to our man, Mr. Tim Ord. Now, Tim, folks, is going to be doing a great workshop for us. He's going to be doing a couple of workshops. The first one is going to be coming this Thursday from 4 to 6 p.m. That's going to be on the S&P 500. The second one is going to be on June 15th from 4 to 6 also. And inside of those two hours, folks, are going to get a great hour and a half of education, a half hour of asking Tim questions, because the bottom line, he has some great indicators that you can put on your charts, but the bottom line, these are indicators that, you know, bottom line folks just are not attuned to. That's what it really comes down to, as the looking at the market at lows and at looking at highs. Tim Ord, what's going on? Well, glad to be on again. Totally. So let me ask you something, right? So Friday, last Friday, that was quite a day, right? Yeah, we broke out. My opinion, you know, we showed that weekly SPX to VIX ratio, and it was making higher highs, and it leads the S&Ps. So it was predicting that the SP should break above that, you know, four, I think the 415 area on the SPYs.  And finally, we broke out above that area so that 415, 417 on the SPY should now be supported. So, right. And that's what you're looking for. You're not going to be still in May, go away type thing. So if May is up, a lot of times, that kind of carries through the summer. So we'll have to wait and see. Yes. So, you know, we talked quite a bit, Tim, about the aspect of, you know, what happens when you use your indicators looking at panic lows and lows, right? And, you know, so, you know, like, I'm looking at the market today, it's like, I can understand why the market is just going sideways. It's down a little, because the amount of strength that it took on Friday, right?  What, like the, between the tick and the trend, what do you look for when you are approaching highs? The highs actually, a 10 day average of the trend around 0.8, you got to really be careful. As a matter of fact, when we, if we start approaching that level, I'll start showing that indicator. Okay. You know, on our shows and stuff like that. Right now we're 109. Okay. And usually 10 day average around 120 are usually looking at lows. Ideally, you know, major lows get up around 1.5. So, but, you know, if we kind of uptrending market, it usually stays above one. Okay. And so we got like 109, that means we can still go higher. But we start getting down when everybody gets exuberant. Now, that trend is the up, well, I have the definition of a trend of TRIN is the advancing issues over declining issues divided by advancing volume over declining volume. And now if you do the numbers, when all this, all the volume starts going into the upstocks, that trend starts to drop down below one. Right. And the more stocks that are going up with higher volume, the more dangerous that trend becomes. And when you get a 10 day average around 1.8, you got quite a bit of gluberance going in the market. And so it's an area where things don't last for long and things can get ugly really fast. Yeah. You know, it's interesting what you brought up last week is that, that, you know, when we were talking about the aspect that, you know, you were coming into a panic low a few months ago, like just today on that little downdraft that we got, Tim, right? We got a downdraft, a downtick of minus 12.95. So it's like, you know, what Tim was talking about, folks, is that every just little pullback at all, it almost seems like people are panicking. You know what I mean? It's like, OK, well, you know, that's not the end of the world, man. You know, you just came down 10 S&P points. But I thought that was kind of intriguing, right? You know what I mean? Because, yeah. Yeah. Well, actually, Joe Granville had it back. You know, he's, he's not a manor, but he was kind of the, oh, him and that. I can't think of his name. You know, Joe Granville, he always called, you want, you want to have a wall of worry, right? When the market's going up, right? And he didn't really quite understand how to define exactly what indicator is a wall of worry. Yes. So I kind of always follow him. So if the market's going up, people are worried about the market for some whatever reason, you know, debt ceiling or interest rates are too high or too low or something. There's always a hook in the market that people worry about. They're afraid to buy because it's a wall of worry. And those are the type of markets you want to buy, right? And let's get back to that trend thing. So yeah, as the market's going up, the trend kind of stays relatively high above one. As usually, you know, people are kind of worried, but when everybody's convinced that, yeah, this market's going to go through the ceiling. That's when the trend drops low point eight. That's when you get these highs. So yes, but the wall of worry is kind of a key here. And I really know, you know, from the stuff I'm looking at, there's really nobody really bullish here. So no, I listen, I can see it. But they're not bullish either.   And then I was there. I got a feeling this thing's going to go higher now. And it's it's hard to wrap your head around it. Because there are so many things out there, and because we've gone so high. But guess what? It is what it is, man. You know what I mean? So it's like it is what it is. It takes you a while to, you know, figure out what kind of a, you know, the fear gauge works well, the trend works well, the ticks work well. Yeah. And that's really gives down to what the market really thinks what's going on, what people think. And I do look at sentiment indicators, too, when everybody's leaning bullish, I got about five pretty good ones that have worked has stood the test of time, I guess you might say yes. And when everybody kind of chugs in, I look at the individual investors, money managers, and actually, I look at the call ratios, equity put call ratios. Yeah, you know, whatever people are buying leaning on the put side, that's usually a good sign the public's pretty bearish. Right. So and all those things come at low. So you know, if you're scared to buy, it's usually you probably make the money. You may be doing something wrong. So yeah, I can see that.  And people will be asking you later, like, how do you know that? Okay, that's the bottom line. So come over to our website, the TFNN, you're gonna see them right on the front page and the featured content.  Just hit that banner. It's gonna be from four to 6pm this coming Thursday, man. Well, listen, it's always a pleasure, Tim. You know, you have a great one, a safe one. Of course, we look forward to speaking here and look for the workshop in a big way. Alright, thanks. Have a great one, man. Have a safe one. Stay right there, folks. Come right back.


Internal Revenue Service IRS tax news. Fast facts to help taxpayers understand back up withholding. Fast fact number one, the IRS wants your money. Fast fact number two, what really isn't the right word? The IRS demands your money or else, and don't even ask or else what. You know the IRS has those two sticks, penalties and interest that they'll hit you with, metaphorically speaking. Fast fact number three, the IRS also wants other people's money.  Because, like, it's just easier for everyone that way. IRS tax tip 2022-93 June 16, 2022. Under the tax law, payers are responsible for knowing who they are paying. To accomplish this, payers are required to collect a legal name and taxpayer identification number or TIM from vendors they pay. So if you're a business owner and you need to have a job done, such as a fence being painted, you might think it would be as easy as asking someone, hey, do you know how to paint the fence? If they do, shake hands on it, agree on a price. Once the fence is painted, you simply pay them, only needing to know more about them other than the fact that they could paint the fence possibly in order to write them the check. But from the IRS perspective, they want more information about the person that you are paying. And this is important to just kind of have a general understanding of how the income tax system works. There's two sides to every transaction. One side is going to have the expense. The other side is going to have basically the income side of things. The leverage from the IRS side of things is to ask the person that is paying to give the information about the person they are paying to. So the IRS has that information and kind of double check, look over the shoulder of the person that's receiving the income. Why is the leverage on the payer side of things? Because the payer wants the deduction, which the deduction is good for income taxes. So they're going to say, hey, if you want the deduction, you need to tell us who you are paying so that we can follow up on them. That's why oftentimes you might see the IRS or the government wanting more people to be in the form of an employee-employer relationship. Because that's a relationship in which the IRS has more leverage to force the employer to do the reporting needs, not for the business purposes sake, but to report the income to the IRS. If you have a contractor, then you have less of the requirements than an employee possibly, but you still have possibly the requirements for the 1099 information, which includes their TIN number and so on, so that you can report that to the IRS and the IRS can kind of follow up on that. Note this also kind of works best from the IRS's perspective for businesses. If your business paying another business or sole proprietor, they have some leverage over that transaction. However, if you're an individual paying another individual that's a sole proprietor like a hair salon or like a nail salon or something like that, a restaurant oftentimes, then the IRS has less leverage. And that's why they're historically kind of not liking those businesses as much. That might be some reason why they crack down during the COVID-19 on the cash-based businesses, but maybe not. But in any case, so that's an area where the IRS doesn't usually have as much of an iron grip over the system and can't get their side of the reporting of the income. Okay, so keeping that in mind, generally backup withholdings, there's a link to that here, is required when a service vendor does not provide the payer their TIN timely or accurately. So what if you ask someone that's a sole proprietor and you're saying, hey, look, the IRS is coming after me. If I don't give you a 1099, then they might penalize me on it. But the person in your pain is going to say, well, I'm not going to give you my information. I don't want to give you my social security number or possibly they don't have an employee identification number. They don't give it to you. Well, then the IRS is going to say, well, you can't tell us who you paid. If you want the deduction, then we're going to hold you responsible for it. We want you to actually withhold the money in a similar fashion as you would if they're an employee, but possibly even more severely because you don't have a W-4 to do the proper withholdings. So the withholdings might be higher than they otherwise would. So this type of withholding can apply to most payments reported on certain form 1099 or W-2G. So here's what taxpayers need to know about backup withholding. Backup withholding is required on certain non-payable amounts when certain conditions apply. So remember, if you're an employee, employer situation, the employer is acting as the IRA's collection person because they have to because they want the deduction and if they don't, they're getting hits with it. If they're a contractor situation, then they have to 1099, but they don't have to do the withholdings unless they can't report the income properly in most cases because they don't have the TIN number in which case they want you to actually withhold the money, which of course would not be something that the recipient would be happy with generally. So the taxpayer making such payments to the payee doesn't generally withhold taxes and the payees report and pay taxes on this income when they file their federal tax returns. There are, however, situations when the payer is required to withhold certain percentage of tax to make sure the IRS receives the tax due on this income. So you've got to be looking out for the IRS whenever you're making any transaction. Make sure that you're looking out for your good buddy, the IRS. So backup withholding is set at a specific percent, so the current rate is 24%. It's kind of fairly high possibly, but it might be higher in other words than you might see if you had a W-4 withholdings, but you don't know what the withholdings are because you don't know what the other person's income is and there's a progressive tax system so we don't know what rate to withhold, so they got a flat rate of 24 if you got to do that. Payments subject to backup withholdings include interest payment, dividends, payment card or third-party network transactions, patronage dividends, but only if at least half the payment is in money, rents, profits, or other gains, commissions, fees, or other payments for work done as an independent contractor. For most people, that's probably the one that might come up most often. You're paying an independent contractor. You think you're supposed to send them a 1099. The contractor doesn't give you their proper information, name, and the TIN number. Payments by brokers, barter exchanges, payments by fishing boat operators, but only the part that is paid in actual money and that represents a share of the proceeds of the cash royalty payments, gambling windings, if not subject to gambling withholding, taxable gains, grants, agriculture payments. So examples when the payer must deduct backup withholdings. So let's see what it looks like. If a payee has not provided the taxpayer identification number, so you're saying, hey, the IRS is going to come after me if I don't give you, if I don't rat you out, like the IRS is supposed to tell me too.  So I've got to give them your information. They're like, no, I'm not going to give you my TIN or my social security number or whatever. That's kind of what the situation might look like. So a TIN specifically identifies the payee. TINs include the social security number.  And in that case, of course, they're more reluctant to just be giving out their social security number. So they might want an employer identification number. So you might want to be, when you contract with someone, you might want to say, okay, are you a sole proprietor? If so, then you might want to be asking upfront, do you have an employer identification number that you could give me, right? If not, do you have a social security number that you're willing to give me to do work? And you want to kind of get that down upfront because they might not be fully aware of all this stuff. And if you're asking for the social security number, that can be awkward situation. So individual taxpayer identification number and that number as well. And then the adoption taxpayer identification number. So if the IRS notified the payer that the payee provided an incorrect TIN, that is the TIN does not match the name in IRS records. So payees should make sure that the payer has their correct name and TIN to avoid backup withholding. So if the IRS comes back and says, hey, we got, you gave us the wrong TIN number, then again, the IRS is going to be pissed at you for not giving them the right information or whatever. So more information can be down below backup withholding B program. There's a link to that here. Publication 1281 backup withholding for missing and incorrupt names and TINs. There's links to that stuff here. There'll be a link to this in the description.


Liam says, how can Kant be the father of nihilism if he prescribed an objective moral code that must be universally accepted? What works of his actually promote nihilism? God, that's a big question that requires a lengthy answer, but the short thing is his moral code is not objective. It's the opposite of objective. It's an attrinsicist moral code, and attrinsicism is always subjective, because there is nothing intrinsic, so it turns into subjective. There's nothing objective about his moral code. It's a moral code of dogma and duties which are imposed on you by somehow, categorical imperatives that are intrinsic in you, but nobody can find them. Nobody knows them, right? So they're just somehow there. So Kant's whole morality is attrinsicist, and therefore ultimately subjectivist, and therefore all of the moral codes and ideologies that have come after him, whether they go to the attrinsicist throat or the subjectivist throat, he is the father of them. So nihilism is just one of the routes that Kant doesn't advocate for nihilism. He's not a nihilist in that sense. He's the father of nihilism in the sense that his ideas necessitate nihilism as the outcome. That is, nihilism is ultimately a consistent application of Kantian ideas, even if he couldn't recognize them. And that is, those ideas are basically a separation of reason from reality, turning morality away from reality. At the very least, the law is trying to establish morality on the basis of nature. Well, we have no nature. Kant takes nature away, so you have to establish morality based on some categorical imperative, something random, something subjective in the end, something completely subjective, and subjectivism together with no reason. Because if you take away the connection between the mind and reality, what are you left with? You're left with emotions, you're left with whims. So what does Wimorship lead to? Nihilism necessitates nihilism. So nihilism is the end of Kantian philosophy. It's not the thing Kantian philosophy advocates for. It's the consequence of it, even if Kant didn't realize it. That's the best short answer I can give. Thank you for listening or watching The Iran Book Show. If you'd like to support the show, we make it as easy as possible for you to trade with me. You get value from listening, you get value from watching. Show your appreciation. You can do that by going to iranbookshow.com slash support by going to Patreon, subscribe star, locals, and just making an appropriate contribution on any one of those channels. Also, if you'd like to see The Iran Book Show grow, please consider sharing our content and of course, subscribe. Press that little bell button right down there on YouTube so that you get announcement when we go live. And for those of you who are already subscribers and those of you who are already supporters of the show, thank you. I very much appreciate it.


Okay, so, so shifting now. So the reason, the main reason I wanted to talk is that, you know, I generally described myself as a proponent of free markets, I believe that capitalist culture and institutions are responsible for the incredible advancements and quality of life over the last one to 200 years. So that is my view, I consider myself a proponent of limited government, but when people ask me, do I think that the state should play a role in the economy under certain circumstances? I do tend to make the following argument, and I'm pretty sure you disagree with it, and I'm open minded on this subject, I'm certainly not doctrinaire about it. But, you know, my current view I think is different from yours and I want to understand what you would say in response to this point of view. So let me just lay it out in like three to four minutes and then you can respond. So, for the last few years, I've been saying to people in conversations about this that even though states rarely succeed in fostering innovation and in turbo charging complex industrialization, states can be extremely useful and may even be critical for achieving these objectives, particularly if the goal is to achieve them quickly. And the basic argument here is that private firms have fewer resources than states, and they have to be profitable, unlike states. Having fewer resources than states and needing to be profitable unlike states means that private firms are less likely to have enough resources or enough appetite for risk to make the investments necessary to develop highly expensive technologies that may take decades to become marketable like aircraft, rockets, the internet. States also don't have enough resources to make the initial investments necessary to get really complex industries going steel, cars, ships, electronics, computers, and to protect them and nurture them in their infant, in their infancy. So, for these reasons, I've heard it said that the state is necessary for the development of technologies, but that the, or let me say that again, I've heard it said that the state is necessary for developing technologies and that the private sector is really good at commercializing them. One other point that I'll make in this regard is that states also at times have really powerful incentives to develop technologies and industries, unlike any and unlike any incentives that companies might have and I'm talking about total war I'm talking about existential conflict. Total wars provide states with an unparalleled incentive and existential incentive to develop and improve technologies because if they don't they're going to get destroyed. And it's remarkable in this connection to think about how many major technologies in the 20th century in the United States originated or rapidly advanced during World War two, whether it's aircrafts or semiconductors. And to immediately qualify this by saying admittedly in many countries, it might be impossible for the state to drive innovation, or to nurture successful industries of the future the state might be too corrupt. The society may not have sufficient human capital so that state investment is relevant. But if the state is not too corrupt. And if there is sufficient human capital state action maybe the only way to innovate and to become competitive and complex sectors is relatively quickly. And the two main examples that I have in mind when I think about these arguments are the US in the 20th century I think that's a good example of state investments, particularly Pentagon funding being necessary for hugely important innovations in the 40s 50s 60s and then the East Asian Tigers, South Korea and Taiwan, and to some extent China are good examples I think of state investments being necessary for the creation of really successful competitive companies in complex sectors of the economy like steel shipbuilding cars electronics computers, where these countries that they had just done what they had comparative advantage in, they may never have developed these sectors and they certainly wouldn't have done so as quickly as they did. So, yeah, I'll stop there but so again, I'm generally a proponent of free markets but it does seem to me that the state has played a really important role in developing innovative technologies particularly for example in the United States in the 20th century, and in turbo charging a complex industrialization process, as has been seen in the case of East Asian Tigers in the last 50 to 75 years. So what do you say to that. Yeah, so this is a, this is a pretty common argument among economists and, and among proponents of, you know, the, I'd say the better proponents of a limited government who think government should intervene in basic science and certain issues around technology. I, you know, I think it's, I think it's wrong. I think it's, again, I'll start with a moral point with a philosophical point. And that is, even if everything you said was true, which I don't think it is. But, and we'll get to that but even if that were true, then I'd still be against it because so progress will be slower. So technology will take longer. I don't I certainly don't think you use the word necessary a number of times. I don't think any of that is necessary. Right. There's no proof of that and I'll give some counter examples. The much more fundamental point is the state has to take money from some people to give to others that I think is morally offensive and morally wrong. It then allocates it based on priorities that have nothing to do long term I think with human well being even in the best run states. We can focus on the, I don't know the exact percentage and nobody's done the research that I know of the exact percentage on the success stories.  All the research grants that went to nothing because and we don't know because we don't know them right. So some you can see the white elephant, petrochemical and drug industry investment to Japanese government tried to steer the economy towards and you can travel through Japan and see the massive plants that sit empty today. Because, because what we know is the industries were successful we forget about the stuff that wasn't. And we don't have a counterfactual. Right, we don't have the alternative. So, so, you know, we now have philosopher kings deciding what technology is going to be good and what isn't who among scientists should be invested in who shouldn't. I think they, while again we see the successes, what we don't see are the things that might have gotten funded under different system that didn't for political reasons. What is stem cell stuff that could have happened if not for Republicans under Bush and others stopping it. What about all the nuclear technology that would have evolved if not for the state stopping it, you know, if the state is going to fund science the state's going to regulate science. What about the fact that it's probably likely that if I do a, if I get a government grant and my results of my study are, you know what, the world is doing great. Things are fantastic. Don't do anything. People will never get another grant. But if my results of my study are the world's going to end in 20 years unless we do XYZ. I need another grant to study how to do XYZ effectively. I guarantee myself a lifetime of funding. Right. And I take, I take climate change as an example and maybe COVID, you know, maybe you could argue some of the stuff in COVID is related to government funding of science and the incentive that is associated with that. So I am very skeptical about government funded science. It's true that if you give hundreds of scientists money, thousands of scientists money, which is what the government does grants the thousands of scientists, a few of them will do major things that will have an impact on the world and we will all identify. Yes.  Right. Yes, she was a bulldog she's a she's a Romanian immigrant to the United States that worked at the University of Pennsylvania for a while. And she just will grant application after most of them will turn down, but she was just a bulldog she just stuck with it and she got it. Now you could say the government did it because they funded her. Yeah, but what about all the grants she didn't get maybe we could, you know, save 20 years on this. I mean, who knows. But the point is, yes, if you if you diversify now, which is what government does. Some of it will succeed the MRNA technology will succeed. What about the the the thousands of scientific grants that were given to people who found no results. Oh, here's one other one other example just came to me. What about all the research into that the government funded government promoted and then the government supported into for example, health. So for example, we should eat you know the government food pyramid. There's major major evidence. It's wrong. Right. It's just wrong. It's not good for you and it maybe it's it's the cause of the obesity crisis, right because it emphasizes simple carbs and sugar and things like that.  All government side government driven science, all a disaster, maybe have caused massive obesity in this country, massive amounts of diabetes and heart disease and so on. Do we weigh the costs of that versus the benefit that we attribute all those stuff I'm not, I'm not convinced that if you weighed that properly, you would get a positive outcome. Okay, now to some of the specifics. So, with regard to government development of technology and its role in developed technology. I'm going to give you a website that I think, you know, it's just it's just an amazing resource and provide a lot of, and it's not necessarily just agreeing with you. But it for those arguing for the extreme, just all government driven and everything. This guy really presents some great arguments and he goes through the books and he. So this is called his name is, it's Nintel, N-I-N-T-I-L dot com, N-I-N-T-I-L dot com. He's Spanish so you have to put on translate but the translations are really good for his articles but this guy is just brilliant in my view I mean he went through the state that that book by I forget her name, and he goes section he goes pretty much paragraph by paragraph, and questions, and he goes to the original reason so he goes to sources, right to shield site something, he'll go to the citation and show what's really going on anyway. This is the conclusion he came to about war because he has a whole thing about the Air Force about about the idea of here two things that he says. First he says, most economic historians, including for example, an economist by the name of Joe McCoy, M-O-K-Y-R, assessed the effects of war on technological innovation is largely negative with a few exceptions. Exceptions of economists but most economists right. The reason of the above is that war encourages a conservative approach to technology, inducing demand for existing technology. Thus, most war technology was developed prior to the war. Third point, the more developed the technology is the heart of a spin ups, spin ups of military technology to be successful. This is required understanding the effects of military R&D, but that whole research is plagued with difficulties, there's real difficulties in assessing that. So, it seems like most economic historians and I haven't studied the literature thoroughly, actually think technology innovation and for example, World War II. One of the things the World War II did very well is leverage Bell Labs and what it went to Bell and it leveraged some British scientists. But what they did is they basically went to Bell Labs and basically accelerated the development of existing technologies or technologies that were being speculated on and now there was funding to go full throttle. And there's no question that happened and that accelerated it. I don't think that's true of the, of ultimately the semiconductor but certainly some of the other technologies semiconductor really did come out of Bell Labs. And you could argue about Bell Labs is it a pure, is it a lab that was really private because it was protected in a sense by AT&T's monopoly power that was granted by government so a real monopoly in the sense of government granted it. But there are other corporate labs and other private research labs. He also makes the point about aircraft because there's a lot, there's a book about right and he, he reviews the book that says aircraft development could have happened if not fall. So this is what he writes about this which I thought, what would account a factual look like, he says to the whole question. Imagine no world wars, no email subsidies, no NACA which I guess was a was a was an entity that that the government ran. Scientists working for NACA would be elsewhere. Without military pressure for NACA, GALCET and other Guggenheim funded or other Guggenheim funded colleges would have taken the throne so other Guggenheim funded colleges would have taken the throne of top aircraft research centers. The aircraft manufacturing would have remained low as research advanced, eventually advances in this technology, perhaps even funded by manufacturers would have enabled the construction of profitable aircraft, following the same row jet engines would have been integrated at some point. So I'm willing to grant that the government support was very important, and that it could have accelerated the pace of development, but the mass manufacturing of aircraft for the war did not. And I include here that war was not necessary for the appearance and growth of an aircraft industry, but that it could have accelerated it could have accelerated. The government isn't an NACA, which is the one entity sites here isn't an example of state entrepreneurship, as apparently the ones pushing for the case for NACA forward with an article society who just wanted to see more progress in things they liked, and the initial reaction of government officials wasn't very appreciative that is it was a lot of resistance from government, as you'd expect. So, on every one of these technologies, what is the counterfactual. So, and here I think he undermines the, I mean, the kind of fact shows much larger right. What happens if we're not taxing people at 50% of their income. What happens if we're not taking, you know, 20 something percent of corporate profits. What happens if private if government is not crowding out and we know the crowding out effect while documented in economics, what happens of government is not crowding out private entrepreneurs private businesses private philanthropists from investing in science and technology. I can guess I don't have the parallel universe in which it's happening, but we know that private that private entrepreneurs are interested in science for example we know the billion is what imagine if a billion if they're more billion is because under capitalism I believe they're more billion is right standard of living would be much higher partially because I think they would be funding science and they would be funding more science more effectively the grant system science grant system in the United States is broken. It is an effectual even people in the, that associate with the state funding of know this, for example one just little observation it used to be that young scientists got the majority of the grants. Today it's old scientists get the majority of the grants, yet innovation is almost not exclusively but almost exclusively young person's game, think of the big breakthroughs of Einstein, almost all of them came when he was very young. It's, you know, it just is it's it's true in it's true in almost every field that that particularly thinking outside of the box and thinking you and breaking out of the box is something a phenomena of younger people. So, you know just fixing that would probably change the pace of innovation and yet one can imagine the private entrepreneurs private businesses would would be much more oriented towards success, much more oriented towards result orientation much more, just like I think charity would be much more effective at helping the poor than welfare, because I think people who gave to charity would be much more interested in results than the welfare state, which I don't think is that interested in results. So the whole incentive the whole motivation, everything about funding of science would be different now with some things that develop slower. Yes, with something is a very faster. I think so. The whole landscape of technology would be different, but would it be different in a negative way I very much doubt it. And let me add one last point. Look, was happen. I don't deny the need for for Defense Department. I don't deny the need for Defense Department to fund certain types of technology that help defend the state. That would orient technologies in a particular way, whether that from an economic perspective is the best way to orient technologies probably not, but it's a necessary way in order to facilitate defense. So Defense Department would would fund certain projects, even if they were not optimal, they would fund them because they need them in order to defend. So, yeah, some developments would happen because of the state some technologies would advance and again it might even be sub optimal. But I would be for it because I think the Defense Department has to stay on top of these things and make sure that it can defend the country. So that that would be my answer. It's actually really helpful for me because I think the main thing that you're offering in this conversation that I haven't really done in my own thinking about this is when someone says the state is necessary for the development of highly innovative technologies or the development of really complex industries from scratch and a generation or two. The move you make in the argument is to say, well, compared to what, like, right and so it so I don't think you dispute that, as a matter of fact, in the last 100 to 150 years, a lot of technologies and industries have been have depended on high levels of state investment. But that's about about 70 years because I don't think that's on 70 years. Okay, fair enough for the last 70 years but but I think, but what you're saying I think is, but let's imagine a world in which the state is radically limited and what it does and all of this has to do with the capitals and private hands. First of all, you're saying there would be more capital, because there'd be more wealth. And, and then a lot of that would be allocated toward the development of innovative technologies and industries and who's to say that that very distant alternative universe would not would not birth a much more innovative, more interesting and advanced society than the one we currently inhabit. What we need today, what I called a new intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think, meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, by mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist. All right, before we go on, reminder, please like the show. We've got 163 live listeners right now. 30 likes. That should be at least 100. I think at least 100 of you actually like the show.  But, but at least the people who are liking it, you know, I want to see, I want to see a thumbs up. There you go. If you're not liking it, I want to see that go to 100. All it takes is a click of a click of a thing, whether you're looking at this. And you know, the likes matter. It's not an issue of my ego. It's an issue of the algorithm. The more you like something, the more the algorithm likes it. So, you know, and if you don't like the show, give it a thumbs down. Let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes. But if you like it, don't just sit there, help get the show promoted. Of course, you should also share. And you can support the show at your own book show dot com slash support on Patreon or subscribe star or locals and show your support for all for the work for the value. Hopefully you're receiving from this.  You'll know what shows are on when they're on. You'll get notified. So, yes, like, share, subscribe, support, like, share, subscribe, support. There you go. Easy. Do one or all of those, please.


If you need Man 21 Coins for anything, make sure to go to buymotcoins.com. Check it out with the link in the description and my code MMG is 15% off. Pack it, Clay! Hey, welcome back, boys. We are 100% moving forward with this as a series. All right, so I read your guys' comments. The consensus was keep the same team and keep adding to it. The way the team resets is by making the playoffs. That's how we're gonna do this, okay? So each episode, I can open up to $100 worth of stuff. And yes, that's a lot.  The team right now has insane wide receivers, trash running backs, an amazing quarterback with Gunslinger who just is killing it right now. A solid offensive line and honestly, a very bad defense. Kermardi is holding this team up. We have no safeties. We have no good linebackers. So honestly, yeah, D-line's pretty bad too. Honestly though, doesn't even matter. We're gonna make this work. We almost did last episode, but we got in a good game, but we couldn't squeak it out. I'm thinking of, wait, I'm thinking ahead of Pack of Play, right? We lost, right? Oh yeah, that game was awesome, but yeah, we lost unfortunately. All right, so most feared is out. What I think I'm gonna do is I'm gonna do two of the most feared fantasy bundles. One problem that I'm seeing before we hop into this next Pack of Play episode is there's no most feared running backs right now, at least none that are really good. There's a 90 Adam Theland. There's a 90 Levante David who are pretty realistic polls, but I don't know, I'd have to get lucky on a random poll to get an awesome running back. It's similar to Wheel of Mud, but we're resetting if we make the playoffs not necessarily the Super Bowl. So we're gonna see a lot of different teams and a lot of different players in this series. I'm really, really, really excited. And now you guys don't have to see like random Pack opening videos. I think it's way more fun that there's some gameplay with it too. So yeah, I get $100 worth, which is $12,000 Madden Cash. That's gonna be two of these most feared fantasy bundles. And I don't wanna spoil anything, but I've been pulling some heat in these. I pulled some heat in Wheel of Mud, and you're gonna see that Wheel of Mud tomorrow. So I hope you guys are excited for that. I had to check my calendar to make sure. Hey, starting on the power-up player, that could, no. All right, nothing to help us here. We got a rookie. Duh-dah, not gonna help us either. Sammy Watkins and we get a team of the weak player. Harold Landry. Honestly, might start at a running back spot. That is not the good animation. Tyson Aloualou, did I say that right? A mediocre legend, Deacon Jones. Oh, you know what? It's actually gonna be the best poem there's. And we give you Devea. Deacon Jones, a new right end. That's not a bad way to start. All right, on to the next. In total, we have eight of these packs. So we just gotta see one huge upgrade out of at least one. No, no. Pat Pete could, hey, he could go at safety. That's not the good animation either. Oh, okay, Malcolm Pollard though. That's good. David Andrews and John Lynch. Ooh. You know what? I'm gonna see Malcolm Butler a lot more. I don't think I'll see John Lynch again. So we're gonna go John Lynch here. That's a better free safety for sure. This is the most feared welcome pack. Technically, it's a pack. So maybe I'll end up using the 81 Palomalu. I don't think so, but it's possible. All right, let's stay hot here. No, no. Duh-dah, the trash animation again. Don't keep doing that to me. Malcolm Butler, the same Deacon Jones and Leonard Floyd. We'll go with the Malcolm Butler. That will be nice to have. Gonna end up having some corners at safety, I think. Nothing here that I can use. Nothing here that I can use. No, are my fantasy packs a wash? Did I make a mistake? We get Joe Burrow who can't help us. Tony G who can't really help us. Yeah, we're gonna go Hunter here. I got Deacon Jones and Hunter now. So I got solid ends. We're already halfway through. I don't wanna be greedy though. I did pull Stafford last time, so I should be grateful for that, but I need some new weapons, man. I need a half pack. Ryan Jensen, okay. Kyle Van Noy. Oh wait, that's an 87, damn. All right, so it's only the 90 pluses that get the cool animation, so I'm cool with that. 87 Kyle Van Noy, Chris Jones, damn. I think I'm gonna go Van Noy here, but Chris Jones is a good pull too. 85 plus, give me the animation. No! Get 85 on the dot. Hell!  Bruh. Kyle Van Noy again. Dude, am I really gonna go through these and not pull any sauce? Dude, don't do me like this. Michael Brocker's Garrett Bradbury. I'm gonna cry. We get, hey, hey, we get a- Ah! Ah! None of these are helpful. I guess I'll go Eddie Jackson. Ah! Most feared fantasy pack. We'll see what you can do. Odell Beckham Jr., the 84 here on the first round, and DeVondre Campbell. Yo, dude, this is my last fantasy pack. I just, oh, marking room. No, he's not even better than the bow I have in. I guess he's my backup. Ah! That could have been so much better. Dude, that was $100 worth of packs. No, no, no. I have one more. I thought that was the last one. Come on, baby. We can clutch this out right here. No, no, no. Damn it. I'm in physical pain. Come on, baby. Come on. I gotta lululu again. I get nothing here. Oh, wait, that's good. That's my starting free safety. Honestly, Kyle, Juicy Juice have been good too because I know I don't have a full bag, but Devin McCordy, that's my starting free safety. All right, now, additionally, I want to have some in-game rewards for us going through this series. So here's what I'm thinking. I'm thinking for every touchdown that we score, we get one additional pack, assuming we win the game.  But if we win the game and we score three touchdowns, I can go open three more packs in the store. What do you guys think about that? Make sure to let me know in the comments because I don't know. I'm sure there's a much more fun, creative way. You guys are geniuses and have figured out like half the rules will wheel them up for me. So let's see what you think on this one. But all I gotta do is hit best team overall because this account is dedicated to this pack and play team. Did we go open overall? Was that 82? So now I'm 84. That's not bad.  I like that. We got some backup wide receivers in Odell and Travis Fulgum, the goat. Mark Ingram's in behind Bo Jackson. Stafford. Still a stud. Then we got George Kittle Hunter Henry. That's all right. Defense. I really like to see this Kyle Van Nuem. Interested in what his stats are. Cause I'll end up usuring 82 speed. Okay. He's not insane, but I'm very glad to have him. Deegan Jones and Hunter are big upgrades here too. We got a full elite defensive line. Devon McCordy, bro. Devon McCordy being here is awesome. I really needed that. And then Paul Amal would come in at strong safety. So that free welcome pack for most feared was actually clutch. Even though this Paul Amal was not that good. He's got 82 speed. That's not really what I want to use here, but it is what it is. All right. So I'm going to go into this game and the way we're going to do it is for every touchdown that I score, assuming I win, we get another pack. And if you guys got a better idea, please let me know in the comments. All right, boys. Nothing monumental. We didn't get our generational half back, but we've got a lot to work with and we've got six more wins to make it to the playoffs. Let's see what we can do here.  Forget what I said before about the playoffs. My team resets every time I start a new season. So if I lose the next three straight games, we're resetting the team. Or if I make it to the Super Bowl, we're resetting the team. I think that's a better way to do it. I could see the team getting very good and then it's very difficult to upgrade through packs. So we'll stick with what we got there. It's got to be the weirdest top three you're ever going to see. Outgoing bench. Leo onto, not a good team.  I like to see that.  I just don't want to send five line. I do it too often. It's so good though. Every once in a while with this play, George Kittle is the most open man on the field. Sometimes it does nothing. But let's see if this will be one of those times. No, it's not. But we got a little fight. It's okay, Stafford. I don't know. You got to establish some ground game. Uh, Stafford, no. I looped around. Fourth and nine. Let's see it. RB, he's there. Hunter Henry. Fourth down, big play. Weird, weird, weird play, but every once in a while it works. Cut it back. Nope. All right, PAY drive wheel. Here it is for the touchdown. No, but RB, third and nine. Could Matt Stafford really put this in the end zone? Stafford's going to step up. Uh-oh, uh-oh, got him. That was electric. Oh my gosh. That linebacker had every right to pick that off. I don't know why he did. Hopefully this confuses him.  Okay. Ah, I'm going to be honest. I did not look like you got it, but I will take my two points. Hey, and that's one touchdown. So we get one additional pack to open right now. First and 10, definitely. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Look at the man deep. Thank God, Patrick, those guys. And because he didn't have a man on him. He's going to motion Ridley. All right, we're there, we're there. Oh, damn. Good juke. Oh no, that playmaker. Ah! No, I knew that was going to happen. Damn, who is that? He's moving. I don't know who that is. Wait a second. Yo, I might not be faking. This might actually be a Falcons theme team. He's got Michael Vick, Todd Gurley, Chris Lindstrom, Julio Jones, Calvin Ridley. This is a Falcons theme team. A legitimate one too. Pack and play squad versus the Falcons. All right, I bumped Gonzalez. He's not there. Yup. Why not try it? You know, what do I have to lose? Oh! This is a tight end screen, a play action, tight end screen that lands in the hands of George Kittle. And that's solid right there. Second and two. Let's see if both can grab this edge. Decent. I don't need the edge. I'll take that red up the middle for eight. Let's see if it's there. Wow. Ah, maybe not. Yup, it is. Quarter rounds is so faking good. All right, we're going to go back to the screen pass. I'm going to slide this into George Kittle. This play is sick.  What's that shit? I'm going for it. I'm going to hit George Kittle. Bullshit right now, that's a rage quit.  Here's to see the game. Let's go. Two touchdowns, two packs and a rage quit. That's one additional pack. Oh yeah, I don't know if I mentioned that or not, but yes, we get some of the rage quit. That's a pack. So we're looking at three additional packs here. That's a beauty. Also, I just let you guys know I did reset the season for this. I realize that I had played a game for a gameplay on the other season progress I had going. So we're starting completely fresh for one and all right now. So what packs do we grab? The fantasy packs were not very good. I mean, it's all about getting the limited, right? But I don't know. There's a legends pack, the 50 fantasy pack and most feared. Let's do one of each and that's incredible that these are in the store right now because there can be times when we do this. And the only thing in the store is like an elite pack. You know, something really basic. Starting out with the legends fantasy pack, one of three. Let's see if our luck turns around. Hopefully we can do some damage here. Eric Flowers, Taylor at Matt. Yay. Starting out with the legend player, Reggie Wayne. Nah, that's not gonna help us right now. We got good wide receivers. Ryan Kelly won't help us either. And a backup Michael Vick doesn't help us either.  I'm just gonna quick sell all of these. Although it's good to note that if we pull a power up we can power them all the way up pretty much because I'm gonna get a lot of training from this series. Now if there's a card that I need for the next level I'm not allowed to do that but I can power them up as much as training will let me. All right, we got a the 50 fantasy pack right here. Ooh, Camara. Like I said, we can power him up. So I can power up Camara up until I need his actual base elite. Either we got another 50 players, probably just a base though. 82 LeDanie and Tomlinson is like a leader. Aron Donald, let's go. We got two LeDanie and Tomlinson's with Aaron Donald sitting in the middle. Sorry, Elke. Gotta give that to Aaron Donald.  All right. And finally, most feared fantasy pack. Nothing on the second round. That's a trash most feared. Damn. We got cuck, oh heavyweight. Patrick Ricard. Oh my God. We gotta go Patrick Ricard. Dude, honest to God, I should make this my half back. Keep you better than that 83 Bo Jackson. Oh, I hate when it does that. We got a fullback. An insane pull but it is a fullback. Hey, I was doing a fullback screen today that could have some sauce. All right, let's generate best lineup and get ready for the next episode. All right, Patrick Ricard, still Bo Jackson which is frustrating, I'm not gonna lie.  And I'd like better safeties but we got Aaron Donald now too. All right boys, this was a fun episode. Thanks for watching as always. I'll see you the next time we do one of these. And that's all, thanks for watching as always. Peace.