 radical, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is the Iran Book Show. All right everybody, welcome to Iran Book Show on this Thursday. It's kind of afternoon here, hope everybody is having a fantastic week, it's weekend soon, traveling to California on Saturday. Yeah thanks for being here, we've got an interesting show today I think, it's going to be fun. Let's see, announcements, yeah remember you can use the super chat to ask questions, you can support the show by going to patreon by subscribe star or iranbrookshow.com slash support, but patreon is great, that's where most of the growth is happening these days, but feel free to use any other platform you want in order to support the show, really, really, really appreciate it. We have a new sponsor and that is the well new slash old sponsor and that's the Iran Institute is back as a sponsor of the show and they are currently running the Atlas Shrug Desai contest, so this is an essay contest open to 12th grade college and graduate students worldwide, anywhere in the world, you can apply, you can read the novel and write an essay, you can win $10,000, the number one prize is $10,000, 800 to 1600 word essay on the philosophical themes from the book, the specific themes to write on, you also, if you haven't read Atlas Shrug yet, you can get a free copy of Atlas Shrug as part of this deal, so to do all this, you have to go to iran.org slash start here, the link is below in the description, iran.org start here and the deadline to enter the contest is November 6th, November 6th, all right, let's see, so there's some interesting stories today, a couple of them are going to take a little bit of time, so let's start with, I think the story from the Supreme Court, or not found the Supreme Court, but about the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court is, let me just close all these windows that are open now, all right, the Supreme Court is about to hear, it started yesterday actually, or actually Monday started hearing cases for the new term, and what stands out about this term is it's going to be, given the cases that are going to come in front of the court, it's going to be a real opportunity for this court to potentially completely and utterly restructure or, well restructure the existing regulatory framework. The administrative state is going to come before the court in a variety of different functions of it, and the court is going to have to say, yeah, everything's fine, keep going, keep doing what you've been doing, which is what they've been doing for 20 years now, or the Supreme Court could say, you know what, a lot of what's been going on with these regulatory agencies, a lot of what's been going on with the administrative state regulations is unconstitutional. This is huge, and of course the left and even some conservatives are panicking over this, because there's a real potential that the the Supreme Court is going to completely overhaul the regulatory infrastructure of the US government. Now, I think the probability of them doing that is small. You basically have two judges that are clearly committed to this, and that is Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. Gorsuch in particular, this is his issue. Clarence Thomas, this has probably been his issue forever, so he's been on this site forever, but now he's got an ally in Gorsuch who is clearly and equivocally wants to completely unwind the regulatory state as we know it. The question is, can they get another three judges to support them? I fear that many of these court cases are going to go against Gorsuch and Thomas by maybe a seven to two, six to three, five to four vote. They might get a lead on some of them. I just don't see how they're going to get the others on board with such a revolutionary stand, and this would be a revolutionary stand. I mean revolutionary stand, I mean standing by the Constitution, actually adhering to the Constitution, actually implementing it. That's the revolution. So I want to go over the three cases quickly. We're not going to deep dive here. We will as they get, particularly when the decisions come down, we'll dig deeper into them. But I just want to give you a sense of what these cases are and the implications. But these are three cases to watch this term. The three most, maybe most important cases to watch. I mean, there are others. This is going to be a big term. They've taken on a lot of stuff. But these three are the ones related to the administrative state, to the regulatory state. And they're the ones to watch and they have a wide-ranging implications. Now the first one is called Loper Bright Enterprises versus Raimondo. And this is an opportunity for the court to overturn a decision that the court made in 1984. And the deciding factor in that court decision was Justice Scalia, the legendary conservative justice who I've never liked. And in that case, Chevron versus NRDC, and now it's called Chevron, and it's referred to as Chevron. Basically in 1984, the court established that courts must defer to regulatory agencies reasonable reading of a statute when it's reviewing regulations rather than override the regulatory agencies' expert judgment. Because Congress tapped the agency, not the courts, to fill in blanks left by legislation. Such a legislation. The legislation does specify everything. It's left stuff open. The Chevron says it's the regulatory agency's responsibility to fill in the gaps, to interpret the law, and to basically be a legislature in filling in the holes that the legislature, Congress, didn't actually do. This is hugely controversial at the time, but because Justice Scalia, the conservative kind of guru, was the guy who really orchestrated Chevron, nobody's really challenged it. Well, Neil Gorsuch clearly is going to vote against Chevron here. He really wants to overrule Chevron. This is his biggest thing coming to the Supreme Court, was to try to do whatever he could to overrule Chevron. Gorsuch's argument is going to be, look, it's the legislature's job to legislate. It's Congress's job to legislate. It is unconstitutional of them to delegate that responsibility to an executive branch agency, i.e., a regulatory agency, to do their job for them. It's just illegitimate. The court should rule that the regulatory agencies do not have the power to legislate. If Congress intends for a particular action to be taken, Congress needs to legislate that action. Now, I don't think this is going to be overturned, but again, Gorsuch and Thomas are clearly going to vote to overturn Chevron. If it's overturned, if it's overruled, it puts thousands of regulations in legal jeopardy. I mean, thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands. It thrusts industries into economic uncertainty, what it does apply, what it doesn't apply, and it makes the courts, it enhances the court's power to ultimately decide what Congress meant or what didn't mean, what it legislated, what it didn't legislate. Now, almost every newspaper article out there is against overturning Chevron, as you'd expect. Ooh, it's going to create economic uncertainty, we are told. It's going to throw regulations into this massive uncertainty, this void, and it's going to bad for the economy and bad for it. And it's going to enhance the power of the courts. And I go, no, no, no. Overturning this will give the courts the appropriate power that they have. It will send an indication to Congress that they can't shook the responsibility of writing laws that are ambiguous and open-ended with the expectation the regulatory agencies will fill it in. And economic uncertainty is good. It means that there's more possibilities for freedom, more possibilities for liberty, more possibilities for less regulation, which industry will embrace and it will actually be a very positive thing for markets and industries and the world more generally. This of all the cases before the court that relate to these kind of issues, this is the most important, overruling Chevron would be massive and a massive move towards liberty, towards freedom, towards return to constitutional rule in this country, to constitutional order, to respect for the Constitution, the executive branch, being the executive branch of the legislature, being the legislature, and the courts making sure that they all follow the Constitution. So I'm excited, but I'm pretty pessimistic about the possibilities, but it is going to be great to see Gorsuch's opinion about this. I think it's going to be, I think it's going to be good and I think it's going to be strong. So that's one. Second one is CFPB, the Consumer Financial Protection Board versus Community Financial Services Association. Basically, the court here is going to decide whether CFPB as constructed today is constitutional. It is responsible for consumer protection in the financial sector. It is a baby of Elizabeth Warren. It was created as part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act. It is one of the most abusive, destructive, and overbearing regulatory agencies that exist. And the issue with the CFPB that is going to be decided by the court is that the CFPB does not get its funding from Congress. Again, Congress has shook the responsibility of allocating funds to the CFPB. The CFPB receives funding directly from the Federal Reserve. Now, this is questionable in a sense that it supposedly, the challenges at least claim, it violates the Constitution's Appropriations Clause. Congress is supposed to appropriate money for the executive branch. And to delegate this to the Federal Reserve without standards is absurd and ridiculous. Now, I believe the consumer financials, you know, the CFPB is unconstitutional on many other grounds as well. It's just a horrific agency and one of the worst interferences in markets that the government involves. But here they're going after the financing. So here the court could basically say, look, this is a violation of the Constitution's Appropriations Clause. If Congress wants the CFPB to exist, it needs to figure out a funding mechanism. It needs to appropriate funds for the CFPB. It can't just delegate this to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve, by the way, is right now because of interest rates losing huge amounts of money and might at some point have a negative balance sheet. How does it fund something when it's anyway? It funds it because it can put money in. It can put no end of money. Again, this is a big case. It's a separation of powers case. It's a case that could basically dismantle the CFPB and destroy it. And that would be amazing. And the chances of Congress agreeing to recreate the CFPB, given divided government, are very small. So this could be the elimination of the CFPB, as we know it at least. I'm super excited about that. The CFPB is nothing but an evil institution of statism, and it has done nothing but interfere with markets and interfere with the well-functioning of financial markets. I know the Left loves this organization. It has already collected huge numbers of fines, and it's already been very, very, very active. I view that as almost all negative and destructive. It would be fantastic if the court ruled against the CFPB. Again, my fear is that it won't. Again, the middle-of-the-road Republican nominees on the court are probably not courageous enough, not committed enough, not intellectual enough to actually take out the CFPB. But it would be amazing if they did. And finally, another element of this, which again, massive consequences, massive consequences. This is a case called SEC versus Giochessi. I'm probably mispronouncing some of the names, but not important. It involves an action for investors fraud brought by the government before ALJ. Now what is an ALJ? An ALJ is an administrative law judge. So it is an executive judge appointed by the regulatory agency to make decisions with regard to violations of administrative law, administrative law. It's a administrative tribunal of the United States. It's to provide a neutral form to resolve certain administrative disputes. And every regulatory agency has these administrative ALJs. And the question is, so this is the SEC under the SEC, the Securities Exchange Act, created an ALJ for the SEC. The Securities Exchange Commission won the verdict and it was a $300,000 fine against this hedge fund founder and his advisor. In the lawsuit that followed, the plaintiff claimed that the ALJ violated the constitution. That is, the constitution does not allow for administrative legal judges, right? So legislative judges. So again, this is huge. There are about 2,000 ALJs employed by the federal government across a range of agencies. Imagine shutting those down and actually, I don't know what the alternative is, but actually forcing these kind of disputes into regular courts that would slow the process down, which is great, and it will cripple some of these regulatory agencies, which is great. And these are kind of judicial systems created within regulatory agencies that, again, don't function in the same way as the constitution, based on the constitution. Think about it. The SEC has its own legislature. Is the SEC even constitutional? The whole alphabet super agencies are kind of a fourth branch of government. I mean, the Federal Reserve, you could argue, is a fifth branch of government that the constitution does not account for. So dismantling any aspect of these is, I think, a win. And now it will create havoc within the regulatory world. But it will actually, everybody will have to take a step back and figure out what is needed, what is not, what is necessary, what is not, and figure out these, figure out if we're going to have regulatory agencies, they're going to have to be scaled back and they're going to have, they're going to have a lot less power and Congress is going to have to take up much more responsibility. Now again, I expect all these three cases for the good to lose and for the status quo to win, but they will get more judges voting than usual. And it's important that these be, come to the forefront and that there be decisions and minority opinions and this is how ultimately you change things. So I think this is huge. So hopefully, hopefully we get some rulings out of this that are positive. And you can tell that it's huge by the fact that everybody's panicking about it. You've got, you've got articles saying, oh, healthcare is, it's the end of healthcare in America because, because, you know, these provisions support the regulatory administrative state with regard to healthcare. And if they go away, that's going to die. You know, and, and, but generally that without the CFPB without these things, chaos will rain. And unfortunately, I think those arguments are going to win out, but, but they're driven by fear. And, and let's hope that there are a few people out there. Well, we know Gorsuch and, and I think Thomas will take the right stance on, on these. All right. This is pretty funny story. Newk Siberia. So the, the, the movement to Newk Siberia is not actually emanating from the West. It is not actually emanating from Ukraine, but it's actually an idea of the Russian, Russian today editor-in-chief, Margarita Simonian. She basically suggested that maybe we should nuke our own territory somewhere over Siberia, where it wouldn't cause any damage and it wouldn't impact human, human beings living there. But that this would be a, a, a, a threat, a warning to the West that be careful people, be careful. We can use nukes and we're willing to use it. Imagine, we're willing to use it in our own territory. Imagine what we will do to you. Now you can imagine. I mean, she says this on live TV and has not retracted it. Indeed, she is, she has filed a, a, a defamation lawsuit about people trying to misinterpret what she actually said about, about all of this, but about the new king of Siberia. So this is, this really happened. She said, what will happen if all of the electric devices and satellites would be knocked out, right? Now, because of this nuke exploding about the territory. Now, I mean, politicians of Siberia are going nuts. People in Siberia are going crazy. This is a deep insult towards Siberians. They are arguing she needs to apologize to the residents of Siberia at the very least. The Kremlin and Putin, who are big allies of, you know, of Margarita and Russia today are backing off. They don't want to have anything to do with this. They're pretending they never heard about it. It's distancing itself. And they have, they've made it clear that they have no intentions of setting off a nuclear device anyway, that they have a moratorium on nuclear testing. And, and none of this is going to happen. They actually now want to probe her comment, you know, have an official probe about what she said and what she said. And it's actually quite funny. The Chechen leader, on the other hand, you know, Ramzan Kadyrov, the nutcase from Chechnya, who just is, is, is angling for war at any opportunity. Ramzan supports Margarita. So he thinks this is a good idea. And supportive of Margarita, Simone Jan's idea of setting off a nuclear bomb above Siberia somewhere as a threat somehow to the West. So you've got the nutcases, the nutcases all rallying around this completely complete stupidity. You know, he's arguing that what she really meant was that even with such an unfavorable development of events as a thermonuclear blast, Russia compared to the rest of the world will not lose strategically, not what she said, not what she intended, but even that's nonsense. She literally said we should blow up an atomic bomb. Anyway, it's kind of funny to read all the newspaper stories about this, but hopefully you found that modally entertaining, nuking Siberia. Russians nuking their own country. All right, let's see if we can do this. So I want to go over, we don't have a lot of time, but we'll do what we can. I want to go over quickly this. I want to go over quickly the case, the fraud case with Trump. I talked about a few days ago, but I kind of went through it very fast. So I want to do it a little slower and talk about what actually is going on here, what the case is, and what basis is it being filed. So this is just to update you on where it's coming from. I mean, all of this stems from 2019 testimony in front of Congress by Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen. In that testimony before Congress, basically Cohen, who had all kinds of withering criticism of Trump and of himself, basically that testimony included claims that Trump had inflated the value of his assets and the Trump organization engaged in systematic fraud. Now, this testimony, him saying this, set off a New York state fraud investigation that ultimately culminated in New York Attorney General's current case against Trump. So the civil complaint that was filed last September in civil, not criminal, alleges that Trump committed fraud for years by inflating the value of his property and other assets by hundreds of millions of dollars in order to receive better loan terms, low insurance premiums. There are seven counts called causes of action related to the alleged fraud, naming Trump, Don Jr. and Eric, as well as two Trump organization executives in the complaint, along with 10 Trump business entities used to control and operate commercial assets like Trump's New York golf clubs and Trump Town. So that's the course, the case is being brought under a New York law. Let me just find the New York law. Who wants to end? This is a New York specific law that allows the Attorney General to make such a claim against the business that he believes is committing fraud. It does not have to show that anybody suffered a loss. It does not have to show that there was a party that actually was damaged by the fraud. All it has to show is that the actual business engaged in fraud in presenting what do you call it, false information in order to receive some kind of benefit. So as compared to usual fraud, usual fraud cases, and this is section 2312 of the New York executive law, fraud doesn't need to have caused damages or involve a victim for the Attorney General to find a personal entity liable for fraudulent conduct. And the case we're looking at is brought under that title. Unlike an ordinary fraud case in which the party suing must prove laws, economic laws, the special law empowers the Attorney General to ask for a court to grant both an injunction against the continuation of the conduct and a money remedy not based solely on the loss of the party suing but rather focused on gains to the party benefiting from the proven fraudulent conduct. And how is fraud defined? It's defined pretty broadly as any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretence, false promise, or unconscionable contractual provisions. All of these could be deemed as fraud. What the Attorney General in New York is asking for is $250 million penalty, which she estimates as the Trump gain from the fraudulent activity. And the primary fraudulent activity here is misrepresenting the value of the properties of, you know, basically his net assets, but primarily of properties like his condo he claimed was 30,000 square feet. It's only 10,000 square feet or 10,996 square feet or, you know, different Winchester County estate, which he claimed was worth $261 million and four different appraisals showed that it was $30 million and on and on and on. And some have quibbled about some of the appraisals, like the one of Mar-a-Lago. Most agree about these appraisals that he provided were completely out of the ballpark. Now, Trump claims that, look, the contract had a provision saying, don't rely on my appraisals. Do your own, you know, by a be aware kind of provision. The law in New York says those kind of provisions don't count. You still have to be truthful in what information you provide. So, again, we could argue about whether this fraud law is a legitimate law that is an objective law, a law that you would support in a rational society. I think legal experts would have to weigh in here and decide whether it was appropriate or not. But it is a law in New York, clearly the law in New York. Appraisals are not subjective. There's methodology behind appraisals. You know, so to call them subjectives is ridiculous. There's actually methodology, you know, that determines by law what a legitimate appraisal is. So you can't just get away with claiming that it's subjective. What surprised I think a lot of people is that the judge last week, basically, or last month, last week, last month, same thing, ruled against Trump's motion to dismiss the case, or Trump had filed a motion to dismiss the case, and partly ruled in favor of the Attorney General's motion for summary judgment. Not completely, but summary judgment means we don't need a trial here. You know, I've already ruled. This is obvious. And basically decided that at least on the question of fact of where the fraud was committed, he ruled that absolutely fraud had been committed. And as a consequence, he ordered the defendant's New York Business Certificate to be cancelled, that is Trump's and Trump's business entities to be placed in a receivership. This is a huge loss for Trump. It basically says that he's lost control over his properties in New York, which is massive. Now, there's lots of other details, and there's, of course, the trial is going on right now. The trial is complaining that it's not in front of a jury, that it's only in front of a judge, but his lawyers never asked for a jury trial. So it's to the extent that he might have gotten one. He didn't even ask for it. And the square footage, you might argue that there's some disagreement about valuation, but you can't misrepresent the square footage by a fact of three, 30,000 instead of 11,000. That's absurd. Anyway, this is the basis of the judge claiming that it was fraudulent. You know, again, the legal defense is going to be, look, nobody took a loss here. The banks and insurance companies that were involved, nobody's complaining about this. There's no there, there. But even if there's no loss, that doesn't mean fraud did not happen. So I can understand the argument that Attorney General is making. It's going to be interesting to see how the case is ultimately settles, but it clearly looks like, I mean, on the main issue of fact, Trump has already lost on the issue of where the fraud was committed. And this trial is probably going to take months. By the way, the other thing about this is they don't have to show intent. They don't have to show intent. The law does not recognize the due diligence clause as basically eliminating your requirement to provide accurate information, or at least accurate within a scope of margin of error. Anyway, the reality is that this court is going to take probably weeks, if not months, that there are at least 27 witnesses, but the potential of 127 witnesses, it's basically going to rest on the specific language of executive law 6312 and whether they were violated, whether the law was violated or not. You know, already Trump has appealed the finding of fraud to a higher court, so all of this is going to be appealed. I don't think what this court decides ultimately will stand without appeal, whether the appeal court accepts the court or not. We'll see who knows how far up the chain this goes. I assume this has all been done in state courts. This could go to the New York Supreme Court, whether they will even review it or not, hard to tell. But that is the drama that's happening in New York. And you know, Trump is going to argue, of course he's going to argue, this is all political. There's no there there. This is just arming, what is it, weaponizing justice in our country, which is what he kept saying, and he keeps saying, he'll keep saying, and he keeps saying that through the election. You know, and if he wins, then he'll argue, see, but I defeated it. And you're still, but in a sense, it'll play even better for him if he loses, because then you'll say, see, they're after me, I'm a victim. I mean, it is stunning to me how a political, our entire political map now has turned into a map of victimhood, who can claim to be the biggest victim, whether it's the left and its long, long history of writing the victimhood train, or whether it is the right now and particularly Trump of, oh, my God, what a victim Trump is. And we should all feel endlessly sorry for him. All right, this is being long today, because we've gone a little bit more in depth on some of these stories. But we've got one more to go. But let me remind everybody, you only have three questions in the super chat. So let me remind everybody that this is your opportunity to ask me a question about anything, disagree with me, challenge me, present your own point of view. I'll read whatever you write. So this is an opportunity to do that. In addition, you know, in addition to, you can also support the show by using a sticker. Thank you, Jonathan Honing. Thank you, Gene. And thank you, Paul, for supporting the show in that way, value for value. We've got 80 people listening, you know, $3 from everybody, four, five, $10 from a few of you gets us to the target quite easily. All right, let's, oh, Euro energy, yes. So there is a brewing conflict between, I mean, I know this will shock you in Europe between Germany and France around energy. And as usual, with these kind of disputes, the Germans are wrong and the French are right. The Germans are wrong. But, you know, we'll see. But it's not clear who's going to win the dispute. And the dispute basically is centered around nuclear power, energy. They're trying to wrap a European wide strategy for energy. And that means, you know, a set of packages that provide subsidies and incentives and tax bakes and so forth, certain types of energy, and a focus on those type of energy, and with an attempt to grow basically alternative energy in an effort to decarbonize. France is saying, fine, great, let's do that. I mean, they're all statist, right? But France is saying, but the ultimate alternative energy and the one you should be subsidizing, not windmills and solar panels, we'll do that too. But the one you should really be subsidizing is nuclear, nuclear power. Of course, France gets, I don't know, over 80% of all its electricity from nuclear power today. And you know, why not more? Germany gets right now zero of its energy for nuclear power. So you can see the conflict, the conflict over which model is building windmills and solar panels, solar farms in Germany with it. I hate to tell it to the Germans. I think they know this, but the sun doesn't shine that often. Versus nuclear power, which is reliable, safe, relatively cheap once you get it running, there's no, there's nothing in the world that has a greater energy concentration than uranium. You know, nuclear power can just produces an abundance with a small amount of uranium. You can produce huge amounts of electricity. And France went from relying about for about at the peak, about 70% of its electricity in the mid-1970s. About 70% of electricity was produced by fossil fuels to today where it's under 10%. Under 10%. I mean, that should be the model. And every country can do this. There's nothing unique about France. And they did it in a relatively short period of time. From 1976, really, where they started on this building boom of nuclear power plants, well, they started earlier, but that's when they first started going online. To 1988, they went from 70% fossil fuels to under 10% of fossil fuels. So, I mean, that is amazing. So, I mean, France is insane about so many things with regard to environmental policy, tax policy, regulatory policy, investment policy, pretty much everything. You know, you can't fly airplanes now. You can't take commercial flight from a city if you could take a train with under, I can't remember, two or three hours or whatever. So, let me note, but in nuclear power, they're the good guys. Anyway, this is a big issue that is creating conflict within the European Union. And they're all at the bargaining table trying to figure this out. I mean, the solution is obvious. Europe should go nuclear. The US should go nuclear. The rest of the world should go nuclear. In the meantime, we should rely on fossil fuels and then primarily natural gas. And then, you know, while it takes us to build those nuclear power plants, we should deregulate massively so we can build them faster and cheaper. We should get micro nuclear, the small nuclear power plants. And that's the way you deal with pollution, with CO2, with everything, with everything. It ain't happening, unfortunately. All right, before we go to the questions, we've got a few questions here and hopefully we'll get more. I want to remind you that I managed to do this as a sponsor of the show. Right now, the taking entries into the Atlas Shrugged Essay Contest, you could win $10,000, $10,000 by if you win the Atlas Shrugged Essay Contest. It requires writing an essay 800 to 1600 words on a philosophical theme from the book. They provide kind of options. The deadline is November 6, so if you're going to submit an essay, you've got to start now. You can find information about this. You can find information about this at einrand.org slash start here, one word, start here. And you can see the different things that the Einrand Institute is promoting. This week, we're promoting the Atlas Shrugged Essay Contest. This is for high school, 12th grade, college and graduate students worldwide, anywhere in the world, $10,000. That is a lot of money you should try. Don't forget, enter the contest. And all of you should go to einrand.org, start here, slash start here, because there's a lot of stuff there about the Einrand Institute, a lot of programs, a lot of things you can do, register, download on there that I think you would all enjoy and benefit from. All right, Brie, the entire regulatory state was just made up by FDR one day. It is the poor state of history that makes people think it is necessary for the country to function. Everybody should read The Great Society by Amity Schlage. Yeah, I agree about reading Amity Schlage's book, The Forgotten Man, The Great Society. And yes, the regulatory state was, I mean, it has, I think it has some predecessors before. I think it has some with Wilson. Remember, the Federal Reserve, which is part of all this, was created in 1914, so before FDR. But during that period, basically from 1914 to the 1930s, that's it. That created it. And many of the financial regulations we have today were the 1933 and 1934 banking and securities acts. I mean, a lot of what we suffer today were consequence of what FDR did. And then if you think about all the regulatory, all the environmental regulations that we suffer from today, almost all of them, including the regulatory agencies that were created to deal with environmental issues, were all created under Nixon in the early 1970s. Little did we know that these agencies would become the monsters that they are today, like the EPA, all created under Nixon. So if you really think about that, from a regulatory perspective, the big things were FDR, Nixon, and then you get Bush, Sabin's Oxley, and you get Dodd-Frank. And those are the key, big regulatory things. And Republicans, Democrats, they all participate, all participate. It's funny that the biggest environmental regulations and the creation of regulatory agencies for environment were all done under a Republican. And then reinforced by, I think, Bush, Bush passed another one of those, what was it, Kleene, Animal, something. One of the big environmental regulations were also passed under one of the Bushes. And nobody questions it. I agree completely with Brie. Michael, what evidence are you looking at showing wages have been increasing? Oh, well, I mean, God, all you have to do is look at the right kind of graphs. You can find, where can you find the evidence? You can find it on the Federal Reserve website. I think the St. Louis Fed has this data. But some of the best articles on this, and you can find them out at the American Enterprise Institute's website. So if you go to the American Enterprise Institute and you search for wages over time, you'll find some graphs that illustrate this. And one of the key things to realize is that the graphs that show wages not increasing, the graphs that show wages over the last 30 to 40 years lagging, one of the things that they do, they do several things wrong. But one of the things that they do is they use the wrong inflation deflator. And it turns out that the, that which inflation deflator you use, so that you're looking at the dollar for dollar for the same measure, it makes a huge difference to the result that you're going to get in terms of, in terms of what actual wages have done over the last 40 years. Michael says, did you see a story about the Swiss journalist who received 60 days in jail for anti-LGBTQ hate speech comments? I did. I saw it briefly. I haven't looked into it. But yes, I mean, it's sickening. Remember, and this is Switzerland. Well, it's a bastion of freedom in Europe. But we talked, I talked to Fleming Rose, if you remember, about the decline of free speech in Europe. I mean, we focused a lot on Islam and things like that. But it's also true of LGBTQ, the hate speech laws in Europe are terrible. I didn't realize before reading this article that this was also true of Switzerland. I thought things would be better in Switzerland. But it turns out that yes, it is true. Apollo Zeus is taking me up on, I will read anything you write. And he wrote, Einwand was wrong on everything. So I, you know, that's a great sound bite for you to then post you on book has gone crazy. He actually said that. But there you have it. All right, I think that's all the questions that we have. We're way behind on the on the super chat. So if anybody wants to step in and get us to the goal, that would be that would be really nice. It would be helpful. Don't want to start October on such a downer. It's going to be a rough month anyway, because we're going to be traveling a lot with significantly fewer shows for the month. Let's not start it in a position where we're behind anyway. Andrew says, very good YouTube video by a right independence in an independent independence in an independent world topic, important topic. And uncle gives an impression on manners and in himself, his impressions on manners and in himself. Cool. I'll check that video out. Thank you, Andrew. All right, we got one more question by string a bell. Have you or will you pick up a copy of Thomas Sowell's new book, social justice fallacies? What are your thoughts and so I probably won't. Now, because I don't respect soul, I do immensely. But because I don't think I learn that much from it. I mean, social justice fallacies, social justice is a concept filled with fallacies. And I've been talking about it one way another for over a decade. I like Thomas Sowell a lot. He's one of the better economists thinkers out there. Obviously, we disagree on certain things. There's some conventionality to his economics that is unfortunate. He starts off, anyway. But he's generally free market, which is overwhelmingly free market, which is good. His social analysis on things like racism, culture, things like that is very good. And I've learned a lot from it. Generally, I think he's a spokesman for liberty and freedom and sanity over all. He's a little too much of a conservative for my liking, rather than a true free market classical liberal. But he's as good as we have in the world in which we live. So I'm a huge fan. Given that he's better than 99% of the intellectuals that are out there in the world. And I'll take him even though there's certain issues I might disagree with him on. And I might look at the book. There's just my pile of books to read. It's so vast. And I try to read books about things I really don't know anything about or know very little about. And I try to focus on that. That's why I probably wouldn't read it. There's a lot of books who I probably agree with that I just don't read because of that very fact. All right, Sylvanus has come in with 50 bucks. I mean, these news roundups have become meaning the goal has become dependent on Sylvanus, which I feel bad about. I mean, it would be great if some other people stepped up with him to get us. Thank you, Jeremy. Thank you, John. Thank you, Michael. Thank you, Shelley. All of you also stepped up with stickers to get us closer to the goal. So we're doing much, much better because of Sylvanus in terms of reaching the goal. Those of you who'd like to support the show monthly, which is better for everybody, I think, you can do so at youronbookshow.com slash support or Patreon. Patreon is probably the easiest for everybody. And those of you who don't like Patreon, don't like PayPal, there's always subscribe star where you can do it as well. So please subscribe on a monthly basis that gives a certain predictability to cash flows. And, you know, I'm working to, if I can get those numbers high enough, we're still far from that number, then we can make super chat less important and we can also get rid of ads. But if people keep asking me when is that going to happen, it will happen when we get those numbers high enough, but they're not going high enough yet. So maybe the day will come and we're going to try to do stuff to make that day come. We are getting more subscribers. That's good. Subscriptions are rising. And I think revenues will follow. All right. Thank you, everybody. I really appreciate the support from all the superchatters and the stickers and the questions. I hope you enjoyed the show. I'll be back tomorrow, probably at the same time. And don't forget tonight. Don't forget tonight. Really, really important. And that is that Harry Binswanger will be on. We'll be talking about what makes Ayn Rand the only one out there talking about real philosophy. You know how philosophers accuse of not being a real philosopher? Well, what makes her the real philosopher and the rest of them pseudo philosophers? So we'll talk about that. Apollo Zeus wants to redeem himself. So he wrote Ayn Rand was right on most things. That's good to know. Apollo Zeus will have to find out from you at one of these opportunities, what you think she was wrong about. Savanas just stepped in with another $50. So thank you, Savanas. He's committed to getting us to target on these news roundups. And I really appreciate that. He says, don't worry about Iran. I'm pretty introverted. So I have fun spending where I do. I really appreciate that. All right. And Andrew asks, the news roundups have substantially replaced my news intake. Would be interested in how many people have done the same. Also, Trump would lie about what he ate for lunch. Yes, he would, you know, just for fun. Never mind if he thought he could get something in return, something out of it. What do you think motivates his compulsive lying? I think it's what gives him a sense of control. And I think the fact that he can get away with it, I think he gains, he's fundamentally a privacy of consciousness mentality, which I think a lot of people are degrees of it. But for him, he's primarily motivated by a privacy of consciousness. And one of the things of privacy of consciousness mentality needs is this sense of efficaciousness over reality. That is, I can make stuff up and get away with it. And that confirms to him that reality doesn't really matter, that only matters what happens in his head. And look, he's gotten away with it most of his life. He's gotten away with it, you know, because he had a rich dad, because, because, you know, all kinds of reasons, because people around him never called him on it. Because, because he had a lot of political pull, he got away with it because he captured the imagination of Americans. And they were willing to let him do anything. And he was willing to get a rep. But the way you you get a sense of control over reality is you say, Well, what actually happened didn't happen. And nobody calls you on it. Nobody calls you on it. And that's kind of gives you a sense of, Okay, my, my, I'm, my, my privacy of consciousness is real. It's true. It's, it's actually there. Right. Reality doesn't matter. So psychologically, and philosophically, it's this privacy of consciousness mentality. And, and I think he has it in space. And I know other people who have it. It's, it's unbelievably destructive to self and to anybody around them. Because they literally make it all up. And reality, the truth is not a judge of anything. What the only thing that matters is what they say matters is what they want to believe matters. I mean, it's a whole topic, which we should have, we should talk about with our philosophers at some point, and get get insight into, all right, John, just put us over the, the, the threshold of reaching our goal. So thank you, John, really appreciate it. Guys, go on to ironrad.org slash start here and check out all the programs and all the goodies available there. I will see you tomorrow tonight with Harry Binswanger. Bye everybody.