 Yeah, it's my pleasure to welcome Dr. Yaron Brooke to the show. He is executive Chairman of the Einrand Institute author of the best-selling book equal is unfair America's misguided fight against income inequality and I have the distinct pleasure to take an Objectivism course at the Einrand Institute in Irvine, California many years ago and also meet Leonard Peacoff Who I believe was the sole heir to Einrand's estate and been following this work for a long long time You're on why don't we start? Can I just ask you who is John Galt? I Think at the end of the day anybody who is willing to use their mind and be an independent thinker and and be and be productive and Is is a potential John Galt so John Galt at the end of the day is the thinker in us the the the rational man Fantastic. Well, that's a great explanation You know, why is it, you know, if you can just speculate for a moment before we dig into some of the important topics of the day Why is it that? Ram's work has been so incredibly popular and successful Especially during the Obama administration. There was this giant resurgence of Atlas shrugged in the fountain head and and probably all of her books, you know, it's just timeless work What what's behind it? Why is it so popular and powerful? Well, I think you're absolutely right I think it's timeless and what makes it particularly popular and powerful is the extent to which she understood that ideas drive history and Therefore could predict when she wrote these books in the 40s and 50s She could predict that if the ideas in the culture did not change That we would end up with something like the financial crisis and a president like Barack Obama, that is she could tell where the culture was heading Way before anybody else could because she understood deeply the consequence of the ideas The ideas that go on challenged by almost everybody right or left the consequence of those ideas in in the political and cultural realms so Atlas shrugged In many respects predicts the world in which we have been living and it predicts that the primary conflicts in which We live and presents the positive is that it presents an alternative for philosophy for living to the philosophy that the culture gives us so it usually usually get these dystopian novels and all they are Oblique representations of the evil of authoritarianism, but they really never give you an alternative They never say okay, but but here's how you should live so that this never happens Atlas shrugged was written so that Atlas shrugged would never happen And in that sense you have to say that I ran failed in the sense that Her ideas while the books are very popular the ideas are really not caught hold in the culture and as a consequence We continue to hold ideas that are devastating to all of us and and I think the financial crisis and the Obama administration We're just one relatively small example of that, but but this is an ongoing problem Yeah, that's an interesting way to look at it Well, you know, I agree with almost all of Rand's work And I you know not not all of it, but most of it and I I've got to ask you You know in your time involved with the iron rand Institute with you know all of this work You've probably been interested in it. You know since you came of age. I'm assuming are there any ideas you disagree with? Not any not any philosophical ideas. No, I mean I I'm not a philosopher It's kind of above my pay grade to really delve into that and really figure out if I disagree with anything I haven't found anything. I don't disagree with the ethics and I don't disagree with anything really in a political philosophy I mean certainly in particular applications of those ideas to particularly events in history I mean, I would love to know what you would be thinking now about whether it's a Trump administration or whether it's the Response to 9-11 or a variety of different things. I I'm not I mean I try to I try to use our ideas and apply them the best that I can but application is hard and When I look back at some of her writings about applications, sure They might be things here or there that I disagree with but Fundamentally her philosophy is a positive philosophy for living life and for how to live and be successful in life And I have not found any Flaws or contradictions or things that I disagree with on a principled level in any of her ideas with regard to ethics or political philosophy Yeah, fantastic. Okay. Good. Well, let's go ahead and dive into some Maybe issues of the day if you will we have this huge contrast this massive sea change in our political tides From Obama to Trump. I know what I ran would think about Obama But what would she think about Trump? Well, let me first say I don't know what you would think so to some extent She was a genius. I am not and it's hard to tell she always came up with really original things to say about current events That I think at the time I could have never thought of so I'm not gonna speak fine Right, I'm gonna speak for myself and I guess for the institution I'm and I would say that The what was seeing in in in Obama and in Trump in my view are two variations on the same theme So I see more similarity than difference and I see the one as in a sense of response to the other And and by responding that it's a reflection of the other Both in my view are fundamentally collectivists Both are fundamentally in opposition to the founding ideas and the founding principles of america Both have no understanding a really appreciation for the american constitution and the founding documents One approaches the collectivism from the left and from a certain hatred of america and I think barack obama was the first Anti-american president in in history. I think he really disliked america And the whole project of obama was to turn america into kind of a satellite of europe Or another but you know just another european country his motto would be france And he said I think he had a certain resentment towards the founding fathers and the constitution Because it tied his hands it restricted his ability to do things Yeah, I I would I would agree with you and I would say to anybody who wants the us to be more like europe Go and visit europe europe and I was born in germany by the way europe europe is a disaster Okay, everybody in europe pretty much has a lesser life at least from a material perspective We can argue anything else you want Happiness scales or whatever, but from a material perspective people in europe have crappy little cars They live in crappy little flats. They have a you know disastrous governments Socialism does not work No, and you're absolutely right and there's no question and They have many many problems and as bad as things on europe today Things are going to get much worse in europe before before there's any Semblers of a chance of them getting better And so we haven't seen the bottom yet and and I think we Are following in those footsteps. Unfortunately, I think barak obama has been very successful And and I don't think it's just obama I think this has been a project of the left and the right has done nothing to stop it For the last 50 years turning the us into europe and I think they've been they've been to a large extent Quite successful and I think you can only understand the rise of trump It as a as a as a counterweight to exactly that trump is also european in a fundamental sense He he he's much more similar to the european right than he is the traditional american right And in in the sense that he is a nationalist and a collectivist both things that are Less american they they're less typical of the american political spectrum Although again over the last hundred years the whole country has become Less american in the sense that we become more collectivist over time You see in my view america is fundamentally what makes america america it's it is its individualism Is the idea The sanctity of the individual the primacy of the individual we set up a government not to make make make america great We set up a government to protect individuals and when you do that when you leave people free when government is limited not Not by Some notion of americanism or some notion of american greatness, but it's limited to the protection of individual rights It's limited to the protection of the individual so that he can prosper That's when you get the kind of material and I think spiritual success that americans have had Over the centuries. So I think that in that sense donald trump Is again a not a completely american phenomena. He is about A different vision for government. He is about a vision of the government takes on the responsibility To manage to Decide what's good and what's bad for the citizenry and to really to make america great again When really what we want from government is to leave us alone That's what really represents the american vision and what differentiates america From europe and every other place in the world is this again this notion of Individual rights this the mall foundation on which this country was founded very good point and uh, and that yeah Well, well well said So dive a little more into trump then if you would because you know trump is um He's a little bit hard to figure out. It's it's almost like a new It's like a whole new political philosophy. I guess obama was too in a sense that he was sort of this socio-fascist I kind of call him, uh, you know, welcome to disagree with me on any of this But but obama was certainly uh, he leaned toward the left in terms of being a socialist communist type Thinker, but also You know in bed with the big corporations which made him a fascist type thinker Uh, so it was it was like an interesting mix actually What is trump? I mean can can we define him? Well at the end of the day, I don't think and and listeners will be upset with me I'm sure I don't think there's that much difference that is I think that donald trump views himself As a ceo and he wants to be the ceo of america He wants to manage our lives not in the way the socialist would manage them Towards some kind of equality. He wants to manage our lives in order to I don't know maximize some vision of american wealth and american production But he believes it's a top down type of management challenge And he very much so he will call carrier and say carrier you shouldn't move jobs to mexico And by the way if you do I won't give united technology then it's defense contract So he will use the levers of power In order to achieve his particular Since he used fascist before fascist vision for america, which is different than obama's fascist vision for america, but at the end of the day It's the same methodology. It's to use the levers of power To use government force to use government coercion In order to achieve a vision that he has for what american greatness looks like Rather than the founders perspective, which was Leave americans free And americans will become great that is america will become great The purpose is not greatness the purpose is freedom Freedom though leads to greatness and this is something neither left nor right understand anymore They are all central planners. They are all little fascists in a sense They just have a different way and and what what is unique to trump, I think Is particularly in the way he ran his campaign Is that he has figured out how to Manipulate if you will the american people And this is a this is an old technique that he has learned again from from european authoritarians And that is the technique of scaring them Creating a creating a crisis Through fear Then blaming not us because ultimately if you look around america if there's a shortage of jobs If they're problems in the economy, we cause them We we're the ones who are regulating everything. We're the ones who are taxing everything We're the ones who controlling everything we vote for these for the people who do this But don't blame us. No, it's not our fault. It's foreigners. It's it's immigrants and foreign governments from China to japan to korea to mexico even now germany It's their fault And I and this is the third leg of the kind of the the the authoritarians stool I can solve the problem. Just give me power And I will put them in their place and once I put them in their place Everything here will be good. Now. He mixes into that also the idea of deregulation and reducing taxes But those are not the essentials because he couldn't win on those Republicans have tried and they don't seem to win on those Those were secondary to the idea of if I build a wall and if I put up trade barriers That'll really solve our problems now. I I know I know you might disagree with this But I believe that is a completely bogus argument But it's one that worked politically and the one that that has got him to where he is today Okay, so I mean, but wouldn't it, you know, how would you do that differently all the stuff you said? I mean, don't you if you're if you're going to be the president you have to make deals So what else are you going to use to make a deal besides those levers of power you described? For example with carrier, right to get them to stay and not take those jobs abroad But it's none of the it's none of the government's business Whether carrier takes the jobs aboard or not what the what what what you need to do as president of the united states And this is the individualistic perspective on governing Is to eliminate the shackles on business and on an individual so the the priority needs to be Not deregulate two for one like he's proposed one regulation every new regulation you eliminate two But what we should be doing is zero to two hundred That is we shouldn't be adding any new regulations We should be massively deregulating the u.s economy and we should be focusing on reducing taxes and doing it smartly And shrinking government spending there's nothing more important ultimately than shrinking the very Dollar denominated size of government because the less the government spends It means the more money is in the hands of individual americans to shape their own lives So if i were president and you know that will never happen, but if i were president You know my whole focus would be Not on cutting deals with anybody other than congress where you have to cut deals, but to shrink government What can i do today every single day you wake up in the morning and say what can i do today to shrink the size influence control Of government i want to cut less deals cutting deals as president is exactly what fascism is It's exactly what cronyism is government should have no involvement in the in the in the business life of business If if a business wants to move overseas let it move overseas the key is to create The friendliest best environment For productive individuals in america and you do that again by freeing up the market by deregulating and by shrinking government spending so all of the Liberals will say well deregulation isn't that what caused the financial crisis We need to regulate these evil capitalists because they're going to do bad things If if the government doesn't keep them in check and of course they are going to do bad things I think we can all agree on that because none of us are angels. That's why we need a government But well, I mean some some people a small tiny fraction of a minority Will do bad things and that's what we have the police for and that's what we've had laws in the books against fraud Forever you don't need the mountains of regulation in order to catch bony made off Indeed i would argue and i think i could i could prove this that it is the mountains of regulation that prevented us From catchy bony made off. They were way too busy reading my 13 d's and my 13 g's In order to actually go catch a crook What interest does the government have and why i own five percent of any particular stock? so Regulations have nothing to do with catching bad guys and indeed prevent us from catching the real bad Well, let me let me actually add to that and give you some more fuel for that argument I would argue that regulations allow The bad guys to become big bad guys In and and if you know you listen, I say this all the time if you if you watch the news You'll hear the CEOs say well if the government will just get out of the way and stop regulating us And and they say that right? That's the mantra, but secretly They they love those regulations because those are protectionist regulations that allow them to keep their monopolies It makes it impossible for new players to enter and and here's an example of it Just look around folks. You can tell this just through your own common sense. You don't need any you don't need to read a book on it Tell me who is the latest startup that is going to come and disrupt goldman sacks Or any big bank or investment bank or any big wall street firm There ain't any because those are such highly regulated industries That the cost of compliance is impossible For a startup now. Why do we see no startups and no disruption and no innovation in that world? We just see the entrenched powers keeping their power yet in the tech world where there's virtually no regulation I mean nobody tells facebook what color to put the button that you click on right not yet Not yet, but it's it's good. But look here the same thing is true of the automobile industry I mean the internal combustion engine is pretty much the same today as it was 50 years ago Airplanes are slower today than they were 30 years ago So the latest 787 from Boeing is slower than the old 737 Although 717 and for fuel economy reasons. Yeah all kinds of reasons and the fact is that You know the concord which was the last innovation in airflight we grounded So absolutely any industry that you regulate is going to stagnate now partially it'll stagnate because it doesn't allow for competition And partially it stagnates because the human mind human creativity human innovation Cannot flourish where there is force where you are forced to think in a particular way where you are forced to fill out These forms are not those forms where you are forced to think within a box The whole freedom leads to innovation because the human mind thrives Under freedom thrives where there's no authority to tell it what it must think and how it must think so government regulations destroy destroy innovation destroy creativity destroy productivity not just because of the cronyism But but because of their very essence of bringing force to the table and restricting human human ability to to innovate to be creative Yeah, very very interesting point. Okay. We got off on a little bit of a tangent there, but Any more on trump's ideology and then you know, let's have a little debate about protectionism and and so forth Sure. I mean I again, I think that trump is is is a is basically countering uh, obama say for obama's fundamental ideology is a Certain form of socialism, you know with the fascist tinge people forget that fascism socialism communism Are all variations on the same thing. They're all variations of statism So obama's variation of statism is is from the left Uh, donald trump's variation of statism is from the right, but they're all collectivist and what collectivism means Is placing a group above the individual in obama's case The group might be the downtrodden or the minorities or the lgbtq community or whatever and anybody you could sacrifice anybody for that group In donald trump's case the group might be something that most americans feel more sympathetic towards because the group is america Um, but it's still a group and it's the opposite of the individualism. So we've got a right A right wing if you will statism Of of trump versus a left-wing statism of obama and what i think is tragic is what we're missing is A true american or we haven't had in a long time a true american candidate a candidate who runs on a platform of Individualism and that the whole basis for his politics Is to free up individuals so they can pursue their happiness so they can live their life The way they choose to live and and everything he does is focus on Freeing up the individual not on on some collectivistic goal not on some abstract Make america great again, but on how do we make individuals in america? Have more control over their lives and be less dependent on government and that would mean reforming welfare and social security and medicare and in all of the Regulations that we talked about but it would be a comprehensive change To the way this country structured I don't believe i think donald trump is going to make a change, but he's going to make a change more in the direction of State control of different things than what obama would have had us control Yeah, very interesting Would it be fair and i you know i i think i already know the answer to your question because this answer when i took an Objectivism class at the inrand institute The answer surprised me Inran would not say she was a libertarian would she no she would not yet She called them the hippies of the right i think she did in the 70s And if you go back and you you look at the libertarian movement of the 70s particularly in new york where she was living She was very much right about the hippies of the right But you know what she objected to was the fact that libertarian was a big tent term That included under the tent a lot of people that she resented so for example The anarchists they are libertarian many libertarians many libertarians today are considered themselves anarchists And she she considered that a Disreputable kind of position to have that anarchy was a very bad thing and she would not want to be Under a tent with anarchists and and the same would go for A bunch of other types of libertarianism that all had A variety of different philosophical foundations She believed to defend liberty you had to have one philosophical foundation that focused on individualism on The morality of rational long-term self-interest and in a and a view of man as a rational animal is as being guided by reason And she she strongly believed that if you had if you just if you just agreed on liberty Uh, you ultimately would undercut undercut the case for liberty if for example you approached Your argument for liberty let's say for our marxist perspective or from religious christian perspective or from any other perspective You needed to have a proper philosophical grounding And libertarians was too big of a tent for her to to to want to want to belong to they she believed They undercut their own case For liberty and you can see the libertarian party to a large extent doing exactly what she predicted they would do Very interesting. Tell us about altruism So altruism is the idea that you should live for the sake of other people That your moral ethical purpose in life Is the well-being of your neighbor or of some other group or anybody really? Who is in need or is doing less well than you are? So the standard for morality is how much you sacrifice For the sake of the needy And she considered this morality, which is really the the moral code That has been prevalent uh in in the western world for at least 2000 years She considered this moral code as an evil moral code She would ask the simple question of why Why is somebody else's life more important than mine? Why somebody else's happiness more important than mine? And i man very much rejected the whole morality of altruism now She she didn't view altruism and i don't view altruism as meaning being nice to people being friendly or even as being charitable She was not against charity She was not against being polite and being nice to people She was against the idea that the moral purpose of your life is to serve other people No My moral purpose of my life is to live the best life that I can live is to flourish. It's to be happy It's the pursuit of happiness and other people are often necessary For my pursuit of happiness. I trade with them. I enjoy them I just enjoy human beings and human life generally So i'm willing to be charitable towards helping people out But it's because right my my life is the standard that I want to help other people I don't want to sacrifice and and give up The things that I value for the sake of other people I want other people to help me make my life better just as they should want me to help their life better and we call that trade win-win transactions Sacrifice is by definition a win-lose transaction and she was against that. Yeah, couldn't agree more. That's a very good point I know we've got a wrap up and this is just a really interesting discussion But just back to the concept of trump and his trade policy because I think that's really interesting I remember Leonard picoff wrote a book or an article about buy Why buying foreign well it was harry benz swagger and he called it Buy american is un american. That's it. Yeah, it wasn't lead picoff Okay, and you know, I think that book was written possibly back in the days when japan was the big deal and To some and to some of the big threat which they didn't turn out to be the big threat at all And I I really understood and agreed with a lot of that argument today though. I find myself Thinking that you know, the american worker does need a little protection and listen I get the idea that it's great to get these foreign products at low prices I love it. You know, you go shopping everything's cheaper blah, blah, blah And it makes our quality of life better in many ways But it seems like the trade war is really about you know this choice and maybe maybe it's not so correct me if i'm wrong But it's a choice between do you want a high paying american jobs like we used to have Or do you want low price products? You know, so to me that's clearly a false choice and and it doesn't There's nothing in reality that suggests that that is true. So let's start with the idea that somehow China is taking our jobs. It's just not true every economic economic analysis of the loss of manufacturing jobs in america Shows that over 90 of the lost jobs are lost because of technology We produce today in terms of actual stuff Twice as many goods in terms of units produced Twice as many goods as we've as we did when we had Max people working under in production, which was 1979 So in 19 since 1979 the number of people working in the manufacturing industries has declined While the number of things that we actually produced the number of widgets out the factory door has increased dramatically And the reason for that is simple. The reason for that is technology robots Computers and in the future. It's going to be artificial intelligence And that's just the reality and nothing you do about china or any of these other countries makes wanayota Of difference i'd actually argue the opposite. What trade does is it creates immense numbers of jobs in the united states and it creates Great jobs in the united states. I don't believe silicon valley Would be as productive and successful and as high paying as it is today If not for free trade You couldn't produce iphones and all the imagine all the jobs that involved in iphones in the united states and good High paying jobs and and not only that the benefits that the united states economy has had from smartphones Because we use them to make ourselves more productive and yet if you didn't have the global International supply chain with tariffs globally are at the lowest rate They have ever been in human history even though they're higher in china than they are here They're still lower than they've ever been on average ever You couldn't have that global supply chain as efficient and as productive as it is without without these trade deals I I I get everything you're saying my only skepticism is this You know when the playing field is so on level when when china when chinese businesses don't have to work under osha High minimum wage requirements the epa You know this is not a level playing field. The u.s. Companies are so over regulated So let's do it right so the solution to that is not tariffs. It's not trade barriers It's getting rid of the stupid regulations I agree completely label laws and california will become the richest place in the world You know get rid of get rid of the label laws the epa laws get rid of all this stuff But tariffs all tariffs are are tax and consumption So if you raise tariffs, it's a lose lose proposition in america. We lose because because All goods including america made goods will be more expensive And of course the chinese lose because they lose some of our business Everybody loses from it. There is no winner from tariffs. You want american jobs on this goes back to my initial Initial thing. Let me let me also say this at the end of the day Trade is not between countries America doesn't trade with china. This is again the individualistic perspective I buy stuff that happens to be made in china I'm trading with some chinese guy who's making the stuff thousands of miles away The government has no business in telling me I should have to pay a higher rate to buy it from china because china doesn't regulate their businesses like we in america I mean, I as an individual go to my government who would say well, then stop regulating our businesses Why are you penalizing me? I agree with that, but you're not gonna. You're not something stupid I agree completely, but you're not going to change that anytime soon. I mean, that's Tariffs are not a solution tariffs will lose lose we all lose If we have tariffs and so you we get stuck with the same stupid regulations And on top of that we load on a consumption tax That is not a solution to anything You know, you know very interesting give out your website. Tell people where they can find out more about you. Well, I'm rand.org A y n r a n d dot o r g I've also got a regular podcast uran brook. So that's y a r o n b r o k Just put my name in a podcasting software Uh and uh and the book equal is unfair. You can get it on amazon or pretty much anywhere else books are sold Fantastic dr. Uran brook. Thank you