 OK. Welcome to the Free Market Roadshow 2022, the Freedom Variant. I'm Professor Amir Shani from the Guildford Glaser Faculty of Management at Ben Gurion University of the Negev, and I'm happy to open the special event tonight. The event will deal with various issues of economics and freedom. This event is the result of a joint production of the Faculty Management with several organizations, all of them equally important. The first is the Free Market Roadshow, managed by the Austrian Economic Centre. The second organization is the Israeli Freedom Movement. The Israeli Freedom Movement is a nonpartisan movement that is striving to increase the freedom of the citizens of Israel in the spirit of classical liberalism. The third organization is the Ein Rand Institute, the Centre for the Advancement of Objectivism. Ein Rand Institute offers a variety of educational experiences to promote greater understanding of Ein Rand's philosophy, and through the writing and speaking of their experts, advocates are principles of reason, rational self-interest, and capitalism. And last but not least, the Ein Rand Centre in Israel. The Ein Rand Centre promotes Ein Rand writing, translation, and publication in Israel. Before we move on to our opening panel, I am honored to invite Professor Miki Malul, the Dean of the Faculty, to deliver welcome words. Tadahaba, thank you and welcome. We are very happy to host the Free Market Roadshow here at BGU at the Faculty of Business and Management. Today's theme is spreading the freedom variant. Freedom is a world idea to promote and discuss, but we should never forget that freedom isn't the purpose. It is only the mean to improve people's life. Freedom does not always go in line with a better world or higher well-being. I am an economist, so let me give an example from economics. I believe that it is agreed, even here, that Free Market does not always go in line with efficient outcome in terms of total welfare. We know that market failure exists. For example, monopoly, cartels, externalities, and public goods. It might be that in some cases, advancing freedom will magnify these negative outcomes. Instead, advancing competition in the markets, even if it requires less freedom, might yield a better outcome for people and a better outcome for society. For example, restricting cartels and restricting big companies that act to prevent competition might work for the benefit of the people, even though the level of freedom will be lower. Most people, and even economists and policy makers, confuse Free Market and competition. It is not the same. Freedom is much more important than Free Market. It is a point worth thinking. We here in the Faculty of Business and Management advancing the idea of management leads society. In Hebrew, actually, it sounds much better, since the word society, chevra, holds both for company and society. So management leads society. We advance management with a wider point of view that takes the analytical models and use it in a context, and the context is the society. A number that comes out from the analytical models, such as how many employees to fire or how much to raise prices, cannot be relevant without considering its wide impact on all of the stakeholders, such as current employees, future employees, customers, and the community, in the short run and in the long run. A wide research already exists in the core journals of business that show that taking into account a wider perspective in business make business better and make society better in the same time. These ideas that we advance here in the Faculty might mitigate some of the negative impact of free markets and might lead naturally to less regulation and more freedom. Let me ask you a question. Why you started fighting for freedom? Isn't it for making people's lives better? I think the real purpose is crucial and might be helpful for advancing freedom where it really promotes well-being. Hope that I gave you some points to think about and argue during the meeting today. Have a great day. Thank you. Thank you to Professor Maloul. You definitely gave us points for arguing here. I would like to move on to our opening panel. The title of our opening panel is, Are We All China Now? The Civilian States and the Right for Privacy. I'm honored to introduce the panelists. Dr. Yaron Brooke, the chairman of the board of the Ayn Run Institute, he wears many hats at the institute and travels extensively at the Ayn Run Institute spokesman. Brooke can be heard on the Yaron Brooke show, which shares live on YouTube. He's also a frequent guest on national radio and television programs. The second panelist is Mr. Gia Giandieri. I hope that I pronounced your last name right. Giandieri. Gia is an economist in 2001, Mr. Giandieri co-founded and since that time has been the vice president of the new economic school in Georgia, a free market think tank. Gia is an active member of economic freedom, ATLAS and many other free market networks. We were supposed to ask two more distinguished speakers on the panel today, but unfortunately they were found verified to Corona and could not join us today. I'm talking about Barbara Korm, the vice president of the Austrian Central Bank and the director of the Austrian Economic Center and also an Austrian banker with broad experience in financing and investment strategy. So I will try to do my best to fill the place, even though I probably be a silent member in the panel, but I think we can begin. My voice is already there. Hello everyone. I'm from Georgia and as it was already said, I am representing the free market institute which is called New Economic School and we call this New Economic School to be distinguished from the old economic school in Georgia, which was coming from the Soviet Union. It was old because many people still believed that that was something correct here. But we established this institute in 2001, but we even started our activities during Soviet times. Georgia was the part of the Soviet Union. By the way, if you've never been to Georgia, because I believe many Israelis traveled to Georgia in the last periods, so this is a completely different nation from Russians, completely. Nothing in common. So you're just clarifying. Yes. There are many Georgian Jews living here and we have even our alphabet and our language is completely different. We don't use any Russian words in our language. No Russian words in our language, just no Russian words. So we are different. We are the freedom-loving people. And Georgia, as the name Georgia, is coming from 2000 years. And the place I was born, we can be surprised, is called Telavi. My place is Telavi. This is a small town in Georgia and it's 2000 years old, believe me. But Georgia is also considered as the first place of wine. Maybe you know about this already. It is believed that Georgians or somebody who lived there already drinking wine 8,000 years ago. So and we are proud to be one of the oldest Christian nations and what we went through, this is maybe 10 different empires. And last one we abandoned in 1991. And we are very happy to get rid of this totalitarian environment which is unfortunately kept in Russia. And we are suffering still from Russia as maybe you know that two of our regions are occupied by Russia and we are very carefully observing what is happening now in Ukraine. We went together with Boas yesterday to protest against war, etc. We are peaceful but we are freedom-loving people. Anyway, so what brought me here is to say why we think that surveillance or any kind of statism is wrong and nobody can really explain me better than my life explained to me what is there. Because if you lived in Soviet Union you could observe these things all the time. This is the short list of the surveillance institutions in Soviet Union. This would be check-up from the beginning, NKVD, KGB, Communist Party, Communist Party, internal unit of party control and many others. Like Oberhaeces was very well known to Jewish people in Georgia because the Georgians and Jewish were always commercial type of people and we were one of the champions of illegal economy in Soviet Union. So the Georgians were always having some problems with Oberhaeces which was to observe the state-owned property because there was nothing else than state-owned property. People tended to steal everything from the state, from the collective ownership, etc. So this is what was really happening, that nothing worked. In reality, socialism failed in Georgia totally, 100%. Everything was working except the private teachers which was prohibited, direct payments to doctors which was illegal and illegal shops and pharmacies and Georgians and Armenians and Jews were champions of Soviet Union in illegal activities because you cannot stop the people thinking right way, market way, private property way. So this was after that they killed almost all aristocracy, they killed almost all the property owners in Georgia and there was some kind of dark period after that. So but we came to this situation now after Soviet Union and we were totally surprised how collectivist the western society appeared in front of us because there is so much socialism everywhere and we were just surprised, many people were pushing us to go back to socialism but we were sure that it was mistake, it was a mistake, it was terrible mistake of course with the consequences of 100 million people killed. If you don't count the national socialism which killed also many millions, some people tend to think that national socialism is not the same but I believe this is the same. So what was the basis for such kind of collectivism? Why for instance it appeared in Soviet Union, in Russia, etc. And why we are under this kind of problem now? Because I believe that there is one of the problems is the tragedy of the commons, this is the parasitic way of understanding of the life that you can have the common property and nobody will be caring about that property but it will be running by itself and you can have such kind of result, this is from Soviet Union. And this is everywhere now that you can see abandoned garbage everywhere and what is behind? Why for instance East and West Berlin were so different? That West Berlin was always like very beautiful, clean, etc. But East Berlin if we arrived there in 1990s was terrible, just terrible. They are not different Germans, they are the same Germans everywhere but Germans in the West were lived under the property rights ethics but the Western and Eastern Germans they abandoned this culture, they abandoned these ethics and they did not know what is the responsibility means. They always thought that the responsibility in their country was of other people, somebody else is responsible, not I am responsible and this is what I call irresponsibility in reality. So it's not the responsibility when you think that other guys are responsible for that thing. And the thing which came to my mind is also that when you live under the society with the property rights you are taught by the life, by your parents, by your neighborhood or anybody else that the private property is that you respect other people's property if you want to have your property respected but eliminate the private property and you eliminate this kind of feeling, this kind of ethics. You don't have anything to take care because it is of nobody, nobody tells you that you must protect the property of other guys so then in the capitalist world you push more socialism but this is still in their minds that that's the property of the other guy. I'll tell you one example, my grandmother was she was born in Imperial Russia and in 1970s she surprised me very much, we were very poor but I found 50 rubles in the ground and I was very happy, brought it home and she told me go back and put it in that place. Can you imagine? I was seven years old and we were very poor and somebody tells me 50 rubles was huge money, truly very huge money but I was with tears, with tears I went back and put the money back and why then after 30 years I recalled and why she told me and I understood that she was born in a property rights society. This was very strong in Imperial Russia and Georgia, not in Russia maybe because private property was not that strong in Russia but Georgia was the real commercial center of the south of Russia and that's why she was very strong with this. So then we can also think about things like how can government solve our problems. Ronald Reagan was saying that government is a problem itself, how can it solve our problems. And we observed this very much in our country of Georgia and David Hume, one of the greatest philosophers of all the times, he said very famously that all liberties cannot disappear in one day. How it happened after Imperial Georgia, I mean when it was Sovietized, when it was incorporated in Soviet Union, the ethics were very strong but then step by step we lost all the freedoms and one day we came to the point of repression and killing mass murder was not really any more surprise and people started writing so-called danos about other people and this happened in front of the same people who were addicted so much with the property rights and ethical behavior. So why they killed Henry Khrinersky, he was the Georgian Polish artist, he was the Establisher of Georgian School of Arts, etc., but then he was killed because he was not respecting communist art and how they came to this point in 1937, not immediately, but they came to this point step by step when they accepted that somebody was trying to neglect, somebody was trying to compromise, somebody was trying to forget, hide, etc., etc., and this came one day to that point that everybody were writing danos about others, to survive sometimes, to get some higher positions in the government and then what was supporting this as I said the elimination of the property owners, the elimination of the elites, in reality what happened in Soviet Union was first of all and Stalin and Lenin understood this very well that if not killing everybody like in Ukraine, they could not have success with their socialist ideas, this was the reality. So I'm going to finish here, but yeah, this is the last slide and I'm here again bringing the Ronald Reagan who said very famously during inauguration meeting that as the government expands the liberties are contrasting, yeah, there will be no more freedoms in one day if we, one day, if we don't stop it. Thank you very much. I will give the right to speak to Iran, but first, Iran, if I may, can you please relate to the question, can we fight the corona epidemic without surveying people, without tracking them, without having some kind of regulation of people that I know that we as freedom lovers, we hate these means, but aren't there necessary in times like this? So I have to be careful because I'm first, welcome, thank you. It's great to be back in Belcheva, it's my, I don't know, fifth, sixth, seventh time yet. So it's wonderful. I'll be debating that question later tonight in Hebrew. So it won't be as good because I'm much better in English. So I'll give two two answers, I promise they will be consistent. So it's an interesting question, particularly given the topic, the topic is, are we all China now? And to me, the most shocking thing that happened early in Corona is that it became evident that the West wants to be China, that the West no longer gains inspiration from liberty and freedom and capitalism of the United States of America. Even the United States of America no longer gains inspiration from the ideas of liberty and freedom, but that we all seemingly now gain inspiration from the Chinese because the fact is that no epidemiologist that I have read, no CDC document ever written, the CDC is the center for disease control in the United States. And my guess is no document similar to it in Israel by the health authorities in Israel has ever said that the solution to a pandemic are lockdowns. Lockdowns have never been an option. Nobody's ever considered them. The CDC rejects them in every document before this current pandemic. But when it hit and China did lockdowns, everybody panicked. Everybody. So what was going on in Wuhan? And they said, okay, well, we're in panic mode. We'll do the same thing. Italy did it. And it, you know, it's death rates through the roof. Immediately afterwards, the United States did it in New York and elsewhere, and then all of Western Europe did it, mimicking the Chinese model and then surveying everybody. I mean, in China, they literally, if you walked out of your house, you were arrested. In the United States, they ushered you back into your house. My wife who went out swimming was actually pulled out of the water and sent home, you know, God forbid, the fish might get COVID. We have become China. We admire China. We want to be China. Lockdowns are the Chinese method of dealing with the pandemic. They're not the method of dealing with the pandemic of free country. And if you want to know how to deal with pandemic, just go read the CDC documents, the documents of Mr. W. from before the pandemic, and I'll explain exactly what needs to be done. The problem is that Israel failed in the early weeks of the pandemic. The United States failed in the early weeks of the pandemic partially because we had a psychotic president who pretended that COVID didn't exist, right? They all failed to do what their own manuals tells them to do, which is test trace isolate. Only one country in the entire world did that, followed the guidelines, didn't lock down. And that's Thailand. Sorry, not Thailand, Taiwan. Not by accident. The vice president of Taiwan is an epidemiologist. So how does the free market, how would you deal with it? The only role of government, the only role of government in a pandemic is to make sure that people are infected or isolated. That's it. Test, if you're negative, you're none of the government's business. You're not a risk to anybody. You're negative. If you're positive, isolate, and maybe the government has to make sure you isolate. And that's it. So, oh, and you do some tracing, another thing that always in government's field, dramatically. You have to hire people. You actually have to have them do phone calls. You actually have to have them do the stuff. You don't have to trace their phones. You don't have to get into that. You just do the basic work of epidemiology, which nobody did anywhere, except in Taiwan. And that's how you end up in a pandemic. Now, are more people or less people going to die? Well, we've got live experiments going on. And I refer you to the latest article in the Lancet. The Lancet is a leading British medical journal. Top, you know, research journal. It just came out, I think it was last week with a cross sectional study, looking at all European countries regarding excess death, excess death, I think is the best measure of COVID deaths of how many people died from COVID. So they have a model that predicts how many people would have died without COVID. And then they look at the excess deaths. And the results are fairly shocking. Because the fact is that there is no correlation between lockdowns and lower death rates. None. Sweden, that had no lockdowns, has about the same excess deaths over the two years 2020, 2021, as does Denmark, Finland and Finland. And Norway is an aberration for a variety of reasons. It's very low. But other countries that locked down had about the same death rates as did, as did Sweden. In the United States, they've looked at you look at the difference between Florida and California. California had very severe lockdowns. Florida had very little lockdowns. Death rates about the same. Actually, California, they're a little worse than Florida, even though the flood, the population of Florida is older than it is in California. Yeah, it's a difference between the Disney. That's right. Hospitality. Yes, you would bring that up. So my view of vaccines is a vaccines were developed by the private sector, not by government. Vaccines were developed in Germany by BioNTech by Pfizer. Pfizer got no money from warp speed until after except by selling them. Distribution of the vaccines in the United States was horrific. But that's because the government ran it. So they ran it really, really badly. I would have liked to see a market. Why are vaccines free? Right? You can if you wanted to make the vaccine free, set up, set up, employers could have bought vaccines, insurance companies could have bought the vaccines and handed out to all their insured people. I mean, there's so many mechanisms that the markets provide for dealing with emergencies. I mean, one of these days, I'd love to come back and debate the Dean about market failure and whether markets actually fail and what it means to say the market markets fail. That would be fun. But but you know, what I see in COVID from A to Z is government failure. I see government failure throughout. You know, Missa, the Brayoutian in Israel tried to develop their own test. They didn't allow the market to develop a test. And only when they fail to develop the test when it got dragged down and took time, they allowed the private market to enter same exact thing happened in the United States for six weeks. The CDC refused to accept other tests. And we're not talking about fly by night joints. We're talking about university labs. We're talking about companies that do testing on a variety of things. They didn't allow any other test except CDC test turned out to be a flaw test. And then finally, they had to go to the market and say, Okay, you can devise your test. So it only it took them 18 months to allow, you know, home tests that you could take it home, which is ultimately the solution. You take a test before you leave the house in 10 minutes, it gives you the result. If you're positive, you can go without a mask without anything and go out. And if it's negative, stay home. And that's it. That's the solution. But home tests were not allowed, at least in the United States until recently, even though the tests were available in June of 2020. Yes. Yes, I mean, there's Michael Mann at MIT or Harvard, I can't remember wrote extensively editorials, academic papers about this. Nobody paid attention. Nobody cares. Because we look for government for answers. That's China, right? We're all China now. So let me return to that theme because we're going to be debating COVID later. In many respects with today, I think all China. I think the Western world has learned the wrong lessons from China. We look at China, and we see great economic growth. We look at China, and we see a government that seems to be in control. They seems to be strong. They seem to know what's happening in their country. They have they have everybody everything under control. We see in the West, governments that are out of control, that don't have a good grasp on what's going on with their people, economic growth in the West. You know, I remember the days I remember when Trump was president declared it was the greatest economy in all of human history. It kind of was going to 2%, which is a pathetic, right, as compared to China's high economic growth. And everybody learned, okay, China's growing so much has a strong government, get stuff done, got fast trains, skyscrapers, got big highways. It's got, you know, and they don't have Islamic fundamentalism, they did, right? They had terrorist attacks. This is why they're doing what they're doing. They used to have Islamic terrorist attacks, and they taken care of it. They're no Islamic terrorist attacks in China anymore. And everybody says, hmm, maybe we should be like them. Because everybody has accepted for a long time in the West, the idea that what matters is some kind of form of collective good. We've abandoned the ideas of the Enlightenment. We've abandoned the ideas of individualism. We've abandoned the ideas of freedom. A long time ago, we've abandoned these ideas that say, no, the purpose is not to try to aggregate all of your goods, because I don't know what's good for you, only you know what's good for you. What our job as a government is, is to allow you to discover what's good for you, to give you the freedom to discover what's good for you. We've all embraced this collectivism. And China does it better than us. If you like collectivism, China's cool. They get to do it right. So what we're seeing in the world today is a renewed love with central planning, because China does central planning, kind of this mixture of a little bit of freedom. So we try to mimic that. A real love of social scores, you know, China's got the social score system. We don't quite have it yet in the West. But we seem to be moving towards it. And certainly the progressives in the United States would like to see that a lot of this cancer culture and woke is about, are you good enough for us to associate with you? You know, the post you wrote 25 years ago against, I don't know, gays or if you painted your face black or something, that wipes you out. That's such a low social score that we now won't have any association with you. And we can keep track of all this, because the internet allows us, right? The internet allows us to keep track of everything that you do. You think you can delete your page on Facebook? Believe me, the right people can find it after it's deleted. So everything you've ever done is available to people. We have now the technology to easily monitor you, to easily score you in England when we go to London. There's cameras everywhere, literally everywhere in London. You're under surveillance by a camera. Now again, they don't give you a social score yet. But they could. They have the data, they have the information. So yes, we are very much trying to mimic that model in the name of a few philosophy kings, a few statists, a few people at the top who can guide us best, right? They know what's good for you. They know how you should live. They don't trust you to live your own life. You know, and they can take care of terrorism. We know how to take care of terrorism. You wound up all the Muslims you put in the camp. That'll take care of terrorism. That's what they're doing in China. To hell with individual liberty, tell with individual freedom, to hell with the idea that you're innocent until proven guilty. No, everybody is guilty. And unless they prove themselves innocent, we learned that during Corona, right? We're all infected until we prove that we're not infected. It should be the other way around. But Corona wiped that out. So all guilty until proven innocent. And the West, I think, is slowly adopting this model and it believes in it. And, you know, we can discuss what caused China to be such a successful economy. It's not what most people think it is. It's not the central planning. The Chinese central planning is no better than anybody else's central planners. And central planning does not bring prosperity, does not bring success. So we're seeing ever-growing monitoring in the West. We're seeing ever-growing surveillance in the West. Freedom, I think, generally is slowly in decline. I think these are scary times. Thank you. Are there any questions for Dr. Brooke, Mr. Gendieri? Yes. You spoke previously about COVID and people who are getting tested, they can leave their house. How do you deal with people who are refusing to get tested or they don't do it properly? The question is, how do you deal with Israelis? I think you underestimate Israelis. Or Georgians, or Americans, or anybody else. Look, I think we have to live, we live in a society that is fundamentally free. And what that means, what freedom means, is that you trust your fellow man to be responsible. Now, if somebody is shown, they did this with AIDS. So in the era of AIDS in the 80s and 90s, in the U.S. in particular, because that's where the epidemic was worse, if you knowingly had AIDS and didn't tell your partner, that was criminal, you're basically inflicting force on your partner, on your sexual partner, by not revealing to you have AIDS. If you are shown to be out there infecting people, and you refuse to be tested, then you should be liable for the people you infected. Whether it's criminally or civilly liable, you should be liable for it. Say, again, push the responsibility. And if you treat, this is the thing generally in life. If you treat people like adults, they rise to the occasion. If you treat people like children, they lower themselves to the occasion. So they become more childish. Our government treats people like children. And they get, they get the results. And look, the craziness in America about vaccines and anti-vax and anti-testing and all this is because COVID was politicized. It was because it didn't, we didn't allow epidemiologists, family doctors, and the market to deal with it. Instead, we made it a political agenda. And that's Trump's fault. And then it was continued with the Democratic Party. They all politicized it. So, but that's, that is truly a tragedy. Last question before the break. If I don't get you both of you wrong, you associate surveillance with governmental agencies, China or the Nkvede or the Kagebe, but we know in the West that the private sector, private companies, firms, big firms, corporations, they are the big forces of surveillance. And maybe the government is just another apparatus for this company. So it might go both sides. I think first of all that this is coming from the emotional side of the humans. They always think that there must be some some surveillance because we need more security. And you can, you can always create emotions with this. If it is, if it is about the COVID-19 or if it is about the terrorism or anything, yeah? So we are not talking about that there is no nothing with this, but we are trying to show that there can be, there must be very strict red lines somewhere. Don't overcome there. But of course these private companies, yeah, I was, I was writing about this 10 years ago, 20 years ago that they are, they went very deep to, to this situation. But in here I think that one of the solutions is against some kind of competition that if one company is rejecting to take part in this, then others will be also following that company. That's, my solution is always there, that companies must think about their customers, not about the government, what government is telling you. But you must, you must obey to your customers more and think about what kind of damage you are doing to them. And the other side is what Yaron was saying, that if you feel that there is something wrong coming from the private companies, go to the court, bring them to the court. And you, you will see next day they will not, they will not be happy to continue this kind of wrong, wrong, wrong experience. So let me say something quickly, I agree with you, but let me just say something quickly about a company, you know, corporate surveillance. You know, if I go on Google and I do a search and then I go on Facebook, suddenly I get ads on Facebook for the search terms that I used on Google and that's a kind of surveillance, they're watching what I'm doing. But the two aspects here that make it different than government surveillance, one is why are they surveying me? They're surveying me to sell me something, all right? I either want it or I don't want it. If I want it, good, then I suddenly discovered a new source of the thing and if I don't want it, I can ignore it. So again, if you treat people as adults, it's, what's the big deal? At the end of the day, government surveillance, government anything, has at the other side of it, the ability to curse, the ability to force. Companies can only deal with me voluntarily. If I don't want to have anything to do with them, I don't have to have anything to do with them. I don't have to use Amazon, I don't have to use Facebook, I don't even have to use Google. And the flip side of that is all of us, if we care about it, then don't give them all this information. You know, there are ways in which you can handle yourself online without revealing your information and insist that companies have clearer, what do you call it, terms of service agreements and all these things. A lot of it is the reason you get the surveillance is we don't care. We're happy to have them do it because they provide us with a service. Government is different because we know where that leads in the end. You know how they can use the data. Google can't put me in jail, not yet. The government can. Not yet. And in China, I mean, I know they do, right? Because people who used to invite me to come and speak in China in the last few days or last few years have spent a lot of time in jail. Because the ideas that they promoted that caused them to bring me to China are unacceptable now. They were acceptable five years ago. They're not acceptable now. Now they go to jail. And how do they, how do the Chinese authority know that they were advocating these ideas? Because they were surveying them. And that's a big difference between that kind of surveillance that can lead you to that kind of result than surveillance that results in you getting more, I don't know, advertising for a particular company. Thank you very much, Guia. Thank you very much, Yaron. We'll take a five minutes break. I don't think five minutes in pizza go together. Okay. We'll be right back. Yonatan, Yonatan, this is the leader of the Chinese authority, and we invite you to speak with him, to continue after the session. We have more than a few minutes left. So I would like to invite you to join us here in the first sessions. Maybe if I help him, it will work. I'm a theorist, so... You've been here for four hours. Why? What was it? I don't know. It's not an archipod. Okay. We move on to our keynote speech tonight, the lecture of Professor Yonatan Duby. Professor Duby is also known the travel maker of Ben-Gurion University. He's a professor of physics and theoretical chemistry. I'm also an expert in this area, by the way, we'll talk about it. He's a member of the department of chemistry at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, as well as the Katz Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology, and the School for Sustainability and Climate Change, also, of course, at Ben-Gurion University. His scientific interest, including electrical and energy transport in nanoscale system, nanotechnology, energy conversion and photo catalysis and more. I did some tests before trying to pronounce these terms. He's also one of the founders of the Israeli Forum for Rational Environmentalism. We will be happy, by the way, to hear about this forum and what does it mean. Professor Duby will talk about the future of the world. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank the organizers for inviting me. It's really great. I'm a professor of theoretical chemistry, but during the last few years, I've been thinking a lot about energy and power, and then it deteriorated to climate and environmental issues and so on. And after a couple of years of thinking about this and understanding, as I will try to show you a little bit today, that we have it all wrong in many, many ways. Me, together with several colleagues, Boaz Arad is one of them. We founded what we now call the Israeli Forum for Rational Affairs. Really, you know, in a way, it's just an infrastructure group that we have among us, which has a lot of knowledge and know-how and numbers of people and economists and physicists and geographers that try to balance the picture regarding climate, environment, and energy policies. But in so many other fields, we have it wrong, and we see it in economics, we see it in the free market, we see it in a lot of things, and in this global thing of climate, environment, and energy, there are many things which we get wrong. We, I mean the government and of course the public and the media and so on. And so I was able to talk about the future of energy and I will try to make it brief so we can have some time to discuss. And I'd like to start by pointing out that we live in a world where now we have 8 billion people or so, and around 3 billion of those use energy in a year as much as an average American refrigerator. That's just a statistics. In Africa, you're most likely not to have power. You know, when we in Israel and in the US and in the western world, we plug our computer to the socket or the charger, we're not thinking twice. Well, are we going to have electricity today? That's not something that comes to mind. But if you live in a place like Africa or Central America or Southeast Asia, that's actually a concern. Even in places which are slightly better, like South Africa and Malaysia and Indonesia and places like that, that's not always the case. India, which is the largest democracy in the world, only two years ago electrified all households. That happened two years ago. That's it. And that's, you know, Indian statistics, I don't know if they don't have power all the time. They do in the cities, but in the rural areas, they don't have power all the time. And this is important. We know this, yes. And this is important. And the story begins with power. Power is energy per unit time. Energy being a physicist, I can tell you, roughly speaking, is a measure of the capacity of someone, some thing, some object to change his environment, to do work on it. And this is what human beings have been doing since we climbed down from the trees. We are changing our environment in order to make our lives better. And to do that, we need power. And it's interesting that in English power has two meanings, right? One is energy per unit time. And the second is, you know, power. But that's not by chance. And as humanity, we started by exploiting two forms of power. One of them is the power of fire, which is concentrated heat in terms of when you burn, brush wood or then start chopping wood. And we use that form of concentrated power to heat our homes and our food. And the other form of power is using animals, which are way, way stronger than we are, right? We started to use cattle and horses to move around. This is where the unit of power, horsepower comes from. That's the amount of work a horse can do in a unit time. That's not by chance. That's by evolution something amazing happened. We started to discover other sources of power. You need to understand, even the people who live in Africa today are essentially better off than the people who lived in Central Europe 300 or 400 years ago. That's an amazing statistics. 300 years ago, 95% of the population lived under the absolute poverty line, roughly $3 a day equivalent. Child mortality was 1 in 5. The average age was about 45. And your chance of dying from a meteorological event was substantial. Your chances of dying from hunger, from starvation, were substantial. People were suffering. And that was the state of affairs. That's how humans lived. And then something amazing happened. We call it the industrial revolution and there are economists and maybe historians in the crowd they're going to debate forever what are the causes of the industrial revolution and why it happened there and not here in the Netherlands and in the UK or whatever. But if you want to summarize the industrial revolution in one word that word is power. This is the true engine that drove humanity out of existential poverty. First through coal that saved the forests in Europe because coal is dense wood essentially, it burns much better. Then through oil which saved the whales because till oil was found, whale fat was the central form of illuminating houses at night and then we switched to oil we stopped hunting whales and then to natural gas and then to where we are now. What you see here is the amount of power per capita as a function of the air. And you see we started with, you know it's called there's a beautiful name for that biofuel biofuels is basically brush wood and cut wood, right? You burn wood, that's not a great way to make power because it's not very dense. And then we switch to coal and then we switch to natural gas and then we switch to sorry oil, natural gas and now we have some mixture of fuels with which we make power. Notice that solar and wind power which we'll get to in a second, they don't even appear on this scale. And there's a reason for that. You can see the improvement that power makes to the lives of people through this wonderful, wonderful ad that I like very much for case carers in tractors. Tractor is a machine that substitutes human labor. That's it. That's what it does instead of having 100 people work for 10 days you need one tractor and with that tractor you can actually send your boy to school. He doesn't need to go to work in the farm with you. You can send him to school. This is an amazing example of how power which is basically the ability of machines to do our work for us liberated people out of poverty allowing them to go to school and then think, have time to think and invent new things and make new technologies and make our lives even more better. But as I said, that's not the case all around the world. We're going to return to this image later. This is a picture of the earth at night. Some people say I'm a climate denier but I do believe that the world is round. This was not taken in one shot. I needed to have a satellite orbit the earth and we can see where work is done. We can see where we change our environment. We can see the western world and we can see the dark world. You can see Central Africa Central America, Northeast Asia. Three billion people live in these dark places. Think about this as we go along. And although we now understand how important power is to human flourishing and to ability of people to go beyond the poverty line and make their lives better winds are shifting, winds of crisis. If a few, if down to dozens of years ago nations were struggling to get as much power as they can, we now hear a different theme. We hear countries saying we don't want power, we want something else. We don't want to invest in very good sources of power coming from fossil fuels or nuclear power or what not because there's a climate change and there's a climate crisis and it's all due to CO2 which is all due to man-made. Now I'm not going to go in this talk on the details of the relation between CO2 and temperature, but I do want to pinpoint a few points regarding the climate crisis and unless you just landed from another planet you must have heard that we're in a climate crisis, right? And this is a driver, an engine to many, many policies regarding energy which are affecting people and affecting people's lives and are affecting people's freedom and I will touch that a little bit and this is just a tiny roster of things you might see glazing over various journals. This I love the most it's Antonio Guterres the secretary of the UN and he now says that climate crisis is the cold red of humanity of World War II of this generation. However being a physicist I tend to stick to the facts I tend to look at the data and crisis is not a word from the realm of science crisis is a world from the realm of human experience and so one needs to quantify climate crisis so how do you quantify crisis? Well you think about bad things that can happen and you say how much are they happening, right? You need a measure for that and lucky for me people have done that a lot of scientists are actually measuring what we would call bad things in terms of meteorological events that were actually accumulated in a report which was recently submitted by the IPCC the intergovernmental panel for climate change and this is an amazing thing the report itself is 3,700 pages long I've read the majority of them almost 2,000 pages it's nerve wrecking no one reads it they have a 47 page summary for decision makers which no one reads out of that they take bullets which can cover one page that's about the amount that politicians can read on journalists and they hand it to them and they have bullets there and so what you get is a filtered view of the real data you actually need to go to the data to find out what's going on which I have and this is what we see in terms of bad things that can happen they have a list here with heat waves and flooding and what not and in the last century the temperature has risen by about one degrees this is the common number that is typically used so what happened to bad things because temperature itself is just a number what are the effects on our lives and well heat waves have gone up sure because the globe is warming a little bit I'm going to say something about that don't worry heavy participation more rain medium confidence that means some places yes some places no rain by itself is not a bad thing definitely not in Israel for example it's not a bad thing at all however they do find that there is no global increase in flooding no global increase whatsoever this is the statistical fact moreover flooding is not correlated with extreme rain because flooding is actually due to other things like sewage and roads and infrastructure and things like that so no increase in flooding no increase in hydrological droughts there is something which they basically invented which is called an ecological drought and that's 50-50 chance medium confidence so the data doesn't show it but it does not show it no increase in tropical cyclones no increase in winter storms hailstorms, great winds basically no increase in any bad meteorological event that's the data that's it okay but there must be something bad sure there is water going up right the sea level is rising well this is the data sea level as a function of year and you see two things first of all you see that since roughly the beginning of the 20th century sea level global sea level has risen roughly in a constant rate that's way before we started the meeting any CO2 to the atmosphere so it must have started before we did something about that and then you can do something very very complicated mathematically you can actually divide the x the y axis to the x axis and get a rate of sea level rise and then sums up to about 3.5 millimeters a year now some of that is because the land is sinking but 3.5 millimeters a year that's the average number which is agreed upon in the IPCC report that's 3.5 centimeters a year 35 centimeters that's about this high in a century 100 years that's the imminent catastrophe so I was an infantry soldier in the army that's two sacks of sand that you put one on top of the other and you're done with it and you know the picture of me in Amsterdam Amsterdam is below sea level the Netherlands itself quarter of it is constantly under sea level and when the tide comes it's half of it is under sea level and they solve the problems with dykes and canals you don't need high tech for that you just need to think about the problem and of course it definitely brings on some challenges coastal cities need to worry about this and you need to build the infrastructure but is this an imminent a catastrophe I don't know I just don't feel like it the area of the area burned in globally has gone down in the last 25 years by roughly a quarter that's a fact heat waves well heat waves have gone up but actually cold weather kills way way more people than heat that's a fact that's a statistical fact this is from a paper published last year in the Lancet which was mentioned earlier and you see in developed countries heat kills roughly four times more than sorry cold weather kills four times more than heat and in underdeveloped countries no matter how hot they are India Africa cold weather kills way way way more people than warm weather and the reason is this is because we developed in the African savannah our bodies are used to heat if it's too hot you stay in the shade you drink some water and you'll be fine if it's cold if it's up zero temperatures for three four nights in a row for four hours to heat your home you will die ordering water you will die I think the most important statistic is this humans have basically solved the problem of climate if you look at the statistics we have decreased the rate of mortality from climate related events by 98% over the last 100 years that's the statistic that's the number this is a fact and we did this because we can use power to build our lives better we can build fortified homes we can build better sewage we can have new technology all this is done by power so as Alex Epstein says and this is a quote I like very much it's not that we are taking an excellent climate it's actually the other way around we've taken something which was always bad for us climate was always against us and in the last century we were actually able with power and wealth and ingenuity we were actually able to make it convenient and in the world globally meteorological events are no longer a global threat this is the statistics so if you try to quantify a climatic events it kind of looks like there's no climate crisis of course there are challenges of course there are problems but there's a very big difference between a problem and a crisis problem you need to approach crisis you need to stop everything you're doing and fix that and I'm trying to persuade you that it's not the first the second one it's the first one now there's another way to quantify things and of course in a room full of economists I'm burging into an open door and this is of course asking what it does to the GDP and you can actually do that right the Great Depression reduced the GDP global GDP by 30% in 5 years this was a real disaster people were starving in the United States that's amazing the subprime crisis reduced global GDP by 4.3% the Covid crisis reduced global GDP by about 5% to 7% in 2 years that's a big number it affects people's lives and how much will global warming cost right we're not an economist but people have done the calculation first I don't know if I should have put it here or in the previous section but the losses losses from meteorological events normalized to the income have been going down not up of course the nominal value has been going up but because we are becoming richer and we live in coastal areas and so on the normalized cost is going down but the cost of climate change was actually calculated by various people the most famous is William Nordhaus who won the Nobel Prize for developing these methods and Professor Richard Toll who I had the pleasure of talking a few times and Chris Hope and they all have different models and different ways they do that into the details because they all give the same result and this is the result when the temperature will hit roughly 3 degrees which is predicted to be around the end of the century GDP will go down by around 3% and all models kind of agree on that but by the end of the century we are going to have economic growth because economy is work so if you calculate the cumulative effect you realize that if there were no climate at all if we lived in climatic heaven if every every place in the world would be San Diego then the global GDP would rise by 4.5 multiplied by 4.5 so 450% but if we do nothing about climate change nothing at all there will be a catastrophe we will not be 4.5 times richer but only 4.3 4 times richer which is a delay of about 8 years and you know where these data are coming from from the second part of the IPCC report from 2013 it's there it just didn't make the cut to the to the summary for policymakers why? because if we made the cut we would not be in the battle of our lives and this is without anyone doing anything about climate which is of course not the way people work we always try to make our lives better now now fueled by these winds of panic and catastrophe we constantly hear that we need to provide more renewable energy and when people say renewable they talk about wind and solar energy they don't talk about other forms of renewable many of the greens are opposed to for example hydroelectric energy because you need to change the course of a river or something like that and definitely they are opposed to nuclear energy although I hear more and more people actually promoting that and we can discuss this later and this winds of panic have made a lot of damage let me give you a few examples before I give you an example we need to understand that wind and solar power have two main physical characteristics which cannot be changed because this is how they are built the first one is that they are very low in power density that's the power per unit area that you can supply first of all they scale two dimensionally because solar panels are flat they are two dimensional objects and second they are low form low in energy density so you need huge huge areas to supply for example 30% of Israeli electricity from solar panels you are going to need to cover 5% of the open space in Israel with solar panels the second thing is that because they are low in power density they are high in material requirement if you need to extract that power somehow so you need a lot of material in the case of solar power that's polysilicon and lead and cadmium and other materials that go into the solar panels in the case of wind power that's rare earth metals and things like that and huge amounts of concrete a lot of material now that material has to come from somewhere you need to dig it out of the ground so in many ways trying to build solar panels to protect the environment actually makes it worse but it's in China we don't care the entire supply chain for solar panels and wind turbines is now in China we are talking about freedom but we are submitting our electricity to the hands of Chinese bureaucrats and they don't care about the environment the regulation there is way, way worse than in the US and in the western world so the first character is that it's a low on power density the second characteristic is that it's intermittent it shuts up, it starts and stops whenever the wind is blowing and the solar panel only shines on daytime, I checked nowhere on earth there is sunlight at night this is a research I did so you need to overcome this and when you think about the power system our needs of power you need to realize four things I wrote that down so I don't forget the first thing is that we need power all the time all the time big cities which is where more than half of where humanity lives at night time use about 70% of the daytime peak so you need to supply that power from somewhere the second thing is that we need a lot of it we need a lot of power not only the western world needs power but the developing world will need power and this must come from somewhere and if you're going to build it from a low density power source maybe that's not a good way now big power plants cannot be turned on and off very, very quickly you just can't do that these are really big machines they have huge turbines that circle around and a thousand circles per second and you just can't turn them on and off instantly so you build small power plants which are typically run by gas they can be turned on and off but they are very, very wasteful so you burn a fuel where you could avoid that and the last thing we need to remember is that we currently have no way to store power reliably and in large quantities there's just no way technologically to do that a lot of people are working on it present included but we just don't know how to do that so all these things lead to the fact that when you push unreliable sources you both do not reduce any emissions and you increase the cost and that's an important thing because when you increase the cost of power you increase the cost of everything because everything relies on power it's the food we eat, it's the water we drink it's the industry that we do it's the high tech industry it's the universities that we sit on it's the healthcare system everything relies on power and when you make it costlier you increase the cost of living and that is bad for everyone especially for the poor people of course so the curious incident of Germany Germany started its energy vende a program to replace fossil fuels with wind power mostly around 2000 they spent around a trillion euros on this slightly less 800 billion euros or something some unbelievable number and what you see here on the yellow line is the percentage of renewable or we should call them unreliable power now this is kind of tricky because some of that is biofuel which is just crops which are grown and then burn they use nothing in terms of emission it's just I don't know why they do that honestly and about 27 or 30% of their power averaged comes from wind power that's pretty amazing so the Germans can do it anyone can do that well not quite what you see here is the intermittency what you see on the top is the amount of installation installed so a power capacity this is the red line on the top and these blue peaks is how much power was actually produced by the wind turbines so you can see with your eye the intermittency of this source and you can see something more important the black line on the top is the average right the linear regression and this is the linear regression of the output and they don't have the same slope think about that the more you install power that doesn't mean that you can get more unreliable power from the same source at the same rate because every kilowatt of power generated from an unreliable source has to be backed up by a reliable source that's just the way the engineering goes so you can't do that and when you plug in the numbers you actually see an amazing thing you see that okay I need to explain this figure this is total power not just electricity but total power generated in Germany and then I take the total emissions of CO2 this is the goal of this whole thing to reduce emissions but you take the total primary energy production the total emissions by the total energy production and you get how much CO2 was emitted per kilowatt hour equivalent and what you see is as they start pushing renewable energies the actual amount of CO2 per kilowatt hour equivalent goes up that's an unbelievable fact which no one talks about because you have to burn fossil fuels and you have to burn them more and less efficiently to back up your unreliable power and of course this affects prices so these are the prices in a select European countries before the invasion to Ukraine and I will comment on that of course this is before what happened is that they had a wind so wind output goes down prices go up and if you look at the prices they went up look at the price in Germany it went up from around 30 Euro cents per megawatt or something like that up to 150 four times more can imagine what would happen in Israel would go up four times more a family with a medium income which now pays 800 shekels every two months would have to pay 1600 or 2000 shekels every two months people would riot in the states and rightfully so there's an interesting thing here France and Norway basically have no renewable energy no unreliable energy France produces over 75% of its power from nuclear plants and Norway 94% of its power comes from hydroelectric plants and yet their prices went up well because they have borders with Germany and with the UK France is selling electricity to Germany Norway is selling power to the UK prices in the UK go up they go to the neighbors to buy electricity the neighbors can ask for more supply and demand so prices go up everywhere there's a ripple effect to this crazy pursuit for unreliable energy sources so what will be the future of power this is the question well I don't know about the future since the first temple was broken down prophecy was given to children I'm not going to try to make any prophecies of course I am but we can see what happened and this is from Renewable Energy 21 Global Status Report you can download it all the data is there well from 10 years ago to now 80% of world's power comes from fossil fuels that has not changed I mean conspiracy people you know me and other you know the Koch brothers and all the oil lords sitting in a room and thinking how are we going to prevent these beautiful renewable natural sources to be abundant no it's the people and the countries realizing that power is essential and they're going to get it whatever it takes and if it takes burning fossil fuels then they're going to burn fossil fuels modern renewables did get a little push which costs somewhere between 1 and 2 trillion dollars globally but it's a very tiny push if you look at this 11.2% then 3.6 out of it is hydropower it's great but you know in Israel you know we have the aircon not great 4.2% of this is solar geothermal heat biomass that's you know rooftop heaters and things like that also great 1% is biofuels for transport not so great but okay and around 2.4% is all the rest combined these are the numbers and you hear environmentalists and economists and activists and politicians say what are you talking about the world is driving going towards renewables well it's not it's staying in the fossil fuels because power is of essence and I want to point out again this is 8.7 that's the others do you know what that others means this is cow dung this is cow dung which is squeezed into pellets and used for burning homes 800 million people around the world use this as their primary energy source this is the central challenge not reducing CO2 not a changing the climate or whatever this is the central challenge bringing the blessing of power to those people around the world that do not have it this is what we need to worry about and when people become rich and have power and have plenty of power they start to worry about the environment because if you don't know how are you going to eat your food or how are you going to feed your children you couldn't care less if they're sewer in the streets of life yes so I'm going back to this we know where we need power we know this is I'm wrapping it up yes and you can see it you can see these are CO2 emissions by year and you can see the wealthy Europeans the white nations and you can see Africa basically not emitting any CO2 and I'm finishing in a second you know there was a meeting in Glasgow CO2 the alignment summit the costliest cocktail party in the world nothing came out of it which is great except for one agreement that was actually signed there was one agreement that was signed Belgium and the Netherlands and Norway and UK and a bunch of European countries together with a big financial institutes the World Development Bank and the European Development Bank signed a treaty that they will not invest in infrastructure if it has fossil fuels in it Belgium but they're doing that for the benefit of the African nations right they're so good at it that's unbelievable and they're denying the African nations from their wealth needed to build this infrastructure and they're keeping them alive they are because power is an essential ingredient to wealth now of course I need to connect this to liberty so I made a slight change life liberty and the pursuit of power of course liberty is a it's a tangible thing we don't really know what liberty is I think it's well described in the declaration of independence of the United States the each man's right for life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as he see fits now when people are locked in poverty when they have no power to supply their needs they cannot pursue happiness really because they need to pursue food and shelter and clean water and this takes any priority and in order to make life better for everyone we need to pursue power that's the key ingredient now I'm going to finish with the challenges of course because you know it's not easy there's something called the energy trilemma here right and the energy trilemma is that you want to supply power which is reliable cheap and clean and of course everyone in the western world takes the priority upside down clean first whatever clean means because it's not really clean it's clean the gut feeling is that it's clean it's not really clean by any means but you know it feels clean and then let's try to make it as reliable and we don't care about cost right that's what happened in Europe and this push to reliability is an amazing example of that and that led to the situation where Germany is now buying 40% of its power or its fuel from Russia and therefore it cannot do anything regarding for example the Russian Ukrainian conflict because what are they going to do the Russians can simply cut off the power line and there will be no power in Germany who can afford that no one can afford that right I think I'm going to stop here so let me just wish you live long and prosper and you need power to do that before the five questions I think that I will take my discretionary as a moderator to ask you the first question I think you explain us the what can you also say something about the why why is this global campaign to stop global warming if this is the situation so my expertise in theoretical physics so I'm stepping beyond my expertise so my opinion is as good as anyone but it's the same thing that drives free countries to look up to China it's the same thing that drives people to extensive progressive and to cancel culture I think this is a congregation of three major forces there's a cricket behind me or something I don't know there's three things happening first of all there's a lot of money in renewables a lot of money that's fine if it would be the private sector that would be great but the entire industry of unreliable power is subsidized by governments so there's a lot of things going on there a lot of money and of course politicians always want to be on the good side rather than the bad side of being there who's the politician who's going to say I don't care about the environment and of course there is the religious aspect I think and this is a thesis not my thesis people like Michael Schellenberger and others raised this thesis in that the wealthy white a power a fluent world people are becoming more secular and there's no vacuum in the human psyche so we need some meaning and people go to meaning to look for meaning in Gaia in saving the planet conveniently forgetting that you know third of the world does not live like them and I think this a mixture of three forces has led us to where we are now now I note on this we do have proof from the 20th century that humanity is capable of collective stupidity and I think we are in a place where this collective stupidity is endangering us and hurting our lives and there will be a pushback like there always is the moderator went out okay I'm not an expert but you said before that that cold weather kills more people do you take into consideration skin cancer I'm not sure about if I'm right the answer is yes everything is taken accountable it's not me saying that I'm just quoting a paper from the Lancet and this is their job to evaluate excess deaths due to hot and cold weather I'm not a statistician of mortality rates so I do not I cannot judge the paper I did have some people do that and they tell me that the paper is quite fine Ariel Karolinski some of us know yes everything related to hot weather everything related to cold weather of course there's a margin of error but even so 4 4 times to 20 times more that is incorrect yes all these things are taken into account for example in the Arbaim centimeter 40 centimeters in 100 years sure and you need to be prepared for that that is incorrect Tel Aviv has suffered in the last century 0.7 millimeters a year that's 7 centimeters in a century in 100 years 7 centimeters what will happen in the future I don't know no one knows it's just something that we don't know we can only use data from the past that's how science works and even so 40 centimeters as I said you need to work for that is that a catastrophe is that an imminent catastrophe no 100 years it could be if you do nothing and then you realize it 100 years from now but people don't work like that I say not to do anything I actually said very specifically something you need to be concerned about I said it with my own words it's something you need to think about it's a problem you need to work, you need to build barriers and build canals and make the city better equipped to deal with the sea level rise but okay do it if you're going to put a solar panel in a rod that's not going to help the sea level rise in Tel Aviv it's not going to do it that's a great question what about the supplies of fossil fuels so a natural resource is not a resource until we know how to use it when Napoleon and the Duke of Wellington fought each other and they had a list what are the resources available to us they did not count oil as one of them because they did not know what to do with it it was useless materials become resources when we know what to do with them so we have oil for at least 60 years we have coal for 300 years we have gas now natural gas right now the known supplies for at least 50 or 60 years but that doesn't mean anything because when we need something we look for it we found a natural gas of the cost of Natania for God's sake who knew 15 years ago the United States were importing fuel and then a group of smart engineers in Pennsylvania basically realized how we can push a pipeline like this and it goes underground like this and basically solved the problem of fracking and within 5 years the US became an exporter of fossil fuels so any number we give now is going to be hard to measure now we do have other sources of power we have uranium for 300 years for the entire population of the globe we have thorium for 10,000 years if we just had the technology and the engineering to actually use it and to use the spent fuel for power reactors there's an abundance of energy sources on earth we just need to know how to use them and then they become resources thank you very much you need to move go away this is capitalist we use them we will thank you very much Professor Yonatan Dubey I think it was fascinating and I think it was thought provoking we will end our fascinating evening with a debate the debate will address one of the born in a controversial question during the COVID-19 epidemic what is the desired health policy during such a pandemic governments versus markets Dr. Yaron Brooke a prominent of a free market I think we understood it by now and Mr. Amit Benzour who heads the Arlozoro Forum and the Yassodot Institute for Public Policy will discuss the issue I have already introduced Yaron Brooke and we are very happy to host Mr. Benzour here tonight Amit is the former chief of staff of the National Authority for Technological Innovation Director of Establishment Director of Establishment of the Government Hospitals Authority Chief of Staff of the Opposition Leader and Senior Advisor to the Director General of the Ministry of Health The moderator of the debate will be Mr. Avi Stern Hi Avi Avi is a financial market analyst Educational Entrepreneur Run Money Talks a community that devoted to the financial market and the economy it is currently one of the largest communities in Israel about 50,000 members in this area so I will transfer the microphone to you Avi Amen So we are going to do it in Hebrew Do you have anything to say or do you want to say No need to say We are fine So let's explain We have a moment We are going through the schedule So we have about 50 minutes What he says We are going to ask 4 questions For any question we will give you 10 minutes You are both together And then we will give you some time to ask questions Ok Ok, we are ready Let's start Ok A few questions around a social or cultural aspect So A few months ago an interview in New York Times wrote that the pandemic is showing us how capitalism is amazing and inadequate So I would like to ask any of you do you agree with this or do you agree Do you agree I agree Ok It is especially by chance here I had a conversation with Mr. Samankal in the Ministry of Health a person who left the office I already found the group and he said in every aspect of health there is no doubt both the capitalist and the socialist are the most important I told him listen I am on my way here to debate so maybe there is a debate there is no need to question but he is right there is a consensus about what? Consensus that in everything related to health the health of the public in the world there are more benefits there are a lot of problems but there are very, very benefits I don't know, there is a way to create something so in the meantime I brought you here that there are benefits with a few seconds it doesn't take time it doesn't take much time because in the Ministry of Health there are conditions in the economic language that are built in this environment and in the same article the same quote from the New York Times that he quoted they say if the Covid-19 teaches us that capitalism is the capital or capitalism is the capital but the building is closed and what I want to show you is that what is open what is successful can you say the humanity in this Covid-19 that we are already destroying it for two years is the health of the public it is the governments they are the ones who managed to overcome no one no building, no building no building even though there were feelings that they achieved and look at this the main thing that we are talking about is the fact that the people from all over the world of course in Israel Pfizer the private companies but in the real situation what we see 98% of the trust for the development comes from the public money you see here the different countries there is a bit of philanthropy but you know not 98% 95% I will show you a few more 90% the central money also in the R&D and also in the open one of the things in Europe is to make money before they know that the market will work to make money for the companies what is possible for them to open with security what is also possible for the European countries to get these prices in 5% but the public money in the place where there was the big market and of course in R&D it is a classic in the place where there is the big market what do they not like market they don't like market in these places they come and invest in the public money to make money and there were the companies there was the public money in the open market that we can sit here without talking what is the public money with the way it is on the public interest there are a lot of things maybe they will come later thank you we will try to do it in Hebrew but I will speak English here and there because I don't usually speak in Hebrew I am in Shulai and I know it's not new to me I live in Shulai almost in every issue look the main problem is that if you speak in statistics and in the area there is no free exchange today anywhere in the world in the public interest there is nothing like that a few percent of the dollars that are invested that are invested in the public interest is a free exchange 10 percent 20 percent 80 percent free a lot of 50 percent of the dollars that are invested in the public interest are invested in the public interest I am a medicare I am a medicare medicare is a socialist for everyone if you are in the public interest you will get a medicade there is no free exchange in the public interest there is no free exchange and there is no free exchange in the R&D there is a knowledge in the public that is called what is it? crowding out if it is government invested if the government is involved in something of course there is no need to talk about it about the public interest there is no need to talk about it but the idea that it is not possible to invest without a government investment because in the 19th and in the beginning of the 20th the government had zero investment in the public interest in the technological development and we had an economic development and it was necessary to make money and it was necessary to make money about basic things yes, if the government is only making money with the University of Ben-Gurion you know in the public interest that in order to make money the real money will come from the government no matter how much money will be invested in the University of Ben-Gurion the private money will be invested in building and building my name what is very interesting if we take the things about the effectiveness of this research and the efficiency of this research it is absurd no company no philanthropist would not accept the efficiency the efficiency per dollar in terms of the price of this research we are talking about the dominant but if there is something about COVID and I talked about this earlier I am going back to myself but if there is something to be said about COVID it is the dominant connection of governments all governments I don't know a single government who has to do this in a good way yes, there is no counterfactual of what happens when the government doesn't move because every country every government will move it will move in a few seconds so people will move and you will see Germany or Italy and other places and they will do lockups and they will do everything at home access death rates are about the same it is a bit more common in Sweden there was what was said in Lancet before the middle of the week that all European countries will move there is not much difference the same thing was said in Johns Hopkins University in the United States there are no lockups there is not much difference there is a lot of power a lot of manipulation and there is a lot of demand and there are real demands even though we are talking about Pfizer they are Pfizer, BioNTech and Moderna so yes, they took the CCC that there are a lot of demands from the public funds but they took the CCC and destroyed it on the same day on the day to vaccine they took them the week after the vaccine the genetic code of covid and not to the vaccine is a wonderful thing that nobody was involved in that the vaccine was ready. The vaccine was ready and passed phase one trials, that is, it was in vain. It was not, it was not in vain and everything, already in June 2020. And to get to the point where they begin to help, to help at hand, to take another seven months, to take them to open the vaccine again this week, but to take the FDA, to postpone it, seven months. Yes, of course. Isha Sharben, Avi Yase, you don't want to take, Isha Sharben, Avi Yase, but what happens in the market? What happens in the market? If you don't know what you're doing, what happens in the market? You're in the house, and you're not in the business. So what are the advantages of selling in the market and what are the disadvantages of selling in the market? And if there is information asymmetry, which is the critique, there is information asymmetry between, so what happens? Yes, I think that, really, it was shown a little, it was the negative interpretation of information asymmetry, it was shown a little, we are in the middle of the markets. Is it the interpretation? Really? No, it's not what happens, what happens is that, here, in the market, when you enter this market and it is not in the market, it is due to the government regulation? Not in the United States, no, it is a regulation of private companies that have done this all the way, and the same things with cases. If there is information asymmetry, there is an asymmetry platform, what is the asymmetry platform? Someone, I don't know, put money in an asymmetry platform, finance, which is your property, trust, there are a lot of ways to create the problems of asymmetry of information. There is rating agency, there are all kinds of issues, instead of having a government agency, one, which is in charge, and as a government agency, and not put money in an asymmetry platform, but I didn't say money, I said money, I'm sorry. The question is really going to be as it was, I think, about this money, so there is a lot of data that is spread in the last video, that speaks of the fact that public companies are public companies, in private companies, and always this is not them, and they are not considered them. But in this pandemic, we saw how public companies have created the situation. Public companies, in fact, were very good in Israel, and if we need to go on and get to know that this is the future, we need a wide range of public companies, especially for the public sector, it's not a problem. I think that we are going to end up with the things of Aaron, and then we will come back here, but it really connects one to the other. A government agency, not a government agency, yes, it's free, it's not free, it's an ATIZ agency, it's a public agency. We have already passed it from time to time. The real, the real, the real, the real, the real, the real, the real, what is the connection between the public sector and the private sector? One of them cannot work alone. Each one has his business, his business, he has his investments, he has the relationship between a small business, between an inn, between the stores and the shops and many more things. You think about the language, what is a group of groups? A group of groups of groups to create a group of groups that when I express the message, I don't know when it will come. I don't know when it will come. I eat, which is forbidden, unless I need to read all of my documents or I don't have any documents at all. We are one to the other, solidarity. Yes, the first term in the national security law that everyone, really like in the public, everyone gets a piece of paper and gives a piece of his food. We know that we want people not to die because they don't have money in their pockets. We want the society to be a group. We know that if people were able, they wouldn't be able to work. So, the power of the mass is broken and there are more and more economic parameters. The food groups have created the time, not in COVID. They have created the time already, 100 and more years, until the first group of the group has made an effort. And what I said at the beginning, that solidarity is a way that we take the common interest, we don't take the short term and we don't take the personal interest. It can be that if I was a leader, do you know what is the most important thing in a person's life? Today, when he was born, who was his family? Where did he live? What was the reason for him to be born and come to life? This is what makes his future, his relationship, his relationship, his relationships, of course, very complicated. But this is the drama that happens. And who makes it? I make it myself. I make it myself. The power of the mass. The power of the mass. The small and the big. And in Israel, as you know much before COVID, they come to Israel, they come to the regular, to see a few things. To see the responsibility that the government is going to face. To see the Israeli high-tech that the government and the public sector, it was that, it was dark and dark. And they come to learn about the future of the public sector. And in general, the power of the mass. The relationship between these differences is that I am also convinced. The power of the mass, first of all, is the public sector. You know, the public sector is one of the biggest public sectors in the world. Because of the power that it has. The public sector, which will be divided into the public sector and the public sector. There are many more in the country, in the Israeli market, that all the other American countries support me to the public sector, support me to the public sector, or to the public sector. There are many more things that need to be taken into account. But the public sector is divided into the public sector and the public sector. And why is Pfizer, so much so, the Israeli public sector? The entire Israeli public sector. The data, the data, the data, and who created the data? It all began 25, 30 years ago. And to put it together, before someone thinks about these things. The lack of the public sector. That I receive the service without asking me how much I am proud of. When I enter a meeting in an Israeli hospital, they don't ask me how much I am proud of. They ask me what the public sector is. I have a friend who is a doctor, a professor already, in the United States. And when he had Dr. Zahir, he had a name, that he needed, he received the changes. Really, there are changes. Now in Israel, there are changes. And how do you, the changes in Israel are half public, half private, compared to your age. He really told me that. The half private is half private. What does he think? Is he going to stop sending an ambulance to the hospital? We want people to receive a vaccine because they are human beings. And we are getting, already for a hundred years, not a new one, that the best way to do it is through public education, through public services, through public regulation. And if it is possible, two vaccines on the vaccine, I think two or one. Okay, look at this. The life starts. You know, we are, our life starts now. The technology is moving forward. Our health is moving forward. What do we see? Look at two countries that I will show you here in the graph. Cuba and the United States. Communist Cuba, the settlement and the United States. What is capitalism? What do we see? That the life starts in these two countries? In recent years, it is Cuba, before the United States took over the United States, but now it is back in place. What difference between these two countries in the United States? The United States in Cuba. With all the countries, the country is in danger. The public and the United States, despite what Aaron said, the private, if you click one more, and I will be in danger, this part, it will not be. Hold on a minute. Did you click one more? No. Okay. Look. What do we see here? The life starts in Y. How many we see per capita? For a breath, it comes to health. This country. Look at Israel there. Not a lot of breath, it comes out, quite a bit. But with a big life and the United States is also in danger from all over the world. Look at the difficult conditions, most of the countries in the United States are out of breath, out of the most dangerous environment in the world, something like 18% of the population. And with a life start, look. It's just amazing that they use these graphs. And you are thinking about life start with a health plan. And there are other things that are considered a life start. For example, life start in the United States is now in danger, not because of COVID, before COVID. Why? Because the United States is out of breath? No. Because people are out of breath because of the opioid epidemic. If you take Japan, Japan has a life start I think, the largest in the world, the largest in the world, the largest in the world. Yes, maybe there. And you take Japan in the United States. Do you know what is the life start of Japan in the United States? Like in Japan. Life start with people that are Kristall in the United States you know, What is the life start of Japan in the United States? Yes, So, there are a lot of dangerous inside lives in the United States. Not in the United States. There are dangerous living conditions. There are dangerous inش interfacing conditions, but no in food. There are diseases in life such as obesity, if you control obesity, with the graphs, it is not real. It is not real. So, So you can't make a correlation between living or living in a health center. The work, again, in Lancet and New England Medical Journal and other journals, if you have cancer, where would you be most likely to live? If you already have one, you can. It's a matter of health center. In the US, not in Cuba. If you have a heart disease, where would you be most likely to live? Where would you be most likely to live? Where would you be most likely to live? In the US. Now, if you have cancer, what percentage of Americans do you have cancer? Cancer. Cancer. Cancer that they send to their homes, to their children, to their children, and to their children. What percentage of Americans do you have cancer? From 90 percent. From 90 percent. Again, if you are 65 years old, every percentage of Americans who have cancer, plus you can get a cancer from it, but every percentage of Americans who have cancer, so all of them, these data in the US, they are simply... it's not true. That is, there is no correlation at all. I also lived in the US and also in Israel. My father was born in Israel. I had a Israeli family. I had a lot of relatives here. And I had cancer in the US. Yes, I had cancer. I was also very young in the US. I was a student in the US. Years. And I had no cancer. I had cancer. How did I manage to get cancer? I always had cancer. And the cancer in the US, it is much greater than the cancer in Israel. If you are ill, if you need something, if I need MRI in the US, I will get MRI in the same day. If it's a disease. In Israel, you do... My father is a doctor, and he wants to get MRI, and in Israel, the MRI, they work on a little protection, so they get the cancer. And he spends a few weeks to get his MRI, and in 1987, he needs the MRI. There is no doubt about it, especially in the US. Yes, a lot of money is spent on cancer in the US. Do you know why? Because we want a lot of money for cancer. It's important to me. I have the money. Why don't I want to spend money on cancer? And apart from that, as you said, there is a massive amount of money in the US. Again, I say, more than 50% of all the dollars that are spent in the US are spent in the US. So there are some elements of protection, a bit of protection. And as a result of that, there is a huge amount of money. If a patient was very ill here in Israel, very ill, then he would do it, and it was not money, he would do it in the US, and send it to the Mayo Clinic or Cleveland Clinic in the US. They didn't send it to Israel. How much money is spent here in the US? The US is better, it's just better. There is more money, there are less expenses. Now, it's possible to talk about what happened in the US, it's possible to talk about what happened in the US for hours, a lot of things. But I want to go to a more basic level, because one of our main decisions is not about what happened here and there, and graphs and everything. The most important decision between us is if the right, if the right is right, from each according to his ability to each according to his needs. Now, I am very surprised by this statement. This statement of communists who respect those who have them, or those who don't have them, is a statement that a lot of blood is behind it, a lot of blood in the history of communism. To my knowledge, this statement is not necessary. Correlation. Not necessary. Correlation. There is a causal relationship that I can see it too. Okay, okay, okay. Wait a minute. There is an interest here. I am an individualist, I am not a collectivist. I don't deal with things as a society. I mean, I am a creator. So, what you need is a claim, a moral claim, against what? What do you mean? It is necessary. It is necessary that I accept what you want, what you want, and if you choose, if there is a way to take my money and give it to someone else, because, quote, I need it. This is what is necessary. So, yes, I am a part of the society. The problem with the State of America is that there is more of it than the private sector and not this private sector and it will not succeed in the world. Because the one who makes this and the private sector really fails in the hands of the side of the private sector. Sorry. So, this private sector will continue, not only in terms of activity, but also in terms of responsibility. The responsibility of the government will not take it from part of the society and give it to the other part of the society. The responsibility of the government is to stop the private sector, stop it from being supported by power, supported by security and to let us be free to make decisions from us, to decide if we are making the right decision or not making the right decision, what kind of role we want, what type of role we want, what kind of skills we want, what kind of skill we want. You said that this debate will continue and you do not know how much you agree. Here is the question. This is the attitude of the president. Who wants to see the total public understanding of the United States in these countries? A country with a lot of capitalism. To see the economy can be integrated with the expansion of the government in the context of the public sector. With the help of the government and with the help of the government with the help of the government with the help of the government with the help of the government with the help of the government with the support of the government with the help of the people with the support of the people with the assistance of the public with the help of the policies with the help of the budget all these are public projects. So here the question... Will the free youth going on working which needs to move through a new population of universal and solidarity The nation needs to develop We have a lot of issues with the government, with the power of the majority of the world, with the majority of the people of the party, with the majority of the people of the party. If possible, let's take a look at the graphs. Have you noticed that my works have been improved? Here, look at this. No, one before this, sorry, one before this. What is this? What are the biggest findings of the last few years? I really, when I started here in Ersheba, I also saw this in the polls. Tesla, right? Tesla of Elon Musk. What is more important than the phenomenal success of capitalism, of the private sector, of innovation, of technology? What do we get? Who is against Tesla? Who is allowed to Elon Musk to open up Tesla when millions are lost? Look, 465 million, 1.5 billion dollars. Subsidia. Subsidia in capitalism, in particular. Subsidia in government. And another 2 billion dollars. Of public goods. So the idea of, who is allowed to open up? The private sector or the government? The government is just a model of it. Friends, as I said, it's the 80s. 40 years have passed. 40 years have passed since Reagan said, the government is your problem. Is our problem. Not our solution. We learned 40 years of research. 40 years of research. That we know that the public sector is just a model of it. The public sector is a strategic area. And the built-in ideas of people. Also in the government, let me tell you, I worked a few years in the government. There are people, people who make decisions and think and want to move forward. Very, very difficult. As a result, you have to focus on rich interests, on rich interests. If you are allowed to go now to the public sector, then you will be completely lost. I hope you will be able to do that. Look. What is this graph? This is the United States. The United States is zero. The bottom line of the zero is the government. What is the government? The difference between the interests of the government. From the top of the zero is ODEF. 23 countries. The Kachol region. ODEF is the government of a private sector and a home in the United States. It's from 1952 to 2019. The Adam region. ODEF is the government of the United States. The federal government. Yerock, ODEF or Geraon of all the United States countries. What is the first thing that comes to mind when you see? The Adam region. Yes, but what else? Symmetry. We see that when the government was here in Geraon just for the example of six percent. Who was in ODEF of six percent? The government, the private sector and the home sector. We see that the government was here in Geraon just for the example of twelve or thirteen percent. Who was in ODEF of the same time? The private sector and the home sector. Now, there is nothing here, no tricks. Consumption, basic, course, a lot of consumption. The exit of someone is one. This is the exit of someone else. Money doesn't fall into the air. When the government produces money it goes to someone. Who goes there? The government's government, the government's banks? The families, the home sector, the private sector, the banks that make money to the government, the producers? What do we see? Bill Clinton in 1992 in the United States, in the year 2000. Do you see the little man here? This bullet, for seventy years. The capital of Bill Clinton, Larry Summers doesn't have a libertarian anymore I think it's from the democratic side, from the democratic side. He said to Bill Clinton, you hear, your goal is to pass the U.S. government to be a leader. It's impossible to be a leader, a leader! What happened? What happened as a result of the U.S. government being a leader? Who was a leader? The house owner and the private sector? Now, this simple consideration. What do I want to tell you here? The power of the public money, if we talk about the ideas, or the new buildings of the world, the idea of the public money, and it's an idea. Money is not a real thing. Money is the state of human beings. Real things, it's workers, it's workers, it's machines, it's technology, it's knowledge. All of these things are real things. Money is the foundation of human beings. Who is the monopoly of money? It's the state. In the United States, in Israel, there is one place where the state is not the monopoly of money. Do you know where? The European Union. They have a single bank, they have a monetary bank. But in states with a private bank, the state is the monopoly. If you decide how much money there will be, there is no guarantee of money. There is a guarantee of real assets. Therefore, the real amount of money that if all of our assets were in use, in the current situation, what would happen? Inflation, the exchange rate, and this is the real amount of money. Therefore, when we talk about what the real, the real, the real, the real, the dream of states, in the future, is to use this money for the public money, so that it will be for all of us. For organizations, for communities, for private people, for people with disabilities. For everyone we want to help him. Yes, right. Here we look at the basics. I want to help. I want every human being, every person who comes to the world, to live as much as possible. Last week, during COVID, I think it was in the government of Trump, I think. In the United States, Trump came up with an amazing plan. Trump started it, Biden only took a few more steps forward. Mossad Ayn Rand. He decided, in a way, in the eighties, to move to his position, to something forward, not to get into the government money, not to get into the government money, to get into the government money. He decided to take the money from the government. He came to him and asked, how do you take the money from the government, when you're in the middle of this, the worst thing that can happen, because that's what he does, crowding out for private money. What was the explanation of Mossad in the United States? It would be unethical, that only someone who is committed to capitalism would take the money. This was the answer of Ayn Rand. He wrote his statement. In Non-Ideal Capitalism, there was a statement. Not in Capitalism. One of her books said, if you take the money, if you explain it there, I won't go back to the explanation. Yes. Why do people who want to take the money from Capitalism take the money from them? Why do they split it? What, I didn't take it? I took a lot of money. I took a little bit of my money. What you're saying now, it's called Modern Monetary Theory. It's a pseudo-economics. It's really... You can take the money as much as you want. And that's it. Nothing will happen. Money, it's not easy for all the other things. Do you want to talk about it now? There's a little inflation. The M.M.T. suddenly breaks down. They don't say anything. Stephanie Keltron and all the time, the M.M.T. people suddenly don't say anything. They don't talk. They don't name them because... Because they work. From what? From Trump and Biden's checks. From what? I don't know if it's from Trump or Biden's checks. It's not controversial. I'm controversial about a lot of things. I'm a little crazy about a lot of things. And that's not all. It's mainstream. It's Larry Summers who creates the mainstream. Larry Summers has the inflation, but he has inflation. He said he had inflation when we gave him the checks. These things, these correlations, it's interesting that if you put it on, it's GDP growth. GDP, capital growth. You see that GDP, capital growth, you spend a lot of money. It doesn't matter. GDP, capital growth, capital growth, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. What does that mean? When there was no currency, when there was no people, if you look back, GDP growth was much more dramatic. Capital growth and capital growth were much more slow, much more intense than now. Now, now, with large numbers in the United States, wow, what a economy. Once there were large numbers, four, five, six, and there was no reason for it to be possible, but it was possible when the government produced some kind of money. And every dollar that the government took was produced by the government. It wasn't produced. There was no money like that. It wasn't produced. It wasn't produced. It wasn't produced. It wasn't produced at all. Again, crowding out. Every dollar that the government used was a dollar that the private sector didn't use. Every dollar that the state didn't use was a private sector that didn't use. And yes, to a certain extent, you don't see it, but what happens to a certain extent is that the private sector is what the economy is. What Clinton did there was a step towards the end that was after that. It was a step towards the possibilities of private sectors because the government was able to invest so much money in the economy. The citizens were able to invest in what was happening in the high-tech revolution that we saw after that. But Elon Musk took subsidies, yes, it's one of the reasons that I'm not a nice person to Elon Musk, but yes, the government took subsidies everywhere. Everywhere. Just a second, and these subsidies are the ones that will destroy the subsidies that Elon Musk received. GM and Ford, because they have a political power. So they received the subsidies, and Elon Musk also produced subsidies, so he received them. But if there were opportunities, you would have a certain amount of subsidies. As long as you get the amount of subsidies you would not receive more subsidies. So this subsidy would be enough for that. But he received, yes, he received a lot of help from the government. But, as I said, there's nothing free in the world today. There's nothing free in the world today. And today we received, because of the mixed economy we have, the great government and a little free, we received, we are living in a situation where, if there are two percent in a year, in the Arab world, there will be a lot. But as you know, with the United States, in the last 100 years, there was a huge increase in one percent less every year. One percent, not much. It was today like in Mexico. One percent, it's a lot. It's compounding. It's exponential. So the difference between two percent, four percent, two percent, five percent, if you think about it, the right people, the difference is, if you think about it, five percent, no more right people in 40 years, or much less. But if you think about it, in two percent, there always were right people. So I'll put it in a moment with a question, or with some answer. In general, I don't know what you mean, in general, the government has several years of huge influence, like it's now it's a view that we are in. Because all of the economic causes and everything. In comparison to the U.S. There is something that I really like about America. It's in their data. In the amount of data that can be given to us, that we don't have three of these things, that we can put together. Anyone who does research and needs data, knows how difficult it is in Israel. And the one that created this data, is the public sector. And it's really very important, because it gives the politicians, the people, that they can be central planners, because they have the data. And they do research because of this data. So it's a fact that they don't know this data? Yes, it's a fact that they don't know this data. It's a secret, it's a secret. What you see when you look at the years of its existence, the life of the citizens, the year of the 1940s, and the last year of the 2008, the big financial year, all that the years went by, the power that the citizens came after, was divided in the most non-scientific way, as we all went through. It came to the conclusion that in the United States, the United States, we are one of the nations, a graph more than all the 99% of others, P, K, and K, and now you're going to say, Voila! It's possible to talk? Yes, of course. We're here to talk, right? Or at least to show, because we're talking. Who cares about this? And who doesn't care about this? And who has the power? And who is left behind? Is there a term, the last term? Is there an economic term called the power of the economy? For the power of the economy, there is an economic power, an economic power. We can talk about it, but when we use it, we're almost all dead. I'd like to point out that we just finished the question, and I'm also going to ask a question. At the moment, it's going to be a freestyle. Okay, let me just answer some questions. That's right, what you're saying. And more than that, if you see any economic term in the U.S., after the term, it's more likely. That is, after the big economic term of 2008, because it was very positive, very positive. Paul Krugman, of course, said that because it wasn't suffocating. The question is, why is there really an economic term when it comes to the economy? And the answer is simple. Because as for every economy we have, there is more government cooperation to open it, because they can't do anything, because they can't open it. And the government cooperation is what leads to an economic term that comes from it. What happened after the Greif National Crisis? They bailed out the banks. They then started pouring money. Money doesn't matter. You said you just print money. It doesn't make any difference economically. It makes the private sector richer. Well, it does. So they poured money in through the banking system by basically buying bonds. The money went into the banks, poured it into the financial markets and stock market went through the roof. So, yes, you have inflation. You always have inflation. The inflation doesn't always manifest itself in consumer goods. The inflation sometimes manifests itself in asset price in inflation or in malinvestments. But what happens every time you have malinvestments or bad investments? But what happens if the government doesn't allow the bad investments actually go bankrupt because they keep bailing people out? The Federal Reserve has become a master and it's improved. It's improved over the last 100 years at bailing people out and not letting anybody fail. When you do that, when you do that as a central planning, you're allocating resources to some at the expense of others. So, yes, financial wealth is being concentrated among some people because of government policy. Not because of markets. Subsidies are not markets. Federal Reserve is not a market. Federal Reserve bailing people out is not a market. It's not out the banking system. It's not a market. The government distributive checks to everybody is not the market. So, yes, the response to crisis has gotten worse and worse and worse. Government has got it more and more and more involved. And as the government has got it more and more involved, recovery from the crisis is shallower and less just, less efficacious. And it creates massive financial inequalities with the consequence of government policy. Not markets don't do that. Indeed, the best example of a market, the only crisis in the last 100 years where the government didn't bail everybody out was the 1920 crisis since then everything was, and that was under covered coolage. And the government did nothing. The economy crashed. The government did nothing. The economy recovered at the fastest rate it's ever recovered from a crisis. Business, good businesses, grew. Employment returned very, very quickly. There's a central bank state out of it and everything went fine. The more government intervenes, the more distortions you will have in the marketplace. And you get massive distortions and you can see that in the data that we produce in the United States. Okay. I just want to say that if I can, if you ask me, Japan is a different story but I'm not going to open it up. No, I heard about Japan. It's disgusting. I know Japan. I have a question. What happened in Japan? It's exactly what happened in the United States. Questions. Okay. And in the United States? Yes. It's not a success because there's not enough money. And what's the point? Or what's the question? When they want to say something and ask a question, they say it's disgusting. Okay. Yes. Okay. I'm going to ask it again. We know, we're talking about the public sector. We have a society in Israel. We have a society in Israel. We have a society in Israel. We have a society in Israel. We have a society in Israel. We have a society in Israel. We have a society in Israel. We have a society in Israel. We have a society in Israel. We have a society in Israel. The problem with the public sector is that there's a public sector which actually is available to the children and they don't have to take responsibility for their lives and their children's lives. If it's an important thing to do, ensure your security because you are saying that people will come and work, but we know This is the only one in the Middle East that has been in the Middle East for a long time. And what happened there? One of the most important issues in the last 30 years of the Israeli society, is that the lowest level of immigration in Israel, is that the level of immigration in Israel is the same as that of the Syrian Union. Now you say, what? How can it be? It's not normal. But I'm not going to talk about it. It's ridiculous. It's a solid fact-checking. What's the story here? Because when we talk about immigration, what do we usually talk about, when it comes to work? About immigration and immigration, right? But let me tell you one more thing. There's another type of immigration. There's immigration, immigration for example. And what really came out, I didn't think it was going to be like that. And it's a solid fact-checking. It's not a solid fact-checking. 47% of the immigration of the Syrian Union comes out of immigration. 48% of the immigration of the Syrian Union comes out, wait a minute. It comes out of immigration. And that doesn't apply to foreign communities, and onlyologize to them, but that's not true. B-S, a man that does not, the man of God in the decision of his life, doesn't destroy the children because of the decisions in the Middle Ages. My third thing is- Who is thinking? I'm going to say it again. The biggest difference, What is happening in recent years is the rise of the conflict in the Middle East. Many more people, who have taken over the colonial people, many less than what we want in the Middle East. This thing is moving forward. If the Israeli society needs to take over itself, I would like to tell you that with all the choices of the people who live here in the country, they can live in a good and positive way. Even though I can be very proud of some of the lives of some of the groups here in Israel, I will not let them live just as I think. Where is the issue? Wow, that's a good question. This is a difficult issue. There is no one simple, one important issue that can be solved. We have been using it for a long time now. Wait a minute, so I will give you a question. You said that you were just after this, you said that 47% of their income... Okay, so you are talking about the price of the bottom and the price of the top. So now the price of the top is less than the price of the top, so first of all it is much more than the price of the top. Absolutely. Do you know what the point is? If we want everyone to be more than the price of the top, let's raise the price. They are much more than the price of the top. Two, three out of the people in the State of Israel are not the price of the top. Do you know why? Two, three out of the people in the State of Israel are not the price of the top. Why? They are not the price of the top. They are very, very low price of the top. So it is possible to look at it. They are not the price of the top, they are not the price of the top. Let's put it aside. Who thinks that they are not? Friends, there is a problem here with the price of the top. Yes, I just want to say that I am sure that in Israel there is a flay text. I did not know. I think that the price of the top is more than the price of the top. 47% 47% The price of the top. The price of the top. The price of the top. The price of the top. The price of the top. So there is a place to talk, we can talk to everyone. I am happy to see that everyone is selling to the market that they are not getting the money. But look at this, we are talking here about the prices of the top and the top. The basic question here is about the families, the ten children. It is a matter of personal life. Yes, the children do not have to be happy with the father of the top, but of course they are happy with the father of the top. We all lived in the good or bad of our parents. There is nothing to do. The government cannot get us out of bad parents. The government cannot get us out of bad parents. The government cannot get us out of bad parents. What we need is a state that allows people to take their personal life, their personal life and their children's life. And not to transfer the responsibility, but to transfer the responsibility to the people. To each according to his needs, to his ability. No, your needs are not a claim against mine. So you want to create lots of needs, ten of them, ten children, and therefore I need to pay you more because you have ten children? It is sad that I can't say no, but that is why we don't live in a completely free society. In a completely free society if you want to help those ten kids, you are free to help those ten kids. But if I don't want to help those ten kids, I don't need to help those ten kids. The beauty of freedom is you as an individual get to make choices about your life and it's not imposed on you through coercion, through force, through an authority to tell you what you can and cannot do. So I'm not going to argue about 47%, 48%, 23%, 22%. I would like to see Israel go to a one tax system instead of the 57 different taxes that you have, a one tax system that is maybe at 5% or 10% that funds the things that you actually need to access for, which is your security. And the rest, leave to where it should be within private individuals to deal with one another as traders, as exchanges of values, value for value in win-win relationships. You don't need government to solve all your individual problems. Last question. Okay. I agree with that. If you don't agree with me, I agree with that. You say that children shouldn't do anything about what their parents decided. But is it a sin that parents of someone else do this for their children? Why is it a sin? And the other thing, if it's only possible, if it's true that the deficit, for everyone who is bigger, for everyone who is bigger, then there is a huge gap. Why not increase the deficit all the way down, as much as you want, to minus 7,000. And then you will have all the money. So as I said, there are discussions, which are so complicated, sometimes I feel like I'm between two. There are nuances in life, there are values in life. There are things that are always easy to talk about, but the reality is complicated. I don't believe and I don't say that there is no gap to get the money. I didn't say that. What I'm saying is that there is a gap. But the gap is not what you think. Whoever thinks that there is a gap to get the money they can get out doesn't understand how the economy works. It's like I'm telling you that if you think about your thinking at home or at the university, work on the world and suddenly the world comes to you, it's a gap, and you will get the money. It's absurd, right? Because the world doesn't have a gap to get the money. The same thing with the gap to get the money. Where does the gap go? The gap is that if you get more than enough money from the government, that's the real gap. Can you get the money? This is the real gap. And not the gap to get the money. One, two, because we really need to do it. I have a great idea to get the money. Do the families of one family need to keep the families of the other family? Or even the children of the other family need to keep the children of the other family. So let's get you something new. Not so new, but maybe here it will be new. The government doesn't keep the government's resources. It doesn't work like that. The government itself doesn't need to keep the resources. We put forth different reasons. We put forth in order to keep money from the public in order not to an訂 some inflation. We put forth in order to increase the rate of wage by seven. We put forth in order to accept some暴 até Obviously we didn't tough them, but in order not to reduce the resources of the government I hope it was a little interesting, and that the debate was over from the health sector to the financial sector. Thank you. If you are interested in what is considered monetary theory, everything he says is consistent with the theory that even Paul Krugman, I don't think it will last for the last 40 years of research. Two things. One, if we can look at the problem, if we can just raise all the prices, then what's the problem? Again, why don't we give them $1,000 per hour? Yes, the same problem when there is inflation, but then what do we do with inflation? It works somehow, but what they don't think about is the fact that when the government brings out the money, when the government returns the money, then the risk that this money enters the economy is invested in the economy goes down. Central planning doesn't work. We've got 250 years of proof that central planning doesn't work. And what all this government expenditure is, is central planning. So yes, they can spend a lot more money, it turns out, than what we thought, but who is the victim of all the money spending? The victim is future growth. The victim is your children. The victim is their wealth. The victim is less innovation, less progress, less ingenuity, less freedom. The victim is the future economy. So yes, you can do a lot of things on paper. You can play with the numbers in lots of different ways. But there's no free lunch. There's no free lunch. And at the end of the day, you pay for it. You just pay for it later than right now. Let me just say one last thing about a comment that was made several times that I meant to say. This idea that government thinks long-term and business thinks short-term is maybe one of the most wrong things said here today. Governments everywhere are short-term thinkers, short-term planners. They care about the election cycle in the United States. It's two years. They don't think beyond two years. Government, politicians, bureaucrats, two years. Because bureaucrats at the end of the day, they do what the government tells them. And the bureaucrats change. You can see that in the United States right now. As the Trump administration bureaucrats left, the Biden administration heads up the bureaucracy, enter the bureaucracy changes. They have new policies. They have new agendas. Their agenda is very short. But think about venture capitalists who invest in biotech and who have a long-term horizon and won't see any money back for decades. Sometimes we'll never see any money back, period. The real force behind long-term planning and long-term thinking is the private sector. The public sector is short-term and manipulative. Its purpose is to manipulate you to give them more political power. Thank you and thank you for agreeing to do this. The second person I really want to thank is Amit. I am very, very proud of the person who didn't hesitate to come, what is known as forum leaders. And it's interesting to really encourage, not to add to his agenda, but also to encourage new ideas. I think that the way, in the end of the day, to the free trade union, as it was here in your country, I really, really thank you. Thank you very much to Dr. Aaron Brooke, who really gave us all the time. Thank you very much to Gia Giandieri from Georgia. Thank you very much. To Sarah Margini, Bo Azarat and her colleague, to Avish Tern, the moderator of the debate. And we are saying, stay at home for a while and continue the debates on the way. That's all I want to say. Thank you.