 We are going to jump into, okay so the question today is, and it's related to Jason's question, white intellectuals generally, with the exception of the Walter Williams of the world, why do they hate capitalism? Why do they reject capitalism? So for that we're going to turn to the Joe Rogan show and to his interview with John Mackey. Those of you who don't know John Mackey, John is the CEO of Whole Foods. He sold Whole Foods to Amazon but remained CEO of Whole Foods. He was the founder, the entrepreneur, the guy who built up the business. So one of the great entrepreneurs of his generation, very successful, lives in Austin, Texas. Whole Foods is based in Austin, Texas, is, considers himself a libertarian, considers himself a free-market guy, a capitalist, but thinks that capitalism is badly marketed and is the author of something called Conscious Capitalism and now a new book out that's called Conscious Leadership that we will be actually debating him about Conscious Capitalism in February or May. I'll get you more information once I have it regarding the debate. And so he's the author of this Conscious Capitalism idea, like most libertarians, he's red-eyed, kind of likes her but thinks she's too harsh, doesn't like the whole selfishness thing, doesn't like the self-interest thing, wants to soften everything down. But he's a real, you know, he believes in free markets, very much so. So we're going to watch and see how he addresses this intellectuals issue. I'm going to tell you what I think we might watch a video from Hayek where he talks about this. Hayek and William F. Buckley, there's a treat for you. And we'll do that. Now remember, please don't leave without liking the show. So let's try to get this up to 100. We're at 78 likes right now. We could easily be at 100 given how many people are watching live right now. We could be at a lot higher than that if you all went over and just press that like button on your iPhone, on your iPad, on your computer. It's really easy to do. Those of you who are not subscribed to the show, it'd be great if you subscribed. It'd make it easier for you. You'll get notifications about when we put up videos, when I go live, or when we put up one of the shorter videos. So don't forget to subscribe to the show. And if you click on the bell, you get notified for when we're going live. And then finally, those of you who listen frequently and appreciate the show and get some value out of it, it would be great if you supported the show, showed value for value as in a trade between us. And you can do that on your on bookshow.com slash support. You can do it on Patreon. You can do it on Subscribestar. You can do it on locals. Those are my preferred ways because they all involve monthly commitments, which I prefer that way. I have predictability in terms of long-term money coming in for the show. And of course, if you're on YouTube right now and you also want to get your questions answered, you can use the Super Chat. And through the Super Chat, both contribute to the show and get me to answer your questions. So that's great. Drew says, go back on Lex Friedman's show and inspired me to read Iron Man. Great. I mean, my purpose of going on Lex Friedman's show was to inspire people like you to read Iron Man, so I'm glad you're doing it. I'm hoping to be back on Lex Friedman's show. Lex invited me to come back. Next time I'm in Boston, I will be hopefully in Boston sometime in the next six months. And we'll sit down and do it again. Lex is also talking about moving to Texas. If he moves to Austin, I'll probably be in Austin sooner than I'll be in Boston. And I go to Austin more frequently than I go to Boston. So there's a lot going on in Austin all the time. So Austin is one of my favorite places to go. So we'll definitely do that. So I'll definitely be on Lex's show again if you'll have me. I'm making an assumption here if you'll have me. I assume you will. And of course, I'd love to be on Joe Rogan's show. That's the other one I'd really like to be. Although I think I actually think that Lex is a better interviewer. You know, Joe Rogan has a larger audience. So that's the way it goes. All right, here we go. Let me put my headphones on because I have to hear this too. And I thank you. Thank you for the contribution. That's great. And you can contribute without even without asking a question. All right, let's let's listen to John Mackie and Joe Rogan. And we'll see how many seconds you should run a betting pool. How many seconds will actually let them speak before this? Somebody says I should debate David Friedman. No, I mean, that would be it's such it would be such a waste of time. Anyway, I'm not going to get the whole David Friedman thing. I know David. Here we go. The Joe Rogan experience back to the subject of capitalism, capitalism and Marxism and socialism. This right now we're in a wave of this, right? It's become more popular now. I would say over the last, particularly during the Trump administrations, the concept of socialism, at least, has become more more publicly discussed than any time that I can remember in my life. Why do you think that is? So that is interesting. I think that Joe is identifying something real. Socialism is being discussed now more than ever. And it's it's it's more popular maybe than ever in American history. It is it is a huge, huge issue the last few years. And it's definitely increased significantly. You know, and I think it does have something to do with Trump is somewhat of a backlash on the left to Trump. But it's also just a consequence of the fact that the left has dominated universities for 100 years and every decade, it gets worse every decade, it's bigger every decade, it's more substantial. You know, Hutter says he thought Joe was going to be on here. No, I mean, there's no way I'm going to get Joe on my show. And if Joe was on my show, we'd have a lot more than 168 live people watching. I mean, that it would blow up my my live stream would blow up if Joe was on here. But that would be really cool if Joe was on the show. No, I'm showing a video of Joe and commenting on it. So sorry. So it is true. Socialism and otherwise this is a consequence of 100 years of teaching leftist ideology, teaching socialism, teaching that capitalism is bad over and over and over again and getting more and more and more radical and being more and more and more principled on the bad ideas. That has an impact. It just has an impact. But that's not John Mackey's answer. I think it's because the generation that's coming up is I mean, you have to understand the academic community is is I always say the intellectuals have always been the enemy of business. So that's good. I like the fact that what Mackey does is the immunity goes to the source of where the problem is. And I agree completely the source of the problem is intellectuals. The source of the problem is the fact that intellectuals are antagonistic to capitalism and have been for a long time. And and I agree with John completely about that. It's it's our universities that are at fault in turning this country further to the left is making the left more popular. And by the way, making the right less intellectual making the right less pro-capitalist. So the intellectual class overwhelming with a few exceptions like Walter Williams are overwhelmingly anti left. And that's absolutely the reason why the culture is moving anti left. But the question is now, and this John is going to try to answer this, is why are the intellectuals such leftists? It took 13 seconds. Stephanie counted 13 seconds before I interrupted. This is this is just, you know, this is what our dinner table was like. You know, on Friday nights when the whole family was together at dinner, it took about 13 seconds before I interrupted everybody else from the age probably of 12 on. That's how I became, I guess, who I am. We're an argumentative family and argumentative people, if you will, an argumentative culture that I come from. Certainly the enemy of capitalism. And but why is that? I think because in a in a market society, which has been rare in history, we haven't mostly had market societies, but they're not very important. So this is funny because this relates to, and I didn't even realize it when Michael asked the question, but this relates to Michael's question, right? So basically, he's saying it's because of status. In a market economy, they don't have a lot of status. And what matters in life to them is status, so that they're anti-capitalist, because they don't have enough status. Now, as we'll see, we'll go through this. This is the problem with many libertarians. I won't say, oh, but many libertarians, most, I'd say, is while they get that the intellectuals are the enemy, they don't get why. And in that sense, they don't get the wall of fundamental philosophical ideals. They just don't wish intellectuals because that's at the universities. And then they have to make up economic explanations for it, like status and money. Because people are not motivated, primarily, I would argue, by status and money. There are other things that motivate people. There are other things that determine why people would be pro-anti-capitalism. But those are philosophical ideas, philosophical ideas. In a market society, the intellectuals aren't very important, generally not as important, no. But aren't they the ones that inspire the minds of the people that create and maybe innovate in the industry? They don't have the same social status that the entrepreneurs have. Elon Musk or Steve Jobs or Jeff Bezos. So you think it's an ego issue, the social status issue? Think about it this way. You're going to school, okay? And the people that end up teaching at the universities were always the smartest kids in the school, generally. And they do well in school. I mean smart in terms of doing well in school. And they go on to college, and then they go and get a PhD, and that's all they've known is school. That's been their universe, right? And they excelled at it. And they were smarter than the other kids in school. And now these other kids, they go to college, and they get a degree in business, and they're in a fraternity, and they make a lot of friends in relationships, and they make more money than the intellectuals do. And that seems like that's completely unfair. It's a nice world that less smart people are making more money than the smart people do, and they have more status in the society. So it's about money and status. And it's sad that that's what somebody like John Mackey thinks, because it's not true. It demeans the realm in which the intellectuals deal with. It says their opposition to capitalism cannot be motivated by ideas. It cannot be motivated by the fact that they don't get capitalism. It has to be motivated by envy. Now it's, there's no question that for some of them it definitely is envy. For some of them status does matter. For some of them, many of them, they become intellectuals to begin with. They go to university. They become professors. Or they become haters of capitalism before they even become professors. For a variety of psychological problems, for a variety of psychological reasons that have to do with resentment and status and so on. But that isn't the core issue. What is it that intellectuals hate about capitalism? Is it that people make a lot of money? Just? You think that if we raise a, I don't know, wall tax to 10%, they'll be happy with capitalism? What they conceive of is capitalism. What is it exactly? Because let's say we gave all university professors a raise. Let's say we made them as rich. Would they, would their opposition to capitalism go away? A rich professors and their number of rich professors more likely to be supportive of capitalism than poor professors? I don't think there's a correlation there. I think some of these guys have become rich. I mean, and it is true that the social status of Steve Jobs is higher than the status of a Norm Chomsky. I mean, Norm Chomsky is revered by millions and millions of students, by his colleagues, by their other than intellectuals. Is he really suffering from so, now he's much poorer than a Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or Elon Musk, but social status wise. All the cool kids want to be with Norm Chomsky. So it's just not a convincing explanation and it's psychologizing. And the problem is that they don't want to deal with the deeper explanation. And Joe Rogan, you'll notice, is not buying this. He's not buying this as an explanation. I think, I think that's under, under, underlying it is a resentment or an envy of a society that doesn't judge them to be as important as they judge themselves. Or it doesn't pay them as if they're that important. But, you know, Rogan is not buying it. It's interesting, but I think it's a very flawed perspective. And first of all, the term smart is a weird term. I said smart in terms of school. I didn't say in terms of street smarts or ability to do things, to connect with people. There's emotional intelligence. I'm merely saying they're good at taking tests, writing papers, abstracting thoughts, essentially. Yeah, but this is what I'm saying. That just the term smart, it's almost like the problem is it's like a blanket term, right? It's like drugs. You know, like it applies to a bunch of different things that don't necessarily seem to be related. No, I mean, smart has a meaning, particularly if you define it. And I think, I think Mackie has. The people that are interested in that pursue that, the fact that they can understand that there's an, like Elon Musk is a great example. If you don't think Elon Musk is intelligent, you're either, you're in. You're not very intelligent yourself. You don't think Elon Musk is intelligent. You're delusional, or you're a liar, or you're in denial. It's one of those things. There's something wrong with the way you think. He's clearly intelligent. But there's people that call him a fool. And the guys running like four different businesses simultaneously, they're all successful. And he's innovating with when it comes to space travel in a way that you would assume that someone have to dedicate most of their life just singularly to that task, to be able to figure out past NASA how to shoot a rocket up into space and have it land, right? And then reuse it. No one's been able to do that besides him or up. I mean, Joe Gong is absolutely right in saying, wait a minute, these people don't really think they're smarter than somebody like Elon Musk. That can't be the reason they envy Elon Musk. And he's right. It's not. So he did it. And I think Jeff Bezos' company is doing the same thing to Blue Origin. Yeah. They're obviously two of the great entrepreneurs of this particular era. But I don't think Jeff Bezos is actually engineering these things. But if you think about it, the intellectuals have always disliked business. They've always discriminated against the merchant classes, the Jews in the West, Chinese in the East. There's really been no historical period where intellectuals praised business, maybe a little bit around the time of Adam Smith up until probably Ricardo and Malthus wrote in the early 19th century. And why is that? Because they've always thought they were smarter than the businessman and therefore should we have more prestige? I mean, he's really getting to the point. This is a long history. And what constitutes that history? What is true of that entire history? Why have the intellectuals always resented the merchant class? And in particular gamblers? It's for the most part, business people have been seeing they're disruptive. They change things. They upset the status quo. They innovate. Well, a lot of people. That's true. So why is that a problem for the intellectuals? The intellectuals can be disruptive. What is it about these changes that they find so important? It's threatening. It changes social status. It changes wealth. Social status. It's all about status. It's almost like capitalism is like a genie that got out of the bottle. And they're trying very hard to stuff the genie back in the bottle. Why is the question? I think if you think about it that way, you'll understand we're never going to win the intellectuals over. Really? Let me just say this. I think it's completely true. If we can't win the intellectuals over, we're lost. We're finished. We have no chance in the world of being successful. Our only chance. The way to change the world. Maybe it's not to win them over, but to replace them. To replace them. Don't worry, Yasser. I will tell you. Do you have any doubt I'm going to tell you? I speak in universities all the time. And the students, I'm an entrepreneur. I self-identify that way. Students love when I talk about conscious capitalism. I say you can do good and you can do well. There's no contradiction here. You're not. Here you go. This is at the core of it. He can't criticize the intellectuals because at the end he agrees with them. You can do good and you can do well. The moral, he says, can be the practical. The practical can be the moral. Under what conditions? Under what conditions? So as an objectivist, I say when you do well, you do good. Because how do you do well by creating values for other people? That's how business works. You create values that other people pay for. Why do they pay for it? Because it makes their lives better. So it's a win-win relationship. Trade essentially is win-win. They do better. You do better. You do better by making them better. That's the essential characteristic of business. But no, you can do good and do well. Not doing well is doing good. That's the fundamental difference. Between me, I mean one of the fundamental differences between Mimi and Mackie. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual, would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, wins or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism and impotence, and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist. All right, before we go on, reminder, please like the show. We've got 163 live listeners right now. 30 likes. That should be at least 100. I figure at least 100 of you actually like the show. Maybe they're like 60 of the Matthews out there who hate it. But at least the people who like it, you know, I want to see a thumbs up. There you go. Start liking it. I want to see that go to 100. All it takes is a click of a thing, whether you're looking at this. And you know, the likes matter. It's not an issue of my ego. It's an issue of the algorithm. The more you like something, the more the algorithm likes it. So, you know, and if you don't like the show, give it a thumbs down. Let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes. But if you like it, don't just sit there. Help get the show promoted. Of course, you should also share and you can support the show at your own bookshow.com slash support on Patreon or subscribe star or locals and show your support for all for the work, for the value, hopefully you're receiving from this. And of course, don't forget, if you're not a subscriber, even if you even if you just come here to troll or even if you're here like Matthew to defend Marx, then you should subscribe because that way you'll know when to show up. You'll know what shows are on when they're on, you'll get notified. Right. So, yes, like, share, subscribe, support, like, share, subscribe, support. There you go. Easy. Do one or all of those, please.