 Okay, let's, let's take some super chat questions and then I want to, a few other things I want to say, if socialism causes poverty, how come more socialistic mixed economies like Germany and Scandinavia have no homeless while England and the United States have a time? Well, socialism doesn't, socialism to the extent that it is tried, that is the more consistent the socialistic policies are, the more poor people they are, right? So the more extreme you go to the Soviet Union or to Venezuela or certainly to North Korea, the more auto China undermines, the more consistently socialist you are, the more poverty you have and what happens, the more consistent you get is more and more and more, a larger and larger percentage of the population is poor, significantly poor. So, so first off, you have to start with that. Now, it's true that, so, so that's one. Second, Germany and Scandinavia are not socialist. They have redistributive policies. But they're not, they're not socialist countries. They, they have more socialism in the United States. And what they have done is they have accepted that the average person in Scandinavia Germany, first of all, that the whole distribution of wealth is compressed, that they, that on the top side, they are fewer wealthy people, significantly fewer wealthy people, and therefore they are fewer very poor people. They've compressed the income and wealth distribution, right? But on average, and in every point along the distribution, people are poorer than let's say in the United States, I don't know about the UK in the United States. So the rich in America are richer than the rich in Germany, on average. The upper middle class in America is richer than the upper middle class in Germany and bigger. Much bigger. The upper middle class and rich, the way to categorize that, you know, I don't know in the US, $250,000 a year and above in income. That group is massively, as a percentage of the population, I don't have the percentages with me, but you can look them up, massively bigger than the percentage of people making the equivalent of $250,000 a year and up in Germany and in Sweden. The middle class in the United States is significantly richer than the middle class in Sweden and Germany. They both in a sense of income, in a sense of what that income will buy, in a sense of the kind of cause they drive and purchase, in a sense of the bigger homes that people have in the United States. But every parameter, the standard of living of middle class American is higher. And then even the poor in the United States, not the very poor, not the homeless, the poor in the United States live generally the highest standard of living than the poor in Sweden. So the whole distribution is shifted. And yes, there are fewer very, very poor people in Germany and Sweden than there are in the United States. So at the extremes, the United States has more people. Now, take, take homeless problem. I don't know if they're homeless in Germany and Sweden. So I'll take your word as somebody in the chat said there's homeless people in the homeless people in Denmark. I know that there's there's there's homeless people in London. But homelessness is a particular problem of cities like London, cities like LA and American large cities. Where basically the cost of living is so high that people cannot afford to live so they cannot afford to own a home. And because homelessness is heavily subsidized, people have a strong incentive to give up a home which they cannot afford and go live in the street. And it's sad and pathetic that that exists. But the reason that exists is government policies. Now, yes, you could solve that by handing every homeless person a massive check as but that that and then or encouraging them to move to cities where they can afford the housing. The other problem we have in the United States is a mental health problem. You know, there's a lot of people who are who have mental health issues who cannot take care of themselves who are basically gone into the street. And there's no system to take care of them. Now, in Germany and Sweden, my assumption is is that the state takes care of them. They put them in institutions in the United States. The state stopped taking care of them, stopped forcing them into institution in the 1980s. And that was that's part of, you know, part of the reason you had you had a spike in homelessness in the 1980s. And the second reason is that there's no low income housing in major cities in the United States. It's just not built and it's not built because politicians don't allow it to be built. This is all a political issue. So it's not a lack of government. It's too much government that creates the homeless problem. If government got out of the real estate business, if government left land and real estate development to real estate developers, if they stopped zoning and trying to control everything, then there would be plenty of housing available for homeless people. If the government stopped subsidizing homelessness, then homelessness would, homeless people would go to places they can afford to live in. Nobody wants to, or almost nobody wants to live in the street. So the problem is not that the United States is more, is more capitalist than Sweden and Germany. I've said this many, many, many times. The differences between the United States and Germany and Sweden are very small in terms of how much capitalism each country has. Because Sweden and Germany have decided to redistribute more, particularly Sweden, but in many respects they regulate business less. In the United States, we regulate more, we regulate everything, we have licensing for everything, and we redistribute less. Both the United States and Germany are mixed economies. If you measure things based on homelessness, then you could argue Sweden and Germany is a better mixture than the United States, but I don't measure it based on homelessness. I measure it based on the quality and standard of living of the middle class. The middle class is a standard for me, not, you know, how mentally unhealthy people are treated. And the middle class in the United States, because most people are middle class, that's the essence of the middle class. And the upper middle class in the United States is huge. The amount of wealthy people in the United States is enormous. That's the measure I have. If you're a healthy, hardworking adult, in which system are you going to do better? And there's no question, it's not even close. Even though the United States is not a capitalist country, even though the United States is not a free country, even though the United States is not that much freer than Germany and Sweden, it's freer enough so that if you're a healthy, hardworking individual, you would do much better in the United States and Sweden and Germany. And that's the standard. The standard is not the worst in society. The standard is the normal. The standard is the best. The standard is the hardworking, ambitious individual. In which system do hardworking, ambitious individuals do best? Capitalism. Okay, we don't have capitalism in the world today. In which system Germany, Sweden, or the United States do hardworking, ambitious people do best? I think the United States and the UK by far, by far. And that's how you should measure. The problem is that altruism has conditioned us to think only in terms of the worst off. Now, let me put it, let me also say, the United States is not in good shape. The middle class is not in good shape in the United States. It could be doing much, much, much better. Much better. So, if we had real freedom, if we had real capitalism, Americans would be doing, any country that had real freedom and real capitalism would be doing a lot better than the United States. There's nothing magical about America. If you want ambitious, hardworking people to be successful, then capitalism is the system. The more you move towards it, the better off they will be. 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, wins 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 brought. 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.