Richard Salsman - Ask Me Anything - April 2022

Speaker 0 00:00:00 As we are welcoming people into the room. Uh, I see our founder, David Kelly, uh, my creative partner, Patrick Reno, um, a few other members of our team, Vanessa from socio dad. Atlas wanted to introduce, uh, our guest it's professor Richard Salman, um, professor of economics at duke university and senior scholar at the ATLA society we are gonna be doing and ask me anything, no holds barred. So, um, we can pull from some of our questions, uh, from our 64,000 Instagram followers. Uh, but otherwise, um, I have confidence that there are a few people in the room that might have a question for Richard. So Lawrence, Speaker 1 00:00:57 Hello, Richard. Thanks for doing this. Sure. Speaker 2 00:01:00 Glad to do it. Speaker 1 00:01:01 My question for you is, is, uh, looking back in regards to China and the opening up of China back, I believe during Nixon, I might be wrong and considering where they're going and considering where we are going. I I'm curious, what are your, do you think opening up a, a communist nation like that? Some would argue that by opening them up to trade, it helped to keep them surviving in, even though they have moved away from the hardline communism that we've seen in the, the Soviet union, which collapsed that by opening them up, we allowed the perpetuation of some variant of that system. So was it a bad thing to open it up or is they, are they still heading in the right direction because of this, um, free trade that has been allowed to occur? Speaker 2 00:01:55 So my answer would be on the whole, it's a good thing. So just as historical context, um, it was a semi free agricultural economy until, uh, Mao and the Marxist socialist took over in 1949. Now from 1949 until he died, which I think was 1976, it was just horrific. I mean, the record is clear that more were deliberately, uh, disappeared and murdered in China than even in Russia or, uh, I should say the Soviet union or Nazi Germany. So now it's true. Now, Nixon, you mentioned Nixon in 1972, uh, Nixon met with Mao. So, uh, that was opposed by many conservatives at the time as a kind of appeasement. Um, it wasn't until two years after Mao died, by the way, the idea for Nixon was yes, if we recognize China, he, he was really doing it as a way to, uh, stick it to the Soviet union. Speaker 2 00:02:59 So he was hoping actually to pressure the Soviet union into being less hostile by aligning with China. So that was a typical Nixon type call it an opportunistic kind of unprincipled approach, but it's true. Uh, and there's a long story behind this not worth getting into right now, but it is true that in 1978, the Chinese on their own really wasn't really our doing started liberalizing in 1978 now was largely economic liberalizing. It wasn't political obviously, but that was the beginning of this enormous stretch of more Chinese economy, propelling, upward and onward. Uh, estimates are that since then, um, Lawrence, something like on the order of 800 million people have been, uh, pulled out of various measures of poverty in China over this time. Uh, so overall a very good thing. I think it was in 2001 that China also joined the world trade organiz. So it was at that point to get into that organization, you had to have some bare minimum of respect for property rights and, and things like that and, and have fairly open trade. Speaker 2 00:04:13 I mean, they were also supposed to have a convertible currency and they haven't quite got there yet, but it's a lot more convertible than it used to be. Tradeable on foreign markets. Um, now in terms of things like state owned enterprises, I've tracked this over the years, ma basically state owned enterprises. The percentage of them as a total of the economy has gone down over time. So they are increasingly, um, privatizing, if you will. Uh, the handover of Hong Kong by Britain to China in 1995 at think that was negotiated, maybe 1997 was, um, at the time seen by conservatives also as troubling because it was seen that that would be the end of Hong Kong's, uh, freedom. Now, Hong Kong's economic freedom has been on the top of the list for, for three decades or so. And, um, and China did not really intervene and change Hong Kong after 1997. Speaker 2 00:05:07 I mean, they pretty much let it be, they certainly did not allow political expression, but that's true on the mainland. And, uh, so I don't wanna go on too long with an answer, but I I'm generally of the view that it's, uh, been a great thing that China decided to liberalize in 78, they have had years, especially since oh eight when they backed. So I would describe them now as basically going sideways and neither moving toward more capitalism, but certainly not toward communism. And, and just to throw a couple more thoughts in, in case it comes up, I do not consider them to be in a military threat to the us. I'm not saying they're not getting stronger militarily. They are, but unlike, uh, the Soviet union, they're not on record in, in an ideology seeing the United States as an enemy, they've never said they would've, you know, that, that they see the us as an enemy. Speaker 2 00:05:57 I see China as more eclipsing, not vanquishing, but more eclipsing surpassing America, economic prowes, um, rather than doing this for purposes of, of attacking, uh, America. So, um, the I'll leave it there. I think generally a good thing. I think you also asked the relationship with the us. I think the two are converging. I think China, it went from communism to a mixed system toward capitalism, but they haven't gotten there yet. So it's in the middle. It's closer to fascism. It's a heavily government directed economy with huge pockets of freedom in places like Shanghai, Hong Kong and elsewhere. And the us is going the other way. It's moving away last 20 years, at least away from capitalism toward a mixed system, um, which is closer to what China's doing. Uh, I hope that helps. Thank you. Speaker 0 00:06:55 All right. Uh, well, uh, we, I, a few more people that just joined us, um, we are doing and ask me anything with professor Richard Salzman. He is a professor of economics at duke university and a senior scholar at the ATLA society. Um, we'd love to get more people involved in the conversation. So if you have a moment, take a look at the share button at the bottom of your screen, share it on clubhouse, share it on your social media platform and, um, contribute to the conversation. If you have a question, just raise your hand and we'll bring you on up as always thrilled to see Roger in the room. Roger, you have a question. Speaker 3 00:07:39 Yeah. Do, um, I'm interested in why, um, Adam Smith gets all the credit for capitalism, uh, and, and yes, wealth of nation's very influential book, but like where is the credit that, that, that is due to, uh, the scholars at school of soca? Uh, I, I, I, I'm just kind of curious how, uh, their efforts in promoting free markets, hundreds of years prior to Adam Smith get overlooked by so many people. And what could we do to change that Speaker 2 00:08:14 Roger, you know, your history of economic thought. I love this question. Um, the first answer I would give of is that he was the first Smith to, uh, systematize political economy. So I know what you mean about the Spanish thinkers of prior and even the, uh, uh, even some of the other thinkers on the continent, uh, you know, were beginning to play around with, you know, what is political economy, but the wealth of nations, I think does mark a real turning point because it was, as I say so systematic, what do I mean by that, that on every major question, even if he got some of the answers wrong, uh, Smith defined the field, so to speak. And so he was talking about not just labor in the division of labor, uh, but also trade and finance and government finance and competition and things like that. Speaker 2 00:09:07 Not, not, uh, yet very good on price theory, but that would come later. So it is, it is somewhat of a prolix book, I mean, is hard to read. It's very, uh, it's a little lengthy, it could use some heavy editing, but, um, I think also frankly, the fact that it came out of the Scottish enlightenment. And so in that regard reflected more the prevailing thing of the 17 hundreds, namely this was the century of the enlightenment. So what, what greater book could you pick for enlightenment economics at least than Smith? And, you know, of course other revolutions were going on scientific political, uh, industrial, and, and here was the idea of a revolution and political, um, economy. Um, I, I think the third thing I'd say is, um, just by year accident, I suppose that that 1776, uh, is also the year, the us, uh, declaration of independence. Speaker 2 00:10:03 And I think that, I think that's another reason it sticks in people's minds as a turning point now really the ultimate test of why he should be considered important is the seminal aspects of it. How many people did he influence? How many schools did he influence? And here, I think you could say that he's also influential because he gave us the error of the labor theory of value, you know, which, which instead of focusing on the mind as the source of wealth focuses on physical manual labor and the quantity of labor that goes into things, and Marx took that over of course, and flipped the, I flipped a script I should say, and turned it into an exploitation theory. You know, if manual labor, as Smith said, is the main source of wealth, then why are they so seemingly underpaid, uh, you know, relative to people in, uh, management relative to people on the wall street, you know, who aren't getting their hands dirty, things like that. Speaker 2 00:10:54 So, so you could also say that that labor theory of value was really was not overturned with an alternative until 1870. That's a long time. Um, he he's influential in a bad sense in that regard, uh, of the Marxist taking over his labor theory. But, but, uh, there's note about it. I think, I think there's no doubt about that. You can find prior to Smith, uh, you know, strands a of interesting people like the, the solo Monka school as you, I mentioned, but, uh, they're not gonna be as systematic. I, I might put in a pitch here for someone I think is totally under appreciated where Smith might be a little over appreciated. And that's my favorite John B say, now say, uh, was influenced by, uh, Smith, very heavily, a French political economist whose main treatise was, uh, 1803. So about 25 years after Smith. Speaker 2 00:11:45 But what's interesting about say is he's thoroughly free market and he doesn't have the labor theory of value. He rejects the labor theory of value right away and endorses a utility theory of value, which was later endorsed. So he was way ahead of his time and had S what I call S economics, uh, taken hold. It did largely take hold in the us, it was the standard textbook in us universities in the 18 hundreds, even though it was in French, it was translated into, um, ha had his economics taken over in the continent. We wouldn't have gotten Marxism, but unfortunately it wasn't. Uh, so good. Good question about Smith. Um, uh, thanks. Thanks, Roger. Good question. Speaker 0 00:12:29 All right, Clark. Good to see you here. Thanks for joining us on Tuesday for, uh, Richard's talk to the turning point chapter. Speaker 5 00:12:40 Sure. Yes. Thank, thank you. Um, yes, Richard, I have a question that I've always, um, asked people who are free market oriented. Uh, it seems like the free market people who for are for, uh, you know, gold sound, money, hard money. Uh, we don't mention enough do we, that if we went to a hundred percent goal tomorrow, I mean, almost certainly after the last couple of years, we would have a two year long recession and it would be very steep and yet, and then also of course it, if, uh, if we stayed at a hundred percent percent goal, which of course is what we all want. If Congress didn't balance the budget interest rates almost certainly would be double digit. And yet I guess where I'm going with this is shouldn't we be preparing America, you know, the average American citizen for the fact that if, if we actually somehow at some point in the future, get what we want, which is, you know, hard money and, uh, you know, where basically Congress, uh, I mean, they really able to monetize the debt well, if they keep letting these kinds of deficits, I mean, certainly interest rates would, would, you know, I mean, I obviously the natural rate of interest anyway, even if they did balance a budget would, would be higher than what it is now. Speaker 5 00:14:02 So, uh, I guess, you know, I'm just concerned that if we ever got our wish, we would have a very long recession, cause it's all this mal investment would, it would take time, of course, to, to, you know, to, for the career direction. And I mean, it might even be what maybe a couple of years. And during that time, my concern is the American people would just would not wanna stay the course. And at the end, you know, the, the attempt to, to go to a hundred percent gold, we would, uh, you know, it would somehow discredit, it would discredit freedom because people would go, well, gee, we'd tried it. And, you know, we had higher interest rates and we had this deep, long recession. And, and I guess, I think, you know where I'm going. So I'll just, Speaker 2 00:14:49 Okay, there's a lot in there. My first, uh, point I would make is, um, I do believe, um, that a free market monetary system just based on not only the history, but the logic, um, and this isn't just a thing of nostalgia, uh, would be a heavily based on the gold standard. Now in a, in, you mentioned a hundred percent gold, I, I've never been of the belief of Rothbard and others that there has to be 100% reserves. So if that's what you mean, I, I would reject that that's never been a system that's worked. Uh, so fractional reserve banking on a gold standard has worked, uh, very, very well. Now, the other thing that keep in mind here is the, uh, gold standards do not very work very well when central banks run them. So the, so the best experience act, although the bank of Britain, uh, the bank of England was semi responsible toward the gold standard. Speaker 2 00:15:44 So the real ideal system is free banking on the gold standard. And I've written that on that at length and free banking, meaning banks, the themselves should be the issuers of money convertible into gold. Now to say this today sounds very old fashion. And that's why I think young students are interested in Bitcoin. It just sounds sexier. It's, uh, it's, uh, it's internet based as you know, and, and sounds, feels like virtual money, but I, I, I don't think it's acting quite as money and gold still is, uh, in the sense of holding its purchasing power. But it's true that for the last 50 years, no, country's been on the gold standard. I, my theme over the years has been the gold standard is part and parcel of a capitalist system, but it's not going to be a bull work against that capitalist system, if the politicians want to go the other their way. Speaker 2 00:16:33 So now, if so, so think of it. If the philosophy is proli in the good sense pro Liberty, then you're gonna have limited government and government's gonna keep its hands off the monetary system. And the markets will naturally converge on a gold based money. And that's what happened historically. But the, but then if over the last a hundred years that we've seen the move is to a philosophy that says, uh, collectivism is, uh, preferable to individualism and the state should do more and more. But then on top of that, the state becomes fiscally profitable. It literally cannot pay the bills to pay for this Gargan and welfare state. They will get rid of sound money. They will undermine the gold standard and dilute it and eventually get rid of it. That is exactly what happened over the year, not just in the United States, but globally. Speaker 2 00:17:20 This was not an example of the gold standard quote unquote failing. It was not a, you know, a market failure of monetary system. It was simply that the, that the Gargan welfare state is incompatible with, um, sound money incompatible with the gold state hundred. Now, for, as you know, it may know from 1933 to 75, you couldn't even own gold. So they criminalized it. Uh, it was illegal to even own it. So thankfully at least in 1975, they decriminalized ownership of gold. And that has meant that people at least have been able to, to buy it, uh, store it, inure it, use it as a hedge against paper monies. The last time I checked more gold has been mined since 1975 than in the prior 200 years. So it's standing there behind the scenes, so to speak as a potential future money, we couldn't go back to it, but you couldn't go back to it without, at the same time, severely constraining the size and scope and deficit spending power, um, of the government. Speaker 2 00:18:17 So that was the theme of my book, gold and Liberty. In 1995, you can find it on the web, the idea that gold goes with Liberty, and if you don't have Liberty, you're not gonna get the gold standard. It's, it's not one of these gimmicks that will tie the hands of propagate politicians. Um, they'll go off at the minute they go on it and then they'll blame the goal standard. Again, in terms of a transition, if we ever got to that point, I have, uh, published, uh, step by step plan for safely and slowly over the three or five years dismantling the federal reserve and privatizing its assets and returning gold to the private banking system. And then relining the dollar to gold. It's not as complicated as it might imagine, as you might imagine. Um, but that's in a, a, that's in an essay called the end of central banking, um, which I wrote in 2013. So you could look for that plan. It's in part two of that essay, the end of central banking, By the way, the most interesting gold story of the last week is that the Russians just went on the gold standard. Um, so if anyone wants to ask about that, I'd be, uh, pleased to talk about that. But no, as I said, no, country's been on the gold standard since 1971 and Russia just went on the gold standard. It's like, well, Speaker 0 00:19:40 Yeah, we love get into that. Yeah. Richard, tell us a little bit about that. And I would also love just to get caught up with you. Um, you know, we talked a couple of weeks ago, we're gonna be organizing a debate on Ukraine, um, for next week among the faculty of the out society. So, uh, I really want to get your sort of, uh, check in on this and, and an update on, um, what you think was going on with Russia and, um, getting on the gold standard. Speaker 2 00:20:11 Yeah, well, the announcement on the gold standard was interesting as it, it was, um, today's I think the seventh, so I think it was March 28th. So now the sequencing here, uh, the Russia invaded in February 24th, um, sanctions and threats of sanctions followed, and the rule declined 40% in foreign exchange markets. Uh, so did Russia's debt. So it, it seemed as though, and those are usually leading indicators of future economic trouble. So it seemed as though, um, this was really gonna hurt Russia, uh, economically and financially, very smartly. I have to say. And very cleverly, the Russians realized, um, our biggest import, excuse me, our biggest export oil and gas is badly needed by the rest of the world. Now, particularly 60% of Russia's oil and gas goes to Western Europe. That's a, so 60%, that's huge. And in Western Europe, 35% of their energy needs are supplied by Russia. Speaker 2 00:21:15 So they're in a very hard position of saying no to receiving Russian oil and gas. Uh, they would literally have the lights go out in Western Europe, uh, where they to follow these sanctions main, you know, not importing Russia, oil and gas. So they're very reluctant to go along with it. But what Russia did was basically say, if you're gonna impose these sanctions, um, to get our oil and gas, you must pay us in gold. And in other words, they, it, they, they know that gold is real money. They themselves have 140 billion in gold, which is a huge gold reserve. So we're talking about a war time situation. Usually in war time, the waring party's currencies, uh, deteriorate badly, cuz they resort to printing money. Here's a case where, where Russia, because it is so commodity heavy as an economy, including gold mining. I mean it does have mining. Speaker 2 00:22:09 Um, it is using those hard assets to say, this is how we're going to survive. We're not gonna print our way. We're not gonna base the currency and ruin the debt. Um, and so I believe what, and, and then they said, we're going on the gold standard. So they literally have put the Rubal, it's a diluted form of it, but it's still a, a close to the gold standard that existed in 1971. And they're the only country in the world doing it. There's still some question about whether they're doing it and it'll only be temporary, but even if it's only on temporary, meaning only during this period of war, but even if that's the case, they are basically signaling to the world that we have financial wherewithal, a strong currency, a, a reliable currency, and you have to pay us in real hard assets. Um, and that's quite a powerful thing to have. Speaker 2 00:22:58 It's it's a real head scratcher, I think, to free market people and supply siders, cuz for years we've been advocating the gold standard. So here's uh, a rare case where the only one that goes to the gold standard is, is Russia. So I, I have mixed views of this. I'm not rooting for Russia so much, but they, they, they are very clever in going to the gold standard. This was something they, they would do and should do if they want to maintain their monetary integrity, uh, under these sanctions, I should say that. The other thing that's interesting that's happened in Russia is over the last 20 years, while the us ran up the national debt from 5 trillion to 30 trillion, the Russians went the other way under Putin. They have successively every year reduced their public debt to almost nothing. Now it's something like 10% of GDP. Speaker 2 00:23:46 So they have enormous borrowing capacity. They're not over leveraged, so to speak. Whereas the us is, is way overleverage the debt of the us now exceeds GDP. Um, I don't wanna say too much on Russia, Ukraine, except, uh, to maybe just to reiterate the theme, if you haven't heard it from a others that I do not believe it's in America's, uh, national security interest to help Ukraine. And I don't think it's in America's, uh self-interest to, well either help Ukraine, you know, with, uh, aid or, uh, mil, certainly not military, um, equipment and, and then fight Russia. Uh, this doesn't mean you have to endorse what Russia has done, but I do believe Russia has made a decent case that for years NATO, even though the cold wars over has been expanding eastward toward Russia and, um, over the objections of the Russians and Ukraine is just a bridge too far for them. Speaker 2 00:24:48 I mean, Ukraine is right on their border and the idea of new of NATO there as a potential offensive force. And I do believe it's not just a defensive force. I mean, the NATO was formed during the cold war when the Soviet union was seen as a nation willing to vanquish the United States. And it really was, but after the cold war ended, there was no reason for NATO to persist and, and to, to remain. And so just as the Warsaw packed on the other side was dismantled. You did not see a corresponding dismantling of NATO. And I think that was quite unfortunate after the cold wars as if the cold warriors couldn't accept victory and make, uh, uh, Russia, uh, an ally, including a trading ally. And that's a shame. Um, I'll, I'll just leave it there for now. Cause there's more to say. I don't wanna monologue. Speaker 0 00:25:37 Thank you, Richard. And I see a few others have joined, uh, the room, some of our regulars, um, Philip and a, so just please raise your hand and come on up. Um, also, uh, we have our founder, David Kelly on the stage. David, did you have Anything that you wanted to add to, uh, Richard's commentary? Speaker 7 00:26:05 Um, I have a question, um, and I'm getting, uh, away from the Russia Ukraine issue, um, which we we're gonna be dealing with in other formats, but I, I, I want to ask Richard of all the things on the table, uh, in Washington now under the Biden administration, um, can you give us your judgment about what is the worst, the most destructive thing? <laugh>, I'm sorry to put it that way, but, um, the thing you would, if we had to pick one issue to fight to the, you know, to the end, um, what would it be? Is it the, for example, the, uh, the proposed tax on, um, the wealth of wealthy people, um, the, the, uh, climate agenda and, uh, what would you, what would you, uh, what would be your short list of top, um, problems? Speaker 2 00:27:12 The top three, I would name David, uh, is, um, just call it the green new deal then equity, then the tax policy. So I, you name two of the, the three I would name now on green new deal. You know, the green new deal per se has not been enacted, but they did what they did with Hillary care in 1993, once it couldn't be enacted, they enacted, they enacted at peace mail and then we eventually got Obamacare anyway, but the assault, the green new deal assault on fossil fuels is the most horrific thing going on right now. And I don't think it's coincidental that it's one of the first set of decrees he issued when he took office shutting down the XL pipeline, uh, various other things. Uh, he told the interior department and the energy department and a whole bunch of other departments to base basically just stop endorsing leases on public lands for oil drilling, uh, shutdown Anwar up in Alaska, shut down certain fracking in north, basically reversing entirely what, uh, Trump's energy policy had been. Speaker 2 00:28:22 So I think that's very, very destructive and I don't, and I think it's a persistent, ongoing thing that they're just intensifying. And I think it's also interesting that when you see oil and gas prices go up, when you see, uh, the price of fossil fuels and gasoline going up, it doesn't deter them in the least. And that's very, that's very revealing. It's very because they are not getting wobbly about it at all. They will just take that to say, see, we told you, uh, these fossil fuels are unreliable and now they're very costly. And, and, you know, for years they've not been able to really make the case for wind and solar and biomass, cuz those things are so, so, so expensive. And instead of making those things more affordable than they they've taken the root of saying let's make fossil fuels as, uh, exorbitantly expensive as, um, their favorites. Speaker 2 00:29:22 So I really worry about that. And the other, the other way of looking at the comprehensiveness of their attitude is, is, uh, they're, they're trying to get banks, they're trying to punish banks for lending to, uh, fossil fuel companies. They're having the SCC. So they're going at it financially as well, not just say through the EPA or the interior department, the physicalist aspects of drilling and things. They're also trying to defund in a way defund fossil fuels companies by, uh, pressuring banks. And uh, in, in another cases like that, this, the, the, uh, the equity thing is this idea that we should, uh, make all, uh, people that we should, um, obsess about disparate effects. The disparate effects argument is, is worse even than equality of outcome. You know, the pure egalitarian approach, which tries to level everyone down to some level. The equity approach is, is, is, uh, openly us in sexist. Speaker 2 00:30:22 It's very insidious. And that was also a major, um, initiative of his, the minute he got into office, he said, every department of the government will follow these equity guidelines. Now, just to simplify it for those of you who don't know what equity means and how it differs from, uh, E uh, equality, disparate effect is the idea. There should not be a difference between the results you see and the share of people in the population. So, so for example, if blacks are 15% of the population, uh, the argument is, uh, they should be 15% of all CEOs and you know, and 15% of all airline pilots and 15% of all baker. I mean, it could, I could, it could not be crazier than that. It's about that crazy. And then if you take it on the level of gender, they'll say, well, women are 52% of the population, so they should be 52% of, you know, firefighters and onward. Speaker 2 00:31:15 You see how it goes. So it's a, it's a very, um, it's almost a quota driven attitude toward, um, social policy. And the, and the implication is if there's this disparity, it's because the country is systematically systemically, institutionally, structurally racist, structurally sexist. They don't take these disparate effects as the result of, you know, people's just career choices and apt tubes and interests and things like that. They take it as a sign that America is corrupt in these ways. And so if, if you believe that, which is not true, you, you would have policies, uh, rife throughout the culture, uh, trying to make that. So, and it's terrible. The tax, the wealth on the wealth tax, I think is third. I think I named that third, every, everything is tax now, um, from sales to income to property to fill in the blank. And the <laugh> about the only thing left that they have not yet applied a tax to is people's, uh, wealth now assets. Speaker 2 00:32:19 What that really means is net worth. So anyone can draw up a balance sheet and say, well, I owe these and assets and I, I own these assets. And then I owe certain debt. They want to basically tax you on your net worth. And, uh, that is probably one of the most cruel tax, maybe beyond the estate tax. The estate tax is one of the most cruel ones, but, uh, the wealth tax would, would be, um, very, very anti-capitalist. Some countries have tried this and haven't succeeded in getting much money out of it, but that won't, that that won't necessarily stop the tax, the taxes. So those are the three I'd named David. Do you have any others that you would think that you think are pretty bad? Speaker 7 00:33:01 Um, no, actually, um, I love what you, I love your list and, uh, cuz you covered, you know, the two broad, two most, you know, dangerous movements today, egalitarianism and environmentalism. Um, and I would say, you know, under yellow carism I would put the wealth tax under that heading too. Speaker 2 00:33:25 Yeah, yeah. I would too. I would Speaker 7 00:33:27 Too. It's a leveling, it's a leveling, uh, measure. Right. And so I just, now I think those, that that's excellent and I would go further and suggest a short summary of what you just said would make a great article for the TAs website. Hmm. Just a suggestion, right? Uh, yeah, Speaker 2 00:33:47 Just to give a, just to give a, Speaker 0 00:33:51 We have so much free time. We, we are sending him here and there he's headed to Massachusetts, so yeah. Uh, but I, I agree, David, I think that, um, just to, to get some focus, prioritizing what, uh, what needs to be, um, fought. I mean, I, you know, I get caught up in, in some of these other issues that I I think are important and our emotional, like, you know, this issue of trying as genderism, but you know, is it, is it really priority number one? And I think I, I, I might even say that this wealth tax, I might move that up in, in, uh, prioritization because I mean the, when you look at also reasons to be optimistic, uh, it's the tremendous capital and the investment in these new technologies, um, that are driving this exponential change. And, um, if we're gonna start siphoning those off into funding, you know, government bureaucracy, um, that's really gonna put a break on, on the progress in terms of what Peter TEALS talked about, the deadly race between technology and politics that would be waiting to scale in the favor of politics, Speaker 2 00:35:08 Jennifer. Um, if I might quickly add, I, I wanted to suggest something to the listeners that when you debate or hear about green new deal and stuff like that, try to get very philosophical about it. Cause when you back up, I hear some conservative, they'll say quite, quite reasonably, they'll say something like why, why not an all the above policy, namely, why are we having this idea of a national policy pushing one energy versus another? Why can't we just leave it to the free markets and left that? Now I endorse that view. And, and so in other words, you don't have to be against solar or wind or whatever. You just, you know, let the markets decide and let consumers decide and don't subsidize or don't favor or disfavor any of them. But I think the deeper reason we're getting this very extreme environmentalism is goes something like this. Speaker 2 00:35:58 They hate capitalism. Capitalism is fueled by capital rep machines. Uh, not really humans, smart humans who build machines, right? But capital they know this is the enemies of capitalism. Know this better than anyone. It has driven by machines and machines need fuel. And the best fuels ever designed for these machines are fossil fuels. And they're against fossil fuels for that reason, they are literally wanna starve the machines. And if you ask them, uh, you know, and so, you know, is it really CO2 and the atmosphere and global you say to them, why on new nuclear power, nuclear power, doesn't have an E co to emissions they're against nuclear power. It's like a litmus test of if they're against nuclear power again, why cuz nuclear power generates and, and propels machines. So I, I invite people to think a little more philosophically about this. If you find a group saying the only energy we like our pre-industrial wind water, solar it's cuz they want a pre-industrial society, a pre capitalist society. They hate the current capitalist machine driven society. Speaker 0 00:37:16 Excellent. Well, I'm glad, uh, that Patrick is in the room because we are working on a draw my life on energy. So I think that's an important theme to capture, um, Scott, thanks for joining us. And did you wanna chime in Speaker 8 00:37:31 Yeah. Thank you for, uh, doing this. Um, Richard, I know, uh, being an economist, it tends to be in percentages, but I'm just curious, uh, your thoughts on, uh, potential effects of the fed raising interest rates to combat inflation and maybe, uh, you know, I mean, is that necessarily gonna lead to a recession or you think they'll be able to balance themselves? Speaker 2 00:37:56 Well, that's a good question. The first thing to say is raising interest rates does not, uh, fight inflation. So I think the fed knows this, but they have already issued the Gargan supplies of money, which are now fueling inflation. So it's hard to take back what the they've already flooded the system with, you know, gasoline, so to speak and now people are light and matches if you will. So, um, now historically, yes, they've done this and it's true that meaning raising interest rates to quote unquote fight inflation, but they cause the inflation and the only way to not the inflation is not to have printed the money in the first place. All right, now having printed the money, what do you do? Now? You can take some of the money back. You can try to take some of the money back from the system. Um, but that's not, uh, that's easier said than done when they raise interest rates. Speaker 2 00:38:50 Uh, what they're really trying to do is slow the economy and it's a very sad state of affairs because when you think about it, the idea that inflation is caused by the economy growing too fast is just ludicrous. It's caused by the money supply growing too fast. And the economy growing fast means output. You know, it's not output and it's not people being hired the causes inflation yet. That is the cane model. If you know the economics of it, that's, what's called the Phillips curve. This alleged trade off between inflation and, uh, unemployment. So now what typically happens when they keep raising interest rates and they haven't raised interest rates much so far as you know, it's only, I think it's still under 1%, but what they tend to do is chase the inflation rate that they already caused. So what's the inflation rate running now 7% what's their overnight policy rate, half percent. Speaker 2 00:39:42 Uh, so I have heard people say the way to fight inflation is to bring the short term interest rate up to five, six, 7% as fast as possible. That would definitely cause a recession. The, the real signal for recessions, a very reliable on again, getting in the weeds here a little bit, but those of you interested, the best forecaster of recessions is when, in when short term interest rates go above long-term interest rates, it's called an inversion of the yield curve. The 10 year bond yield today, I think is two 50. So the fed would have to bring the short-term rate. It's over rate up to two 50 to even flatten the curve. We're, we're probably more than a year away from that, but in the last eight recessions in the us have been proceeded by the fed doing just that. But by the fed, bringing the short term rate above the long term rate, it's something that makes profitable lending impossible. Speaker 2 00:40:37 And, uh, it's one of the things that starts shutting down the economy. So I hope that helps this is somewhat of a technical issue, but yeah, all else equal fast rising interest rates eventually slow the economy. And if it goes too far, tips it into recession. I I need and tell anybody today that the budget has not been balanced in 2002, two and two. So if we are to have yet another, a third recession, the us fiscal position will go completely crazy. I'm very worried about this. I'm very worried about deficit spending. You know, as far as the, I can see in getting worse and worse and when a government borrows too much and it can't repay it, it resorts to printing money, uh, very dangerous. The us is, uh, the us is flirting with a re banana Republic type, a public finance scheme. It, it literally cannot finance the Gargan and welfare state, if it raised taxes sufficiently to do that, there'd be revolts in the street probably so they know this and instead they borrow the money and then print it very bad trend. Speaker 9 00:41:48 Thank, Speaker 0 00:41:52 Thank you. Um, a Speaker 11 00:41:56 Yes. Uh, hi Jennifer. Hi Richard. Um, I'm wondering if you've heard of, and could comment on this. Um, the latest in the battle between individualism versus collectivism, uh, the latest I've heard is this idea of high density versus low density housing spec, um, which I guess means, uh, single family home ownership versus, uh, apartment buildings or other high rise structures. Um, because a couple of weeks ago I was in a room and they were pushing that idea and they had some chart about how much of a strained single family's homes are on, uh, the government versus versus high density housing, which I know everyone is aspires to living in a, you know, a, uh, a kind of beehive clone environment. So I'm wondering if you've heard of that because certainly in California, there is a push that I see to weaponize property tax, to get P people, to sell their homes in order to that, um, their properties can be reassessed to the higher current rate. And certainly they even had business laws that didn't one of them didn't pass, but, uh, that was kind of the push. So if you've heard, heard of that and could comment on that. Thanks, Richard. Speaker 2 00:43:39 Thank you, Alan. That's a good question. I have heard of this and it's a very interesting, not just economically, but philosophically. I said, and it goes something like this, just as in transportation, the anti capitalists are against the car, the independence individualism associated with the car. You get in the car and drive wherever you want and promoting public transportation instead. Uh, that's the Buddha edge approach as you know that, and to the extent that is government should provide the service. You shouldn't be an individual who can do whatever you want. You should be reliant on the government and public transportation. The same thing is being done in housing. So if that's what you're referring to, yes, there's a similar trend going on. And what can you imagine? It would be, it would be against the, uh, single family home in the suburbs, in the neighborhoods, the ones you drive your car to at night and come home and see the kids and have dinner play with the dog. Speaker 2 00:44:37 The, the anti capitalists hate that too. They hate the whole American dream type thing of having your own house and having your own car and maybe two or three cars in the garage and same thing there. So are they're changing zoning laws, the department, if you look up department of house housing and IR development in the United States, they're, they're cha they're they're, they're using government funding at the federal level to pressure local counties and states to change their zoning laws, to, um, allow for more, as you can, high rise, high density housing, what, what we would call public housing, uh, that doesn't have to be public of course, but they're, they don't wanna leave it to the markets. They want to disfavor single family homes and the idea of the Bour neighborhood. And they want to, uh, promote and not just in the quote unquote inner cities in the suburbs, uh, this idea of more, I guess they would call it yes, collectivist housing or public housing, but that, that is a trend. I, I don't have much more to say to it other than if, as long as you understand philosophically where it's coming from, um, both on transportation and on housing, two huge things, right. Uh, there is this push yes, to collectivize and take away the individual choice and individualism associated with quote, for lack of a better term, the American dream. Speaker 0 00:46:04 Thank you. Okay. Just a time check. We've got 13 more minutes in the room, so, uh, I wanna encourage those, um, who are listening would love to get you up on stage and involved in the conversation. Don't be shy. Just raise your hand and, um, it's wonderful. See, Philip back here again. Phillip, do you have a question for professor Salman? Speaker 12 00:46:29 Hey, thank you, Jennifer. Uh, thank you. Uh, professor Salman, um, I at a, uh, B C here in Arkansas, and wanted to know, I want to introduce, um, freshman students to, uh, I Rand's thoughts and books. What would be a good introduc introductory text, uh, that I could start with for those students? Speaker 2 00:46:55 Well, if it's student the, uh, college level Phillip or yeah, that's correct. Speaker 2 00:47:00 Um, you know, I, I, I think I would start with, uh, the virtue of selfishness. Okay. Um, it's, it's not the technical stuff that you did on epistemology it's, but it's also not the capitalism stuff. I, I think for students to get, just to get a sense of what is her ethic, what is her ideal in terms of, you know, basically how should you live your life? And, uh, the counter to that, which is the idea that self sacrifice is considered noble, which he's also rejecting. Um, I think is a good, I don't wanna call it an intermediate text, but I think it's something that really does speak to, uh, would speak to a college student in a way that would really grip them. And then, you know, if they wanted to say, well, tell me more about how do you know this is true. Speaker 2 00:47:47 You get to a epi ology, or what would an ethic of rational self-interest lead to politically? Well, of course, capitalism, they could go either way there, but there's also Philip that, you know, apropo the college, you're at a, a really nice essay on racism. So you also get the sense really strongly. And this was written in 1963. Okay. Right. That she, that her into digitalism is a real nice antidote to tribalism, to thinking of people as belonging, only in groups, you know, or classifying people, you know, only by skin color and things like that. So it's a very, very early, heavily philosoph, really cool critique of racism. And they would get that as well. Cuz I think that racism is coming back, uh, in America, sadly, but David, if David Kelly is still there, David, what do you think of that answer? Um, on the, on the virtue of selfishness as an intro for a college student to, to Iran's thought, I, I don't wanna make too much of it, but I'm just curious if you agreed or not. Speaker 7 00:48:48 No, I do agree. I wanna, I was teaching, uh, I, uh, introductory philosophy and, and as well as ethics, um, I always use that, that work and particularly the Thea, what is it? What is it? The objectives ethics the first, um, the first essay and, and main essay in the virtue of selfishness. But I would also suggest depending Philip on you on what your students, you know, how, how advanced they are, what, what background they come in with her, her novel Anthem is a wonderful introduction to her fundamental individualism and it ingredients of reason self-esteem and, um, uh, at, in this dystopian novel, that is, um, where the hero is set against it in a, um, you know, an imaginary collectivist as society. Uh, so it it's a fascinating read it short, but I would also, I, I, I agree with Richard that the objective objective ethics that essay is, uh, invaluable covers almost everything, uh, at least an outline philosophy Speaker 0 00:50:12 I could in there too. Um, so that's David <laugh>. Speaker 7 00:50:18 Yeah. Sorry, Speaker 0 00:50:20 Philip. Um, that, you know, the whole focus of the out society is introducing young people to these ideas in ways that they would find appealing. So, uh, we have taken the Anthem Nova, which as David, um, mentioned is short and we've made that into a graphic novel illustrated by Dan Parsons. He's a Marvel comic writer. Um, and we, you know, ship these out on mass to, um, Comicons to student groups. So we'd be, you know, more than happy to, to get copies of that. Um, it's also animated into a series. Um, we have another graphic novel, um, red pond, but, but that's more, uh, kind of romantic. It's a love story, love triangle set on a Soviet prison island. Um, and then, you know, we've also taken a lot of these ideas and made them accessible in terms of pocket guide. So we have the pocket guide to, uh, objective pocket guide to postmodernism. We we'd be happy to make any of these available. Richard is, um, about to deliver a pocket guide to capitalism and also make, you know, any of our faculty available to speak to your students. Speaker 12 00:51:40 Yeah, that sounds, yeah. Sounds good. Um, just, you know, what I'm finding is, uh, teach a freshman class and a honors class, uh, and especially the freshmen that are coming in <laugh>, uh, it's the language that they use is collective is heavy, uh, very little on the individualism and I've been wanting, I've been providing them additional <affirmative> perspectives, uh, for them to consider, uh, so that they don't think that there's only one ethical approach to, uh, specific areas that are life and then things that they're seeing in society. Um, so it's on one end, it's pretty disconcert, uh, but on the other end, when I've presented to them, um, other perspectives, it's kind of like a, a shock and all type moment for some of them, which provokes more questions. So, uh, I want to add, especially like iron Rand, um, and introduce, uh, her work to you, them for them to have greater consideration and, and hopefully see, you know, the value of their individual character in existence and not being defined by a group, uh, or defining others as a group as well. So, uh, I'm a check out all these out, especially the Anthem, I'm a comic book collector also. And so awesome. Speaker 12 00:53:11 I'm gonna make sure to get my hands on this. Yeah, Speaker 0 00:53:14 Yeah. Just, uh, direct message me, or you can direct message, uh, Lawrence and, um, we will overwhelm you Speaker 2 00:53:23 And Philip, uh, Philip also in that anthology that I mentioned, uh, the virtue of selfishness. It has a whole essay on why not to think of ethics as, not as a group thing, it's called collectivized ethics. So she said, you know, this idea that you think of yourself as a group and not an individual is a real problem. Um, but others as well, there is a one off essay. It's part of a book, but I, you can just find it on the internet. A very, very good introduction to college students I have found is an essay, uh, speech really, but turned into an essay called philosophy who needs it. It's really, it's really very clever. And it was actually delivered at west point to the graduates in 1974. And it's so well written. And, and it really, it, it's not so much pitching objective is pitching the idea that you should have a philosophy. And here's what philosophy is. And you'd be better off in your life if you had an integrated thought out philosophy. And, and it's very cleverly argued and the student and students, I give it to, they love it. So it's just philosophy who needs it. I think the IRA Institute has it online for free. Speaker 1 00:54:30 Okay. Appreciate. Y'all Speaker 2 00:54:31 Very much. Thanks, Philip. Speaker 0 00:54:35 All right. We have about four more minutes. So if there's somebody in the audience that has a question for professor Salman, raise your hand. Um, otherwise any other questions from the, the folks we have up here on stage Speaker 8 00:54:53 I came in late. Can we just hear a little bit about the debate coming up? Speaker 2 00:55:00 Uh, well I think, um, I'm not sure. Yes. It's either in a debate or discussion format, but I think, uh, if I know what's being and I, Jennifer correct me if I'm wrong, I think we're gonna have a session where, uh, largely Rob and I Rosinski and I, uh, at TAs discuss foreign policy generally, and then ITSA and military policy generally, and then its application to the Russia Ukraine thing and what us policy should be. So we differ on it. I don't don't think we differ on the grounds of what is that America's self-interest should drive these policies, but more a difference over, well, what does that consist of in this particular context? So is that what's being organized, Jennifer, as far as I know, uh, been hearing about Speaker 0 00:55:46 Yes. Yes. I just, uh, tried to invite Erin up to tell us Speaker 2 00:55:51 Okay. Speaker 0 00:55:52 When it's, Speaker 2 00:55:53 Yeah. I'm not sure when it's, Speaker 0 00:55:55 I'm not sure if you have Lawrence, do you know when it is? Speaker 14 00:56:01 No, I Speaker 2 00:56:03 And the, we can't hear Lawrence. Well, the other thing I would add while we're waiting for a confirmation about when it Scott, I think the other thing that is interesting about this is behind the scenes. We're working on something like a, a portal or a place on the website where you can see essays on this. So it's, so it's a, it will have eventually a verbal discussion, but also a place you can go to and see essays by Rob essays, by me, essays, by other people. So you can read actually the differences as well. Speaker 8 00:56:35 Great. Speaker 7 00:56:37 I'd just like to add Scott that, um, this is all kind of in the, uh, in the air at the moment. Um, I've been involved in it. Um, but we haven't, um, uh, really worked out a plan yet. And, um, south JAG and Richard, uh, Aaron, you know, this is something I wanna follow up on. Um, but anyway, yes, um, uh, stay posted. Speaker 2 00:57:09 I think it's a, I, I would add that it's a, I think a real Testament to the way TAs goes at things, namely, the scholars are certainly scholars and we tr try to stay in our lanes. I mean, I'm very conscious of the fact that I'm an economist, but I've been, uh, writing about and researching foreign policy things for a while. Rob certainly has, I know David and others have. Um, so, but the idea of a collegial, but rigorous discussion, you know, without, uh, hysterics and name calling is, is so much in the vein of what the ATLA society does that I think it'll be fun to do this, that there's not many other groups that are maybe even capable of doing it. Speaker 8 00:57:56 I look forward to hearing it. Speaker 2 00:57:58 Thanks, Scott. Speaker 0 00:58:01 All right, well, um, thank you everyone. Um, signing off from Nashville, Tennessee, um, Richard, good luck in Boston. Uh, this weekend, I know you're gonna be speaking to students for Liberty. Uh, do you know what your what's your topic there? Speaker 2 00:58:19 I, I think the topic they're looking for is how to advance Liberty, uh, you know, strategies, but also the philosophical, uh, roots of the strategies. So, um, I'm looking forward to that. I've, I've spoken at SFL events before and this one will be great. I think Abby and I will both be there looking forward to it. Speaker 0 00:58:38 All right. Well, thanks everyone. Thanks for the great questions. Um, thanks for tuning in, uh, please go to the ATLA society website, sign up for our newsletter so that you will get, uh, notifications every week of, um, our upcoming events. And, um, look forward to seeing you back here next week. Speaker 2 00:59:01 Thank you, Jennifer. Thank you, David. Thank you all very much.