 So, we're told, by the public press, by academic representatives, by many partners and social figures, we're told that one of the main problems the world faces today is just the gap, the difference between those who make a make, less than those who make a lot. The top 10 percent, but it's really cooler to talk about the top. One percent, they're the real gap. And this gap, this difference between the poor and the low middle class and the very wealthy. That's most of the social problems we have today and it justifies massive gap. You know, they're using it in the United States now to justify raising the minimum wage from 7 to 15. They're using it, the Democrats are running for president are proposing raising largely income taxes in the United States and I know this might still be low for some of the Republicans, but they're using it to raise the income tax, to raise the income tax to 70%, 70%. They're proposing a wealth tax so that we can take some of the wealth of that one percent and reduce inequality. It's not good by taking some money from the top, we're going to give it to the bottom, we're going to raise the people at the bottom. They are going to raise the people at the bottom very much. It's not the essential case. They just say that this gap, this difference, causes so many social economic problems, they just reduce it, even if it's just by lowering the top. We will all somehow believe the government from terrorism in the Middle East to slow economic growth in western countries to the lack of mobility between poor people and middle class. So almost every economic problem and economic issue covers shoulder relations of the gap. And any economic problem in the gap makes any such important thing to figure out. What is this debate really about? They are using this to take away our liberty. They are using this to take away our freedom. They are using it in money to actually destroy whatever the economy still exists, to actually penalize some of the most productive people in the world in which we live. What are the right arguments to come in today, the arguments that they're making, the arguments that they use to justify all state intervention? It's all part of the same kind of argument. How do they justify this idea of inequality? How do they justify this idea that me having a lot and somebody else having a little is unjust, is wrong, and it's destructive? They tools they use. And you just heard a TV show about that story. One of the tools they use is an analogy. It's like a story. It's a car, a beef cake, a national well, and they say this pie exists. And we have to figure out who gets which piece. And suddenly, the other day, we had an economic story, a few economic studies, and they say, well, it's a study allocation resource. This is the same thing, right? We've got a car, let's figure out how to get who gets which piece. We all kind of think that it's okay that everybody gets but the father brings home, in the evening a pie, the kids are always waiting, you know, you have to cut it up exactly the same. Maybe the guy who bought the pizza gets a bit of a bigger piece, but if he eats the whole pizza, it's like a pizza on the table. The whole morning, we have to share the pizza and to get the pizza or something approximate, we all get the same piece. That's all about any of you. Why so close? There's nobody in my head. The pie is even size, and we just have to divvy it up. They don't think you'd look out for the pie, you cannot get to it. Economic wealth, conceptualizing the idea that wealth is indeed created. It doesn't come into existence. It's so easy to tell people about how wealth is created, what is in history, big chunks of history. Because when the pie, like 300 years ago, was there a big pie? The size of the pie came in 100 years ago. There were only about less than half of the people who lived very long, so there was a lot of turnover. And average income was what? Was it the level today of what we consider extreme poverty, or what you can have in nations considered as extreme poverty? Not in an organization I usually cite, but in this case there. How many people 300 years ago lived at $2 a day on this? In the world, pretty much everybody, 95% to 99%. Hard to tell exactly. Everybody was extremely poor. And it's something amazing happening. For 100,000 years we were all basically extremely poor. Suddenly, out of nowhere, being fantastic and rich. And not more. And when all that wealth was fixed, if it doesn't expand, then how did we become rich? By exploiting whom? By stealing from whom? By taking from what? From the setting of the world population today. Lives are $2 a day, or less than all inflation in government, to less than 10. And indeed over the last 30 years, just over the last 30 years, some of your life. People who have come out of extreme poverty as a decline or come out of extreme poverty is over a billion people. We've gone from 30% of the world population to 8% of the world population. I mean that is the most exciting, positive story. The normative part of it. The normative part of it. We should be celebrating in the streets. People shouldn't be celebrating in the streets. Socialism. We distributional wealth. But freedom in places like China, India, South Korea, Taiwan. In Asia, even in Africa, there is a lot of disorder among the media that are starting to rise in poverty because they've got too little law, some property rights. Some imagine they really have. How we divide the pie, is given to the Bi큽 term. How do we vote? We will vote. We will vote! We will vote is that if you cannot vote as a phenomenon, I see it. All of those kind of decisions, that is not standard, It's not really the problem. There's a much deeper problem. It's an aggravated economic number that takes a lot more off than all the income in the economy. But it's the real problem with the pie. There is no pie. And you might pay the pie. I need to beat your pie. Oh, he has to beat your world. Oh, he has to beat your economy. And economists, because they like numbers, and they like the aggregate numbers, they can aggregate all those numbers and say, here's the national wealth, but the nation has no wealth. You have wealth, and you have wealth, and you have wealth. And who the hell are they to take my pie and crunch it up as everybody else's pie to create a collective pie? No such thing as a national economy. It's a thing of GE. Not really. Now, there's a thing just as a number that we use to aggregate. So we can hold that out of it, but the one you start treating it as a thing. Serbia has X amount of billions of dollars. Now, I have to decide who gets what. I have to tell that optimistic thing. It destroys us. That's the kind of taking our property away from us that makes it possible for them to get away with it. They assume that your property is not yours. They assume that all property implicitly is collectively owned. It belongs to everybody. It's part of this big pie. Don't steal my pie. Believe my money, my wealth, my property, my stuff. Alone. Too many people talk in these collectivistic terms. Most economists approach it. Part as if the nation does stuff. Maybe one of the most important of these discussions is happening right now in the United States. The United States has a trade deficit with China. The United States doesn't trade with China. The United States doesn't trade with China. I trade with China. I trade with China. These guys, I don't need to trade with China. This is how I'm driving these guys. Assembly iPhones. And he gets paid for that. You know, he's a Chinese company. He has the iPhone. And they ship the trade. And I trade with this Chinese company. There's some trade going on between America and China. Not in any real sense. Nationalistic, collectivistic. Concepts. Individuals trade. And if I were that trade with some Chinese guy, why is it that he doesn't take anybody's business? He didn't volunteer it. I didn't volunteer it. We're trading. Which means? What does it mean when you're trading? You two are benefit. Win-win. I am better off. And he's better off. Don't produce. Countries don't have wealth. Only individuals trade, produce, and have wealth. Anybody gave gold, chocolate, and those in store? A massive trade deficit with those in store. It's terrible. If you'd like to go to the store every day, you need your money then. You take stuff. And they never hire you back. No grocery stores. They ask me to come and speak to me. So the dollars I get at the grocery store, I never get back. It's terrible. I've got to trade it. If you go to the supermarket, I don't know what the discussion is and the concept is. Because I know it. It's losing to China. The economics down in our individual act. And the incentives and the benefits and the relationship between individuals. And when there's no corrosion, there's no war on the state. So you never buy. You should never reuse. And you should be really cute. Individuals create their wealth. And all the better opportunities that they'll have as a response to that as well. And the response now is articulated may be best by a president of Obama a few years ago in what I consider his best speech ever. And the title of that speech depends on your view. And basically what Obama said was, if you're a billionaire, if you're a billionaire, if you're successful, it's not because of you. You didn't do it. It's the long history of people involved in this, right? It's not because of your life. It's because of success. For your genes, it's just a robot program. It's a killer way. And it's not your fault that it programmed you to be a billionaire or your program to be a failure. People say, if you're a billionaire, your parents program you. And you know, the environment you're born has programmed you. And you're the nanotop of how you were raised. And no, the radicals, the real radicals in psychology, they say no. No, no, no, no, you don't get it. It's a combination of hope. You're still an nanotop. And part of it is programmed by your genes and part of it is programmed by your life. The technology is full of this. I've got a genetic explanation of everything that you do. What do you mean by that? genes, environment, something's missing. Your will, your choices, your character, what do you do? As you didn't know that, Mr. John Rawls, you know, the American philosopher John Rawls said, you're all about to give your genes or your environment. You don't deserve what you make. It's just an accident. So it's okay to take away from you because you didn't do it. Because you don't exist. You're just an animal. Some genes. You see this all the time. Even Joe Peters, there's no self. There's no such thing as self. It's an individual. Each one of us has choices. Each one of us makes decisions. Each one of us is responsible for all of us. We do build it. And in some cases, we do destroy it. We are far from our own action. Yes, we are doing it. Yes, I'm going to manage it. But you know what? We can shape our own lives. We are moral agents. We are capable of shaping our own character. Making our own choices. Deciding what we want to do with our lives. And some of us, and some of us don't, enjoy ourselves instead of living with others. And that's how I believe it. Although typically, three market people fall as a humanist. Socialists only think it turns their money. Leftists only think it turns their money. But some of us, a lot of the speakers here today, chose to be teachers. Instead of making money. Because you can't go. You're Joe Peters and maybe you can't. But other than Joe, nobody else can do it. But we love this. I say I love this. More than millions of dollars. Which I literally walk away from in order to do this. And we choose. And we do build it. So Obama says, it's not really an easy reminder. But also, you drove on the roads to get to work. So you're all society. Roads? Or business? Roads are government built. Build. Or business. Because you still need to steal their money to be able to build the roads. Otherwise, how do the roads get built? So anybody who's in business, anybody who's creating it, that's not going to pay for the roads. Many times over. Oh, he says, roads. Why? Because you had a great teacher in school. A great teacher in school. So you didn't build it. Because the teacher can shoot you. That's it. To say I know something means I didn't all alone. You know what I mean. And if you make a lot of money one day and you're really rich, go back find the teacher and write her a check. It would be nice. Just to be sure. Because some guy says, you're better than you are. It doesn't mean you didn't take advantage of the particular situation the teacher created for you. A lot of other kids were in that class. Not everybody saw the teacher as being great for them. Use those funds. He goes on to say things like, well, you have employees. Guess what? I paid them. He has a client. That's lucky. I paid. Paid along the supply chain. Counted to Obama. You didn't build that. It's yours. And it's yours. It's yours. Nobody has a right to it. You can do with it. As you see fit. There are people at the top. The 1%. And I know some of them got there because of government favors. Because of call me as soon as we in their favor. Sure. We're all going to do that. Nobody can fall where you need to. But you shouldn't recognize that most of the people at least in a country like America most of the people got there. Got there because of the choices they made. Got there because of the value they created. Got there because they faked a bigger, better cake. They consumed it. They opened it. And nobody has a right. Got a billion in in a free market. But creating a value that hundreds of millions of people often billions of people want. And I only paid all the and you do this now once. Because if you do it once you're not going to be a billionaire for very long. But you do it over and over and over again. There's in a free market people who change the world who make our lives dramatic and significantly better. Make it possible for us to live much like the supercomputers in our pockets. Amazing technology. Telecommunications school. Entertainment school. We just carry around and it's nothing. Somebody had a bill of this. Somebody did a bill. We are led to believe that they have a bill of this kind. They have a better path. They've improved the lives of everybody more than any other human being on the planet. More than politicians. More than generals. More than anybody. If we want to celebrate anybody it should be a business man. A successful businessman who actually created the products and services that make our lives better. Toys and viewers there their ingenuity must be left alone. We need to get away from this collectivistic view of the harness of the economy of politics. At the end of the day all that exists are individuals. At the end of the day you are responsible for your life. You are responsible for your cake for your pie. Make it on the side. You're not. You don't own my pie if you happen to be the same color skin. You don't own my pie if you happen to be the same ethnic group. You don't own my pie if you happen to be the same geography. You don't own my pie if you happen to be the same government. Each one of our pie is out and that is safe. And we don't need this to be used even if somebody who likes fiction now can pretend that there's some better world when it happens. Another one of those collectivists use in order to take out stuff in order to regulate our lives in order to control us. And in the name of individualism in the name of property rights in the name of our right our own life and to limit us we see fit as individuals we need to say leave me alone let me live. Sure. I think they have been given answers. So it's up to us to go on conveying I think to get to the actual kibbe set. The kibbe set. We need to be really good at telling stories trying to inspire. And all the economics we need to know economics and we need to know the politics and we need to know that. But much more important than that is the idea of I think morality the idea that your life is yours and that your moral purpose should be the best life that you can live and anything inspiring you can start thinking in terms of your own life and the damage that is done by the collectivist amount by the statement amount to their own life but the priming has to be the pursuit of happiness the priming has to be I know that we need to go good life and all these other things is just an auxiliary and we just need to convey that and have to use the right kind of inspiring language and inspiring stories to get it across. There are certain people that are beyond reason and therefore should be no. There's not quite to speaking to people through the years I have decided it's like a large family from a small family from whatever reason that they are they are destroyers and they're not interested in these ideas I think that's annoying how are you going to get into these I don't think that's an advantage of people I think it will focus to me for people and this is why I think folks are young people people before they made up their minds before they committed when they're still open to new ideas when they're willing to be radical I think after a certain age after a certain age the mind gets calcified and partially it's time you get a job and you get a family and just things going on in your life and you have that kind of thoughts and think about radical ideas when you get to that age into that kind of life and partially it's habit you've got to have it of thinking in a particular way it's hard to break that habit so we've got to get people young high school college we've got to get them with an ideal you've got to present an ideal a moral ideal a political ideal a social ideal something that they can really believe in and strive towards and again as people become older they've got to say I'll let you do a little some things about that it's time for that when we're young we're still looking for truth at the end of the day the pursuit is a pursuit of truth you've got to cast people in their dad and I think that's a jolly combination of young people with age and thinking at a young age about ideas and about other kind of questions like who does your life belong to? what is the purpose of your life? then I think you can have a different I think this is why people are so popular and so successful because they're appealing to young people with the question about meaning I mean I think his answers are superficial they're not going to be interesting it's an important question that I think a lot of young people are struggling with and that's an opportunity for us to fill that at the end of the day this is a young people's movement and asking young people to do it and I would love you to do it to some extent you know to help them to teach to motivate and to provide knowledge and wisdom or whatever but at the end of the day boots on the ground and we're going to be young people who you know the future is more yours than mine which wasn't that way that it is and you know you've got more staking and your future is more dependent and as in a sense the world I think descends into more and more controls and more and more authoritarianism right you've got more state and so I do think it has to be a young people again at some point you're married and you have kids and all of that stuff some of us could be a little ebony with this and therefore we can continue to be involved but most people in a sense they're involved in movement they might be involved in some sort of because of my native traditions they get involved in a lot of the other ways they get involved but it's always going to be the young that are actively pursuing you know yeah man just a follow up on that I think one of the things that is important when you're young to think about this to not attach yourself to a particular geography you know the world is an amazing place there are lots of opportunities there are lots of opportunities to make yourself better to make yourself freer to take advantage of stuff the way you're born is actually who cares right and you should from a I think from a relatively young phase start thinking about where do I really want to live I mean I remember to me it happened after meeting Alan Shrug when I was 16 I wrote everybody should read I met Alan Shrug and he said oh this is about my life not the tribes not the community not other people this is about my life do I really want to live here I was living in Israel at the time is this the place I want to live no why would I if I actually chose where to live would that be the first option no clearly not you know so I moved and I lived in California a few years ago and my tax bill was getting very good and I bought again do I really need to live in California is this the best place in the world for me to live right now and pay 55% taxes you know I look really much for this one and as you know there are places I can live where I don't do this and I don't keep up with anything substantial now I live in Puerto Rico so if you have that kind of attitude there I am in control of my life I am going to make the choices I am going to make the decisions the world is open at least it's open analysis you know could be more and I'm going to try to go to the best damn place I can go to live my life because you don't even want to shot it you don't get a retry you don't get a do-over you don't get any second back every second pass is gone so I can't I don't think it's ultimately sustainable so I think there are two you call it freedom and sleep and you either get behind or things will ultimately get out of it because as long as people have enough freedom to figure out ways to get around controls they will find ways to get around the controls so the more people would get around the controls so I you know I'm an agent so my job is to get more people to think of freedom right more people to think of freedom so I go out and ask people people don't have we're not committed to it and I think you can convince people about the value of freedom I don't think it's that hard but it takes work it takes time to do it so I'm trying to expand that to get around the control of the city and one of the advantages of globalization beauty globalization is one of the hardest today of the life of nationalism in the in the what's called globalism which is a complex problem the beauty of globalization is movement which is movement but also that technology is not focused in one place I think the United States goes to hell let's say both the knowledge to build a computer is still in Australia the knowledge to build a computer is still in China they're still engineers in you know in Europe so where as the loan fell all knowledge disappeared the knowledge today is so dispersed that I don't think you can make it completely disappeared so you in particular you might have problems but I do think that freedom will advance has to advance which around these people will exist as long as we have an open globalized society I think globalization is a huge value so I have a different view of what the world struggle is maybe I could map a view I think the struggle ultimately starts on one it's a struggle for the human mind and the human soul and technology it doesn't help but I don't think we want to win it I really think this is ideas and it's about changing people's ideas it's about expanding a number of people who believe in that they own their own life that they should be guided by a set of tools to achieve successfully and I think that's a hard battle to fight it's hard to challenge the prevailing philosophy it's hard to challenge the prevailing ethics and epistemology the way people view politics any politics and economics are relatively easy I actually think we won that debate 50, 60 years ago you know it's done we won every economic argument we've got to answer every economic question there's no there's nothing you know there's still stuff to do but there's not a huge amount to do I really think this is an amount of philosophical ideas where I think we haven't invested and haven't really done the work necessarily to win the battle I think I ran a few that even devotes any time and attention to this I think why she's so important for any movement dedicated to liberty and dedicated to freedom she is the philosopher of that movement and if you don't accept as the philosopher of that movement it's at your cost you will lose in my view it's about morality it's about these kind of ideas we need to expand the number of people dedicated to these ideas and that takes a long time and that's why long-term I'm optimistic because I believe two wins out in the air I think two always wins out in the air I just don't know what in the air means it's probably decades and it's probably been bumpy along the road but you don't have a good side to it a friend of mine who is a committed objectivist and a committed free marketer uncompromising will probably on Tuesday get elected to these really parliament and be one or two of the only kind of objectivists in you know, in office I don't think you can get a lot down in politics but I think it reflects something about the growing size so it can actually elect somebody right, you've got enough people so I think I need to generally I need to I'm close to ideas just like this it's a great chance to be alive I mean the fact that I need to be free and we have access there's amazing technology and I don't really know what Paul is talking about but I have no idea the technology but just the simple technology that I use is to me a wonder and you know some of us lived actually lived before there were cell phones and then we lived before there were computers and the improvement in the quality of life that's happened over the last 30 years despite everything it's stunning it's amazing it's due to whatever freedom is less than the world don't let them take that away from us