 Got it. See if anybody joins us a little later. The radical fundamental principles of freedom and rational self-interest and individual rights. This is the Iran Book Show. All right, everybody. Welcome to Iran Book Show on this Sunday afternoon in Puerto Rico. Hopefully everybody's doing well and having a great weekend. The music sounded weird today, metallic and a little off. I don't know if that sounded the same to you guys, but that's how it sounded to me. All right, today is Ask Me Anything Day. We've also, we've got a couple of panelists. We've got Jennifer and Adam here. I expect we're going to be joined by a few other people. We'll see if that happens. We have at least five people sign up for this. So we'll see if they see, we'll see if they show up and we're going to take questions from Adam and Jennifer. And then we're going to go to your super chat questions. So today's the day to ask me about anything. I would have a dollar amount you would like, but otherwise it's just going to be the Jennifer and Adam show. All right, let's get us started with Jennifer. You've, you want to get us started with a question? Okay. Yesterday, I think it wasn't the other day we were talking about the false alternative. It's a false alternative people give whether it's either human well-being or nature. I was thinking that that goes to show that they don't really care about human well-being because it's not either or, you know, like there's more bald eagles, for example, now than there was in the 60s. And there's also millions more people and more buildings and more industry. So you can do both. So to some extent, you know, but, but there are lots of species that have probably gone extinct. They're probably going to be a bunch of species that still go extinct. And I'm sure some of that is caused by human action. So what'll happen, I think, is that the species that have value to human beings, whether for aesthetic reasons or like the bald eagle, I think, or for, you know, consumption, right? We have a lot more chickens in the world today than we would if we didn't eat chickens. We have a lot more, you know, and they're probably in Africa. They've discovered that if you allow for hunting of certain animals and you privatize that and you protect the hunting and you protect the hood to make sure that there's going to be hunting. Then you get fewer poachers and you actually get more elephants or more lions. But you know, so I guess the consumption there is hunting. So if you can find a human value for the species, then, yeah, somebody is going to invest in it and somebody, a value to somebody, then they'll probably survive. But at the same time, it's absolutely true that we change nature and that we, quote, destroy some of it. Some people like virgin forests, then there are fewer virgin forests than there used to be. There are more forests, but there are fewer virgin forests. Now, some people like virgin forests rather than ordinary forests. So because they're more abundant, I don't know, whatever. So, you know, I didn't want to say yesterday that there was no tradeoff. There definitely is a tradeoff. But the standard for the tradeoff should always be human life, human values. And that should be the criteria by which we judge and evaluate whether we're successful with regard to the tradeoff or not. Yeah, and it's just a collectivist view too, because different individuals value different things. Like you said, if you value elephants, you might want to buy some for safaris or whatever. And then other people won't. So, you know, there's different, there's room for everything. They act like, no, it's only my way or that's it. Yeah, and if it turns out that you value something that not enough people value and you're not rich enough to keep it around, then it'll do out of existence. Yeah, that's like anything. So your whims don't determine, but the marketplace determines if there's enough interest, if it's valued enough or if there's enough money at the margin to keep it going, then it'll keep going. It's just like, you know, you might have a favorite restaurant that you value a lot, but if not, if other people don't like it, if other people don't go a lot, then it will shut down. Yeah, they just, they just want to force their values on you and they won't even discuss what we just said. Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. Thank you. Sure. Adam. Yes. My first big is life extension. You mentioned that you use one of the Elysium products. There's two supplements that were recommended by my gerontologist and, by the way, she's a research physician at UCLA, and she recommends coenzyme Q10, as well as Elysium basis. And the other Elysium products, there aren't really enough interaction studies in the literature to know that they are safe when taken together. Did you discuss this with your doctor and what does your doctor think? I mean, my doctor, I wanted something to enhance immunity, particularly given how much I travel and how many viruses and bacteria are probably exposed to all over the world. So she recommended Elysium format, which is an immune supplement. And, you know, we didn't, I didn't discuss with the studies and everything. But it's so personalized, right? Because you mentioned CoQ 10. I've taken CoQ 10 in the past and I get sick from it. I am allergic to, I get some kind of reaction, I get nausea. I took it for a long time and I couldn't understand why was I feeling so bad. And then as soon as I stopped taking it, I felt better and then it looks like I've been taking this NMN from Elevant. It's called Prime. And that caused nausea for me too. So, and the doctor recommended that. So I think that a lot of these things are personal, very personal in terms of your particular metabolism, particular gut bacteria, particular, you know, immune response. So I think you just have to, a lot of it's trial and error. And then, you know, in terms of interaction, I don't take a lot of other things. So I, you know, I'm taking. To follow up on that, with many of these compounds, it's probably possible to make them less reactive and less dangerous by just changing one or two amino acids in the peptide making up the protein. However, that makes it into an artificial drug, which would put it under the jurisdiction of the FDA, which would definitely say no, because their doctrine, which by the way was never legislated by Congress. It's just a presidential directive from President Bush, who was guided in this by Leon Kass, who might consider one of the most evil people around. Is that aging is not a disease. Therefore, artificial drugs and clinical trials in that area are absolutely prohibited. I mean, I agree with you and that's absolutely the case. The FDA won't allow for pharmaceuticals that actually promote life extension or fight quote aging because of everything you said because of Leon Kass and the biotech commission that was deployed in the bush. They document where they explain why they're generally against anti aging medication or anti aging treatment is one of the most evil documents ever written. And, but yes, this is this the world we live in. So what they have to do is they have to do natural quote supplements. They can't create. It's very difficult to create formulas that gain them very rigorous IP. As a consequence, the upside for profit is limited. And as a consequence, there's a lot fewer clinical trials. So, so not only do we don't we get the so called artificial. But we also let get a lot less research a lot less. You know clinical trials. So we know a lot less about these compounds and we know a lot less about the efficacy and to a large extent our doctors, as good as they might be. A lot of it is guesswork is what they don't really know with regard to aging. And it's a difficult topic anyway, because it's hard to do clinical trials for aging. But, but there's a lot of conflicting information but but yeah my my approach is take the things that are most that seem the most likely take them one at a time now I've learned so that I know which one I'm allergic to which one I'm not which one I tolerate which one I'm not. And keep playing around with them until I find a combination that's okay. And then, you know, I won't find I will never know if they actually extended my life or didn't. Because who knows how long I'd live without them and how long I'd live with them so. And that's your private head, but you're also the chairman of the Iran Institute. Why isn't this a major political issue for the Iran Institute. I consider it at least as important as abortion. And I've seen a lot of articles and videos on abortion, and so far not a single one on freedom to do the clinical work with life extension and modify the molecules. And make them more acceptable and so I mean I think I think in terms of the Institute, it's a question of choosing the topics to be discussed to a lot we don't do a lot of political topics. One of the reasons abortion is a big deal is because fine random was a big deal. And, you know, there's a big cases I think if Leon Casper is writing today and wrote that piece and publish that piece today. I think that you would come out with a rebuttal on that and and go after certainly I would on the show. I would take that that piece. I think I think they should pick some chooses where it can make a big difference, but I take your point I mean this is a good issue. It might be an issue that can attract a lot of people. Silicon Valley types, kind of the billionaires who invest a lot in in life extension, but you know there's no, there's no, there's no specific reason and part of it is the interest of the intellectuals at the Institute, you know they write on what they're interested in. Yes, but the Liam Cas memorandum is still in force, and because it is still nobody knows about it so a big part of why you write. People don't know about it. No, but one of the big reasons why you write is to gain attention, not to convince. So you're not going to gain attention by digging up a document for 2005 nobody cares. But you're going to get attention about a Supreme Court decision tomorrow if the Supreme Court took up a case relating to this issue. We would definitely comment on it you'd get a lot of attention on it so that the way you pick topics is not because you think that on any issue you're going to convince anybody. Indeed, I don't know if we can convince anybody in a motion, but you pick a topic with the idea of, you know, in a sense getting press, getting attention and getting people because of that to read Ayn Rand and if we thought we could get that with this issue. And I think maybe we can I think given given a generation now of, you know, billionaires investing in this maybe this would be something that they would pay attention to. So I'm hoping it up. It's a good point. That was my first. All right. Let's. Thanks, Adam. So let's, let's say a couple of questions from the super chat. We only got a couple of questions. And then, and then we'll go back to Jennifer and Adam. So, let's start with, with Robert. Robert says happy Sunday from a Jennifer super fan. Jennifer, you've got a super fan. My question, maybe I missed the explanation, but what's the story behind the new reason beaver your own book show YouTube member icons. I don't know. Catherine make that up. Who Catherine I think made that up. You know, so Robert Catherine and Christian do stuff without asking me. So I have no idea. I am completely in the dark. I'm probably more in the dark than you are about this. So, so no clue. Sorry, you wasted $20 for me to say, I don't know. But that happens once in a while because I don't know everything. It sounds like Jennifer knows more than I do on this on this. Let me check with Catherine and with Christian. Maybe we can get you an answer. All right, ginger, ginger. Thank you $50. Would you talk about what to look for in a financial advisor. What credentials, characteristics, any suggestions. Yeah, I mean, I would look for, you know, and we have we have a couple of financial advisors on who are who support you on book show. So if you write to me, I can probably get you their contact information. They're both I both recommended I've recommended both to people in the past so feel free to write to me and I can do that but I would look for somebody who have a experience but be has the general approach that for the most part, they can't beat them. They're not going to beat the market significantly. They can't time the market they don't know exactly when the market's going to go up and exactly when the market's going to go down. They, they take a diversified approach to markets. They want to very much understand your goals in your investing, what's your time horizon, what's your risk tolerance. For example, if the market goes down tomorrow 20%. How much sleep are you going to lose as a consequence. So my question is they should be asking you kind of how is tolerant are you, what's your time horizon, you know what are the assets you have. And then they should be steering you towards a diversified portfolio and the nature of that diversified portfolio would depend on your age and your risk preference and how many other assets and what where they're invested the other assets are. I might, I like financial advices that primarily focus on index funds and a variety of different index funds but some of them will also have a sort of managed accounts that they have a lot of experience in which they highly recommend and that's fine as long as it's, it's only a segment of what you're doing and you still get the broad diversification. You want to be in as many asset classes as possible. You want as wide. You want to be international you want as a wide as a diversification as possible and oh and the other thing is fees. Since your financial advisor is going to charge you a fee, you want to make sure that the funds they put you into a generally very low fee funds because otherwise you're paying a lot of money for the fund and a lot of money to the financial advisor. And no matter how good any of them are, you're never going to make a lot of, you're not going to match the market. So the fees are important. You know, and you have to like them. You know, one of the biggest one of the biggest roles a good financial advisor has is holding your hand. It's being a good psychologist with regard to your finances. It's somebody that tells you not to panic when the market goes down a lot. Somebody tells you not to try to time the market exactly. It's somebody that the tree to respect but that you trust and you like and that you can actually talk to it somebody that might be an advisor. You know, if you have a change in your family situation or if you want to buy a house or if you want if you want to splurge on something. So you want to pick somebody you really like and that you feel like you can really talk to. That's the other aspect of it. I hope that's helpful to Jeff. But email me at you on at you on book show.com. If you want specific names. All right, let's go back to Jennifer and Adam, and then we'll go back to more of the super chat questions. And to draw on your military experience. What do you think of the current phase of arms deliveries from the US to Ukraine, and also the replacement of arms that went from the former Soviet black countries now in NATO. Like Poland and Czechia and Romania to Ukraine, they need to be replaced with American weapons. And again, is that replacement going on fast enough, because my understanding is that the state National Guard in the US their 50 of them has a high Mars that's used for training on weekends. Yeah, and it's not used at all. When it's not used for training the National Guard on weekends, and we could be bringing in personnel from Ukraine and Eastern Europe to train them on the other days of the week. Yeah, no, you know we could be doing a lot more if we wanted to we'd have to devote money and resources and time to doing that. There is a limit on how many high Mars we can actually get to Ukraine at any given point in time they're not that many of them. There's also limited munitions, because they fire these rockets and you have to have an inventory of the rockets. Those are also not in abundance, the, you know, so the US is to evaluate how many how many it wants to keep on reserve although it's unlikely, unless Russia attacks a NATO country that the US is going to use high Mars anytime soon. But yeah, no, there's no question that all this has been slow and tentative and uncertain and, and our politicians don't know exactly what to make of the whole thing and they don't, they don't over commit. There's also the challenge as of training. Now we could bring them here but most of the training is happening in Europe. We're bringing a lot of Ukrainians the United States most of the training has happened in a place like Germany and Poland with equipment that is already there for NATO. I don't know why that is easier than bringing them to the US and then using the, the National Guard but I also know that the military in the US is super bureaucratic. It's super inefficient when it comes to these things. And they might be some bureaucratic constraints about training a foreigner on a National Guard thing during the weekday. I mean, who knows, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were kind of those kind of limitations on top of that. In terms of getting, you know, Russian equipment to the Ukrainians, old Russian equipment from, from the old Soviet block to the Ukrainians from Czech Republic and for Poland. You know, I don't know how fast that is going. You know, the Poland was going to give them the migs and then they weren't going to give them the migs and, you know, the US wouldn't replace them and then they would replace them. There's a lot of politics going on in the background. There's a lot of fear in the Biden administration of crossing some line that pisses off Putin that causes him to, I don't know, use tactical nukes or go after Poland or do something like that. There's real fear. There's no question that the United States, everything it's doing is tentative and slow and cautious and step by step. You know, so they send these weapons, they see what other Russians respond and they send more weapons and they see other Russians respond. So it doesn't surprise me that it's too, it's very slow, but it also true that the Ukrainians can only absorb so much at any given time, you can only train so many people. I don't know how we have very little insight through the research I've done into how many forces Ukrainians have in different divisions in, you know, we're trainable not trainable professional amateurs, all of that Ukrainians are purposefully not revealed that information we have a lot more information about the Russian forces than we do about Ukrainian forces. Maybe that's partially because nobody in the West wants to provide that information because they know the Russians can use it against the Ukrainians. So it's hard to exactly tell what is going on. But Ukraine, you know, should and could, could get a lot more of these weapons from the Europeans and Europeans could then buy the weapons systems from the US. I think, I think that's what the focus should be primarily. You know, we can send them a few of our very sophisticated weapon systems that are easy to train on like the Heimars. I don't know if we talked about the Heimars a few episodes ago. These are very accurate very sophisticated very fast, very mobile missile launches that are actually wrecking havoc on the Russians right now, destroyed a number of the ammunition dumps have killed a number of the generals have destroyed, what do you call it, command and communication and command centers. And if we can do Russian significantly, they are so much the light years ahead of where the Russians similar missile systems are. So the few that we've given the Ukraine's already been put to amazing use, and have inflicted significant damage on the Russians, if we give them more. This, this, this war would move a lot faster but again I don't know if Ukraine is in a position to absorb more of them it's it's really hard to tell what is going on exactly in Ukraine. That's what Lex Friedman did, and, and I should go to Kiev, and, and, and talk to them but I think my wife would kill me before I made it to the border. Jennifer is going no. Yeah, I get a lot more following if I get a lot more subscribers if I did some live shows from Kiev as the bombs. Okay, as a former tank crew member. How would you compare the US Abrams with the Korean paid to I understand that Poland recently decided to have a force that's two thirds K2 up armored with an additional two tons of reactive armor and one third Abrams. What do you think the comparison is. I mean I think that they're quite similar. I think if you take the Abrams, the Korean tank, the new German tank, and, and the Israeli Merkava, there's a lot of similarities. And, and the, the primary is what makes them particularly interesting is how much they care about keeping the crew alive versus the Russian tanks where they don't really care much about keeping the crews alive. So they have a lot more reactive armor, the Korean tank is is very so reactive armor. What happens with reactive armor is it's a plate that goes on the outside of the tank and it covers the entire tank, what covers the key strategic areas in the tank. And if an anti tank missile, or another tank shell from another from an enemy tank hits the tank. Even as it hits, instantaneously, this armor implodes. And what it does is by imploding, it takes that force that from from the missile coming in and disperses it. So what happens is you don't get penetration into the armor of the tank itself. She don't get penetration into where the troops are. It might still debilitate the tank, it might still slow it down. It might make it unoperable depending on where it hits and how many times it's hit, but it won't actually kill the crew. Right, so it's truly an amazing technology. It existed the Israeli army already had it in the late 1970s early 1980s it's probably a lot more sophisticated today. But it's, but the Russians don't have it I think some of the latest T 72s and maybe T 80s have it but they're not as they're not as good and they're not as as cautious and you can see. I don't know if you've seen the pictures from the damage T 72s in in Ukraine but some of the pictures unbelievable you see the torrent of the tank the section that turns around. If you hit if you hit the tank just write this thing, it the whole tank implodes and the torrent just flies into the sky and there's some videos of this thing just going up and describe you just imagine what's happening to the people inside the tank they're torn to shreds. So, you know, I my guess is, and I don't know much about the Korean tank but my guess is that it's pretty. You know, comparable to the Abrams in terms of a speed firepower in protecting and protecting the crew, my guess is that Poland probably wants to diversify sources. It's probably good for most countries not to have one source for all the, all their weapons but you don't want to over diversify because then you have to train your people on multiple weapon systems so if you have two or three suppliers that's pretty good. People typically has Abrams, and it has its own tanks. I don't know if they still produce them a cover. That was the tank that they started producing in the late 70s early 80s. And they've got more modern versions of it but I don't know how much they're producing on it. All right, thanks. Thanks, Adam, Jennifer. I think it's a cliche when people will say they regret more of the things they didn't do than the things they did because the things you did, you know how it came out and things you didn't do, you don't know. For most people, it's not a cliche, it's real. I think most people live dull, boring, uninteresting lives and I think they know it. And they, they don't know what they should have done. It's not like they have, they sit back and they rationally evaluate, oh I should pursue these values instead of this. But they get the sense that they're not happy, they're not fulfilled. There's a lot they haven't seen in the world, there's a lot they haven't done. And maybe the values that they regret not pursuing are the wrong ones. That doesn't really matter. What they really feel is the emptiness of unfulfilled life and I think that is what is driving the responses. And you see, and the movies, right, emphasize this. I mean, it's a cliche in the movies, right? You know, go do it because you'll regret the things you haven't done. Well, maybe, but if I do it and something bad happens to me, you know, then, but I don't think it's a cliche in life. I think people do land up regretting all the things they could have done and didn't do. Again, more vague, fuzzy kind of notion of vague fuzzy kind of sense about life than it is specific things, right? But for some people it is, you know, I married too young, I married too late, I should have married that person, not this person. I could have gone on a trip to Africa, I didn't do it. I could have had, you know, I should have studied electrical engineering, I could have been in, you know, softwares that I got this boring job, I don't know, building bridges or whatever. You know, so I could have left my comfortable job and started a company. I had the opportunity, my brother-in-law suggested it, and I wimped out. So there's lots of those kind of situations where people feel like they could have should have, but what they really know is life is no, it didn't turn out the way they thought it was, particularly when they were teenagers, when you're idealistic, when you think amazing thoughts about your future and you think you're going to be happy and all of that. I think a lot of people end up having disappointing lives. And I guess it is true that it's better to try and fail than never to try at all. That's probably true. Probably true with the caveat of some heroes are irreversible. Right. I don't regret never skydiving. Although I always get the question, how much money, how much money for $8 would you go skydiving? You know, so people are trying to get me to do it, but so some things are irreversible, but yes, I, you know, it's better to have level and lost than never to have loved at all. They're trying to have tried and failed than never to have tried at all given the trying and failing within certain boundaries and are motivated by rational values, motivated by the right kind of ideas. Stephanie says she doesn't regret making two jumps. So she ticked her skydiving box. I never had the skydiving box so nothing to tick that. So Stephanie has skydived. Good for her. Shaz but do you think that stem cells might be developed to the point that they could fix your back problem. In the meantime, can you recommend a pain reliever. I strained my lower back recently I can't move without hooding. The obvious caveats are I am not a physician I'm not a doctor I'm not an expert on life extension. I'm not an expert on on back so though, you know, I'm about as good of an expert on backs as probably anybody out there, given all the problems that I have. Let's start with it with a really good news. I mean, I think stem cells already at a point where they could fix a lot of back problems. And here, I think Adam will appreciate the fact that the only reason stem cells are not used far more extensively for back problems is because of the FDA. You know, so here's the story. It's a simple story. I'm a doctor. So I had a ruptured disc L3 L4 was a 2017 that went to the doctor and he said look, you know we can clean it up or we probably need to fuse it and I said, he'd already fused L4 or five. I'm not fusing another another thing. One fusion is all I'm doing in life. I'm not fusing it again. What I really want you to do is I want you to go in clean it up and inject stem cells into into the gap where you know where have where had a disc. And he said, I've never done it before. I said, you know, I like you. I trust you. You're a good doctor. Figure it out. Right. And he went away and he he called up a bunch of people and he called up the company that produces the machine that if you take bone marrow out of a person it spins it and you can extract the stem cells. And these are not very good stem cells because they came out of me in my late 50s so they're not exactly the most vibrant eager to eager to reproduce stem cells so ideally I would have saved my umbilical cord it would be frozen somewhere and we could extract stem cells from my umbilical cord it would be the ideal right and then and you could use your own young stem cells to do this but anyway, he did this and he had so I was the first ever that he did. And I think one of the few ever in California. So he brought down they brought the machine. People came to watch this because they never seen it before it was all outpatient. They took me under they they they they they make a hole in you they put in the little robot they go in they scrape it all they clean it all up it's pretty cool science pretty cool stuff. And then he went in and took it they take bone marrow out of your hip out of my hip. They spin it. They and then they inject the not the bone marrow they inject the stem cells they extract from it into where the disk was. And, you know, it took, you know, I had a few weeks of recovery, but it wasn't too bad because I was home that evening so it was uppatient. You know, when I when I had the the fusion I was in hospital for like five six days I mean that was major major surgery and major recovery time. Anyway, months later we did an MRI a year later we did an MRI to see what happened. And there's a disc there. I mean, there's a disc between L3 and L4 I mean it's not as robust as, you know, but is it this there where there was barely anything before the surgery now there's this. So the body, the stem cells stimulate the body to reproduce, you know, this. Um, so I asked my doctor I said so you're doing a lot of these look, this is like any he was all excited he was going to write this up for a journal article I don't think he ever did. But, um, but he said, you know, stem cells are not approved for this use. The FDA says not approved it for this use so if I start doing that I can't advertise it. And he said if I start doing it. I don't know if I get into trouble with the FDA, you know, I don't, I can't advertise it you can't let people know. So, as far as I know, people because I've recommended this and people have called him up and asked him if he's doing it, and he said no. So, and this is pure FDA, this is all about the FDA limiting the use of stem cells, even when it comes to the knees. And they limited even though people have been using stem cells for knees for forever and then no side effects and those downside. It's constrained and it's all it's just horrific. So there are solutions so shot but there are places you can go. I think I think there's a guy in Houston that does, does it. And they might be there are places in Europe that do it in Switzerland. You remember that was a quarterback a manning, a paid manning you meant paid manning the quarterback. He had it done in Switzerland in his neck. He had stem cells injected into into his neck in Switzerland. But in the United States it's almost impossible impossible to do it there are places in Panama, but but I you know I just don't know. But the FDA screwing up our lives in ways that are just horrific, just horrific. Adam you wanted to say something. Yes. I had some work done on my one of my discs. And it was a very different situation different operation, but it also was not FDA approved. I could not get the insurance company to pay for any part of it. But fortunately, number one, one of my students was the guide for the surgeon who does this. So the surgeon gave me a discount. And the other thing is the surgeon is a full professor at UCLA. And essentially, his attitude was back the FDA, if they go after a full professor at UCLA medical school, it's their trouble. Good for him. Good for him. I had to pay for this. So the surgery was paid for because they're cleaning up the going into called the Laminectomy. That was paid for by the insurance. But anything to do with the stem cells was me. So I can't remember was either $3,000 or $5,000 that I had to pay out of pocket in order to have the stem cells, the stem cells done. That's another reason that he probably doesn't do it is because insurance companies don't pay. And most, most patients don't want it, but if patients knew how much better this is at my back. L3L4 is not a problem anymore. My back is so much better than it was. Then they, it's worth $3,000 to $5,000. Even if you have to borrow money to do it, it beats a fusion any day, any day. So I would fly to Panama to have it done today. If that was an option. So it's just horrific, just horrific what the FDA does. Now let's look at the second question. It does a pain reliever. I use ibuprofen. You know, here's another funny thing about ibuprofen, right? So in the United States, ibuprofen comes in capsules of 200 milligram. And they tell you to take two, maximum two capsules, right? So you get 400 milligram of ibuprofen. If you go to Europe and you go into a pharmacy on over the counter and get ibuprofen over the counter. Every single one of them, you can't find 200 milligram. They don't exist in 200 milligram. They're all 600, 600, which is three, right? That's the minimum dose you could take in Europe. Right. And in, so you can easily take three ibuprofens. Again, I'm not a doctor. All the disclaims, the FDA is going to come after me. You can easily take three because in Europe they do and I don't see anybody dying from a dose of ibuprofen. So if the pain is bad, I would take three ibuprofens, 600 milligram. For example, in the US to get 600 milligram ibuprofen, you have to get a prescription from a doctor. Like when I have a toothache, my doctor gave me a prescription for 600 milligram dose of ibuprofen, which in Europe is over the counter sold. All these rules are so insane, insane for these kind of things. But that's what I use. Now, if it gets really bad, you might want to go and see a pain doctor and they often do a cortisone shot. You have to find somebody who's really good. They do, like they scan your back and they figure out exactly where the pain is emanating. And they'll go right to the nerve to where the pinched nerve is. And they'll inject you with cortisone, which will reduce the inflammation around where the pinched nerve is happening. And that will eliminate the pain. So that's a number of different ways in which you can do it. No idea why today is the day where I'm giving medical advice. All right, let's do a few more of the super chat and we'll go to Jennifer. We've got four super chat questions. So if you're on live now and you'd like to ask a question, now's a good time. All right, Michael asks, why does Dubai have such an innovative impressive skyline? Is there more freedom of capitalism there than the rest of the Arab world? Why is this? Have you been there? No, I haven't been there. I probably never will go there. Maybe one day at the airports because a lot of flights go through Dubai, but I have no intention of going there. Why is it? It's because they have a lot of money and they want to make a splash. They want to be noticed. They want to project a certain confidence and an attractiveness to the world. They want to present themselves to the world as a modern advanced place that worthwhile to do business in and worthwhile to come live in. They want you to go there. So what they've done is they've hired the best architects in the world who don't live in Dubai. They lived all over the world. And since they have a lot of money, they have a lot of money because they are basically... It's not so much that they have oil, but they are the launch place where the ports are the natural best ports in the Arabian Peninsula from which you load up oil or you load up refined products to ship throughout the world. So they make a lot off of the oil trade. So they're very, very wealthy. It's a very small population. Many of the young men there are highly educated. They've been educated in the West and they want to attract money. They want to attract finance. They want to attract vacationers. They want to attract people and they build these amazing buildings in order to do that. And they've succeeded. I mean, they have some of the nicest hotels. They have some of the nicest office buildings in the world in Dubai. I wouldn't go there. I mean, it's still from everything I can see about it. It is ruled by a pretty barbaric regime, ultimately. They still treat women, even though they treat women better than they do, maybe in Saudi Arabia, they still treat women pretty badly. And if you're a Western woman, you could probably be okay there, but I don't think you'd feel comfortable there. And they have, you know, they have laborers that they bring in from places like Pakistan who do a lot of the manual labor and the manual work, which they treat as I think semi slave semi surfs in terms of the inability to go back home and just the way they're treated then the amount of legal ability legal representation that they might have. And so it's not, you know, they stole many people, they're tolerated Islamists, they fund Islamists. So it's not a place that now there is, I will say there was an objectivist club in Dubai, run by somebody who's attended a number of icons. And so, so there is objectivist activity in Dubai. They meet regularly, they read Iran's books, they do stuff. It's explicitly objectivist, it's kind of stealth objectivist, but it's there, it runs. We have people who listen to the show from that part of the world, pretty regularly. So, you know, maybe, maybe, you know, I, I, maybe I'm dated and some information I have about Dubai and United Arab Emirates, maybe they're more modern than I think of them. But I doubt it. Anyway, let's see, Landon. Oops, what did I do there? Sorry. Landon asks, Peter Atea would talk about legal life extension on his very popular podcast. Yes, I mean there's a lot of legal life extension. It's what we talked about in terms of the products that Elysium produces this company called Elevant that produces them. There's the life extension foundation. There's the magazine, there's, there's a lot of information out there, there's books, there's a lot of stuff that you can do mostly legally, although some things you have to go to Panama. Anything to do with stem cells, you have to go out of the country to really do extensively. But the sad things is, why is anything illegal when it comes to this stuff? How dare they? It's my life. Thanks, Robert. And then Steven, can you lead me to where you speak about OPM film? What is OPM? What is OPM film? Oh, Other People's Money? God, I think that's other people money. Where do I speak about other people's money? I don't know. I mean I used to teach it. I used to speak about it in class, but I don't know that I've ever spoken about it in a lecture or a talk. I might bring it up in my defensive financial market course that the Ironman Institute has put out, but it's also available on a wide website. But I don't think in class, I literally, I had a VCR tape with the highlights that I would then discuss with the class and we'd watch it together. We'd watch that. The two things I used to teach is that on Wall Street. Wall Street for the negative and this for the positive. So I don't know that I have a place where I actually discuss OPM, but if you have specific questions about Other People's Money, feel free to ask them. It's certainly my favorite movie about finance. And I think that's very, very good movie in terms of capitalism and in terms of defensive capitalism. All right, let's see. Jennifer, you muted. Because of the law of identity, do you think sometimes it could, someone could get confused because they could think that there must be fate because things behave a certain way in nature. So that means that certain things are going to happen to you. And then they, I've had people say this to me. So then they think that there's fate. It's like a confusion. Have you ever seen that happen before? Yeah, I think it's a rationalization. I mean, I think any kind of belief in fate is a kind of a mystical belief or, I mean, there's a sense in which it's true, right? If you make a particular decision about something, they're going to be consequences. You know, certain outcomes are more likely than others and some outcomes are probably deterministic in terms of they're going to happen. If you jump out of an airplane, you're going to make it to the ground at varying speeds, depending on whether the parachute opens or not. But, you know, and, but there's no, so certain decisions have certain outcomes and that is not faded, but that is determined, that is, that has to happen. It's not, fate doesn't think about it as a fate doesn't add anything to them, other than bring in this whole mystical side, because otherwise there's no reason for them to use that kind of terminology. So I think it's a rationalization. But, but yeah, there's a sense in which as soon as you wake up in the morning and make the decision, I'm going to focus today or not. The day is kind of determined, right? But, you know, not really because you could always phase out, you could always unfocus anytime during the day. Thank you. Okay, I have another question. You have time. I've looked through the vitals of the candidates for Prime Minister of Great Britain. And they all have very impressive education and private sector experience, especially their private sector experience. And in the United States, that combination of first rate, higher education and first rate private sector experience is just unknown among politicians. I'm fairly familiar with the background of the President and Vice President and Senators and Congress people and governors, and nobody on the US political scene is anywhere near the least experienced politician on the UK list. Why is that? So first, you know, first, I don't think that's true of education because almost every president in the United States went to Yale, right? And even Trump went to prestigious Ivy League universities. So all of them have been to prestigious universities and education wise have done very, very well. I guess the Bushes had some maybe senior, more than junior, some real world experience, some running a business, Reagan, you know, as an actor and had a real job for a while and so on. But yes, I think generally, so in England, almost all Prime Ministers have gone to the same private school, for high school, eaten, you know, I think it's something like 40 to 50% of all Prime Ministers in England went to eat eaten, and you know, like one of the big knocks against Churchill was he never went to eat. He went, I think, to Harrow. So, but Harrow is like just up there with Eaton, right? There's like five schools in England where everybody goes. They almost all go to Oxford. They almost all study PPNE at Oxford, philosophy, politics, economics, which is an Oxford degree, a degree that Oxford initiated. And most politicians in the UK go to Oxford, and then go to the private sector and then into politics. That's the path. So, you know, why is it different in the United States? I think partially because of the parliamentary system. There's a sense in which in the UK there's a certain screening of who the candidates are that's done by the apparatus, and they try to get high quality candidates and a lot of that has to do with the schools they went to and the life experience that they have in the post, like in old days candidates used to be picked in smoke filled rooms, right in the back rooms. Now it's all voted. So, and you can see that in a primary, you can get 10 candidates, you can have 12 candidates running for their parties thing. So it becomes who's the most charismatic on the stump, rather than who's the best candidate who is who has the best education, the best knowledge, the best ideas. It's who can convince the most people so we've come much more of a democracy in that sense all the way down, particularly within, within the political parties. I mean, I, I think the Republican Party could benefit enormously from having decisions made in smoke filled rooms right now, and getting away from the popular getting away from their from their, you know, from the people who actually are voting in the primaries because the people who voted in the primaries are destroying the party. So, I think that's part of it. What is interesting though, is that my favorite candidate of the people running who were running for UK Prime Minister, a Kemi, Kemi something name I can't pronounce. Did not go to a particular prestigious university she went to the University of Sussex, which is okay but nothing special. She did not go to Oxford. She actually went, most of her schooling was in Nigeria. She came to the UK, she was born in the UK, but then returned to Nigeria. She came to UK at the age of 16 and went to a school, a good school, high school in the south of London, but nothing super, you know, Dupa. And, of course, she's, she's black. She's originally Nigerian. She's fantastic. She's articulate, she's smart, she's strong. She's principled. I think I mentioned this, I did a, we would, the two of us took one side of a debate on capitalism, a few years ago, so we were on stage together, and she was fantastic on stage. So she is by far my favorite candidate now she's been voted out so she won't make it this round. But, but, and she is the least educated of them the two that are left. Liz Tross and Sunak. Rishi Sunak, both of them, both of them are Oxford graduates. Rishi Sunak got PPNE, I think degrees at Oxford. Rishi is a, I think, son of immigrants from India, so he's Indian. Liz Tross, I can't remember what her background is, but of the two, I know you didn't ask this, but I'm going to answer it anyway. I said this before, my strong preference is Liz, primarily because she presents herself as an air to thatcher. She argues free market. This is the thing that tipped me for her. She is the first candidate I've heard that says the first thing one of the first things she's going to do as Prime Minister is scrap all the regulations on the books of the UK that originated with the EU. Right. So the whole point of Brexit was, now we can control our own fate, we don't have to do what the European Union tells us, we can get rid of all the stupid regulations that we had to do because we were part of the government. And then what happened? We got Brexit and not a single one of those regulations went away. So we got the worst of all worlds, I kept saying that, the Brits got the worst of all worlds from Brexit. Truss is saying no, we're going to go back and we're going to scrub all the regulations, we're going to get rid of all the ones that have to do with, you know, that restrict our ability to compete, restrict our ability to produce, to build and to make. She wants to abolish the carbon tax, she wants to lower other taxes. So I'm, you know, of the two I am, she is by far, I think the better candidate, I think Rishi is status quo, you know, big on green, big on government spending, big on saving the NHS. I think, I think, so I'm hoping that she wins. And then we'll see how long she can govern for this elections in 2025, if she can survive until then. And then Labour right now in the UK has higher approvals than the Conservatives. But that might be transitionary. If she does a good job, the Conservatives can win again. So I'm endorsing, and I never endorse an American candidate because they all, this is the difference, right? The English politicians are so much smarter, so much more intelligent, so much more educated, and they have the coolest accents. I prefer them by a long shot to the Americans. Because they went to Oxford and in Oxford, one of the classes you take is a class in having a posh accent. I mean, you don't, but everybody coming out of Oxford has to have the right kind of accent. And that's the great, that's the great advantage of, I don't know, Oxford accent just makes them sound smarter. But I'm a huge fan of what is possible in the UK. I think the intellectuals in the UK on the right. The intellectuals in the UK on the right, and the politicians in the UK on the right, are broadly and generally superior to anything the United States has. I mean, take somebody like Daniel Hannon. I don't know how many of you have ever followed Daniel Hannon. He's definitely worth following. He was a parliament member. He was in the European Parliament. The guy's brilliant. And he is one of the best public speakers I've ever seen. He can capture an audience. He's a storyteller. He's principled. He's smart. He's sharp. He's excellent on trade. He's like just lower towers, just lower towers to zero. He is the anti-populist. He's good on economic issues. He's just really good now. I'm pretty sure Daniel Hannon went to Oxford. I mean, it's just a no brainer, they all have. There was another British politician that invited me once to come and speak. And he sponsored an event I did in the parliament, in the parliament building that was really well attended in London. And he was, I forget his name now, he was in the UK party for a while, but he was excellent, very smart. You know, we disagreed on certain things, but as compared to any politician I've ever met in America. I mean, literally. Daniel Hannon, there's no politician in America who comes close, close. I mean, he's secular. None of these politicians are religious, right? Like Liz Truss and Rishi, they're not religious. They might say they are, but they're not religious. They're all secular. And they don't buy into the BS that the Americans do. They don't have that national conservative. They don't have that populism. They don't have that xenophobia. You know, in particular, somebody like Danny Hannon seems to be completely secular. He might give, again, lip service to religion. So no, politicians in the UK and people from the UK might not want to admit this. I had his shoulders above the Americans. It's just a matter of finding the right ones. They had a Margaret Thatcher. Margaret Thatcher was much better than Ronald Reagan. She did so much more. And she was much more principled. All right. Yeah, Taisie says she thinks Daniel Hannon was a bit pretentious. He's earned it. I mean, if you have that kind of accent, you can be pretentious. You can afford to be pretentious. So I think he's earned a little pretentiousness. Yes. Tessie thought I was better, but I'm not a politician and I'm not running for anything and I'm not competing with these guys. I'll take I'm pretty much better than any politician in the world right now. I'm even better than what's her name Kimmy. But right. All right, John, do you know of any objective activity in Africa doing line my ideas of free market ideas of any chance they in your opinion. Yes, there is an objective club in somewhere in Africa. They've got a they've got like a group thing and I can't remember Facebook on LinkedIn or in Twitter. So there's definitely an objective club. There are a few. When was it a few months ago a couple of months ago. There was a there was an event. I can't remember Uganda or Kenya. And I just saw photos from the event. But the event was like part of the event was young people and they had a table full of books. I was struck the fountainhead were there and they got the books for nine minutes to so. Yes, there's definitely activity in in Africa. Is there a chance free market ideas will catch on this show. Why not. It's just a matter of getting in getting people to read engaging with them. And you know it's it's it's fertile ground because it's virgin ground. There's definitely some interest in South Africa. There's definitely Nigeria. There's some in Kenya and Uganda. Oh, the other place was Ghana, Ghana. I mean, if I did come and speak in Ghana. I haven't gone. I should go, but Ghana. So, yeah, I mean, there's no reason not. And I think there's a lot of potential. I think there's a lot of upside. What do you think of this. The Senate voted in favor of the Chips for America Act. If passed the bill would provide more than $50 billion to companies that will build semiconductor factories here in the United States. Yeah, I already commented on this. A while ago when it was still being proposed, it's, you know, the 50 billion is just part I think it's a $300 billion bill altogether that provides all kinds of incentives and subsidies and preferences for chip manufacturers and others to build capacity in the United States. I think it's horrible. I think it's, it's a disaster. I think it's a waste of money. I think it's terrible. I think it's a terrible idea. I don't think the government should be incentivizing companies to build this or that to build this kind of manufacturing plant or that kind of manufacturing plan. They should be incentivizing them to do it in the United States or outside of the United States. Why not build those manufacturing plants in Mexico? Why not build them in Canada? Why not build them? I don't know in Puerto Rico. Who the hell knows where they should be built? That's the beauty of the marketplace that the market determined it. The fact is that there's a lot of on showing already of chip manufacturing. What companies learned after COVID was that the companies producing chips want to diversify their chip manufacturing. For example, the South Koreans, I think at Samsung, is already in talks to build, I think, eight chip manufacturing plants in the United States because they don't, they worry about supply chains over the Pacific and what if there's a conflict with China. So markets adapt to new information. And the new information that we've received over the last two, three years is China's a lot less reliable than we thought it was. Because of Russian aggression, now I think the world is much more attuned to the fact that authoritarian regimes can be aggressive and are likely to be aggressive. So Russian aggression is transported into, huh, maybe China will be aggressive too. So you're definitely getting people waking up, but the market is waking them up. So a lot of companies, Apple included, but a lot of companies are diversifying their supply chains. They don't need Congress to tell them in what, where to, how much, let the market work, let people actually know what they're doing, know what they're doing. And this is, this is, you know, what do you call it, industrial policy. And it's, I'm against industrial policy by Republicans, Democrats, independence, industrial policy is always wrong and always bad. So these you can do for national security, but then you have to be very, very careful and you have to be very, very clear about what is national security and how to do it. One of the female says TSMC from Taiwan and Samsung from South Korea building semi conductor plants in the United States, they are without any subsidy without 50 frigging billion dollars without any of this nonsense the market works. All right, free trade asks from Sweden, am I, so I'm supposed to give a talk in Sweden, but the guy I'm communicating with who invited me to give the talk in Sweden, like doesn't respond to emails. So free trade, you know, Oliver in Sweden, who has invited me to come and give a talk at the university in Sweden. And if you do, can you tell him to answer my emails? That would be nice. So I know what the hell's going on. All right, free trade asks a proper capitalist party is necessary to sell actual capitalism to the public, just arguing the principles is necessary too. But it's hard for a lot of people to connect them to real world actual politics, politicians thoughts. Sure. One day we should really have a proper capitalist party, but it's way too soon. I mean, you need, you need politicians. You'd need a lot of money. You'd need, you'd need a hope to build a whole infrastructure of a political party. We already have a, what do you call it a political party manifesto, right that that the capitalist party is already put together that's pretty good. It's really good. It's, it's basically an objective is political manifesto that you could find online. What we need now is, is people who, who go out there and actually, you know, act as politicians in the name of capitalism. But that's it's very difficult and it requires a lot of money and a lot of time and a lot of effort and we just, just not enough of us. And then just often enough of us who are passionate enough to do it. So, you know, I, you know, I'll run, I'm willing to run for office. I've said this many times, I'm willing to run for office. What I'm not willing to do is, you know, spend a year fundraising, raising money so I can run for office. But if somebody else is willing to raise the money and if somebody is willing to write a check, I'll run for office. Now I don't know what office I would run for. I was thinking when I was living in California for going for governor of California, but there would have been fun. But now without like a $50 million check. It's just the waste of time unless you have the money you're lined up. All right. And that's the problem you need a lot of money. All right, Steven and then we'll go to forward last round with Jennifer and Adam, and then we'll call it a night a day or whatever it happens to be. Steven says recently a one-on-one year old social security guard SS guard, not so security guard, former SS guard. Yes, say former because there are no SS guards anymore. Former SS guard was in prison for five years due to his crimes during the Holocaust. Is there a point where obtaining justice not valid anymore? No, I don't think so. If it's proven, if it's unequivocal, if there's no question about it, somebody committed horrible things, murder, horrible things in the past. Yeah, whatever the age is, destroy him. They deserve it. It's an issue of justice. People should not be allowed to get away with evil actions of that magnitude. Now, there is such a thing as a, what do you call it, time has passed. Statue of Limitations. Thank you, Jennifer, Statue of Limitations. But the whole point of a Statue of Limitation is that beyond a certain point on certain types of crimes, it's just, depending on people's memories, it's hard to get the facts, it's hard to do it all. It's not an issue of there's no justice after that period of time. It's just that it's too difficult, too prone to error beyond a certain period of time. So, I assume that there's no doubt, reasonable or not, that this guy really was an SS guard, and in such a case, let him rot for whatever rest of his life he has. I have zero sympathy for people who participated in the mass murder of millions of people. All right, Jennifer. I'm done for today. Thank you. All right, Jennifer's done Adam. You can be done to I would be. I would be done to that. I don't have it in me to stop asking. But you got one last question. And if somebody asks, while you're asking, I'll take those super check questions. I think that we should have a federal or at least statewide standard for for police training, because the police is where the government meets the road. And the function of the government is to put legitimate force under objective control, and the police that we have now wouldn't know what objective control is, if their life depended on knowing it. Yeah, I think that's right. So, I don't think it should be federal, because I'd like to see experimentation in it I'd like to see different places do it differently. See what's objectively better and I don't think you can come to what's objectively better without actually experimenting and seeing this practice. So I'd like to see it on that I guess on the state level, or I'd like to see the state have a certain minimum requirements that then maybe even at the local level can be experiment on. So that's how I'd like to, I think I don't want to see too much at the federal level, except the federal government should be responsible for the big stuff right. National defense establishing laws where it's important to have standardization across the entire continent. So the protection, the fundamental protection of individual rights, but is a federal thing, and then, but the states get to, in terms of how it's expressed, they get to, they get to specify that state level. So I think at the state level, minimum requirements for policing should be established absolutely. Well, there's one thing about the federal government that I personally benefited from. I was once falsely accused of a crime in New Jersey. And fortunately for me, the FBI found out that the state crime laboratory was corrupt. And they took over and the state crime laboratory was under FBI supervision. And they were essentially able to show that this was evidence was false. So I'm not against a federal agency like the FBI, who's partially responsible for making sure that the state level agencies are not corrupted. So being kind of the objective arbitra when there's a fear of corruption at the state level, but I don't want to see the state level replaced with a federal agency that one size fit all for a country of $350 million. I think we have to have the options and experimentation. All right, friend Harper says, saving money for jeans, Jean Maroney's episodes, but wanted to contribute to remember folks $2, $5 contributors are welcome also yes and we're way off. I haven't even mentioned because we were aware of way off our $650 target but I've decided I'm not going to bug you guys too much on these things. And Shaw's but says, which is better 1969 to go or 2010 to go. Oh, to grit both a true grit. I haven't seen 2010 to grit. I'm not a huge fan if I remember right of true grit from 1969 with John Wayne, but my guess is that anything made in 1969 that's a Western is going to be better than something is made in 2010. Although 2019, though 1969 was not a good year for Westerns. You know, good Westerns pretty much stop being produced, I don't know, in 1960 or 59 or something like that. But Western as a genre went downhill after the after the late 1950s. And it became a kind of a cynical play on itself represented by spaghetti westerns and true grit which presents the hero if I remember right as an alcoholic. You know, I don't think I've seen the 2010, maybe I need to see the 2010 true grid but yeah, I should do a show on Westerns. I've talked once years and years and years ago like 30 years ago on Westerns. But they'll all be old Westerns so you're gonna have to suffer through a show and old Westerns. Fendt Hoppe says, do you think it's proper to mandate the kids get an education different than mandating that they were able to learn specifically but rather making sure the child is educated to some degree. I don't because there's no way to educate somebody to some degree without educating them with certain content and I just I don't think it's the job of the government to deal with the mind. You know, now, maybe you can make cases in real child abuse that keep kids locked up in the closet where they. Yeah, government should intervene there. But in terms of whether they should go to school or whether you should work where they should. I don't think I don't think the government should intervene I don't think it's a government's job. You don't have a way to an education, whether a child is an adult or anybody else so they can be the government protecting the ability of the child to get an education so no I don't think the government should be involved at all in any respect in a child's education. Great. Let's see. Alright, I think we're done. Thanks everybody. Thanks for participating. Thank you Jennifer. Thank you Adam for the questions but also for supporting the show as you do. Thank you for the super chat is for supporting the show. You guys can all support the show on a monthly basis like Jennifer and Adam do by going to Patreon or subscribe star and using your own book show so patreon.com slash your own book show or subscribe star.com slash your own book show. And, and you can become monthly regular supporters of the show. It's the best kind of supporters the ones I could rely on the ones I know that it's always coming in and can plan off of that's great so we will get my website back up and running it's not quite there yet. So we're still working on getting the run book show dot com slash support site up, but in the meantime you can use Patreon and subscribe star to me and locals to make a contribution and of course you can make a one time contribution on PayPal. So thanks everybody have a great rest of your weekend. Thank you Jennifer and Adam again and I'll see you all. What day today Sunday so see you all on Tuesday. Bye everybody.