 The radical, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is The Iran Brookshow. All right everybody, welcome to Iran Brookshow on this July 11th. This year is just going by really fast. Hopefully everybody's having a good week and looking forward to the rest of the week. We are covering another news show today. So we've got a quick update from El Salvador. We talk about budget deficits in the United States, so security, going bust. And a little bit about Navy shipyards. I might talk about inflation, cause of inflation. There's a real myth out there. We'll see what else. We'll see what else if there's time. And the will. I think today's show is not quite as long as yesterday's. Also it looks like starting earlier gets you fewer watches. So I guess it's too early in the morning for many people. On the west coast, at least here on the east coast it's afternoon. But yeah, thank you everybody for joining me live. Remember the super chat is open. Jeffrey, thank you for the support. Really, really appreciate it. And yeah, if you want to support the show, super chat is here. But also you can do it monthly. You're on bookshow.com.slashsupport and Patreon. Alright, let's jump in. We did a show, I did a show a few months ago on El Salvador. If you remember on the massive decline in violence and in motor rates in particular in El Salvador, as a consequence of the Salvadoran government basically announcing emergency measures whereby they rounded up 68,000 people. 68,000 people put them in jails, built a large jail, maybe in the world, at least in the Americas, that holds 40,000 inmates. Basically they have in prison now 1% of the population. This is double what the United States has in the United States and costs a lot of people. And by doing this, basically homicide rates have dropped by 92%. They are now, El Salvador is now safer than many, well some, many American cities, some American cities. It's still, you know, it's still not safe, safe. But it's much safer. If extortion is reported to be down about 60, 70%, extortion was huge, sucking up a big chunk of the profits or the livelihood of many small to medium sized businesses were being sucked up to an extortion. All of that is gone. And they've got 68,000 people in jail, 1% of their population. The challenge of course is that in rounding up to 68,000 they rounded up a lot of people who are probably innocent. If you had tattoos, you were rounded up. If you were a relative of a known gang member, you were rounded up even though you might not be a gang member in spite of the fact of being a relative of a gang member. And it's, so there are major challenges. There are major challenges to individual rights. And there are a lot of innocent people in jail, a lot of innocent people being caught up in this. And it just brings up an interesting point. So there's a major Wall Street Journal article on this as of yesterday with photographs and kind of a big spread. And of course this is a real challenge. How do you balance the need for security? And this is a need, a human need, an essential for civilization, an essential for economic and social progress, an essential for people to live their lives in a reasonable manner, is to be safe from violence. And this is the number one job of government is to protect us from violence. You know, this is why Anarchy is such a bizarre idea because El Salvador was an Anarchy until a little while ago, right? And what you got is massive murders and what you got is deals between the government, one government in between the gangs and the gangs violated the deals. So funnily enough this president was pretty soft on the gangs in the beginning what he did was he cut a deal with them and he basically let them get away with a lot of stuff in exchange for reduced crime and crime did come down. And then there was a spree of murders a year and a half ago which ultimately led him to, you know, to clamp down on the gangs. But his first approach was to negotiate which is what the president of Mexico is doing which is what he typically has done in Brazil and everywhere else, negotiate with the murderers which is more like how Anarchy would work. We just negotiate. And what you get is very, very high crime rates, very, very high murder rates and almost no murderers going to jail. So El Salvador tried this other way and of course what you get when you do that is you get a violation of some people's rights and what you get is emergency powers given to the executive branch, the president in this case and what you get is a move towards authoritarianism. And this is what happens when you let a country go, when you let violence go rampant, authoritarianism usually follows because people won't tolerate that, don't want to tolerate that, they want to live in peace. It's basic, it's the fundamental, it's the 101. It's a basic thing that they want. And that's what's happening in El Salvador. The current president, Buquele, has an approval rating of 90%, 90%. Everybody loves him. Why? Because they can now go out into the streets without fear of being shot. They can now open their business without having to pay extortion money to more than one gang, several gangs. They can now order pizza and the pizza delivery will actually come to their neighborhood for a long time. The kind of delivery services do not go into certain neighborhoods. You can now call the police and the police will actually show up. So the rule of law is super important and super valued by human beings. And it takes a real rare political leader to combine the protection of rights, of the innocent, protecting them from violence, but also then making sure not to penalize the innocent by rounding them up. If you put all the male population in jail, violence will come down. There's no question about that. So how do you balance the two? And it's going to be a real rare political leader who can do that. Putin came to power in Russia in 2000 for the first time because of the mayhem, the anarchy and the violence generated by the anarchy in Russian society during the 1990s. And what Russians wanted is a strong man to straighten things out. And he did. And Russia to this day is paying the price. Now, is Bukele the kind of leader who ultimately can rein it back? Is Bukele the kind of leader who can go through the population in prison of 68,000, figure out who is guilty and who is innocent quickly and effectively and free the innocent? We will have to wait and see. There's still, you know, no clear evidence one way or another. The special powers that were given to the government in order to round up everybody are still in place, are renewed every month. And, you know, on top of that, they do claim that they have put in front of a judge 60,000 of the inmates. So that's a huge percentage. They're freed thousands of inmates because I assume they think they're innocent. But there's still fear that there are at least 3,000 to 5,000 innocents among those that are being held. And again, Bukele will be ultimately judged historically over the long run. Short run, huge success, amazingly popular. And maybe this was necessary, right? Maybe this was necessary. The price is you've got innocent people in jail, but at least innocent people are not dying in the streets. The question is how do you long-term establish the rule of law? Not the rule of the fist, but the rule of law. And how do you long-term make sure that the people who stay in jail are the actual guilty and that you release the people who are actually innocent? In the meantime, unsurprisingly, the Salvadoran economy is doing well. It's growing fast. They're courting investment now, touting the fact that crime rates are so low, investment will probably start flowing in. There's also some really good tax deals for tech companies to go to El Salvador. And so this will help the economy. One of the things that economies need, one of the things that capitalism needs in order to exist and economies need in order to thrive is the elimination of violence. The elimination of violence. So let's hope El Salvador takes the right path from this point moving forward. It's getting a lot of attention. Of course, the article tries to be balanced, but highlights the human rights violations, which are real, but it also gives you the facts about the crime rate and about the increasing economy and about the sheer popularity of the president. I just like to do this periodically because nobody else talks about this anymore. It's like it doesn't exist. It used to be that this was a big Republican thing that they would talk about, but they don't anymore. Although it's possible that a few people in their freedom forum in the House are waking up to this and maybe trying to make a big deal of this. But then, of course, when they get into power and they're a Republican president, they'll forget about this. And this is the whole question of the budget deficit. I mean, the budget deficit is really insane. I mean, spending as a percentage of gross domestic product at the federal level is going to grow to 29% over the next three decades. It's been historically, over the last 30, 40 years, at about 20%. And in the 19th century, it was under 5%. And this is, of course, just the federal level. If you have state and if you had local, it's not clear that government in the United States is actually smaller than government in Europe. If you add all those things, certainly, if you project 30 years out, if the government is spending 29.1%, I would say 50% of GDP is spent by government in 30 years. That's more or as much as almost every country in Europe. It's pretty socialist, wouldn't you say, half of the economy? And nobody's talking about it. Nobody seems to care. I mean, again, the House Republicans are making some noise right now, but they're only making noise right now because they've got a Democrat in the White House. We know that as soon as the Republican gets in, they stop talking about cutting spending. It's just an ever-escalating rise without any concern. Growing debt, indeed, because of the growing debt, by 2051, spending on interest will be the single largest line item in the federal budget. And that's, if we're lucky, if interest rates stay high or if interest rates go up even more, that could be well before 2051. Now, that means it would be larger than Social Security, larger than Medicaid, all the other mandatory and discretionary programs, more than defense spending, and that's because of how much money the government is borrowing to feed the spending binge. And, you know, this is a recipe for the destruction of the U.S. economy. The government becomes that size of the economy. It's unbelievably destructive to the sector of the economy that actually produces the economic growth, the innovation, the progress, the moving forward, which is the private sector. The government just dwarfs it and makes it irrelevant. And this is the thing, and we'll talk about this more in a second. The longer you wait to deal with it, the more difficult it is to deal with. The longer you wait to deal with it, the bigger the debt, the bigger accumulated debt, the harder it is to pay it off. The longer you wait to deal with it, the bigger the interest payments are going to be because you're going to have to keep funding that debt. So even if we got a balanced budget tomorrow, we still have to fund all the debt we've accumulated to date. We'd have to run surpluses to pay off the debt. That would require real cuts. Nobody's talking about that. And notice that not a single political candidate is talking about this stuff. The leading Republican candidate, Donald Trump, doesn't like cutting spending. We know that. And has taken some security and Medicaid off the table, which is insane because there's no way to cut any spending without reforming those programs. DeSantis would much rather talk about, what do you call it, LGBTQ issues or drag shows and stuff like that than about the fact that the U.S. economy is going to long-term stagnate unless we do something about government spending. I mean, maybe Nikki Haley mentions it once in a while, but other than that, nobody, nobody cares. And I'm not even talking about the Democrats who want to spend more, who want the deficit to be larger, who want government to be much larger with no thought about controlling it. Indeed, they want their ideas, you know, but in monetary theory, just spend... and if an item, it makes no difference. I'm caricaturing a little bit. The MMT people. So, I mean, it's just, it's scary. It's scary because as I've said, and this is one of my big problems with Trump, was basically Trump did away with an opposition party. There is no opposition party. Republicans don't disagree about the expansive role of government in our lives, both on the social side and on the financial side, and on the economic side. Now, within this issue is the whole issue of social security. So, the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, just did, just did its estimate of how long the, quote, trust fund, which doesn't really exist. The trust fund is just government bonds. So, your tax payers, tax money is paying this off, right? How long this trust fund can still pay off social security? We're already in a negative situation where the trust fund is being depleted. And basically, your regular taxes, my regular taxes, are paying social security to retirees. I don't know how many of you know that, but social security today is, it gets, in terms of revenue, less money than it spends. And because it keeps no reserve, no, the money's not there, the federal government pays for the deficit. That's the trust fund is IOUs from the government, from the rest of the government, right? So, it's just moving around. There is no trust fund. Anyway, social security is going to go bankrupt. In other words, social security will actually run out of the trust fund. The trust fund will go to zero, somewhere around 2032, 2033. Now, that's just around the corner. We're in 2023 right now. So, 10 years from now, you know, baby boomers will be all retired, all collecting social security, even I. God, maybe I should start collecting social security now. Anyway, everybody will be collecting, even I will be collecting social security. I'll be old by then. And past the optimal time, I think the maximum time where I have to, which was social security. So, I'll be getting social security, and then it'll go bust. And at that point, in order to keep the program solvent, they will have to cut benefits by 25% across the board for everybody. Now, notice, I'm not a fan of social security, and I'd like to see it phased out. I'd certainly like to see it privatized. I, you know, some reform. But that is insane. People are planning for social security. People are making retirement plans based on social security. People are retired already, assuming the money will continue coming in. And nobody has a plan. Nobody cares. Like there's massive evasion around social security. Just Republicans and Democrats, of course, pretend it just doesn't exist, that it doesn't matter, that they're all for social security. They all want to maintain social security. They all think social security is fantastic, and they won't touch it. At least Ronald Reagan had the audacity to have a commission look at social security and propose some things to extend its life. That commission was run by none other than Alan Greenspan, who recommended raising taxes and lowering benefits. But at least they had a solution. Every year that they wait will require in order to fix the problem greater tax rises and greater benefit reductions. But they'll keep waiting. They'll just bury their hand in the sand and pretend nothing is going on. Nothing is happening. And these are politicians. This is the quality of our politicians. Not a single one of them has the guts, the balls to raise this as an issue, to say we need to solve it. Doesn't even have to propose a solution, but at least make an issue of it. Bring it up. Tell people, look, there's a real problem here. We have to deal with it. And in my administration, we will find a way to deal with it. Maybe even have a solution. But, you know, we got 10 years. Every year that goes by, it becomes more expensive to solve the problem. Just like with the deficit and the debt, every year they go by, it becomes more difficult to solve the problem. Does anybody care? Not a. Where does that leave again, the US economy? Where does that leave our quality of life, standard of living, ability to plan into the future? Not in great shape. Not in great shape. All right. More bad news. More bad news. By the way, lots of questions. Thank you guys. But let's do some, in order to get to our target, let's do some $20 questions. We've got all the 10 and $5 questions. We got those down. Let's do a few 20s so we can get to the, to the target that we have for the news roundups. All right. Yeah, this one is a little, I mean, in the context of people caring about US being prepared, a lot of concern is being expressed that the US is sending, I don't know, tanks and artillery and shells and, and what, cluster munitions to the Ukrainians from our reserves. And as I've said many, many times, it doesn't really matter because these are not weapons we are likely to need in the foreseeable future. They're not relevant for the primary conflict that seems to be on the horizon for the United States. What matters is that we have a robust navy, a navy that can really deter and a robust air force that can project force to the enemy and that a lot of the rest of stuff, a lot of really what the army does as an army is, is, you know, is less important in a future conflict that is likely to be in the Pacific. So you would expect that, given that strategic reality, that's not something I invented. Everybody knows this. We've been talking about a pivot to China for years now. Everybody knows that the strategic threat that the United States, the United States is facing comes much more from China than it does from the East. Islam is not a military threat to the United States. It might be a terrorist threat but not a military threat. Russia is not a threat to the United States. It's not going to invade the United States. It's a threat maybe to Europe and Europe has the capacity to deal with it. And as we're seeing in Ukraine, if Ukraine has the capacity, Europe can easily deal with a threat from Russia. We have no threat really to the United States. We have no threat from the North. We have no threat from the South. The real threat in the United States is potentially from China. And therefore it makes sense to strategically align our forces around that threat. And that means emphasis on Navy and Air Force. Well, things like that cause me to particularly kind of wonder, again, where is the strategy? Where is the thinking? And where is all the money that goes into the defense budget going? When you read a story that says, here's the headline, nearly 40%, 40, 40, of U.S. attack submarines out of commission for repairs. This is the highest it's been, at least in modern history. These are the exact subs that are key to restraining China, potentially also Russia, but certainly China. These are not the submarines where you launch nuclear weapons in World War III and the world ends. These submarines would be used to defeat or to dwindle down a much larger Chinese Navy trying to invade Taiwan. These are the kind of submarines that will launch missiles, ballistic missiles, onto the east coast of China in an invasion of Taiwan scenario. So these are submarines that are really necessary and play an important role in making a country like China think twice about invading Taiwan because they know we have them, they know they're in the waters, they know they're close to them. Whoa, it's a real threat and it's a real reason to hesitate cause while China has a bigger Navy it doesn't have the capabilities we have. Its Navy is a lot less sophisticated. They cannot match our submarines. They cannot detect most of our submarines and really effective submarines can equate the numbers because a submarine can take out a number, just think about the German submarines in World War II, can take out vast numbers of enemy ships and therefore balance out the numbers much better. But when 40% of American submarines are in the dry dock, the Chinese and the Russians and the rest of them have a lot less to fear. 18 of the Navy's 49 attack submarines were out of commission. Now this was at lowest in 2015. It's been creeping up since then. It's now at the high point. Nobody really knows when this will get better. You know, one submarine that hit I guess an undersea mountain but this is an important submarine in the USS Connecticut which is one of three Seawolf class submarines. These are premier submarines. Underwater mountain in South China Sea. How does that happen? I mean, don't they have equipment to prevent that? Like my car even stops itself before hitting an underwater mountain. This was 20 months ago. They think it'll be back in commission in 2026 at the soonest. Why are we not investing more heavily here? Why are we not scrapping some of the waste, some of the nonsense, some of the BS that we spend on military and investing heavily and building up our ability to repair submarines and repair our ships and why aren't we making sure that our Navy is at full force? You know, you'd expect 10 to 20% of the submarines to be in the yard at any point in time but 38 is just absurd. And this is kind of strategic thinking. This is kind of emphasis in terms of budgetary allocation that needs to be put. Now, there's a 20-year, notice a 20-year, only the government does 20-year plans, a 20-year plan to revamp the shipyards the five years into it. 20-year plan. How about condensing that to a 10-year plan and doing it over the next five years and getting it done with? 20-year plans. All right. You know, and this relates to also the massive delays in the new submarines that are being launched. I forget the name of the class of the submarines that are being launched, the ones that carry nukes. This is related to the fact that our aircraft carriers, the big, massive supercarriers that have some of the most sophisticated weapon systems on the planet, they are being delayed dramatically. Oh, the submarine class is called the Ohio class. That's the nuclear ballistic missile Ohio class of submarine. These submarines we're talking about are the fast attack submarines. But all these submarines, our investment in aircraft carriers and so on, there has to be a way to speed this up. There has to be a way to do this faster and to get better results and to invest more effectively and more efficiently. Maybe it's in management, in better management. Maybe it's not about money, but there has to be solutions here. Instead of bitching about money to Ukraine, how about bitching about stuff like this? Okay, a few quick stories that are kind of interesting. I always think about the trans issue as mainly an issue in the United States and maybe Western Europe. Certainly in the UK it's a huge issue. But basically a Western European and American issue and not beyond that. But I just read a story this morning that the Japanese Supreme Court has ruled that the ministry in Japan cannot restrict trans people in the use of bathrooms so they can use the bathroom that fits their chosen gender. Even if it makes other employees uncomfortable. So that I think is interesting that this trans issue and these issues of bathrooms go far beyond kind of the Western world, far beyond the United States, far beyond Florida. And Japan is struggling with this. You'd expect Japan to be super conservative and super anti this and yet sometimes they surprise you and they're more to the left. So interesting. It was a unanimous decision by a five member, I guess the five member Supreme Court in Japan. So just thought that was kind of interesting that these issues are kind of global issues, at least in what you would consider the Western world. I consider Japan part of the Western world. Okay, another quick one. I highly recommend Mark Andreessen's story article, AI Will Save the World. It is just being published on the free press. This is Barry Weiss' substack. AI Will Save the World, Mark Andreessen. I think you can read it without paying. If you go to the thefp.com, the letter f, letter p.com and AI Will Save the World, it's a piece by Mark Andreessen who is on the optimist side of the AI debate. Finally, well, I'm going to keep this for tomorrow probably. Okay, we'll do that tomorrow. We'll talk about inflation. I want to talk about inflation tomorrow. All right, that is what I have. Let me just remind everybody, we're still about $820 questions short of our goal. So if you can and if you're interested, if you want to support the show, it's a sticker or it's a $20 question. Sticker for any amount, question, make them $20 questions. But let's see if we can get to the target as we do almost every morning. All right, let's jump in with Michael. Michael says, are most economists sympathetic to free markets but why do so few advocate complete laissez-fait? I think most economists recognize the value in free markets in certain circumstances. So for example, I think most economists today don't believe you should have free markets in healthcare. I think most economists don't believe you should have free markets in education. And that is partially because they buy into certain fallacies in economics about these being quote, probably goods or that markets fail in delivering these kind of goods. Or the more honest ones, I think, believe that yes, markets can provide and so on, but it's not fair. So they make a moral argument against it. Most economists, I think, understand the value of free markets in almost every other sphere. Again, most, not all. But the reason almost very few economists are completely laissez-fait is because of these bigger moral, social issues that they think that free markets cannot solve, cannot deal with. Most economists bought into the idea that while markets are best, they often fail. And therefore you need government intervention, regulations and so on to fix the failures. So that is why they're not completely laissez-fait. All right, it doesn't look like we're going to make it today. Well, we don't have a lot of light people. Maybe that's because the early yesterday when I did two o'clock, we got a lot, a lot more people. So maybe I'll have to try to avoid 12 o'clock in the future. All right, Michael says, do you think the way objectivism will enter universities will be more from student demand than from academics recognizing the truth of objectivism? Well, today it's mostly from students. I don't think students are going to be vocal enough to demand it. I think it's going to be, I think you're slowly going to see more academics embracing objectivism or elements of objectivism or objectivism as a whole. I think it will just become more part of the world out there, part of, you know, as we train more intellectuals, more of them will be academic. They'll be part of the world. There are already a lot of academics out there who are objectivists, whether they announce it to the world or not. A lot more than they were 20 years ago and in 20 years ago there'll be a lot more than they are today. And it'll just grow like that over time. And students who are interested in objectivism will find their education around objectivism in other places like YouTube and like the Ironman University. They won't necessarily demand it at the university. They'll go to ARU to get it. Michael says, Oh, will universities prove themselves obsolete while podcasts and internet capture the next generation as few and few people go to college? I think, you know, it's hard to tell, but universities are going to be disrupted. I expected them to be more disrupted over COVID. It's very hard to launch an online university. We'll see what happens with places like University of Austin and other kind of alt universities. I still don't get a sense that that is changing the vast majority of the way people think about universities. So it might take much more time than we expect. Ultimately, I think the internet will disrupt universities and there'll be less. I do think fewer people will ultimately go to universities. There'll be so many different alternatives to it. ARU being an example of that. We'd plan to expand our programming to cover many, many things. And I think you'll learn in ARU in one year much more than you'll learn in four years in college in terms of real knowledge and useful knowledge. But universities will still exist partially because they provide a certain social experience and people value. So it's hard to predict the future, but I wouldn't be surprised if universities are disrupted and education is disrupted in one way or another. Lewis, imagine if conservatives in new right were good on the physical issues like they are on social issues. What good is not? What a thorough or passionate about them. Yeah, I mean, the world would be a different world and our debate and our discussions would be very, very different. Very, very different. But it's exactly that's why they can't because to be consistent about economic issues, it takes a certain individualistic perspective. And by its very essence, by its very nature, the new right is not individualistic and generally the culture is moving and has been moving for 100 years towards less and less and less individualism. So it's very hard to get that kind of result. Guest is at what point do we declare fascism is too rampant to defend no new entrance into the marketplace? You know, hard to tell in terms of economics, certainly 50% of the economy being driven by the government is as close as might be a point where you declare it. Hard to tell. I think when tech gets heavily regulated, when you see the tech companies being broken up, and every single industry in the U.S. will have dramatic regulations and massive regulations, I think we'll see it, we'll know when we see it, maybe. But yeah, we really have to think about to what extent are we really free. It'll be interesting to see how on the economic freedom index, how the United States continues to decline. Ike says, assuming we don't cut spending, what's your advice to someone in the early 20s? Is it invest in gold? I don't know. I don't know how good gold is going to be as a hedge against the kind of inflation that's coming or against the, and it's certainly not a hedge, against the stagnation that is coming. I think the reality is that the best thing to invest is in yourself. The best thing to invest in is in your own owning power. The best thing to do is to try to earn as much money as you can and to save money. And I think that the best way to save money is to invest it in those companies that are still going to grow. The entire economy could stagnate while certain companies can grow. If you can identify those, you can find those. It's probably in technology. Those should be where you invest and where you put your money. Gold is static. Gold saves your purchasing power. But if you really want to increase your purchasing power, you have to invest in economic growth and in profits, in businesses that make money. And I think there I would look for high-growth companies, particularly if you're young and you can tolerate the volatility of their markets. Look for the high-growth companies of the future. Finally, Frank, a Democrat told me the leaning power of PISA is what you get when you have no regulations. How does laissez-faire not lead to more leaning towers? How does that even make any sense? How does that make sense? How does laissez-faire build beautiful products like this that don't break down every five seconds? But when it comes to real estate, yeah, that'll break down every five seconds. I don't understand the logic of it. Competition between builders leads to better products, not worse products. Certainly minimum standards, not leaning, not falling down, well-established in the marketplace. Don't need government to prevent that. Planes are not falling from the sky every two minutes. Why? Well, because generally, plane manufacturers don't want to kill people for a lot of reasons, among them they like people. But also because they get sued, builders don't want to have buildings lean and they'll get sued and they'll be wiped out and they'll go bankrupt. And there are lots of other people in the chain that have a vested interest in not having their buildings lean. Banks who lend money against the building and the purchase of the building. Insurance companies that insure the building have a strong incentive to monitor the quality and make sure it doesn't. Owners, people who buy condos or rent apartments have a strong interest in the building not leaning and if there are defects, will sue the contractor? I mean, there's a million market mechanisms, small and large, that provide strong incentives for builders' reputation. Reputation is huge for builders not to build leaning towers. Just like generally the goods that you buy are decently made. Of course, the cheaper you buy them, the less well-made they are than the more expensive ones, but they still have certain basics. And that's again not because of regulation, it's because of competition and it's because of consumer demand and because of the own self-interest of the producers. All right. Thank you. Thanks all the superchatters. I appreciate the support. You know, we could go out with, you know, $3 from everybody watching right now would get us over the hump. You could do that as a sticker while I close shop here. Stickers, $3 from everybody watching right now would get us to our goal. $3. All right, let's see. What did I want to say? Yes, you can support the show on a monthly basis on yourunbookshow.com slash support. You can also do it on Patreon or SubscribeStar. Tonight, I will be doing a show basically on what's called Free Market Environmentalism. I don't like the term environmentalism, so Free Market Solutions to pollution, water quality and other issues regarding nature. I need to figure out the time. I've got a list of questions that Alex Epstein has provided me. So if you like Alex and you like the way he thinks, he's going to push me into thinking of what are the kind of the Free Market Solutions for the various problems. So we will cover that tonight, 8 p.m. East Coast time. Please join me. It should be a fun show. And I think it's interesting how we deal with all these, and it relates to this question Frank asked about leaning towers and dirty air and dirty water, and wouldn't we chop down all the trees if we had free markets? If we had laissez-fait, why would anybody want a forest if we had laissez-fait? Wouldn't people just demolish all the forests and build department complexes? So that's today and then just a reminder that on Thursday we are going to have Jim Lennox here. We're going to talk about philosophy of science, his career, a teaching philosophy at a university and also discuss evolution. He's a specialist on evolutionary biology and Darwin and the genius that was Darwin and his contributions. So I'm looking forward to that one. That should take us out of a little bit of our comfort zone, things we usually talk about and should be really, really interesting. Alright everybody, I will talk to you tonight if not then tomorrow morning or tomorrow afternoon a great rest of your day. Those of you watching after the fact if you want to applaud you can contribute to the show through an applaud. Catherine says stickers are not working. Yesterday people had problems with the super chat. Not sure what's going on. Some people are using the stickers fine. So I don't know why Catherine stickers not working for you. Jeff thank you equal to reality. Thank you. Frederick, thank you. Those are all stickers. Anonymous user, thank you. Sylvanas, thank you. Jeffrey, thank you. Those were all stickers. So for some stickers are working. Again, $3 from everybody watching right now gets us where we need to be. Thanks everybody.