Episode Transcript
Speaker 0 00:00:00 Thank you for joining us today. We'll go ahead and get started as people filter into the room. I'm Scott Schiff with the Atlas Society, introducing our senior scholars, Richard Salzman, and founder David Kelly. Um, we want to, um, you know, encourage everyone to ask questions. Uh, I've got, uh, questions from, um, you know, some of our various, uh, social media channels. So, um, we'll go ahead and, uh, get started. Uh, this is from Jay Clinton Wall. It says, uh, one example of the necessity of psychology. Okay. Psycho epistemology and objectivism is the article, philosophy and sense of life by Ayn Rand, published in the objectivist issue of February, 1966. Would you agree or disagree with the statement that psychology is an essential element of objectivism? Not sure which one of you wants to, uh, go ahead and, uh, try to take that one on. You'll have to unmute David. There you go. Yeah. Okay. Um, David, uh, I'm having trouble hearing you. You may need to leave and take off your headset. I may ask, uh, David to go ahead, or Richard to go ahead and answer while you're doing that. Okay. I'm
Speaker 2 00:01:28 Not on my headset. Okay. Yeah. Well, I can't hear David either. Great. Uh, thanks for the question. Uh, I, I, I believe it's, it is an essential part of objective, especially the, the, uh, specialty that you mentioned, the special field called psycho epistemology, which I, I believe is really unique to Rand and Brandon. Now, that is a study specifically of the relationship between the subconscious and the conscious mind. You know, that often, uh, ran metaphor of the filing system or the filing for that, the way we take in information, the way we form concepts, the way we, uh, develop principles and come to conclusions, uh, and then file those away. They can't always be in the forefront of our mind, obviously, and, and experiences as well, how we classify them, how we organize them, so that when we need, uh, a rapid fire means of retrieving that which we know and that which we've integrated, it's been well integrated, uh, meaning it's been related in a proper, logical way, so that all of that, uh, uh, speaks to proper mental health.
Speaker 2 00:02:33 There are many other elements, of course, I, I'm not a psychologist, but there, there's a tremendous amount of literature in objectivism, um, on psychology, including one of Rand's more interesting, the psychology of Psychologizing. So that had more to do with improper methods of judging people by, uh, a pretense about what you knew about their psychology. So that's just in, in the form of a negative, uh, treatment of it. But, um, that's, that's what I would say, uh, specifically I think the psycho epistemology aspect is, is crucial. But, uh, you know, philosophy, uh, being, uh, the five branches and the way we guide and live our lives, um, our psychologies and all that's associated with it, our emotions, our feelings, our values, and how we feel them are so crucial to, to living a, a life, not just of survival, but of flourishing. So, um, I, I don't know whether you are quoting her from that essay philosophy in a sense of life on the importance of psychology, but not to speak for her.
Speaker 2 00:03:36 But I, I believe it's, uh, very important, by the way, from my standpoint, teaching capitalism generally at, uh, duke, I have discovered, uh, it's taken me maybe four or five years to realize this, but you can give all the arguments in the world for the politics of it, the economics of it, uh, even the epistemology of it. Um, and, but increasingly, I'm beginning to realize that a certain psychology, you could call it personality, but a certain type of person of psychological mental health is, uh, more, uh, willing to live in a capitalist society, wi willing to live in a dynamic changing system that requires, you know, that you exercise your volition, that you take self responsibility. And that isn't really taught through economics and politics as much as it is through psychology. And the opposite of that, the, the highly dependent person, the, the highly, uh, unsure, lacking in confidence person, uh, the kind of person who would wanna be taken care of, well, when they grow, uh, into adulthood, they wanna be taken care of by family or taken care of by a group, or taken care of by the welfare state. So, uh, that's just as another indication of the importance of psychology. It's such a, it's an important part of the overall context of understanding human nature, but also in the arguments for, for the free society. So, I leave it at there. I wonder if David's back by now.
Speaker 3 00:05:01 Yeah, I am back. If you can hear me.
Speaker 0 00:05:04 Uh, we're still having trouble hearing you. Actually. You may need to leave the, uh, app and come back. Okay. Maybe without headphones
Speaker 3 00:05:15 That several times, but, um, oh, wait a second.
Speaker 0 00:05:20 Alright, well, uh, while, um, while David is working on that, uh, Richard, I'm just gonna go to the, uh, next question in the list. Uh, can protection of valuable ecosystems fit in with objectivism?
Speaker 2 00:05:39 Yeah. The answer to that is yes. If by the value of ecosystems, you mean value to man, to human beings. Uh, so objectivism has, uh, in every realm, ethics as well as epistemology and even in economic value theory, the an objective theory of value in, in contrast to the subjective theory of value and the intrinsic theory of value, the subjective meaning, the idea that the value is only in our heads and not related to reality. The intrinsic version being that there's some kind of value inherent in things apart from our valuing them. Now. Now, the objectives approach is to say things have a value to, well, first of all, living organisms, uh, who are valuers, but, but specifically to human beings. Now, if by ecosystem you mean the environment within which, uh, it's the optimal habitat for humanity, as I like to call it, um, that is definitely something defend defensible.
Speaker 2 00:06:38 What's not defensible. And where we reject the environmental premise is that, that part of it, which sees, and the, and the greens themselves call it existence value, we would call it intrinsic value, but they do have this concept that, quote unquote, nature must be preserved and kept apart from man. And part of that premise is not only that nature has intrinsic value regardless of valuers, which is a contradiction in term, they also think of human beings as artificial as not being natural. And so if you combine those two s premise premises that nature has intrinsic value and shouldn't be touched, and man's not part of it, then not even man has intrinsic value. So that's why you get these very misanthropic kind of anti-human depopulation, degrowth, uh, movements on the green, on the green side. Um, so I'll leave it at, I'll leave it there for a moment, for the moment.
Speaker 0 00:07:33 Great. David, uh, did you, uh, fix your audio issues?
Speaker 4 00:07:38 Um, I don't know. Tell me,
Speaker 5 00:07:40 David, it's very faint. So maybe if you just take off your ear set and just use the, the phone straight. Just disconnect your Bluetooth.
Speaker 4 00:07:49 Can you hang on for one
Speaker 5 00:07:50 Second? Hear you. But it's just very faint, so I would suggest maybe just disconnecting the Bluetooth.
Speaker 4 00:07:56 Is that better?
Speaker 0 00:07:59 Okay.
Speaker 4 00:08:00 Can you hear me any better?
Speaker 0 00:08:02 Yeah, still, still
Speaker 5 00:08:03 Don't faint.
Speaker 0 00:08:04 You may have to leave and come back after removing the, um, the Bluetooth, but, um, no, I didn't. I'll, uh, rather than, uh, use all the philosophy questions while David is working that out. Um, Richard, uh, today's news of 3.2% c p i for July was, uh, presented in the news as the inflation slowdown has stalled. Right? Is that a fair characterization?
Speaker 2 00:08:33 It is a fair characterization. The inflation rate, the C p I means the consumer price index, um, the Federal Reserve, um, it typically targets that to be no more than 2%. They claim they can target it. So any, any inflation rate running at more than 2%, uh, for the Fed, uh, indicates, uh, uh, a policy stance where they would continue to keep interest rates either elevated or indeed might keep raising interest rates. It is true that the inflation rate peaked about a year ago at, at something like 9%. Um, and so it's come down to, uh, well, it went down last month to 3%, now it's back up to 3.2%. So I think, I think the news, uh, is not good in the sense of it's gonna take longer for, uh, if the Fed adopts the right policy for inflation to come down. I wanna stress, though, that, that the right policy is not to slow the economy and create a recession, just so people know that that is why the Federal Reserve is raising interest rates.
Speaker 2 00:09:36 There isn't no history really showing that the Fed raising interest rates fights inflation. I mean, if you just think about what interest rates are and they entail an interest cost, it, it increases the cost of doing business generally. So, so it's just illogical to suggest that raising interest rates, uh, would do that. They have this view that an economy that grows too fast causes inflation, or that an unemployment rate that's too low causes inflation. Why would that be? Because, uh, when the in unemployment rate is low, allegedly workers can ask for higher wages 'cause they're in great demand, and those higher wages have to be passed on to consumers. La la la that's called wage put. That's a bogus theory of inflation as well. Uh, so not to get too much into the theory of, of inflation here, uh, you asked about the news itself.
Speaker 2 00:10:25 Yeah, the news is not good in the sense that inflation in the US and elsewhere in the world, by the way, remains elevated. It is a trailing effect of all the money that was printed when they shut down the economy due to covid. So it's yet another trailing case of bad policy or bad results coming from previous bad policies. The unfortunately, what typically happens is when the Fed says, well, we're gonna raise rates to slow the economy and fight inflation if it isn't working. They just keep raising interest rates until the economy goes into recession. So that's actually what they're doing now, which is very grim. They're, they're setting up a condition where the chances of a recession, and not immediately, but say in 2024, are very high.
Speaker 0 00:11:11 We're very pleased to have with us, uh, former, uh, Yahoo c t o Eda. Um, thank you for joining us. Do you have a question for Richard or David? You'll have to unmute with the microphone button in the bottom right.
Speaker 4 00:11:32 Let me, let me just interject here before ey, uh, can you hear me any better now,
Speaker 0 00:11:38 David, we're still unable to hear you. I'm not sure what to recommend at this point other than, you know, maybe even restarting your phone and not having the, uh, Bluetooth in. But, uh, welcome to the stage. You have a question for Richard?
Speaker 6 00:11:53 Yeah, I just wanted to, you can hear me now? Yeah, I
Speaker 2 00:11:56 Can. I can. Ey Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 6 00:11:57 Alright. So quick follow up. I've been curious about the so-called labor, well, I shouldn't say so-called. There's this labor participation rate number that has been sinking, which honestly, to me seems concerning, but I don't know if you have thoughts about that particular metric and what the implications might be.
Speaker 2 00:12:19 Good question. And I do, I've written on this actually for, um, ai e r uh, so if you go to, uh, ai er.org, that's the American Institute for Economic Research and search for my name, I think about a year ago, maybe a little longer, I wrote something. I don't have it in front of me, but from memory, it's something about the artificial labor shortage. Uh, so it addresses it, uh, somewhat in there, uh, as well. Uh, the whole, um, um, the really the messing up of the labor market, also associated with the art of, with the lockdowns associated with Covid Ramey, the labor participation rate is a measure of the extent to which people, well, this is pretty straightforward. What percent of the working population working age population, usually 16 to 65, are actually in the labor force, either looking for work or working. And, um, that number fluctuates, but it is really plummeted in the last, uh, uh, five, six years or so.
Speaker 2 00:13:20 And, and a lot of it has to do with the government subsidizing and paying people not to work. Uh, some other of it has to do with just limited opportunities that make people think to themselves, especially younger people think to themselves, well, why should I get work? Why don't I just go to a community college or go to college for a while? 'cause that's not necessarily gonna help them if they <laugh> incur debt that can't be repaid because they go into majors that aren't remunerative. But, um, it's a disincentive policy. This is what omics does. It's the opposite of supply side Reaganomics, which did induce people of all ages and all groups and genders to go into the labor market in the eighties, leading to a very robust dynamic economy in the eighties and nineties. And we have the opposite kind of policies today. So part of it is punitive taxation on those who do work, especially if they're successful, the higher rates at the top end.
Speaker 2 00:14:11 But then more recently, in the last four or five years, the subsidization of paying people, uh, basically, uh, not to work. Those, those, uh, incentives have been red redoubled. I don't know if you know this Raymond, but in 96, bill Clinton did something very rare. He worked with Republicans to engage in, uh, welfare reform, and it required, uh, it, it, it made more stringent the hurdles for getting, uh, unemployment insurance and other things you had to work. So they added what they call a work fair. I'm, I'm against the welfare payments a across the board, but the fact that in the ra in the 96, um, reform that they did at least, uh, have incentives to go work, those have all been dropped. They started being dropped under Obama, and they've definitely been dropped and reversed under Biden. So, uh, it is a troubling thing, Amy, because when, when you see measures, and the labor department does do this, they issue measures of long-term, what's called long-term secular unemployment.
Speaker 2 00:15:11 Uh, secular meaning, you know, many years you get people whose skills atrophy if they gain any skills at all. And they become long-term very tical players in, uh, in the system. And, uh, it's hard to get that back. So, um, I, I agree with you. It is a problem. It has been plummeting. I think it's pretty easy if anyone wants to explore, just go into Google and, and search labor participation rate. Another good source, by the way, for graphs, if you wanna look at anything the minute you hear any of these terms, just put in the, in, into Google, just put in Fred F r e d as in Fred Flintstone, and it goes to the, uh, St. Louis Fed. And it has all sorts of wonderful charts and data and stuff like that. You don't have to be an expert at manipulating the data. All you have to do is punch in things like labor participation rate, and it'll right on your screen, you'll, you'll see a chart automatically created. So, um, I just wanted to mention that for you, your data feed there, just raimi, is there another aspect to this that interests you? Didn't, I didn't wanna miss your, I wanted to connect,
Speaker 6 00:16:21 Connect back to what you were saying earlier. You know, I think not participating in the labor market, you know, kind of breeds this person. Personality traits. You were talking about people who don't like capitalism, like
Speaker 2 00:16:39 You
Speaker 6 00:16:39 Don't work, you don't like capitalism, you don't understand capital, don't understand markets
Speaker 2 00:16:43 Like, right. Good. Like,
Speaker 6 00:16:45 Like the growth in that number and the growth in that segment, you know, is definitely troubling. I'll just leave it at that.
Speaker 2 00:16:55 Yeah. And, and to tie it back to objectivism morality, uh, what is one of our, we, we know one of our great virtues is productiveness. And, and as ein rand put it, that the, that the work we do and the careers we build are become a central purpose in our life. Not our only purpose. We're not, we're not workaholics, but, but, but the idea of your self-esteem, your self-efficacy, your sense of, uh, having control of your life and control of the world around you. So, so important that you work. And, uh, you know, even far as far back as Max Weber saying, the Protestant work ethic, okay, we're not religious, but he was onto something. The Protestant work ethic had so much to do with, um, the success of capitalism. Um, it need and be religious, you know, the Protestant work ethic had to do with things like, um, uh, ambitiousness, industriousness, what we would call productiveness, um, uh, frugality saving, looking to the future, not living, uh, hand to mouth.
Speaker 2 00:17:57 Um, all, all really right. Great virtues. And I think that's very much related to this Remy, that you're right, if you're not in the workforce, what the hell are you doing? Are you, are you just playing video games all day long? And I, I, I, I fear <laugh>, I fear what people like in the 18 to 25 age group who are not participating. See, that to me is worse than someone who, who's in their sixties saying, not participating. It's that younger group. Um, it's as if we sent them off to war and maimed and killed them, but, but they're not at war. They're in their mother's basement doing who knows what. And it's troubling. Yeah, it's very troubling. Economists call this, economists call this human capital, distinguishing it from, you know, tangible capital like factories and machinery or financial capital or intellectual property, human capital, the skills we have, the education we've gotten, the work experience we've had. You could see this, uh, lack of participation in the labor market as an erosion of human capital. And it's no worse than the breakdown in erosion of bridges, tunnels, and ports and things like that. It's very detrimental to the economy, but more individualistically, it's very detrimental to the pursuit of happiness of individuals. It's just not a happy way to live life.
Speaker 7 00:19:16 Uh, can I pick up on that for a minute?
Speaker 2 00:19:19 Absolutely. We can hear you loud and clear.
Speaker 7 00:19:22 All right. Good. Um, I have no idea what I did, but I restarted my phone. So, um, anyway, I'm gonna, I'm gonna pick up on one thread of, of Richard's point, um, the reference to the Protestant work ethic. Um, I, I see the advantages of that, uh, historically, but I, I would just wanna caution that the, uh, the Protestant, um, ethic that surrounded the work ethic was one of, they described it as not, um, you know, not, not too ena uh, enamored of the, um, of the world that is, you should do it from a certain remove, uh, you know, at least partly as a duty <laugh> to your religion. Yeah. And that, um, that always struck me, if, for all the good that you could say, you know, is happened historically, uh, that always struck me as the exact antithesis of objectivism. I mean, the Rand's heroes in her novels are just passionate about work. Yeah. And they love the world. Um, and so it's, and I, it's hard for me to imagine what motivation you could have for working unless you did. So anyway, that's a, just a, a, a footnote to
Speaker 2 00:20:46 Richard's point. Yeah, no, I, I, I agree with that, David. I, I, I, I found myself <laugh>. I find myself in a world today where the work ethic is so eroded. Yeah. Reaching, reaching out, even to the Protestant work ethic to say, to say to people, is there anything that will motivate you, uh, to get up and out in the world and be ambitious and create things? And certainly we want them to be motivated by the objectives, virtues, but it troubles me that they're not even motivated by some of the better, uh, religious virtues that contribute to work ethic. But you're total, you're absolutely right. It is a very duty based aspect of the Protestant, uh, work ethic. Yeah. All right. Well, uh, I wanna go to Brian next. Brian, thank you for your patience.
Speaker 8 00:21:37 Hey, my, my question is on the, uh, reserve currency. So I, I, I keep reading articles, hearing bits and pieces about the US dollar no longer being used as a reserve currency. I hear some people using that as a, a sign of, you know, calamity and, and others kind of mixed about it. So, um, what are the chances of that happening and what are the implications?
Speaker 2 00:22:04 Well, Brian, the, uh, status of the dollar, um, a as by the way, uh, related very closely to the status of the British pound, when the Britts were the dominant economy of the world 125 years ago. Um, the way you put it, which is interesting, no longer being used. Here are some numbers. Uh, the reserve currency means that the dollar is used abroad, not just in the us but the dollar is respected and used in transactions abroad, uh, particularly by and held by other central banks. So now, the first thing to realize in all this is from our perspective, there shouldn't be any central banking at all. And there shouldn't be any fiat money at all. And so, but, and so the system we have today is a fiat money system. Then, then the question is within that system, which, which among the fiat monies are least over issued, least over issued, notice the way I put it, and therefore the least eroded in value, they're all losing value.
Speaker 2 00:23:11 They all have lost value, especially in the last 50 years when they become delinked from the gold standard in 1971. But it is true, Brian, what you're reading about in these headlines, and what you're hearing about is there is a slow motion erosion in the world's acceptance of and use of the dollar. That is true. And it is, and, you know, relative to other country, uh, currencies. And so it's being displaced in holdings by central banks and elsewhere, you know, by the euro, by the u, uh, by the, the yen and other, the pound to some degree. But the last time I checked, in terms of overall holdings, the dollar was something like 60 or 65% of total holdings abroad and by central banks. Now, that's down from something like 90% in 1971, when the dollar was good as gold. So 60% is not nothing, and, but it's not 90%.
Speaker 2 00:24:10 And so the dollar is getting competition, so to speak, from other fiat monies that are, that are increasingly, uh, I wouldn't say more respected, but less disrespected when you get agencies like Fitch rating agencies and others saying the US debt is not as trustworthy as it used to be, that it's now, you know, double A rated instead of AAA rated. That is another thing that would erode confidence in the value of the dollar. Because these agencies are basically saying, we doubt the integrity and credibility of the US government paying its bonds. Well, what does it pay its bonds in? It pays its bonds in dollars. And so the concern is not just that they don't pay principal and interest, they can, you know, technically pay principal and interest, but they have these fights every once in a while about the debt ceiling. And so, Fitch and others are talking about the, the possibility, and I think it is high actually over the next five years, that there's a default in the sense of they stop paying interest and principle.
Speaker 2 00:25:11 But the real problem, the real default is in the dollar, the, the decline in the value of the dollar. And so you're pay, you're being paid interest in principle on the debt, but in money that's losing its value. Um, the British case is interesting 'cause Britain did lose its reserve status, um, when it adopted Keynesian policies around World War I, and after, and at the time, and this was before the US eclipsed it as the major economy in the world, um, Britain, uh, started engaging in fiscal prophecy, and it lost its status. And no one wanted, I wouldn't say no one, but increasingly no one wanted, fewer people wanted to hold the pound and more than wanted to hold the dollar. Bottom line for this is, and here's why it's important, if the dollar were to substantially lose its reserve status, and which I think will happen actually over the next 50 years, what happens is the demand for holding dollars goes down.
Speaker 2 00:26:11 Why is that important? Because as the dollar supply goes up and fewer and fewer people wanna hold it, the inflation rate will go up. So put it this way, right now, when the Fed produces a lot of dollars, it doesn't necessarily cause high inflation. Why? 'cause there's a demand to hold the dollars. That's what the reserve currency status gives you. That that's what it helps you do. And if that's lost, you're gonna have a fed creating dollars in a world where people don't wanna hold dollars. And if you just know supply demand dynamics, that is not good for the value of the dollar. But I think Brian, too many people are taking this and trying to create catastrophe scenarios. Peter Schiff and other people do this. It's just, it's silly and stupid. You know, the idea that the dollar will be worth nothing in three years. I mean, that's been going on for, as you know, that's been going on for 50 years. And those forecasts just do not pan out as they say. So don't be too bearish. But anyway,
Speaker 0 00:27:15 Thank you. Uh, any, uh, just quickly, ballpark of, uh, you know, how many points of interest rate that reserve currency status is worth?
Speaker 2 00:27:25 Nah, <laugh>, that's a good question.
Speaker 2 00:27:30 I don't know, Scott, that's a good question. I don't, I don't know. I, I'll put it this way. In the 1970s, those are old enough, old enough to remember in the 1970s, the US inflation rate was between 10 and 20%, and mortgage rates were as high as 20% when I got into banking in 1980. So we don't see any of that now. Uh, mostly not because the Fed doesn't massively issue money. And it's not because the treasury doesn't massively issue debt. It's because there's a great demand for even this cascade of money and debt. So if there's a, there's a percentage difference in there, Scott. The 10, the 10 year yield today, I think is 4%, but the 10 year bond yield in under Carter was 14. So the difference is 10 percentage points. That's a big difference.
Speaker 0 00:28:25 Yeah, absolutely. Um, well, great. Well, let's go to Tom next. I suspect, just based on past history. His question is going to be for David, but we'll see <laugh>. Tom, welcome.
Speaker 9 00:28:38 Hi there. I hope you can hear me. And the question is a follow up actually to Brian, coincidentally, because I had a similar, uh, kind of question. It is for Richard. And the question I have is, um, on the, um, the banking system that, um, that we have, and you already said it is a fiat system. Um, now, many years ago, uh, I believe you had some articles written, uh, for, um, a fractional reserve, uh, scheme, scheme rather than a, a full 100% gold back, which was the, the side that, uh, George Riesman, uh, advocated in his, uh, heavy book, uh, capitalism. And, um, at the time that I, uh, saw that I, I also read a, a book by a, a fellow objectivist, uh, Larry Seacrest, uh, called Free Banking, I think it was published in 1993. And he pretty much, uh, followed the, the theory by George Sgin, uh, on the idea that yes, uh, mathematically, uh, it is possible to have a fractional reserve free banking. Uh, and then, uh, there was, uh, some back and forth between maybe you and, and, and George Riesman. Yeah, yeah. Uh, about that. Yeah. Uh, so I'd like to know if you have any, uh, new information or anything that you, you can say about this update on whether fractional reserve banking is still viable or whether, uh, it should go back to, uh, you, you should, uh, we should fall back to the 100% go back. That's my question.
Speaker 2 00:30:28 Thank you, Tom. And the quick answer, I don't wanna get too much in the weeds here, but this is very knowledgeable about this, Tom, I can tell you are there in the Free Market School of Monetary economics, um, and there are basically two schools where, where all and, uh, opponents of central banking that then the debate becomes, what does the free system look like? And part of this draws on the history of what the freest parts of the history have actually looked like. That's important. Uh, I think not just the theory of it, but then also the theory of it. And you're absolutely right that the two main differences are one group believes that banking should be what they call warehouse banking. What in today's world might be called safe deposit boxes. They believe, and this is Rothbard and his followers, um, and including Reesman, although Reesman waivers on this sometimes I think, but let's put Reitman in that camp as well.
Speaker 2 00:31:36 So I disagree with these two, but here's their argument. The best argument with their view is you come into a bank, you deposit your money, and to all of us, gold is money. And their view is, um, you put it in the bank and the bank can't lend it out. Uh, without your permission, they should have the gold sitting in there waiting for you to retrieve it, uh, even if you don't wanna retrieve it immediately. So that is the 100% reserves argument. It's a purely warehouse. Uh, fine. It's not, in my view, it's not really banking. Banking is the idea that you take as deposits people's money and then lend it out. Now, since you lend it out at interest, uh, there's gonna be some fraction of the deposit not covered. That's the whole point of lending it out. So you lend it out at interest, say at, I don't know, 5%.
Speaker 2 00:32:28 But the key is you promise to the depositor that you'll pay them interest. And so, um, banking becomes a, a, a thing where it's part depository, but it's part lending as well. And banks make money on the difference, what's called the net interest margin between what they lend and what they pay. The depositors. Now, what Roth Bar Reman and others are basically requiring and demanding is that there'd be no lending on less. The depositor puts it on hold for the exact maturity of the lending that is just not free market banking. That that is just not what the history has shown. That's not what the theory shows. As long as you tell the depositor, listen, we are going to lend your, if you want, I mean, you could put it in the safe deposit box if you want, but then you're gonna pay us a fee.
Speaker 2 00:33:18 You're not gonna get any interest income. You're gonna pay us a fee to store it, to insure it, to move it. Um, you can do that today at a safe deposit. But notice that most people don't do that 'cause they want to earn interest income. The only way to earn that is to allow the bank to lend it. Um, the people you mentioned Selgin, George Sgin, uh, Larry White, uh, myself, in my book on Central Banking, we are advocates of free banking and the gold standard, but we're defenders of fractional reserve banking. And we, we, we reject the Reman rothbard argument that that's inherently fraudulent, that that's inherently some kind of Ponzi scheme. And, uh, we believe that what they're advocating is a very crimped view of, of banking, which amounts to warehouse depository. Can I, yeah, go ahead to, can
Speaker 9 00:34:12 I, can I give a, uh, a counter, uh, point here? Well, uh, and that is the, yeah,
Speaker 2 00:34:19 I don't know. I don't know if we want to go into that level of detail, Scott. Uh,
Speaker 9 00:34:24 I just wanna make a one key difference. Okay. I just wanna make one key point that, that I, um, I hear, um, and that is, they, um, Riesman and others on the 100% gold back, they're making a distinction between demand deposit. Yes,
Speaker 2 00:34:48 I know. Yeah. Versus, and saving versus, uh, yeah,
Speaker 9 00:34:50 I know. And saving deposit.
Speaker 2 00:34:52 I know, I know, I know. But the, but the problem, Tom, is they're basically dictating how banks manage their portfolios. We, on the free banking side, we've never understood that as legitimate. It sounds very interventionist to us. Um, insurance companies, we know what, what do insurance companies don't also, intermediaries, they take a premium payment from you. Do they sit there and hold the money until you have a fire in your house? Of course not. They invest the money in stocks and bonds and the science of insurance as to make sure the funds are there. When you do present a claim, same, the same thing in banking. Um, you can go to the safe deposit box part of the bank if you really want 100% reserves, but you can also go to the other part of the bank that says, Hey, here's my gold, but you're free to lend it.
Speaker 2 00:35:45 Pay me interest. And that's necessarily gonna be fractional reserve banking. I find that the Roth Bar and Reesman approach is very kind of, I hate to use the word dictatorial, it's kind of dictatorial to bank policy. And in, in Roth Bart's case, he argues that I'm trying, that he's trying to prevent fraud. He thinks he thinks banking is inherently fraudulent. He calls them gangsters. In fact, as gangsters, it's just the wrong way of going about it. Reman, Reesman kind of straddles the two because mes himself, uh, is for fractional Reserve bank. So re Reman is on record for saying his hero is mes. And that's not a bad hero to have, but he was also influenced by Rothbard. And that's the part of Riesman that says, you know, I'm really uncomfortable with fractional reserve banking. Um, I think we should leave it there. 'cause it's almost in the weeds too much. Scott, I, Scott, since David was not on for that first question, uh, I wonder if we could pose it to him, because I'm not the philosopher and I'm not the psychologist, but that first question, David, can you hear me?
Speaker 7 00:36:56 I can. Yeah.
Speaker 2 00:36:57 That first question, David, was something like in, uh, it was by, it was by, uh, j Clinton Wall. He said, um, what is your, what is our view, especially in i's essay philosophy in a sense of life, which was from 1966, which I think is reprinted in romantic manifesto. But the essence of his question, and I wanna make sure I get you on record, David, was something like, what is the importance of psychology? What's the relative importance or position of psychology in objectivism, and then specifically of psycho EPIs, that concept of psycho epistemology?
Speaker 7 00:37:35 Yeah, I, I'm sorry I missed that discussion. Um, or I was in Audible, but I did hear it. Uh, Richard and I would, I, you know, I think I agree with you, uh, more or less completely, but I would add a, a certain qualification in that mm-hmm. <affirmative> mm-hmm.
Speaker 2 00:37:50 <affirmative>
Speaker 7 00:37:51 Philosophy. Um, philosophy is the kind of subject that can be based on our conscious awareness of ourselves and common sense. And that, you know, it, it, it runs into, uh, elaborate, um, uh, theories and so forth. But psychology, um, pertaining to the subconscious requires science. Hmm. And there, there's an entire field of psychology, um, uh, both co cognitive and motivational mm-hmm. <affirmative> that, um, explores that and tries to find the, um, you know, the key variables in there. And you know, it, if you think about the subconscious and the conscious, um, the knowledge we have and the, the feelings and attitudes we have in our subconscious are immense compared to the narrow focus of attention. Yeah.
Speaker 2 00:38:57 Um,
Speaker 7 00:38:58 You know, attention's variable and, you know, great, great thinkers can do a lot with it. But I think, um, so I would, I would parse it this way, uh, given that rationality and other virtues, which are, um, ultimately have an internal aspect to them, uh, are really important. Uh, and therefore they are allied to philosophy. Hmm. But the, um, the actual investigation of them, um, them in the, in the form of psychotherapy or psychological research, um, goes beyond philosophy per se. It could be guided by philosophy. Oh, every science should be guided by philosophy. Right?
Speaker 2 00:39:49 Good point. Including physics.
Speaker 7 00:39:50 Right. But, um, but guided by is not the same as, uh, incorporating. Hmm. And I think, um, so I, I, and this applies, I would say, particularly, I mentioned cognitive, and on the one hand, and motivational on the other. I think if you want to develop the, the virtue of reason, you have to learn how, how to reason. Hmm. And that's something for a logic class, but also for a psychological class where if there are obstacles to the way your reasoning, or if you're in, in hindrances in your ability to think, that's something for a psychologist to deal with, uh, philosophers to recognize, but not necessarily solve, um, unless it's, you know, pretty superficial. So I think I, you know, I think that's, that's the best way I can, I can do to parse the, uh, the issue here.
Speaker 2 00:40:51 Now, the, yeah. Now the other aspect, David, um, one of the three main values in Objectiveism self-esteem, the reason, purpose, and self-esteem. And of the three, I mean, they all entail obviously epistemological moral and psychological aspects. But, but, but Nathan, Brandon himself wrote an entire book on the psychology of self-esteem. So on the psychology of, put it, put it another way, the psychology of the, one of the top three objectives, values <laugh>, you know, you know. Yeah. And to me, that's, that is really something else that is really consequential and, and also written under who her tutelage. Right? I think those s the bulk of that book was written, um, when they were still together, when I was still, uh, with him and editing his stuff. And some of those essays appeared. So that's another reason that strikes me, maybe I'm wrong here, but tell me if I'm wrong.
Speaker 2 00:41:53 It strikes me that psychology is really important in objectivism, uh, quite apart from the philosophical aspects of the relationship between reason and emotion and the, you know, the problems of repression when someone is told coming out of a religious experience, for example, or religious training, that reason is paramount. That faith and feeling are out. We, we know Dave, we know David, that that often leads to repression, often leads to people becoming robotic and thinking, oh my God, I have to suppress my emotions. And, and in objectivism, you know, we wanna, we want to use emotions and passion and feelings, not as tools of cognition, but as kind of indicators of what's important in our life and what values we should be pursuing. And I don't know, I have a hard time believing that's not super tied up with psychology.
Speaker 7 00:42:46 Oh, yeah, it is. And, uh, you know, I wish more objective would, uh, pay attention to your point, <laugh>. Um, but the, uh, but you could, you could, I would say this, uh, self-esteem is probably the, the, uh, hardest person, uh, problem for most people to deal with because it's so inward, and it depends so much on your sense of yourself that can be affected by parents, um, yeah. School, teachers, whatever. And, um, but I would still say that, um, learning reason, learning how to reason mm-hmm. <affirmative> and learning what's involved in the attitude of wanting to understand reality is, um, I mean, I, I feel a little strongly about that. 'cause, you know, I, I wrote a logic book, and that's
Speaker 2 00:43:41 Right. That's
Speaker 7 00:43:41 My thing.
Speaker 2 00:43:42 Right.
Speaker 7 00:43:43 But, um, also, also productiveness, I mean, you learn, you, you learn a lot from ein rand's novels about productiveness. But if you're not an architect or a, a motor inventor or a railroad executive, you know, you have to find out for yourself what a career involves. And people, you know, people who are 40 know a ton more about their work than, um, people who are 30. And they didn't get it from philosophy necessarily. Hopefully it was guided by that, but it was, uh, it was on the ground training and experience and interactions with people. So I think, I think every central value and objectivism is carried out in, through, through some applied method, um, where you learned the details of your particular, um, your particular career, your particular, uh, mode of mind in, in reason, and your particular kind of self. What, what things you come easy to you, what things come really hard. So I, I think, uh, I don't, I don't disagree with you at all about the importance of these, um, these subjects for, um, for philosophy and for especially living a philosophy. Mm. But, um, I think they have to be, we have, we have to acknowledge the other fields that studied them in more detail.
Speaker 2 00:45:15 Yeah. I think this, I, Scott I think this initial question that was right out of the bat from, uh, from Clinton Wall is really good. I, I want to tell people, only just to tease them, that David Kelly last, uh, semester conducted a private workshop and seminar. Uh, and the topic was the psychological requirements of free society. I mean, it, I participated, there weren't that many, well, there a dozen of us. It was just brilliant stuff. I mean, we, this is behind the scenes. This is not publicly available. But David, I learned so much from you. Um, and that's what we were exploring, right? We were exploring this precisely this issue. What is the role of psychology? And, uh, how does it relate to, you know, living a rational life? But we were trying to highlight, you know, the pros and cons of elevating psychology. Uh, so much was David provides so much wonderful stuff on that, that was just fantastic.
Speaker 2 00:46:19 Well, one of the things that came up, remember David, one of the things that came up was pre 1968, post 1968, the break. And, and I po one night, I posed, I asked the group, wasn't Objectiveism a lot more interested in psychology prior to the break in 1968? Yeah. Due to, due to Brandon's versus afterwards, and not, to, not to open this can of worms tonight, David <laugh>. But I, I sometimes wonder whether post 1968, all the way to tonight, there's been too little attention to psychology, uh, in Objectivism. There are psychologists out there, Michael Herd, Ellen Kenner. I don't want to, I don't want to besmirch the contribution, uh, ed Locke. I don't wanna besmirch the contributions of psychologists. Um, and of course, Nathan himself wrote stuff after 1968. But I think I've just become a bigger fan of the importance of psychology, you know, objectiveism, uh, than others have. And I don't know, I can't really defend myself 'cause I'm an economist. So why do I care about psychology
Speaker 0 00:47:30 <laugh>? Well, this could be its own show.
Speaker 2 00:47:34 Yeah, right. Exactly. That
Speaker 7 00:47:36 Would be interesting. Yeah.
Speaker 0 00:47:38 But, uh, we do have some people lined up. We'll go, uh, it's gonna be JP than Ramey, than Joshua, than Clark. We'll try to, you know, make the answers slightly more succinct. But, uh, okay. Look forward to this. Go ahead, jp.
Speaker 10 00:47:52 Thank you, Scott. And thank you, um, you all for having me again. Uh, there was a, a post on LinkedIn yesterday by the Atlas Society, uh, that I found very funny, testicular injuries in women's sports. And the chart just going up, up, uh, like <inaudible> starting on 2015 from the, and the question is from, from the objectives perspective, how, how, um, does the current, um, uh, progressive, uh, idea of gender identity and gender ideology as a result, um, aligned with objective reality from the objectivist per perspective? Thanks,
Speaker 0 00:48:44 David. That's yours,
Speaker 7 00:48:45 <laugh>. Yeah. Um, this has been, uh, a lot on my mind lately because of all the, um, uh, controversy about it. Um, again, I would say, uh, you know, Rand believed that there was a definite difference between males and females and in their psychologies and in their, what they sought in a romantic relationship. But, you know, she didn't really take account of, uh, people were gay or much less transsexual. And the, um, I, I, my own experience leads me to basically agree with her. Um, but that's me. Uh, and you know, what it, I think what it points to is that there's a lot of psychology involved here as well. That, um, I mean, if, if we say the philosophical, um, the philosophical conclusion to draw, uh, or the thesis is that, uh, you know, we should, uh, strive to be happy. And that, um, you know, relationship and sexual, um, uh, engagement are part of one of the things that make us happy, um, that's wired into our nature or most, most people's nature.
Speaker 7 00:50:10 And, um, beyond that, you know, it's a matter of partly psychology, partly culture. I mean, there have been widely different cultures over history about, uh, in this, in this area. Um, so I'm, I'm, I'm very leery about generalizing for myself 'cause I'm kind of, you know, white bread here. And, uh, so, but I think, um, I think what it would be, what, but I can't really tell, and this is, this is the honest truth. I cannot, cannot really form, uh, a judgment, um, universally in the context in which these issues are politicized. And they're treated as minor as, as a victim groups who are being oppressed by, um, you know, white heterosexual people, men mainly. And, you know, I don't think that's true, but I also think that the government has, uh, stepped in to enforce certain, um, you know, rights on the part of people who are, uh, that are not genuine liberty rights.
Speaker 7 00:51:35 They're, um, welfare rights, um, special protection or whatever. So, I mean, that's, that is the surrounding thick crust that surrounds these issues. And I don't, if you get down to the bottom, I don't, I basically, I don't care <laugh>. But, um, you know, the only, the only reason I feel I have to care is that it's a political issue. And so I have to, you know, the postmoderns are, uh, happy advocating they search out every, um, victim group they can and promote it, uh, one after another. And that's not, that is not good. And it's not helpful.
Speaker 2 00:52:22 Yeah. David, I, I like that. I, I agree with that. Um, the, starting with the political, but it really does go down to the metaphysical, the, the political. Yeah. Let's just start with the political, the government should not be telling people who, you know, who, what kind of sex life they should practice, who they should marry. So when the, so when the, uh, SCOTUS on Obergefell said, same exact marriage, it's not just David. I think you and I, it's not just we don't care, but people have rights, people have Yeah. Love interests that may differ from our own. But so what, interestingly, when this came up as a referendum issue in California, California, of all places California voted against same-sex marriage. So I say to students all the time, are you believers in majority rule democracy? Yeah. <laugh> shouldn't have, shouldn't have same-sex marriage. Thankfully, the Supreme Court, which is not elected, gave us same sex, marriage, liberty, <laugh>, liberties, you know?
Speaker 2 00:53:28 Okay. But, uh, on the gender side though, you mentioned postmodernism, David, I, I, I believe that part of the problem here is there's, uh, a real push to say identity. The law of identity identification doesn't matter. It's arbitrary. I identify, it's, they actually use the words, David, which is so interesting to me, and I'm sure to you as well, because it's a, it's a fundamental axiom in philosophy. I, i the law of identity and identification. And then you find people saying, I identify as a, a donkey or something. I identify as, in other words, I am something. But I'm gonna tell you that arbitrarily and subjectively identify as something different. I, I'm, I'm, I'm tempted often to say, when someone says, what are your pronouns? And I think I, I've never been asked that in my entire 64 year existence, what is going on here?
Speaker 2 00:54:33 And, uh, so now I say, my adjectives are, I am brilliant, handsome, and, uh, erudite. You know, those are my, those are my adjectives. Um, <laugh>, I don't think they're absolutely true, but it sounds like the arbitrary, doesn't it? And that's the metaphysical point. Things are what they are. Chromosomes are what they are. They're X and Y chromosomes. I understand that there are mixes that happen, but I, I'm fear David, that what's happening is people are, are saying, since I feel X my reality is whatever. And, and right here's, here's the next step that I really resist and others do. You must obey my, if you don't call me X, I'm going to cancel you. Cancel. You get up a posse that fires you, and it's against free speech, isn't it, David? So, so it's one thing to say people are not really in into objective identity anymore. Okay, I get it. But, but don't impose it on me.
Speaker 7 00:55:46 Right? Well, the, the postmodern, the essence of it is the denial of, uh, realism. The denial that there are facts of reality that lie behind our conclusions. It's all in effect, arbitrary. But, um, on this point also, um, I don't know, I, about five years ago, I resigned from the American Philosophical Association because they, at the conference, which I often went to, um, they said, oh, choose your init, choose your initials.
Speaker 2 00:56:22 And what, what did that mean? What did that mean, David?
Speaker 7 00:56:26 Well, am I a he, him, hi, his or me, miss, miss or, uh, Mrs. Miss, or, um, you know, an X xx. Anyway, so
Speaker 2 00:56:39 Yeah,
Speaker 7 00:56:40 It's,
Speaker 2 00:56:41 I didn't know. Anyway. Wow. I didn't know that. Wow.
Speaker 0 00:56:44 I'm gonna, uh, go to Ramey, uh, next Ramey. Thank you.
Speaker 6 00:56:50 Yeah, actually, it's a great segue into my question, because on the one hand, there is the so-called kind of heterodox community that's pushing against, you know, crazy encroachments on free speech.
Speaker 2 00:57:07 Mm-hmm.
Speaker 6 00:57:08 You know, and yet that community doesn't understand, I think that realism as was defined in Inman's book, is necessary, right? To kind of counter what, what they're after, which is to say there's an objective reality out there. Men and, and men are different. There's bell curves. We can kind of get into the details of that. But at the end of the day, those bell curves are real, and reality is real. And yet, because there's this standard of certainty that's based basically on a, on a missions, which is, hey, if you don't know everything, you know, nothing. Um,
Speaker 2 00:58:04 Good point, good point. Rainy. We're,
Speaker 6 00:58:06 We're always on the defensive. And so the question is like, how can we, and somehow, like as a virus, infect this heterodox community and say, Hey, look, you know, knowledge, knowledge is possible. And there's this book, I think it's called the Constitutional Knowledge, which is so disappointing, right? And as much as at the end of the day, it, it wants to say the right thing, but it says the wrong thing, which is knowledge is not possible. Like, like, like, how do we fix this?
Speaker 7 00:58:37 Well, Remy, here's the thought. Um, I know to exactly what you mean, um, that, that, uh, standard of knowledge as omniscience and, um, infallibility is, you know, it's, it's run through philosophy forever, and it's, you know, still a, it's a broad outside philosophy. But what if you, um, I don't know, what if you just asked, are you healthy? Well, someone says, you know, someone had, you know,
Speaker 7 00:59:12 30, 40, whatever. Um, yeah, I just had a checkup. I'm, I'm good. Well, have you been running 10 miles of a, you know, a day? No. Have you been, um, uh, are you taking all the pills you could possibly benefit from? No. So, I mean, you could stretch that, that issue of health to the point of omnipotence and omnipotence, and No, but no one does. Why? Because we take health for granted. We don't take knowledge for granted. Why? Uh, probably lots of answers, but, uh, you know, both philosophers and layman, uh, use the, uh, use those inflated standards, impossible, irrational standards to, um, you know, excuse little, you know, little or bigger, um, um, violations of reason. And, uh, I, you know, I just, I, you know, I don't know. I, I'm, I'm really puzzled by this Remy. 'cause I, I don't know why it has the grip It does. And I've seen it in so many people I've talked to over the years. Um, but yeah, you're, you're absolutely right. That that's the, that's the basic law.
Speaker 2 01:00:44 I mean, I, I, Scott, Scott, I wanna suggest an, an, I wanna suggest an interpretation listening to David and Ey, I wanna suggest an interpretation that will sound, at first, it will sound a little weird, but it goes something like this. If we categorize our knowledge from more abstract to more concrete, I think what I'm observing, we used to debate what is justice or not? What is capitalism or not, what is constitutional government or not, what do rights mean? This is higher level stuff. Right? Now we're, here's what I'm observing. This is very odd. Now we're down to real concretes. Like, what is speech? Is it hate speech, <laugh>? Is it hate speech? Which means we get to suppress it. What is a woman, the Supreme Court nominee who just joined the court refused to answer what a woman is. When she was asked, what is a woman?
Speaker 2 01:02:11 She said, I, I don't know. I'm not a biologist. I, what I'm observing is a two things simultaneously, which are very disturbing, a reduction down to the concrete bound mentality of physicalist. I don't even know David Kelly can tell me, what, what is this Dave Physicalist? I'm making up shit now I'm making up words now. Physicalist versus abstract <laugh>. And there's skepticism there, David. Yeah. There's dispute. There's dispute there. The, the dispute is not where it used to be, which was like, like understandable in human terms. What is capitalism? What is justice? What is the free society? What is the, you know, flourishing life? Aristotle? Now it's like, what is my penis?
Speaker 6 01:03:10 Yeah. What
Speaker 2 01:03:11 Is my, what are my, what are my pronouns? I I, I only throw this out because I think there's something, it's almost like in a complete epistemological collapse.
Speaker 6 01:03:27 Yeah. But, but
Speaker 2 01:03:28 Like the, like the, like the wor visualize it this way. People visualize it this way. The World Trade Center collapsing before your very eyes, but what, what, what I'm connecting it to is philosophy. That's the building. It's a hundred stories. The top story was what is justice? What is ca that's at the hundred and 10th floor of the World Trade Center. And the whole God thing is pancaked and collapsed into a rubble on the ground of who is bleeding and who is breathing, and what kind of genitals do they have? And I just, I just think it's crude. It's almost crude. And I totally irrational, David, am I missing something or Ramey you? What, what, what do you
Speaker 6 01:04:17 I wanted, you know, I, I, I think one of the fundamental challenges we have is that we know the possibility of error exists. Yeah. You know, and we wanna be open to that. And the fact that we're willing to say the possibility of error exists kind of creates this giant door where people say, well, and no knowledge is possible ever. Right. And so I think the advocates of reason as we understand it, right, which is to say, Hey, look, we can come to a conceptual awareness of what is real. Mm-hmm. Like the advocates of reason are on the back foot.
Speaker 2 01:05:01 Mm-hmm. <affirmative>,
Speaker 6 01:05:03 You know, because we have to,
Speaker 2 01:05:04 To mm-hmm.
Speaker 6 01:05:05 <affirmative> to be
Speaker 2 01:05:06 Honest.
Speaker 6 01:05:07 Yeah. And objective. We have to, we have to accept the fact that error is possible. And so, you know, I think we're in a quandary, right. Versus our adversaries on this point.
Speaker 7 01:05:20 Well,
Speaker 0 01:05:21 Response. And then, uh, we'll just go on to the others. Go ahead, David.
Speaker 7 01:05:25 Yeah. Uh, Remy, I, I, I hear what you're saying and it, and you know, I, it, it, it has, uh, it, uh, you know, it corresponds with a lot of my experience, but, um, just think of some other things where we don't do that. Like, you know, Silicon Valley, they are, um, where you work, that's, they, um, invent a lot of stuff. And the next thing that they've invented, which maybe most of us can't even re imagine, someone's probably got on his, uh, design table. And, um, in a couple years we'll come out with it and then we'll say, oh, of course. Right? That's obvious. Um, it isn't obvious. And so, but that's a, a form of discovery just as much as, um, knowledge discovery is. And, um, you know, but mostly we don't use that, uh, new product that changes our lives. Um, to deny the existence of all of all, um, all improvement.
Speaker 7 01:06:43 All you have to do is look back, you know, 200, 300 years and see, wait a minute, we have air conditioning, we have, you know, all the, all the rest of the things. Um, so we can be grateful looking back and, and you know, we don't, we don't necessarily expect omniscience, we just expect this cornucopia of new products. But why is knowledge different? Uh, I think there's a way, there are ways of approaching it, um, by starting with things, you know, for sure. Do you doubt that? You know, you're sitting in a chair right now, really? Um, do you, uh, okay, let's move up from there. Uh, and, and so on and so forth. That, that's, that how I've started some lectures, uncertainty. But, um, there, there's some kind of here that I haven't identified.
Speaker 0 01:07:38 Um, I do want to, uh, get Joshua in here. He's been very patient. Then we'll get to Clark and Kyle. Joshua, are you able to unmute?
Speaker 11 01:07:51 Yeah. Yes. Great. Um, yeah, another conversation is, is definitely very intriguing. Um, it's interesting because, you know, I actually had an experience today. It was a rather uncomfortable experience, but nonetheless, it was an experience. So today I was getting my certification for my Lyft truck operator, and it was a trading certificate that was issued to me through Crown and osha, which allows me to train other individuals and certify them for my company and allow them to ride the lift trucks. Now, I only speak of this because during this process, I was reading through the OSHA policies and the guidelines, and every single one of them was completely arbitrary. <laugh>, you can't define a single one of them, but as I'm sitting here reading these, it dawns on me that that means that they just show up to collect money. Now, the reason my job sent me here was because they wanna prevent any possible income from being docked in regards to OSHA visits.
Speaker 11 01:08:55 But it's impossible because my job and the boss man upstairs does not understand that these are arbitrary policies. So now I'm gonna bind because how can I prevent any kind of OSHA violations when they can make a violations for whatever they want? So my job doesn't understand this, understand this. So I guess my, my question would be this, how many people do you think have objectively noticed this, see this problem, acknowledge it exists, but still somehow try to psychologically tell themselves that it's not as bad as it really is. Because if that's the case, there is no such thing as a free market. There is people extorting you, regulating you, telling you what you can and cannot do, and how you must operate within the guidelines that they are making up. 'cause they're completely arbitrary. And you have to take it on top of the people in charge of you, of the company in which you work for not even realizing it, and you stuck directly in the middle of it. What kind of psychological effects could that have on a man who sees all of this, but has no choice but to participate in those circumstances?
Speaker 2 01:10:03 Joshua, uh, that's a great question. And my first point is congratulations. 'cause you got certified. And the question you ask is so profound, because the answer, the bottom line answer is it's debilitating. I can tell You're telling me that the most intelligent people like you in a situation where OSHA and those who don't know what OSHA means, occupational safety and hazard administration, but really what Joshua what you're talking about is I'm trying to succeed in a field. I think you said it was Lyft. So this is like Uber and they're micro reregulating me. Why they're treating me like a child. Why? And my bosses believe in all this shit. Why? And I agree with you, Joshua. It's debilitating, it's stupid, it's unnecessary, it's paternalistic.
Speaker 2 01:11:04 And the, the only I've been in finance, which is heavily, heavily regulated. I've been in academia, which, you know, holds this sort of damocles over you. I will cancel you if you misspeak. So I kind of understand what you're talking about. All I can say is try as hard as you can. I think you're trying, I can hear from your voice. Try as hard as possible to remain with your integrity in this field. 'cause it's a legitimate field, right? You're, you're providing rides to people. I'm teaching economics to students. And, and yet there's, I agree with you. There's this overarching context where they're punishing you. They're micro regulating you, they're distrusting you and your bosses are doing that, and you're trying to advance in your field, and you feel like you're being suffocated. It's terrible. It's unjust. I totally, I feel, I think I feel correct correctly what you're expressing.
Speaker 2 01:12:04 But, um, it doesn't mean that all is lost. I think the way you think about things, well, from what I can tell is so rational, is so just that, just keep your sanity. Speak up when you can. Don't speak up and lose your job. Don't sacrifice yourself. But, um, that's the only advice I can give. Advice. You, you can succeed in these field. Many years ago, I must tell you, Josh Joshua, many years ago, I remember a famous objectives economist who asked, what field should I go into that is least regulated? 'cause I want to be a free person and pursue. And it's so interesting that the answer, I won't name who it was. The answer was don't base it on that. Base it on what career do you love? What work do you love? Don't start with, oh man, I'm gonna be heavily regulated or not. Go into the field you love, and if it's heavily regulated, you know, relative to other fields, push back, find a way. But don't base it on. I'm gonna go to the field that's least regulated because then you will lose energy. You'll lose your self-esteem. I, I hope that helps Joe, sir, I don't know. David, thoughts.
Speaker 7 01:13:20 No, I, I could not improve on that, Richard. So thank you.
Speaker 2 01:13:25 Great. Clark.
Speaker 12 01:13:29 Yes. Um, welcome. I just like to ask, can you hear me okay? Yeah,
Speaker 2 01:13:34 We can Clark, yes. Thank you. Yeah,
Speaker 12 01:13:36 Great. Well, I really am enjoying all of this as usual, and I have a question. Oh, great. Thanks Clark. Yeah, I I I have a question really about, uh, something that you guys may not, or at least in the past, haven't seen eye to eye on, uh, eye to eye on. And it's the, uh, the war in Ukraine, which I think we can all agree, is lasting a lot longer than, I mean, I don't think anybody predicted, uh, it would still be going on, but, so the question is, is just how big an impact looking forward, I mean, will, will the war have, I mean, if y'all have any thoughts on, on when the war will end and how it will end and what the future of us, uh, Russia and I guess us, uh, European relations will be, and, and I guess economically, you know, uh, Ukraine is the breadbasket of the world.
Speaker 12 01:14:25 It's not, obviously during wartime, it's not gonna be producing nearly the amount of food. I mean, we're already seeing the effects of this, of course, in Africa and other parts of the world. Same thing with oil. I mean, I, I think the economy is, is it looks like the Bris countries are coming together. So I guess, uh, yeah, let me just shut up and I'd love to hear, I know you guys may disagree on, on some of this, but this, this war that was supposed to only last a few weeks or a few months is, looks like it's gonna be at least a year and a half long. Right?
Speaker 2 01:14:56 Well, I, I defer to my esteemed colleague, David.
Speaker 7 01:15:01 Well, go ahead, David. Well, Richard and I have discussed this, uh, many times, uh, sometimes in public. And, uh, uh, I, I think it's, well, correct me if I'm wrong, Richard, but I think it's still fair to say we disagree. Um, but from my standpoint, um, I would say I, I'm, I'm an enthusiast for this war. Um, because what I've seen in, you know, I follow the, the news pretty carefully and I know people in Ukraine, I think the, um, response has been, um, very heartening. And, uh, and the Russians have been very, very ugly. Um, and, you know, just, just graceful. Um, um, I, I mean, I must say I thought the Russians were disable before, but, you know, they've gone up in my, uh, gone down in my estimation. But anyway, um, it's, uh, I think if it, if it worked out to the end so that U Ukraine could be part of the west, which it seems clearly to desire, and, um, a freer country, which is, would be a challenge because they're, they have tons of corruption still and, um, oligarchs et and, and everything.
Speaker 7 01:16:24 But nevertheless, they are, um, they could be a, a very valuable addition if, if they, uh, not only win against the Russians, but also reform their internal service. But I think they are trying to do that. So I'm, you know, I'm in favor of it. I don't like the fact that the US is spending a lot of money on it, but I don't know if it's spending any more money on that than on welfare, um, programs or social security. Uh, in fact, I know it's not so, um, you know, in, in the fullness of things, taking account of all the situations, I'm, I'm, I'm in favor of the, uh, supporting the Ukrainians.
Speaker 2 01:17:15 But yeah, Clark, uh, Clark, David and I agree. And c I know this, I don't wanna speak for you, David. David and I agree completely on the importance of liberty, and we agree completely, and this is true of other scholars. I've talked Rob Kozinski and David and, uh, Steven, Nicks and Jason, um, that American self-interest is primary. Okay? So then we discuss, is it in America's self-interest to support Ukraine or not? And, um, so I just wanted to emphasize that because, um, I, so I would not have, uh, joined d s if I had not, uh, loved and respected the views of David Kelly and Jason Hill and Stephen Hicks and Rob Kozinski. Um, I think the difference is actually kind of interesting because I'm saying American support of Ukraine is not selfish. And, and that does not mean I'm endorsing, you know, Putin as a free market, uh, liberal guy.
Speaker 2 01:18:30 It's just that, um, here, here's one way, and I'll leave it at this one interpretation is Putin is a proto Hitler, or, or proto, uh, Nicholas, who wants to reestablish the Soviet Union or Czarist Russia. Um, I deny that. I think that's not true. There's no facts. On the other hand here, here's the big controversy. Putin thinks NATO is aggressive. Putin thinks NATO is offensive. Putin and Russian theorists don't believe that the doubling of NATO members, by the way, the, including now Finland and Sweden, is it on the border of Russia. And the Ukraine lobbying for this. But Ukraine is not part of nato. Um, I am no advocate of Putin, but I understand the Russian view might be, my gosh, you guys keep encircling us, and you think you're defensive, but you're actually offensive. And we thought the Cold War was over, and you don't think that, and you overthrew the Ukrainian elected government in 2014, and were against that.
Speaker 2 01:20:01 So, but I, I'll leave it at that, but I, I, I wanna bend over backwards and stress that David Kelly and I agree, and Rob Rasinski and I agree a lot at the t a s, at we want Liberty and we want America to win, and we want allies that, you know, reflect American values. And nothing in the Constitution, my theme has been justifies the US defending other countries. The Constitution says the US DEF should defend the us and so we need a standard. David agrees with it. We need an objective standard. I'm not sure we have this. The State Department needs an objective standard for identifying which foreign countries and regimes are consonant with American values. And that doesn't mean they're like completely pure and, and lacking in all, you know, violations of individual rights. But that's what should guide our foreign policy egoism. And I know that David and I agree on that. So I'll stop. Yeah.
Speaker 0 01:21:10 One of the, uh, virtues of open Objectiveism that, uh, you know, with non fundamentals, we can have disagreements on things like political strategy. So, um,
Speaker 2 01:21:22 Good point, Scott. Yeah.
Speaker 0 01:21:23 Great. Uh, let's go to Kyle. Kyle, thank you for your patience.
Speaker 13 01:21:29 Yeah. Um, thank you for, um, doing this. Uh, I really enjoy listening and, um, was just curious, uh, about the pinned article, um, with the labor shortage. Um, couple questions. Uh, would you say that this had to do with, uh, um, T S M C, uh, delaying until 2025, um, for the, uh, for the manufacturing of semiconductors, um, in America? Is that what delayed it until then? Or is it like incompetence or not enough, um, uh, technologists perhaps within the semiconductor, uh, industry? Um, and then also, um, what, what do you think, uh, people who, uh, work, uh, blue collar, um, in the trades, in, in labor positions, uh, what do you think, um, they could look forward to, uh, given, um, that they would probably have, um, a higher value and be able to demand, uh, higher wages, perhaps?
Speaker 2 01:22:33 Well, Kyle, briefly, Kyle, I would say the Biden administration's micromanaging of Silicon Valley. And by the way, last week, not last week, two days ago, um, banning technological trade with China, or this is not good for labor participation. So I'll leave it at that. There's a long answer to this, Kyle. It's a really, really good question. I could see how, I could see how, um, knowledgeable you are of the details of this, but my, my basic principle is you're not gonna get labor participation when the White House is micromanaging which sectors or companies or products should be promoted or not. And that's what omics is. Omics is highly interventionist industrial policy completely at odds with Reaganomics. And that's killing us. That's killing us. It's killing labor participation and other things, but it's, omics is the devil. It's, it's just cancer. And I think that's part of what I would say about your question.
Speaker 13 01:23:45 Well, what's your take on the AI tech arms race then? Because semiconductors are kind of essential for that, right? They, and so there's reasons as to why, um, they, they want, uh, to manufacture at home more. Yeah. And, uh, to keep outta the hands of competition.
Speaker 2 01:24:02 Yeah, no, I understand that. But that's imposs, that's never been viable. Well, I mean, Japan, that whole idea of Japan
Speaker 13 01:24:08 Is in control of photo resist, and that's essential for making semiconductors. So it seems to be working thus far. Yes,
Speaker 2 01:24:15 Yes. You know, but you, you mentioned Japan, but Taiwan is, Taiwan is super, uh, important to semiconductors and, and, um, no, it's, it's a, it's an in the weeds kind of question, but I want free trade across the board. I only wanna identify foreign nations as having an, an existential threat to the United States, if that's true. If that's true, the state department and the Defense Department should definitely isolate them, prevent trade. I actually don't classify China that way. I don't even actually classify Russia that way. I understand that's a minority pos that might be in minority position right now. But, um, Biden's view is definitely heavily interventionist in picking and choosing winners and losers. We've, we've had clubhouse, uh, sessions on ai, and we're gen, I wouldn't say I wanna speak for t i s I'm generally optimistic about the prospects of ai, and I don't fear any other country taking it over. The Soviets for years said they would take over US industry and US finance and blah, blah, blah, and no status regime can ever do that. We should never be fearful of some status regime abroad, taking over our wonderful technological, uh, sectors.
Speaker 13 01:25:37 Well, you understand how ai this technology can be used though, right? Like, um, yeah. So, so think about like, uh, yeah. Surveillance capitalism. Yeah. Um, yeah. You know, uh, anyone's
Speaker 2 01:25:49 Forecasting or, or, or surveillance. Or surveillance stateism,
Speaker 13 01:25:52 Right? So then that takes away
Speaker 2 01:25:54 Your surveillance. Surveillance statism takes away your liberty. Yeah. So not, but when
Speaker 13 01:26:01 Concerned about this, Richard,
Speaker 2 01:26:04 Well, when, when Amazon tracks your book purchases and then pushes out suggestions of what other things to buy, I don't think that's dictatorial. But when the Chinese have social credit systems that monitor your every move and then put you in jail for it, that's the problem. So I make a distinction between status surveillance and capitalist surveillance. I want capitalists to surveil me. I want them to track what I do, so they offer greater products and things to me. It used to be called junk mail. We get it in our mailbox. Now it's all you have to do is click and say, I declined, but you can't in China. So, um, quick, good que good question. I,
Speaker 13 01:26:50 I appreciate, I appreciate that response. Thank you so much, Richard. Great,
Speaker 2 01:26:53 Great, great.
Speaker 0 01:26:55 Final question, uh, from social media, it says, I like Objectivism, but also interested in ancient Greek philosophy. What should I read
Speaker 2 01:27:07 <laugh>? David. David, I know David
Speaker 7 01:27:11 Well, uh, it's, it's hard to pick, uh, <laugh>, I would say, right? First of all, Aristotle. But, um, because he's the, the closest one, uh, the greatest anticipator of some of, uh, objectivist ideas. Uh, but he's hard to read.
Speaker 2 01:27:31 He's, yes, he is. And
Speaker 7 01:27:32 So, um, you know, even in grad school when I was, I picked him as my, my so-called great man thesis, then in my first semester of grad school. Um hmm.
Speaker 7 01:27:46 Wow. I didn't, I didn't pass because, um, you know, I, I just didn't know enough <laugh>. But, but still, um, I would actually, I would start with, uh, if you want, if you're interested in Aristot, I would start with a, uh, secondary work. And my favorite is, uh, the one by, um, John Herman Randall. It's back in the sixties, I think, or even fifties. Yeah. Um, it was just lyrical. And, um, you know, there's been a lot of research since then. I mean, Aristotle is one of the, the very big, um, subjects of, um, of his, uh, philosophers interested in history, and they study, you know, there's a small number of people they study Lado Aristotle, and down the road. But, uh, Aristotle is, there's a huge amount of literature, but I still think Randall's book, John Herman Randall, um, I think it was just called Aristotle. And, but there's that, and, uh, but there's, there's value in the stoics as well. Mm. Um, not, not quite as good as Aristotle, but, but they, you know, they make a lot of points about how to live, uh, the stoics. Um, I have to think of, of the best writings. I haven't looked at 'em for a while. S
Speaker 2 01:29:21 Sene Seneca. Yeah, Seneca.
Speaker 7 01:29:24 Seneca, yeah. He was a, not a very good person, uh, as I understand <laugh>,
Speaker 2 01:29:29 But he was, he was a good writer, or, or Marcus Aurelius, who was a ruler as well as a stoic, yeah, Marcus
Speaker 7 01:29:37 Aelius. But there were, there were, uh, Greeks, those, those are Romans, uh, there were Greeks,
Speaker 2 01:29:42 Uh, earlier. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 0 01:29:44 This is a, a, a good starting list. Well, uh, this has been a great session. Uh, David, you came back. Uh, and, uh, next week we've got Andrew Doyle, uh, Wednesday, August 16th at 3:00 PM being interviewed by Jennifer Grossman across different channels, YouTube and Facebook. And then, uh, next Thursday at 6:00 PM we'll be back with Richard Salzman here on Clubhouse for Reflation isn't a thing. So, uh, we'll look forward to that. In the meantime, thanks so much to everyone who joined us, even just listened, uh, you know, asked questions. And, uh, I'm Scott Schiff with the Atlas Society, and, uh, we look forward to seeing you next time. Take care. Thank you.
Speaker 7 01:30:33 Thanks everyone.
