 Alan Greenspan, what went wrong? I mean, who knows? That's a good question. Psychologists now follow the philosopher, I think, of an economist like me. It's more for psychologists. My suspicion, and from talking to people who knew Alan Greenspan a long time ago, is that he never completely got it. That when I ran was alive, she was such a genius. So Alan Greenspan is super smart. And he's super empiricist. He can collect data, and he's not a theorist. He's an empiricist. And he identified a genius. He identified Iron Man as a genius. He identified Iron Man as somebody he could look up to. And then he would come to her with stuff, and she would always correct him. She would always say, oh, no, you have to think about it this way, because she could see both the data and the theory, where he could see only the data. And as long as she was alive, she kept slapping him into place, in a sense. She kept fixing him. She kept correcting his errors. And even the essays that he wrote for her journal were heavily edited by her, because they needed that editing, because he couldn't wait philosophically really, even when he wrote economics. So once she died, I think that went away. And once she died, that kind of said guiding light that could integrate him, could fix the challenges that he faced, because he wasn't that good of a thinker, that went away. And he deteriorated very fast. I mean, if you think about, by 1984, he headed Ronald Reagan's commission to fix Social Security, and his recommendation was not even to privatize it, which is a compromise enough. The only solution is to do away with it. But he didn't even suggest that. What he suggested is raise taxes, raise Social Security taxes, and reduce payments. So just conventional, standard, status thinking. And of course, he was setting himself up for the Fed job, which he got. And then as soon as he got the Fed job, he became a Keynesian. I mean, he became, and again, if you think about it, he was never an Austrian theoretical thinker about economics. He was a data guy. He was a consultant. He never got a PhD in economics. He was a consultant who liked to look at massive amounts of data and come up with conclusions, well, so you start manipulating money based on the data, based on what the economists that the Federalers have tell you the data says. And it becomes a disaster. And you could argue that for a long time there, he was probably following some pseudo, I don't know, gold standard, or maybe he was following a Taylor model or something. But then at some point, he even gave up that up and he was so full of himself and his ability to project the economy and to use data that he started just dwinging it. And we got the 2008 financial crisis as a consequence. Indeed. Have you got one? What we need today, what I call the new intellectual, would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, whims, or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism, and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist, bro. Using the super chat, and I noticed yesterday when I appealed for support for the show, many of you stepped forward and actually supported the show for the first time. So I'll do it again. Maybe we'll get some more today. If you like what you're hearing, if you appreciate what I'm doing, then I appreciate your support. Those of you who don't yet support the show, please take this opportunity, go to uranbrookshow.com slash support or go to subscribestar.com uranbrookshow and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this going. I'm not showing the next.