with these missiles is that the Russians realize that this is a game changer and really is going to make their life harassing Ukrainian civilians much more difficult. And therefore, you get from the Russians the kind of response that you typically get, which is saber rattling. And now they're talking about if the US provides this to the Ukrainians, the US will suffer unpredictable consequences. Unpredictable consequences. That's not exactly code for nuclear weapons, but it could be. The problem the Russians are facing is that they keep threatening. They keep saber rattling. They keep suggesting that maybe they will use this as a red line. This should not be crossed. Just like Obama used to do with his red lines, that then everybody crossed them and nothing happened. Rob, thank you. I really appreciate that. But nothing happens. And indeed, they keep backtracking from their threats. And so we will see what happens. We'll see what happens here. The Russians were smart, actually. I think the best Russian propaganda strategy would be was to keep repeating the nuclear threat, keep it in the press, keep it out there. Because what happens is Fox News picks up on it and a lot of Republicans pick up on it and all the pro-Russians pick up on it and then you start hearing it among people. And even though I don't think it's a credible threat and I don't think the Russians approved not to be really credible, it does really resonate. Particularly the right wing in the US and the far left in the US in terms of creating an atmosphere that's anti-U.S. helping the Ukraine to fight the Russians. So it's a good tactic. But things like unpredictable consequences, nobody can accuse them of using a nuclear, whatever threats, while clearly that's what they're implying. So the propaganda machine out of Russia is alive and well and functioning great. Just a quick story about Iran, nothing really big going on. Everything continues on track in terms of the protests. But what is interesting is that the UN has booted Iran from the Women's Commission. The UN has a Women's Commission as part of its human rights efforts, I guess, human rights and big quotation marks. So for decades, Iran has forced women to wear hijabs, Saudi Arabia's, not allowed women to drive and do all kinds of other things, stoned women for adultery and things like that. And those countries were fine as part of being part of a Women's Commission. Nobody cared. The feminists didn't say a word. Finally now, because of the demonstrations, because of what's going on in Iran, the United Nations has woken up in terms of Iran and kicked them out of the Women's Commission. Wow, isn't that amazing? Good for the United Nations. I mean, it's just disgusting and horrible. The United Nations is probably the most disgusting global organization in the world. I can't think of one more deserving of the United States to stop funding it tomorrow. Go cold turkey and leave. It's a despicable, disgusting organization that elevates barbaric regimes and gives them credibility and sanctions them. Iran is still a member of the United Nations. Iran still stands dead against the United Nations. Iran still has government officials flying into New York so they can attend the United Nations. I've been saying for 20 years now, the United Nations should be shipped off to Caracas in Venezuela, and the United States should stop funding, zero funding, and should just leave the United Nations. I'm all for multinational organizations, but multinational organizations are free countries. I don't think any multinational organization is worth anything if it includes, as part of the organization, countries that fundamentally anti-freedom. And that's my view of the UN. So they don't get any credit for what they're doing. All right, just an interesting little tidbit that I picked up from the news. You know El Salvador, the country El Salvador, to our south, the country that is well known for having made Bitcoin legal tender. I don't think that worked out too well for them, for the people holding Bitcoin over the last year or since they made it legal tender. Anyway, El Salvador has an ongoing war on gangs. It's one of the most violent countries in the world. It has an ongoing war on gangs. And what is really interesting about it is just the statistic, I have nothing more to say but the statistic. El Salvador has arrested 2% of its adult population. 2% of adults in El Salvador are in jail because of their supposed being accused of being involved in the gang. So wow, aren't you happy you don't live in El Salvador? It must be brutal. It must be really brutal. All right, final, I think final story is just right. Final story I have. No, two final stories. So let's do this one. Some good news out of Minneapolis. Again, Minneapolis, who was the epicenter of kind of the crazy left. Minneapolis that wanted to defund the police. Minneapolis that had some real far leftist on a city council still does. Minneapolis, you know, where the George Floyd whole thing started. The mayor of Minneapolis who's pretty left wing. Frey, I think his name is. So the Minneapolis city council is passing a bill that would basically cap the ability of owners of real estate in Minneapolis to raise rents, so form of rent control. Capita 3% increases annually. Thumbs up to the leftist mayor of Minneapolis. He is going to veto this bill. He is a leftist, but he's also the guy who did not want to defund the police. He vetoed all the attempts to defund the police and stopped them. He is now vetoing an attempt to have price controls in Minneapolis. Good for Frey, you know, once in a while, the left actually does. Leftist mayors who are connected to a little bit to reality, to actual reality, and to actually what's good, at least to some extent, for their constituencies, do positive things. And here, this is a leftist mayor reining in the excesses of the wacky left. And that's always good news when that happens. And again, I think it shows the lack of popularity of crazy leftist proposals. All right, that and that and that. We're gone. OK, last quick thing I wanted to say is, you remember I did a story not long ago about China can't pick winners. I cited an academic paper that said that China actually, when it subsidizes businesses, it subsidizes the least productive businesses. And the subsidies actually lead to less productivity and not to increase productivity. So the subsidies are actually hurting their economy. They're actually not making them more competitive. They're actually not making them better, which shouldn't surprise us, but was great to see an academic paper actually do the research and actually look at this and actually discover it. Well, the Wall Street Journal actually discovered the same paper. And yesterday, the Wall Street editorial board ran a story called Does China Really Pick Winners? A new paper says China state subsidies don't lift productivity. You hear the really good news, the stuff that matters, the interesting stuff, the stuff that actually has an impact on the world, and it actually should change the way you think about the world. You actually hear it on your on-book show before the Wall Street Journal picks up on the story. So I was pretty pleased to see the Wall Street Journal pick up on the story because it's a really, really important story. But I was particularly pleased because I talked about it before they did. About a week before, I think. All right, let's see. David, thank you for the support. Really appreciate it. Rob, thank you again. Vladimir, thank you. And Bischak, thank you. Thank you to all of you. These are people who gave on the super chat with a sticker without asking a question. We'll get to the questions in a second. Let me just check that we covered everything I wanted to. Yeah, I think so. I think 25 minutes, that's good. We might have a short show today, particularly given the lack of questions. So we'll make the short and move on. We've got a show tonight. I forget we've got a show tonight, 7 p.m. East Coast time. I'll let you know about the actual topic in a little while. We could get to our goal if everybody who's watching right now did two bucks on the super chat. So thank you, Gail. I appreciate the support. All right, Benjamin, does a recent interview with Angela Merkel and a comment that the West wanted a war with Russia by disregarding the minced agreement? I'm not sure the question is, does the recent interview? I guess you're saying, does it change my mind? No, it doesn't change my mind. Let me listen to the actual interview, because I'm not sure that's exactly what she said. I think that's the way some people are spinning the story, but I'm not sure that's exactly what she said. I will listen to what she said. But look, Angela Merkel was a failed prime minister of Germany. Angela Merkel is the one who made Germany completely dependent on Putin for its natural gas. Angela Merkel is the one as prime minister who shut down Germany's nuclear power plants. Angela Merkel is a complete failure when it comes to Russia, when it comes to energy. And I wouldn't take anything Angela Merkel says seriously when it comes to her relationship with Putin. She has had for 20 years now a cozy relationship with Putin and has supported him. And again, made, she is the one as leader of Germany who made Germany dependent on Russian gas. She is more responsible for the state of Germany this winter than anybody else in the state of the West this winter than anybody else. And she's more responsible for making Putin and Russia rich than anybody else because that money went where did it go? It went to Russia. It went to Russia and made it possible for them to build out its weapon system and not only that. The fact that Angela Merkel was so friendly with Putin, the fact that Germany was completely dependent on its natural gas supply to Russia, I think emboldened Putin, made him think he was invincible, made him think the West wouldn't do anything about the war because it was too dependent on Russia. So I think history is going to show that Merkel is more responsible for this war than anybody, but not by standing up to Russia, not by expanding NATO, but by emboldening him, by making Germany dependent on him. And I think whatever achievement Angela Merkel might have, and I'm not sure what they are exactly, this will define her premiership and define it as a failure. So I'll listen to what she said exactly, but again, no, the fact that she said it wouldn't change my mind about what's going on in Russia. Russia is the aggressor. The fact that countries wanted to protect themselves from Russian expansionism and therefore join NATO makes complete sense to me. And in that sense, it makes complete sense to me. It shows that countries were afraid of Russia's aggression. Estonia didn't join NATO in order to aggress against Russia. Estonia joined NATO in order to protect itself against Russian aggression. And remember, this is not in a vacuum. Russia invaded Georgia with no provocation in 2008. Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. Russia has been the aggressor in Europe for 14 years. And Putin's rhetoric has been aggressive towards Europe for longer than that. So expansion of NATO made an enormous amount of sense for countries that felt threatened by Russian aggression. Now, this is from somebody who doesn't really think that the United States should be part of NATO. I think NATO should be a mutual defense of European countries. The United States does not have to fight for Europe. But Europe should fight for Europe. All right, we've got more super chat coming in. Thank you. So thank you to Noel. Thank you to Mike. Thank you to John. Really, really appreciate the support. Oh, Richard's asking about a story I meant to cover today. I don't know how it slipped my mind. That's weird that it slipped my mind. Anyway, there's a lot of talk about TikTok collecting data on Americans for China. I think TikTok's cultural influence poses a much greater real and potential threat to the US. What do you think? I mean, yeah, of course, TikTok is awful culturally, although I know some people doing, you know, portraying positive values on TikTok. There are a number of young objectivists who are doing some, you know, important work on TikTok and appealing to young people. But yeah, TikTok, I think, is a negative cultural influence. But if it wasn't TikTok, it would be something else. It's, we can't ban companies and we can't stop companies because of their cultural influence on what's going on. TikTok, I don't get TikTok, I don't understand TikTok, but people are enamored with it. I guess it's the short format, it's instant gratification, it's based on appeal to emotion and all of that, and those are things that work in the culture. And they help, I think, the culture deteriorate. But there's nothing you can do about the fact that TikTok is a cultural threat other than fight it at the cultural level, fight it by education. There's no alternative to education and one of the most important things one can do is fight it at the cultural level. And one of the most important things one can do in terms of education is teach people, one of the things is to teach people to focus and teach people to have longer attention spans. And to have them experience the reward of longer attention spans. I think reading is probably the most important thing there is the reward from reading great literature, the reward from sticking to a thousand page book of a hundred page book I guess these days is an achievement. So we need to expand people's attention spans. I think classical music can do that. I think reading novels can do that. I think having to solve complicated math problems can do that. I think thinking about science can do that. I think a lot of things that can do that but that's we need to be able to do that. In terms of data, I mean, I don't know what China can do with the data they get from TikTok. It's not clear to me that that data is a national security issue. Certainly if this data is going to the Chinese government the United States government should do something about it but it's not clear what. I think they're trying and they have tried to segregate the American data from Chinese data. I think it wasn't the American data supposed to sit on Oracle servers in the United States and never be transported over to China. One has to figure out how to create the firewall to not be able to do that. But then of the day, the best way to prevent your data as an individual from landing up in the hands of the Chinese is not to go on TikTok, not to participate. Once the information is known that this data is going on it's your choice. Why is the US government doing this? It's not like we don't know. Once we know it's our decision. Now what Congress just did was they passed unanimously everybody in Congress agreed on this the left, the right, Madri Taylor Green and Omo and everybody left, right and center agreed to pass a law that basically says that government employees cannot use TikTok on their devices. And a number of states I think five or six states now have passed laws that say state employees cannot use TikTok on their devices. This to me is theater. As far as I know, there was no evidence that TikTok can access other, because you use TikTok on your machine it can access other data on your iPhone or on your computer. I don't think that's true. I think all they can access is the information you provide TikTok and information on how you use TikTok. Now maybe you're worried that government employees are using TikTok so much or government employees are using TikTok to see stuff that they shouldn't be watching and that that can be used to blackmail them, it's hard for me to believe. So what is the national security threat of government employees using TikTok? I don't think there is one. I think this is theater. I think this is the Democrats and Republicans showing you United Front, we all hate China equally. I think this is nonsense instead of focusing on the areas where the China is really threatening instead of engaging in real strategy. And I think that strategy by the military and strategy of building up particular types of weapon systems and strategy around potentially around chips, around microprocessors instead of doing that instead of really thinking that through because I don't think that's thought through either. I think it's haphazard and from the hip and it's interesting how much more radical or tough Biden is than Trump was. Instead, let's go after TikTok. I made fun of this when Trump did it and there's no reason to stop making fun of it now that Biden's do it and the Democrats or Republicans do it and state legislatures do it and governors are doing it. It's all theater, it's all political theater to make them look tough and look like they really are going after those evil Chinese. Bullshit. I mean, there is something to be done about China but this isn't it, this is ridiculous. Armin, thank you. Armin just basically took us and got us past that. The 250 limit, I guess we're $11 short. All right, thank you Armin, really appreciate it. All right, Roland says I'll be rooting for the nation of Voltaire Bastiat and Hugo if they lose our blade on Rousseau. Yes, I mean, for the duration of the game I will assume they are the land of Rousseau and that'll make my passionate support for Argentina more passionate, right? So I'll evade Voltaire Bastiat and Hugo. No, I mean, you gotta support Messi, guys. You know, one of the greatest players who's ever played the game. One of the greatest players who's ever played the game. This is his last World Cup. He's never won a World Cup. He should go up on top and the way he played the other day, two days ago, he was just brilliant. He's been brilliant in this World Cup. His ball control, his vision of the field, his passing ability, he's just at the top of his game. He deserves winning. That's the bottom line. He deserves it. Now soccer doesn't, football, sports don't go by, just by deserve in any particular instance, but it would be fun to watch him win. Benjamin says, what is your take on Stoicism? Sorry, it's too big of a topic, but I am gonna be interviewing Aaron Smith, who is a scholar at the Ironman Institute who is an expert on Stoicism and I will be interviewing him Thursday nights, not starting this Thursday, but starting next Thursday. Thursday night shows are gonna be dedicated to interviews and one of those interviews will be on Stoicism and they will be with Aaron and so you will get my full view on Stoicism there. It's just too big of a topic to cover in a quick super chat. All right, Laren, $100, thank you. Laren, that gets us way over. I've heard you criticize companies for using antitrust against competitors. What's the difference between that and taking PPP loans? Is it wrong because it's director specific companies? Do companies have a fiduciary duty to use all available law in their favor? So, you know, first, you know, antitrust is proactive. You have to initiate an antitrust ruling. It's not like I'm taking advantage of kind of existing laws passively. Like even PPP was certainly in a sense, so two things about PPP. One, the government inflicted pain and then offered to compensate you for the pain that they inflicted. Lockdowns were pain that they inflicted. Unnecessary pain that they inflicted. I view PPP as getting some money back given the pain inflicted on us by lockdowns. So there's a direct response to something bad that's happened. Second, subsidies. If in my industry there are subsidies to be gained and all I have to do is apply for them, then yeah, it's completely legitimate if you're in a business in a competitive industry not to handicap yourself by letting your competitors get subsidy and you not. But that's different than you lobbying for subsidies. That to me is the equivalent of you using antitrust laws in a sense, lobbying to use antitrust laws on this particular company. And so it's proactive. There's a proactive in seeking subsidies. There's a proactive in let's use antitrust on these companies. There's a proactivity on screwing my competitors. Let's go find laws and stuff to screw the competitors. So you have a fiduciary duty to your shareholders to do what you can within the frame of the law, but it's I think a violation of your fiduciary duty to your shareholders is to actually promote more government intervention in the economy. Now, the lion is borderline. It's not easy to identify when am I advocating for more government intervention, when is it more self-defense. All these things are very difficult to pinpoint and very difficult to isolate. It is a real challenge. I'm not pretending that it's easy or that the judgment is always easy to do, but you do have to do no harm. Again, PPP I think is the easiest one because there's a government action and this is a way to compensate for the damage that that government action committed. I think if there's just subsidies and everybody's getting them, your competitors are getting them, you can't not get them. But if it's antitrust and you're initiating the whole move of antitrust into this field, that is rotten to the core. And that's what was done to Microsoft by Sun Microsystems and Mark Andreessen, who is now this god of the venture capital community. He was one of the people who sicked the justice department on Microsoft when antitrust had not been applied to this world at all. So, I don't know, I hope living there that gives you some sense of how I look at it, although as I said, it is tricky. In a mixed economy, it's tricky to draw clear lines because once you get the government involved, everything becomes kind of mushy. Alright, Frank says, would you debate Linda Sasso who hates Israel? I debate as haters of Israel. I probably would debate Linda Sasso. I'd have to really look into her stuff to tell you definitively, but I certainly consider it. So, hating Israel is not a criteria for me not to debate. Daniel, thank you for the support. Matthew says, regarding her essay, The Cashing In, how accurate do you think Rand Stacon in the Berkeley free speech movement was? Was there any substantive pushback against her views or facts? As far as I know, her views and facts were right on. I don't think there was any substantive pushback that I know of on that. I haven't read The Cashing In in a long time, so I'd have to read it again to see if there's anything. I don't remember objecting to anything in terms of the... So, if you have anything specific, I'd be happy to read it and look at it and see if there's anything that I would think would be wrong or that I didn't agree with. Okay, Bree asks, Rusty and I used to say sport is the only place where you can put your passion behind your team with no consequences. I'm not sure what it means that there are no consequences. I think sports is the last bastion of, in a sense, romanticism left to us. Sports is the last bastion in which we can relish and enjoy victory, relish and enjoy competence. You know, heroes, anti-heroes or superheroes in the movies, they're not actually human beings. There's no heroic literature, there's very little heroic anything. And the one place where we still celebrate and embrace competence, business we don't anymore, maybe we never have, but in sports everybody loves Messi, everybody loves the guy who used to run the 100 meter sprint. Everybody loves a great basketball player, everybody loves their team. We can love competence and achievement without supposedly feeling embarrassment and it's the one area in life where the winners and losers and everybody's fine with that. Hussain Bolt, thank you, Jennifer. Everybody's fine with winners and losers, not everybody gets a ribbon and everybody's fine with that. So it's the one area that they left is not polluted with its egalitarianism. So it's the one non-egalitarian area. Now, there are lots of parts of our economy in our world that are non-egalitarian. But here it's, you know, they haven't polluted it with a sense of guilt that you should feel by, you know, you can do it without feeling any guilt. I'm not saying that aren't heroes in business. I'm saying that the culture doesn't view businessmen heroic. And that's, you know, of course they're heroes in business, but the culture does not allow you to view them as heroes without feeling guilt associated with it. All right, everybody, thank you. 45 minutes, 46 seems to be the sweet spot. I will thank you for the superchatters. We did phenomenally today on the super chat. Don't forget tonight. I think we're going to cover. What was the topics we're going to cover tonight? We're going to take one of the topics will definitely be trade. I think you'll find it interesting. I'm going to compare Biden and Trump on trade. And but there was another topic I was going to cover that I have now that is now completely and utterly slipped my mind. But it, you know, oh, yes, we're going to cover it relates to some of this businessmen stuff. A billion is hurtful to our economy. A billion is destroying economy. I've got a video from Wyatt magazine of all places that claims that billion is a destructive to the economy. So we will analyze the video and then we'll talk about the differences with regard to trade policy between Biden and Trump should be. I think an educational show should be an interesting show. I will see you all hopefully tonight, 7 p.m. East Coast time. Talk to you then see you then.