A conversation with Per Bylund, economist & author

Please join me LIVE as I welcome Per Bylund to the podcast! We plan to discuss regulations, inflation & price gouging.

Transcript:

(0:00) And we are live everyone. Welcome to another episode of Knocked Conscious. It is my absolute (0:09) honor, privilege.It is amazing. I get to speak with an economics genius who is levels above (0:17) where I can even hope to be, Per Byland. Thank you for joining me today.You were on Jason’s (0:25) podcast yesterday. We have a lot of overlap and Jason and you had such a great conversation. I’m (0:31) not going to spoil it, but he was kind enough to let me listen to it so that I wouldn’t sound (0:35) redundant, but thank you so much for joining me.Please tell us who you are and what is it you do? (0:43) Well, very briefly, I was born and raised in Sweden and now I’m in the U.S. I’m an (0:48) associate professor of entrepreneurship and I’m also a senior fellow of the Mises Institute (0:53) where I, among other things, I’m the associate editor of the Quarterly Journal of Austrian (0:58) Economics, one of the two main academic journals, peer-reviewed and everything for Austrian economics. (1:06) Wow, that is absolutely amazing. And you’ve written a couple books, if I may.(1:11) I see the most recent one is The Seen, the Unseen, and the Unrealized, (1:15) How Regulations Affect Our Everyday Lives. Is that the most recent piece that you’ve written, Per? (1:20) No, it’s not. And that’s sort of my middle book.So the first I had was probably a production, (1:26) and then The Seen, the Unseen, and the Unrealized. And they were published the same year, (1:31) so it’s hard to tell which was really first. The most recent one is How to Think About the Economy, (1:39) a Primer, which was published in 2022.Yes, about that. I think I have a (1:44) bone to pick with you, sir. I believe you were trolling someone on the Twitter, (1:48) and I don’t think that was a very kind thing.I’m going to pull it up because I thought it (1:51) was very interesting. Here’s the screen, if I may. This is Per’s tweet.Karen Bass, (1:59) Mayor Karen Bass, she said, we are launching a new simple intake system to report price gouging. (2:07) Call myLA311 to report illegally hiked rents and prices. We have no tolerance for it.(2:14) Per, to which you responded, I’ve written a short, easy-to-understand book that seems you (2:18) would greatly benefit from reading. I’d be happy to send you a complimentary copy. (2:22) Here it is right there.Per Byland, How to Think About the Economy, a Primer. So there it is. (2:28) Thank you so much for sharing that.So how are a couple good ways to get these two pieces of (2:35) literature? Well, the Primer is easy because you just go to mises.org slash Primer, and you pick (2:42) it up there. The PDF and EPUBs have been free to download since it was published. There’s the (2:50) audiobook.It’s also free unless you go through Audible or something like that, but it’s free on (2:55) Spotify and download the MP3s and whatever. And the paperback version, you can buy that for zero (3:02) as well from the Mises store. I think you might have to pay for shipping though.(3:06) Okay. That’s excellent. Well, I love some of the things because these ideas you’re making about as (3:13) available as possible without having to charge anything.How is it, how did you, what’s your (3:20) origin story? How did you get to something of this focus and find that the message is the import (3:28) versus even, you know, monetizing it or anything? Well, yeah, that’s a very good question. It has (3:35) a very long answer. I do that a lot.Yeah. The book itself was really a product of my talking (3:44) to Jeff Deist, who was the president of the Mises Institute until recently, a couple of years ago, (3:50) I suppose. And I expressed some frustration that there is no up-to-date sort of modern (3:58) go-to resource for whoever is interested in just learning economics.(4:03) And there, don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of introductions to Austrian economics (4:07) on different levels and different price points and things like that, but none that I was really (4:14) happy with. And the typical one, if someone would ask you, what should I read to sort of get (4:21) some basic knowledge on how the economy functions, the typical reference would be Henry Haslitt’s (4:28) Economics in One Lesson. That was my dipping toe.Yeah. And it’s a great book, but the thing (4:35) is it’s only one lesson. It has like 35 chapters or something like that, but it’s the same lesson (4:41) over and over again applied on different things.It’s an important lesson and it’s a core to (4:45) economics too and core to understanding the economy. But how do you get from that one (4:49) lesson to say business cycles or what is the impact of regulations and things like that? (4:54) And there was nothing like that. So since I suggested it, of course, then I had to write it (5:01) myself.And I came to an agreement with Jeff that they would publish it. And I was to (5:11) write it as though Henry Haslitt had written it, so in the same kind of language. So to the point, (5:17) he’s to understand no jargon, definitely no math or anything like that.And just talk about (5:24) how should you think, how do you reason about the economy? And I was supposed to keep it (5:31) under half as long as Economics in One Lesson. So I set about doing that, which was not easy (5:39) to say the least. I don’t know how many times- Hard to make something so succinct, (5:44) even more succinct, right? And make it- Yeah, and the problem here was that, yes, (5:50) it was supposed to be half as long, but it’s not only One Lesson anymore.It was supposed to be (5:55) basically comprehensive and cover the whole economic theory in that half as much space, (6:04) which was really difficult. And do it simply. Of course, I had to skip a lot of nuance and (6:10) details and things like that.That is, of course, obvious, I think. But it took me a while (6:17) to just find the right tone and the right level and the right approach. And being an academic, (6:24) you want to always step back and make sure you get the full picture across and start with the (6:29) assumptions and everything like that.And that was not the point of this book. And the same thing (6:35) with many Austrian economics introductions. They start with the history of the school rather than (6:41) the ideas and the theories of the school.So they would say, well, in the beginning, (6:45) there was Karl Menger and then so forth. And this was not- It’s almost like a historical, (6:51) biographical mixed in with the- Right. And then you get the ideas from each of these (6:57) huge characters that created the Austrian corpus as we have it today.And then you would go, well, (7:04) Menger said this, and then von Bawerk said this and so forth. And I mean, that’s interesting. But (7:10) if you just want to become economically literate, you don’t really need to know who the people were (7:15) or when they were or anything like that.You don’t need to know who said what. You just need to (7:20) figure out, well, what are we doing? And what does the economy do? And how do I think about this (7:25) thing? And that was sort of the purpose of that book to have something- When I wrote it, I played (7:31) in my mind that what if some kid would- This obnoxious teenage Austro-libertarians (7:42) just can’t shut up. And at Thanksgiving dinner, grandma is nice.I said, well, what is a good (7:49) introduction to everything you’re talking about? This is interesting. What can I read? Well, my (7:54) primer should be that sort of book that you can give to grandma, and grandma should be able to (7:58) read it, understand it, and it should be so short and quick a read that she would actually get (8:06) through it as well. So that was sort of the goal I had.Whether I was successful is a different (8:11) matter, but I tried to get to that point in a way. It is in the queue, I promise you. Right now, (8:20) I’m working on Scott Horton’s book, Provoked, which is still just a Bible and a half, and we’re (8:24) trying to do a book review.So I am focused solely on my reading on that, but I do plan to (8:29) get back into economics, which is why I did want to reach out to you, and that you reached it back (8:32) out so quickly was so grateful. So I’m so grateful for that. Some things I’d like to think about (8:38) that I love is this ability for someone like yourself and someone like myself, (8:44) who completely opposite ends of the state or the country or wherever, (8:48) who don’t really know each other.You’re at a status here and I’m down here. We’re able to speak (8:52) now through this technology and you’re able to share and communicate with the people who happen (8:57) to be on with me and the people with you and share these ideas in such an amazing way. It’s such a (9:05) beautiful thing.Are you hopeful for the future more than you are pessimistic about the future, (9:12) the way the economy is going, the way the economics are headed? Yeah, I try to stay (9:17) optimistic all the time. But I think the future is hopefully a very, very big place in terms of (9:26) time. So the future is tomorrow as well as a thousand years from now.And I think I would (9:32) say that short term, I’m probably always pessimistic, but in the longer term, I’m (9:39) optimistic. I think we’re going to find our way back to freedom and peace and prosperity. (9:46) It’s just that we’re going to have to go through some kind of hell first.Not necessarily complete (9:52) implosion, but I think it’s some things are definitely going to get worse before they get (9:56) better. Yeah, I would argue I’m a Generation X-er. I’m actually just a little bit older than you, (10:03) unfortunately.I’m not going to say that, but I turned 50 this year or last year, 24. So (10:08) we’re about a year apart. And the 90s were glorious.At least without a rock being on the (10:19) forefront here, it just seemed like the late 80s, early 90s was just the most amazing time. (10:27) And it’s like that fourth turning with Neil Howell where he talks about these things. (10:31) And I’ve always argued that I know where we can go and I do think we will get there, (10:36) but it’s never where we are and it’s never where we’re going.But it’s the transitional period (10:41) that is the big pain. And I’m going to admit, I’m a chicken. I don’t want to go through one (10:47) of these transitional periods.Do you have a prediction of a time frame? Is it a 20-year (10:53) period, 10, 15, that we might have one of these transitional periods that might be foreseen? (10:59) No, I have no idea. I don’t think it’s going to be the same all (11:06) over the world either. So it depends on where you are.A positive trend I see now is empires (11:15) falling apart and breaking up into smaller parts. And the same thing with countries. (11:20) But in some cases, that’s due to CIA meddling with domestic politics.And then of course, (11:26) that’s not a good development, even though it’s secession or whatever. But (11:34) in some places, it’s going to be a peaceful transition. It’s going to be pretty swift (11:39) and pretty soon perhaps too.Whereas in other places, it’s going to take a while. I mean, (11:44) you’re not going to get rid of, say, I’m just pulling something out of my ass basically, (11:50) but the Taliban, for instance, they’re not going to become a rights-based (11:57) republic that is super modernized overnight. So they’re going to get there, I’m pretty sure.But (12:04) the question is when. I mean, I have no idea when that’s going to be. (12:09) So we always talk about these two things.Obviously, we had the California wildfires. (12:13) We’ve had Lahaina, North Carolina, all these devastating places. Jason touched upon it.(12:19) We talk about all these opportunities now to build and grow where it’s only on the ledger (12:25) sheet. It looks like it’s growth, but it’s really just internal repatching and rebuilding. (12:29) It actually isn’t prosperous.I see that similar in war. I say war is profitable, (12:35) but it’s not prosperous. How are we justifying as a country or how are we justifying as a nation (12:47) the war? Because I imagine the breadbasket just absolutely poisoned with all the chemicals from (12:54) the shelling and the bombs in Ukraine right now.And that is not healthy for society. (13:01) So how do we spread that message of peace to this new administration who seems to be against it, (13:09) but seems to have an issue with Iran all of a sudden? And it’s like they just want to shift (13:13) from here to here. They’re just playing the shell game.And now it’s two wings of the same (13:18) bird versus different complete ideologies about peace and war. I’d just love to hear some thoughts (13:25) about that. Yeah.I mean, that’s a very good question. I mean, I think the problem with war, (13:30) especially in this country, is that it doesn’t affect most people in the U.S. (13:35) Even though the United States is at war, not formally because there’s been no declaration, (13:41) but there are troops in plenty of countries, there are bases in plenty of countries, (13:46) and they’re involved in all kinds of fights all over the place and all the time. (13:50) So there are plenty of wars that the U.S. is involved in.The issue here is that, of course, (13:55) you’re not going to get a resistance to this domestically because people aren’t really (14:02) affected all that much. And they don’t know about it. And maybe they watch it on the news or (14:07) something like that, but they are not personally affected very much.I mean, many people in the (14:12) military, not even Americans. And then you have a small elite that they make a ton of money off of (14:24) selling materials to the Department of Defense or in other ways, dealing with the Department (14:31) of Defense and picking up, selling guns to both sides in the conflict and stuff like that. (14:40) And of course, they have a lot more influence in D.C. than most voters do.And especially (14:47) since voters aren’t really affected. Or I should say, they don’t think they’re affected. (14:53) Because the problem here is the economics of it.We don’t notice that we lose something (15:01) because what we lose is primarily what we would have gotten otherwise. So we’re losing out on the (15:07) upside, but we don’t know what the upside would have been. So how can we, I mean, we’re not (15:14) hurt by it because we don’t know about it.The problem, of course, is that we’re stuck on a (15:21) comparatively much poorer level, all of us, because of this. But we just don’t know. (15:28) Well, can we say a devalued level, correct? I mean, we could talk wealth all we want, (15:33) but it’s just the value of the dollar is nothing what it originally was from the printing and the (15:38) debt that we’ve accrued over time.Yeah, and that’s by design, right? Because there are plenty (15:42) of upsides from whoever controls the dollar and the whole infrastructure around it by inflating (15:52) it because they get the money first and all that sort of thing. For people in general, I mean, (15:56) our prosperity might be great compared to previous times in history, but not compared (16:03) to where we would have been without the wars and without the regulations, without getting (16:07) off the gold standard and all this other stuff. We would have been much, much, much richer, (16:11) all of us.And there’s basically no reason why we would be working 40 plus hours a week to (16:18) then live paycheck to paycheck. That doesn’t make any sense. And we would be able to get (16:25) our current standard of living working maybe half a day a week or something like that, (16:30) had we not had all this BS going on throughout the 20th century.But since we don’t know about it, (16:37) we’re not going to question what we have. And we’re also not going to be upset about it because (16:44) we don’t know what we’re losing out on. And that’s the main point of the unrealized and the seen, (16:50) the unseen and the unrealized, that there are so many opportunities and so much (16:54) prosperity creation that we’re missing out on because of regulations.And I go through (17:01) the whole mechanism and the processes why that is the case in the book. But we’re on such a lower (17:09) prosperity generative trajectory than we would have been, that comparatively speaking, (17:16) we’re dirt poor, all of us. But since we have never been on that other trajectory than where (17:22) we would have been, we just don’t know about it.And therefore we don’t consider ourselves (17:28) burdened by it or hurt by it. That’s an excellent point. It’s kind of like measuring a negative, (17:34) right? You can’t see the non-effects of nothing, right? Or whatever.So, (17:39) gentlemen, Zach’s in the chat with us. I think you’ve spoken with him before. I’m going to put (17:44) this question up.Do you think the manipulation of the markets by the Fed is influenced by bad (17:49) acting on the behalf of the Intel state? So versus the Fed or something like that on the Intel state, (17:56) how about that? What are your thoughts? Well, I mean, I haven’t looked into this much at all. I (18:02) mean, the actual data and stuff like that. So I can’t really say, but I would be surprised if the (18:09) deep state is not involved.And of course, in all the meddling all over the world, (18:17) where does all this money come from? It’s not taxation. And I’m sure there’s plenty of the (18:22) money being created that sort of goes into shadow budgets and these black holes that no one really (18:30) knows much about to fund all this stuff. And I’m sure that there’s plenty of price fixing and price (18:36) tampering in all kinds of markets by all kinds of authorities and agencies and possibly foreign (18:43) actors and mafias and, well, mafias other than the state, and all kinds of other organizations (18:49) that benefit from doing this sort of thing.So, I mean, it’s the problem with the stock market (18:55) right now, and since a few decades, is that it’s not really the evaluation of businesses much (19:04) anymore. And there’s this rather well-known issue of, well, how do you know if you’re in a (19:14) fairly free market rather than in a central planned economy? What is the one thing that (19:21) would distinguish between the two? What can we say? And Mises was asked this question and (19:24) pressured to give an answer. And his answer was, well, if there’s a stock market, that’s sufficient (19:31) to call it a market, not free market, but at least free enough that it works.But that answer, (19:39) I think, assumes, and it hinges on the stock market being a bidding for businesses based on (19:48) valuation of what they produce in terms of profits, and profits being, in a sense, derived from how (19:56) much they satisfy consumers. The problem today is that we have so much money invested (20:06) that are not invested by someone looking at the business and going, hmm, I wonder if this (20:11) business is going to do better or worse into the future? Are they well-positioned to satisfy (20:16) people? Are they investing enough in research and development? Are they innovative? Do they (20:20) think outside the box? And all this stuff. That’s a fraction, only a fraction of trades (20:28) in the stock market are based on this.Instead, they’re based on algorithms. And these algorithms, (20:34) they are, to simplify a little bit, they’re basically saying, well, if the price previously (20:42) has not moved a whole lot and suddenly now it moves up a lot and then there is a plateau, (20:47) then buy because it’s going to go up again. That sort of thing.And that is nothing- (20:53) And so it’s more pattern recognition, right? In a weird way. (20:55) In the statistic of the price movements, right? And that’s not an evaluation at all. But of course, (21:04) the bidding and the buying and selling of the stock at different prices will affect the price.(21:10) So you have these algorithms doing these statistical analyses of price movements (21:14) that determine the prices of the stocks, which is really intended to be a valuation of the (21:23) businesses. But it’s not anymore if it’s just a statistical analysis of price movements. (21:28) So the stock market and which stocks go up and down and by how much, it can be augmented or (21:37) it can be moderated by algorithms.And who knows how many of those trades are by algorithms? (21:42) I mean, you can probably look into that. I haven’t done that. (21:47) Right.Yeah, it sounds like a deep dive. (21:49) Yeah, right. And there’s a lot of data too.But the problem here is that just a few trades are (21:56) made off of what Buffett and others would call value investing, which to an Austrian is just (22:03) investing. Of course, you’re investing in what you think is going to be valuable. But that’s sort of (22:09) a… They also came up with the term junk bond.So it’s… (22:14) Well, true. Imagine that we have this world where you have markets for financial instruments, (22:22) where you’re investing in a business based on what you think is the value proposition of that (22:29) business. It’s not just investing.It’s a special kind of investing that’s called value investing. (22:35) That tells you how just fundamentally wrong this system is. (22:42) All the economics is.Right. (22:44) Yeah, right. And everything in that market, if that is a minority, sort of a unique position (22:50) to have that, oh, I’m going to invest in the value proposition of these businesses.(22:55) Well, okay. That means that most investments are not made based off of that. They’re based (22:59) on something else.And usually it’s the algorithm, the statistical analysis and so forth, (23:04) which then means what does the price actually represent? It’s not a division of intellectual (23:11) labor, as Mises would put it, of all people trying to figure out what is the best evaluation (23:16) of the business. And then they’re sort of putting their own money on the line based off of their (23:21) best guess. No, that’s not it anymore, because most prices are determined to some significant (23:28) extent only by statistical analysis.Yeah, that’s great. So we’ve got a couple (23:36) people in the chat and I’ll continue with one question. I do want to get to regulations because (23:40) what broke my brain on regulations was East Palestine and the train accident.Because my (23:49) understanding was there was a sensor or some kind of bearing that was some 1800s brake system that (23:54) that failed. And yet the train industry has been around for 300 years or so, right? About 200 years, (24:04) right? 1860, maybe 150 or so, whatever. I’m doing the math a little bit off, but (24:10) regulations come and come and they add regulations and you think it’s for safety and you think it’s (24:14) for safety.And yet this train that derailed in 2020 had an 1800 system that for some reason (24:23) regulations missed to have that added to make the train safer. So I’d love for you to explain (24:31) your concept about regulations, how they weaponize our compassion against us for our safety, (24:38) for our protection, for our whatever, and what a lot of regulations end up actually, (24:43) what they’re actually intended to do and who puts them in place as a deterrent versus actual (24:48) a good piece for the consumer, for example. Yeah, I don’t know much about that particular example, (24:55) but it sounds like if they were using sort of old types of parts and stuff like that, (25:01) this is a matter of a bureaucratic management more than the actual regulations and how probably (25:07) old solutions were get grandfathered in when new regulations were put in place.(25:12) And well, I mean, if it’s grandfathered in, then you can just stick with and use that old thing (25:17) for as long as you can. And then you don’t have to invest in buying something new and producing (25:21) something new, right? When I address regulations, I do that from an economic theory perspective. (25:28) So I asked us, okay, what is the regulation intended to do? And what does the regulation do? (25:33) The regulation just in general? Well, I mean, I’m an entrepreneurship professor, so (25:37) I understand that the economy is driven by entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs try to beat (25:43) existing businesses and other entrepreneurs by providing as much value as possible to (25:47) consumers.And whoever provides the most value is going to make the sale and they’re going to (25:54) get that revenue. And if they play their cards right, they have kept their costs below their (26:01) receipts, meaning they make a profit in between. But of course, who benefits the most? That’s the (26:07) consumer still.And that’s what pushes the market forward and makes it progress all the time that (26:13) you can’t really know who is going to satisfy consumers most. So it’s a little bit of a (26:20) guessing game, but entrepreneurs are using all their ingenuity and all their experiences and all (26:27) their judgment and what have you to do that. So in this situation then, okay, what does (26:32) the regulation do? Well, the regulation is implemented and imposed on this to make sure that (26:41) entrepreneurs don’t do a certain thing or that they do more of one thing or they don’t go (26:47) into a certain area.They don’t say, they don’t go into meth production, even though consumers (26:52) really want meth or whatever. So there’s for some reason, we, that is the state or the state (26:59) that’s represented is perhaps, they want to make sure that the outcome is a different one (27:06) than if entrepreneurs would have acted unhindered just to satisfy consumer wants. (27:13) Okay.So now that we know this, that means that if you have a completely free market and you (27:18) impose one regulation, just one, that means that whatever entrepreneur is affected by this (27:24) is no longer able to pursue whatever line of production he or she wanted to, that he or she (27:32) thought was the highest value. They can’t maximize their production line or their something. (27:41) Right.They imagine that they’re going to produce a certain product and they think that this is how, (27:46) this is going to make me rich and this is going to benefit people a lot. And then the regulation (27:51) somehow makes that impossible. So they’re going to do something else, which necessarily is something (27:56) that is, that they expect to be of lesser value because otherwise they would have chosen this (28:00) other thing first.Right. Okay. Well, so that’s the first result of a regulation.We have some (28:08) entrepreneurs who no longer pursue the highest value, expected value for consumers. Instead, (28:16) they pursue some lower expected value for consumers. Okay.So we’re worse off already. (28:21) Then we also know that, well, what do entrepreneurs base their guesses and their (28:26) production efforts on? Well, they look around and they learn from experience. They learn from (28:31) others’ experiences.They go, oh, that didn’t work out, but I think I can fix that. Or that (28:36) worked really well. I’m going to copy that to some extent.So it’s cumulative, right? So they’re (28:42) building off of what worked before, much like the iPhone is a, we’ll say an extension or a product (28:48) that followed the iPod because they had the, Apple had the experience of the iPod in many different (28:54) generations. And they saw this, or Steve Jobs did, I guess, saw these other types of functionality. (29:00) It’s brilliant the way he did that though.He went iPod, iPhone, iPad, and he just scaled it. And (29:07) you know, it’s such a beautiful business model, the way he was able to do that. (29:12) Right.And every step of the way he used what he learned from the previous generation of (29:17) products, right? So the iPhone was a revolution, I agree, but it was impossible without the iPod. (29:23) And that’s within the company, but the market works that way too, right? That you’re, (29:29) they always look around and they copy what works and they abandon what obviously didn’t work and (29:34) that sort of thing. Well, if in our little economy now, if entrepreneurs can’t pursue the highest (29:40) value for consumers, but the second highest value, that’s what other entrepreneurs are going to build (29:44) off of.They’re not going to build off of the highest value because that didn’t take place, (29:50) right? So we’re on a much lower trajectory and we’re not, we’re not never ever going to (29:56) get to that point of prosperity where entrepreneurs were trying to get us before because of this one (30:02) regulation. And that’s going to stay with us forever. And every time an entrepreneur tries (30:08) to do something that is affected by this and or restricted by this one regulation, they’re going (30:14) to pick some other thing to do or some other entrepreneurs instead are going to try their luck (30:20) that is of lower value.So this regulation is going to continue to force down the economy’s (30:28) prosperity generative capability for as long as it is in force. And we’re still just talking about (30:35) one regulation, right? And over generations, there’s going to be a lot of entrepreneurs (30:42) who have chosen the second highest type of production that they could think of because (30:51) the highest one that was affected by this regulation and therefore stopped and it was (30:56) impossible or too costly or whatever it was. So they abandoned that idea and instead they pursued (31:00) the second highest.And then all the other entrepreneurs are going to build off of that (31:04) idea, the second highest one. And to the extent that they’re affected by that regulation, they’re (31:08) going to choose a second highest that is based on the second highest and so forth. So we’re going (31:14) to be on, we’re going to be much, much poorer because of this one regulation.Then of course, (31:19) in the real world, you don’t have one regulation on the marketplace. I think about the audio (31:24) industry and I think about the cafe standards, right? Isn’t that what they call it? Cafe standards (31:28) where all the safety feature after safety feature was mandatory implemented. And I’m not, you know, (31:36) to go crazy, but we talk about freedom and liberty.The next safety feature is a kill switch (31:40) that the company can turn off your car at any time. It’s like, oh yeah, that sounds like that’s in our (31:46) best interest, right? So even those. Right.Yeah, exactly. And it doesn’t really matter (31:53) if it’s a regulation that is implemented for a good reason. There can be such regulations, (31:59) but we have to realize what the real cost is.And I think most analyses so far, if you ask any (32:05) economist and he or she will crunch all the numbers and do use all this data and whatever (32:10) else and produce a cost estimate of how much will this regulation cost them, what will we gain from (32:17) it? Well, they never ever consider the unrealized, which is what I talk about in the book, which is (32:23) the higher prosperity trajectory that we are no longer on. That’s not part of it because they’re (32:30) thinking about it in a short term. So it’s not cumulative.And they’re also not thinking about (32:36) it in terms of an economy that is entrepreneurial. They’re thinking about it in terms of an economy (32:41) that is in equilibrium. So the cost that they’re calculating is so much lower than the real cost, (32:49) which means that most regulations seem to be worth it.I’m sure there could be regulations that are (32:55) worth it, even considering the real cost, but not tens of thousands new ones every year as the (33:02) Congress delivers to us. That’s just impossible. And I think of a good example would be Volvo.(33:10) I think they invented the three point harness. Now, I believe they invented that so they could (33:15) sell that as a safety feature for their car so it would increase their sales. And I think it worked (33:21) because I think it was some revolutionary thing that increased safety and people could walk away (33:25) from car accidents.But that there was no regulation there. They invented this. And then (33:31) other companies said, oh, no, we’re losing market share because of this innovation.(33:36) And then they copied it. So even without a regulation, safety, for example, can be enhanced (33:42) because people see safety and value in those extra products that those companies make, right? To try (33:48) to be differentiators, for example. Yeah, exactly.I mean, ask any consumer, would you like a safe (33:54) car or an unsafe car? I mean, the value is whatever satisfies us on whatever grounds. But of (34:01) course, we prefer safety over not being safe, especially if you have a family and whatnot else (34:06) and you want to drive them, your kids and whatever else to the school. And you go, well, this is (34:11) really unsafe car.I’ll pick that one. No. And so the company will make money off of satisfying (34:17) consumers and consumers.They tend to love their lives and their loved ones and they want as much (34:24) value, whatever sense possible. But you always have to balance things because you can (34:29) you can build a really safe car or we can call it a tank. But that’s not very.(34:37) You’re not going to get a very good gas mileage off of that one. You’re also going to (34:42) have to build really, really sturdy roads not to destroy all the roads. You can’t park in it.I (34:47) mean, there are plenty of other problems. You have to balance those things. And producers of cars, (34:53) they have to always try to figure out what is the future consumer want in terms of this balance, (34:59) how much safety, how much gas mileage, how much of this, how much of that.And that’s how they make (35:05) money by getting as close as possible and then learning from everybody else if they did better (35:10) and then implementing that and always improving the products. That’s how they compete and try to (35:17) stay in business. Regulations, they typically do not actually.It’s a myth that a lot of people (35:24) believe that no business would produce a safe car, say, or have a three point safety belt or (35:32) whatever else without regulators doing that. Well, regulators almost always trail the (35:40) development. They usually implement this regulation when most businesses have already (35:46) implemented it because, well, it’s in their own interest because consumers are better off.(35:53) And we see that now with the European Union. It’s a great example where the idiots in Brussels and (35:59) Strasbourg, they force all the manufacturers of cell phones to use USB-C ports for charging. (36:09) So you cannot make a phone and sell it in Europe unless you use USB-C for charging phones.(36:17) And that forced Apple to do it here just as a production implementation because it just would (36:22) make sense to do it because you have to do it half. You might as well just completely redesign it. (36:26) Right.And then you can ask yourself, OK, how long has USB-C been a standard? Is it the best (36:32) one we got? Is it the best one we’re going to have? No, of course not. And USB-C is already (36:37) pretty old. It’s been around for a while.I mean, that’s why it’s already in a lot of products. (36:43) But what is the next thing? Well, they’re already working on that or they were. But now, since they (36:50) first have to change the law in all of Europe in order to sell a phone with a better charger, (36:59) it doesn’t make any sense to invest in that because you know they’re stifled.Right. So (37:05) innovation stops and invention stops because regulators stepped in and said, oh, isn’t it (37:10) great that we all can have the same charger? Well, sure, it would be great, but that’s why (37:14) the market has standards, too. Yeah.Yeah. And then and then it’s already sets this bar here (37:20) when the bar was here and say you’re in a new phone inventor and you’re like, I want to get (37:25) in the phone business. I but I have to use old parts to start.So you’re using the USB micro (37:31) because you don’t have the USB-C like you’re not ready to do it yet. So now you’re completely (37:37) boxed out of the market that you’re trying to invent something new and start something from (37:42) the ground up and you can’t even get to do it. You don’t get your foot in the door because (37:45) they’re already set all these obstacles at this level that you have to grow to that as a company.(37:51) You can’t just start there in most cases. Right. And imagine if they had had implemented this (37:57) regulation with the USB micro or whatever, which is even older.Right. Well, that means that you (38:03) couldn’t charge your phone as fast as you can today because you had to rely on that old standard. (38:10) And you also couldn’t have a faster (38:15) data transfers through the cord because you had the USB micro unless, of course, you had a phone (38:21) with several different ports.But that doesn’t make any sense either. So there’s a reason why (38:25) manufacturers didn’t choose to have a phone saying much like a computer saying, hey, look at this. (38:30) We’ve got three different USB ports and then we have this one.There’s our own proprietary one. (38:35) And then we have they don’t have that. And there’s a reason for that.Right. No one appreciates that. (38:43) So they chose not to.So I think we’re going to be stuck now with USB-C and USB-C is a good (38:49) technology, but it’s not the best we can do. And we can always improve. I think is the point.Right. (38:56) Right. And politicians never get this.And when do you think a politician learns about USB-C (39:03) and figures out that, oh, this is really great technology? Do you think that when they missed (39:08) when they forgot their cable at the hotel room and they can’t charge your phone? That’s the only (39:12) reason that that I guarantee that regulation came up because some stupid politician forgot to charge (39:18) your phone and didn’t bring their cable and it didn’t wasn’t compatible or something. And they’re (39:23) like, this has to change. I’m going to make it change.Oh, absolutely. And then he talked about (39:28) talked with all his colleagues and they started to push, well, push for this new law. But do you (39:33) think this was in the beginning, in the early stages where USB-C was sort of becoming a thing? (39:39) Or do you think it was in the tail end when USB-C was already all over the place and everybody was (39:45) using it? Of course, it was the tail end.It was the tail end of that. So it was already ripe for (39:53) disruption, was ripe to be replaced by a new and better standard. That’s one of the challenges (40:01) about government.And that’s a challenge about government is they are so far behind on the (40:08) things that matter and the things that really matter now, because we are looking at a technocracy. (40:13) This is a technical, this is a technology world. Twitter, all this stuff is running the show.(40:18) These people are so ahead of the curve and these politicians have no idea about regulating like (40:25) Prop 230 and all this stuff. You’re sitting there watching this Section 230. None of this (40:31) makes any sense with how they’re even able to wrap their heads around it.So it’s like, why are we (40:36) giving people this power to dictate these rules over us when they don’t even understand how to (40:42) turn on the thing or how to implement or how to work it, for example? Yeah, that’s a good question. (40:49) I don’t think anybody knows because most people, they just can’t listen to the stuff and they don’t (40:55) know about it. I mean, even people in Congress, they don’t read the bills because they’re way (40:59) too long and too much crap in there.So they’re just going to trust whatever someone says about (41:04) them, right? But because there are thousands of pages, so no one is going to read that. And (41:08) maybe they get a copy the day before and then go, here, vote on this for tomorrow. Well, (41:15) who can read a thousand pages overnight? And that’s probably not the only thing they’re (41:18) voting on either.And they do this on purpose, of course, because then they can sneak all kinds (41:22) of crap in there that they themselves benefit from and then the masses pay for. But I mean, (41:28) the whole government is really just a way of extracting wealth from the many and give it to (41:36) the few. And they do so in using prestige and power because that’s what usually drives politicians (41:44) more than money, really.And it’s really just a way of getting rich. It’s a getting rich scheme. (41:53) And none of it is really intended to do what they say they’re doing, because what they say (41:59) they’re doing is keeping the peace, making sure that no one is poor and making sure that the (42:08) infrastructure is up to date and whatever else.All these good things, which are always the very (42:13) opposite of what they’re doing. Absolutely. So I wanted to touch one more thing about regulations (42:20) only because once again, I’m a neophyte.I was a grade A neocon in the 90s. Actually, (42:27) I enlisted for the military. I had a Saddam, hey, Saddam, this scuds for you t-shirt.I was all in. (42:33) I believe that the WMDs were there and I believe the youth. I believe Qaddafi was a bad guy.I (42:41) believed it all. I ate it and it broke my heart. Absolutely broke my heart.So whenever I talk (42:48) about these things, it’s so hard to deprogram. I mean, I’m so programmed because I’m still, (42:54) I’m not in Kapustan yet, but it’s been a rapid acceleration since I’ve cracked the edge a little (43:02) bit. And I was at Freedom Fest and saw people like Tom Woods speak about diarrhea, psychosis, (43:07) and things like that.And I’m so honored to be at Freedom Fest and that really accelerated for me. (43:12) So Justin is, Justin’s a good friend of mine. He’s a little more conservative minded, kind of (43:16) where I was maybe five years ago, but it’s still about regulations.We do think that these things (43:22) are for our benefit, right? So no regulation sounds like a good thing for production of physical (43:27) items like chairs, tables, things like that. But can the same be said for, I’m assuming supplements, (43:33) lotions, cough syrups, things like that. Please share your thoughts about the FDA, because I think (43:37) there is a very big libertarian mindset about what the FDA is.And I’m tying that in a little bit. (43:42) I’ll put Zach’s question up as well. But if you could talk a little about that, the FDA (43:46) and what health regulations might be with RFK or something like that as well.(43:51) Yeah, there’s a great book by Mary Reuerts, a friend of mine. And also she’s been in the (43:57) libertarian movement for quite a while. She’s a biologist, I think, or she’s a doctor in that (44:03) sense.Death by Regulation, where she goes through how many people are killed every year by the FDA (44:10) and their regulations. And part of it is, of course, that we don’t have the right to use our (44:17) bodies. So if we are diagnosed with a disease that is going to kill us and there’s no treatment (44:24) available, well, we’re not really allowed to try different things.And the doctors are not allowed (44:29) to try and prescribe things for us either that have not been properly tested and stuff like that. (44:36) Off-label, right? I’ve heard. (44:39) Well, off-label and also new drugs that haven’t been tested appropriately yet, unless I guess it’s (44:45) an mRNA shot, because then it doesn’t really apply anymore.(44:49) It doesn’t count. Let’s not… (44:51) But she calculates in that book how many years are lost all the time because people don’t have (44:59) a right to try things when they’re dying, which is a lot. And of course, FDA is just a way of (45:10) keeping profits really high in big pharma.I mean, people refer to it as a captured agency. (45:19) I mean, that’s the appropriate terminology. (45:23) Every industry is captured.The militaries and industry is captured by the Raytheons and the (45:27) Lockheeds. All of them are. I mean, we’ve become crony capitalists.I mean, we know that this is (45:32) part of the system that we need to purge, right? I mean, we know that’s part of it. (45:36) Well, the United States was always corporatist. It’s just that it’s bigger now.And I think that (45:42) the… I have an issue with that term, that is a captured agency, because it sounds like at one (45:50) point it was innocent and good, and then people with money and big businesses, they stepped in (45:56) and they corrupted it. Usually, I don’t think that is the case because the agency is created not (46:03) for the public good, even though that’s usually what they say, but it’s usually created for special (46:10) interests. And it’s usually created as a means for insiders in the market to protect themselves (46:18) from competition and to make sure that their drugs can be used, but their competition cannot (46:23) be used.And there’s a reason why big pharma, for instance, are lobbying Congress over and over (46:28) again to make sure that supplements are prescription-based. So, I mean, if you go to (46:35) one of those health and supplement stores, little now and then they have a list where (46:42) they want you to sign your name to protest, because once again, there’s this bill coming to (46:48) the state capitol or the D.C. or whatever, where they try to make sure that you have to go to the (46:55) doctor and get a prescription for vitamin C, because you could overdose it, right? (47:01) Vitamin D was really tough during COVID. You know, those extra 5,000 (47:05) IUs that you happen to urinate out if you happen to take too much.Oh, no, (47:09) your body just doesn’t absorb it, you know? Right. And because that might be dangerous if (47:15) you completely overdo it, you shouldn’t be able to at all. But that, of course, means that, well, (47:20) then you go to a doctor anyway, so why can’t you just get a prescription for some other thing that (47:25) you have much more margin at selling, right? And every government agency creates an arena for (47:34) buying and selling favors.And that’s the whole point of it, really, that politicians gain from it (47:40) and insiders and big businesses gain as well, because they can cement their influence. (47:47) There’s a reason why Walmart and Amazon, for instance, are not only promoting and advocating (47:55) but also lobbying for a higher minimum wage. Now, why would they do that? Well, it’s obvious if you (48:02) think about it, it’s not because they want to pay more in wages, more than they might have to (48:08) otherwise, because they could just raise wages.If they wanted to pay everybody 25 bucks an hour, (48:14) they could just do it. They don’t need the law to tell them to do that, right? Because there’s (48:19) no ceiling for… Right, because I’m sure there’s not one single person who works (48:23) twice as hard as everybody else and they actually value that because they actually see the value and (48:28) pay that person a little bit more, right? They don’t do that at all. Right, well, I mean, they (48:32) can pay them 50 then.Right, right. But instead, they’re lobbying politicians to make sure that (48:39) everybody pays that. And that’s, of course, because they know that whoever is starting a (48:44) new startup that is going to be the next Amazon, because Amazon was very small and a startup once, (48:50) right? They’re not going to have the cash flow.They’re not going to have the investment capital. (48:55) They’re not going to have any of this to pay high salaries from day one, right? And the big (49:00) businesses know this. And they also know and they understand that they are going to be replaced by (49:06) some small damn store or some company started in someone’s damn garage somewhere just because they (49:13) figured out how to satisfy consumers better.And that’s why they’re going to just take over all the (49:17) customers and they’re going to grow big and they’re going to replace the businesses that are (49:21) big today. So if they can stop this, which really means you’re stopping innovation and invention, (49:27) right? You’re stopping entrepreneurship. Then you can stay alive for longer and you can (49:33) reap in these profits.So Amazon and Walmart, by forcing all stores in their industries (49:41) to pay high wages, they can probably eat the cost, but startups cannot, which means they can (49:47) maintain their position in the marketplace much, much longer. So they’re gaining from higher cost. (49:53) And of course they know this.It’s not because they’re suddenly going, well, we’re a really good (49:58) corporation and we want to care about our workers. If that was the case, they could just pay them (50:02) more. Easy.Right. They could be altruistic with it, but you know, they are a corporation. (50:08) So, and to that end, for example, like a Jeff Bezos, I’ll admit the guy doesn’t make me feel good, (50:14) but I want, I see a picture of him, you know, two 30 in the morning over paper, (50:20) stacks of papers working.He’s putting every bit of his heart and soul into this thing. (50:25) And he made it happen. And if you can’t applaud that, just that effort alone, I don’t know what (50:31) can.The problem is now he’s big and he knows what it took to get to him. So he knows what regulations (50:37) to get passed to keep someone from following in his footsteps or taking over the way you say. (50:44) And that’s the sad part about it is that it doesn’t allow for that extra cultivation to (50:49) find other avenues.Right. Which means stopping the progression of the market process. That’s (50:56) how you keep your position, right? And if you’re in a good position, well, that’s in your interest, (51:02) try to do that in a free market.You don’t have the means to do that. You can’t stop the progression (51:06) because there are no barriers to entry. Anyone can start a business whenever they feel like it.(51:11) Right. As long as they can get the investment capital, which means you can have a billion (51:16) different companies trying to undermine you from all kinds of directions all the time. And you (51:20) can’t do much about it.But with the state you can. So you just lobby a few politicians or an agency (51:26) and then you get those favors and you don’t have to bother with those billion companies anymore. (51:33) And I don’t think it is a problem necessarily that a business grows big and a someone, an (51:41) entrepreneur earns a ton of money and becomes a billionaire or whatever else.Right. I’m not (51:47) particularly interested in in eating the rich or anything like that, because in a market setting. (51:56) The innovators innovate pair.I mean, that’s what it is. We have to applaud the brain. I mean, (52:00) look, Elon Musk alone took on space, electric cars tunneling.I mean, just just just that alone (52:09) just speaks volumes to just the effort or the brainpower. You just have to admire it for what (52:15) it is. Yeah.And there’s a fair amount of luck in it, too. But the thing is, when you get when you (52:21) get rich like this, someone did a study and I mean, it was a flawed study because it doesn’t (52:26) recognize the unrealized and all this other stuff. So they don’t recognize those those issues.But (52:31) I think the conclusion was that of all the value created by Amazon or through Bezos Amazon, (52:39) one percent was captured by Jeff Bezos and ninety nine percent were was captured by (52:47) Amazon’s customers, which is probably right because customers choose to use Amazon because (52:52) they’re made better off. And this was some kind of approximation of the value, which doesn’t make (52:56) any sense. Consumers are probably much, much better off than than they could calculate.(53:02) But still, if you’re capturing one percent of the value and everybody else gets a lot of more value, (53:08) it’s not really an issue that you’re rich and you can only stay rich if you continue to serve (53:13) people better than everybody else. Yeah. So you’ve been so gracious with your time.We’ve got about (53:21) seven, 10 minutes for an hour. I’d hate to waste any of your time. Zach had a question about price (53:26) gouging.Could we talk a little bit about that? Because I did touch a little bit at the beginning (53:30) of the show, but basically we’ve got a couple of things and I’ll put up the question. But I had a (53:37) question, if I may, about how someone like a Kamala can say corporate price gouging. So if I may, this (53:46) is how I perceive how money works.Say it’s a dollar for the base product or for the raw material (53:55) for a company to buy something. Then they make it and then they sell it to eight different, (54:00) along the way through middlemen. Each of them have to make, say, a 5% margin.So if we just say (54:05) everyone makes 5% margin, inflation happens. So now inflation goes up 5%. Now it’s $1.05 (54:13) for the piece instead of $1.But everyone still needs to make their 5%. That $1.05 becomes $1.11 (54:20) down the chain, then $1.17, and then $1.23, and it becomes greater and greater. Is that how they (54:28) were trying to manipulate it to make it look like companies were trying to pocket this extra money, (54:33) when all it was was they’re just keeping their margin and that’s where inflation really does (54:39) always hit more everyone harder than anything? Well, you’re sort of opening a can of worms here.(54:47) Okay. Oh, maybe I shouldn’t do that then. (54:50) Because inflation is interesting, but it’s sort of a difficult topic today because the (54:57) definition has changed.So we think of inflation now as higher consumer good prices. But of course, (55:04) prices should vary depending on supply and demand and stuff like that. So if people suddenly (55:12) want to buy a certain product, then the price of that product will go up until supply increases, (55:17) and then the price will fall again.And if people go, nobody wants Wonder Bread anymore, (55:23) then what will happen with the price of Wonder Bread? Well, it will fall. So you have deflation (55:27) for Wonder Bread. But that’s just the price mechanism.That should happen. Prices should (55:34) fluctuate. They shouldn’t be stable forever.We can’t expect that. So to say, for instance, (55:40) that there’s inflation because of supply chain issues, that doesn’t make any sense at all. (55:45) Of course, supply chain issues will affect the prices.Originally, inflation was really a metric (55:54) of how much more money is there in circulation. So did you create more money to have in the (56:01) economy? Because that means, well, there’s more money chasing just as many goods as before, (56:06) which means prices go up. So prices go up because each unit of the currency has fallen (56:13) because it’s diluted.That was the original conceptualization of inflation. Because economists (56:21) wanted to know, okay, what are the actual impact of printing more money, as we put it today, right? (56:27) That’s what I’m talking about in the guise of COVID, where we just printed loads of money. (56:34) Absolutely.And since the financial crisis, too, we’ve been printing a ton of money. (56:39) And that it will eventually hit some prices or all prices. So of course, that means that the (56:45) dollar itself is worth less compared to what it otherwise would be.It doesn’t mean that the (56:50) prices necessarily that we see on all goods go up, because if they otherwise would have fallen, (56:57) then a no price difference is really a price increase compared to what it would have been, (57:03) right? And if you think about it, in any economy where no one is meddling with the money, (57:11) what do businesses do? Well, they cut costs, they innovate better products. That’s how they (57:17) compete. What would you expect from that? Well, you would expect lower prices, because that’s (57:22) how they get the customers, right? Better product at lower prices.That’s the normal- (57:27) Prevent new materials, cheaper, lighter, faster material, things like that. They innovate. (57:33) Exactly.So the market naturally is deflationary in that sense, because prices fall (57:38) and quality goes up, right? An example would be televisions, (57:42) is a great example. Electronics is a great example, where prices, when they initially come, (57:46) they’re a high, you know, cafe, high dollar amount, and then they plummet as the technology (57:51) gets, you know, more implemented and actually increases higher quality resolution. But the (57:57) prices still keep continuing going down because the technology, base technology has already been (58:00) out.Exactly. Which means if the statistic for price inflation is plus minus zero, (58:08) prices have not changed. That means that prices are still higher than they otherwise would be, (58:13) right? Because prices would have fallen if the market had been free and no one had tampered with (58:17) the money.So when we’re talking about, like they say now, that you have the 2% target. (58:25) So all prices on average should increase by 2% every year, which means, of course, that, well, (58:32) the dollars that you have, they retain 98% of their purchasing power each year. So we’re diluting (58:39) the money and the money is falling in terms of value.And that’s by design. Well, considering (58:45) that we should have experienced an increased purchasing power of the dollar had no one meddled (58:52) with it and the market had been free. Well, those 2% suddenly translates to what? Two plus (58:59) whatever deflation we would have seen.So the 2% itself is not 2%. So it’s more than that. And (59:07) that’s the thing.These are the unseen things that we’re talking about. And so you see it on the (59:13) ledger at the bottom, but you don’t see how it got there. So it’s like all this invisible ghost (59:17) stuff.And then all of a sudden this number spits out that just completely throws your whole thing (59:22) off. So before we call it a day, just this price gouging thing, because we’ve talked about price (59:28) gouging, you were just on top of it. You spoke about regulations.Once again, thank you so much (59:34) for your time. If you could just share a little bit about one more thing about how to get ahold (59:38) of you. I know it’s at Perbiland on X, but if you could just answer Zach’s question a little bit about (59:44) price gouging and then we’ll call it an evening.And thank you so much for honoring me with your (59:49) time. I know as an economist, time is valuable. So thank you.Yeah, we economize on time too. (59:55) They’re right. So, I mean, I would really refer Zach and everybody to a great piece by Mike Munger, (1:00:06) the political scientist at Duke.He’s also a libertarian. He wrote a piece called, I think (1:00:12) they clapped. And he tells the story of a couple of, I think it was young men who realized that (1:00:22) after a hurricane or something like that, that, Hey, people down there, they are suffering from (1:00:27) the heat and they have no electricity, no power, no nothing.And what do they need? They probably (1:00:32) need a lot of ice and we can buy a lot of ice here. It’s pretty cheap. And so they bought, (1:00:39) packed a trailer with ice.They got a couple of chainsaws and stuff like that and extra gas. (1:00:46) And they started driving down to the affected area. And of course they cleared the road on the (1:00:50) way there.And there was a lot of work. And maybe they would lose some to the heat and whatever (1:00:57) else, but they expected that they could sell it for a whole lot more when they got there. (1:01:03) Because people needed ice, right? So they got there and people lined up because people wanted (1:01:08) ice and the ice was worth much more to them than the price they were paying or otherwise they (1:01:13) wouldn’t buy it, right? And I mean, you read the article because it’s actually very interesting, (1:01:21) but the effect of their work is of course that it’s so much easier for others to transport ice (1:01:26) there.It’s so much easier now. And others have seen that, Oh, this is an opportunity. (1:01:31) And the higher price means that there’s going to be an inflow of goods there.Because if you can (1:01:36) buy ice in an unaffected area for, I don’t know how much ice is, but say it’s a dollar, a pound or (1:01:44) whatever. But in the affected area, there is no ice. You can charge 10 bucks and people (1:01:51) will still gladly buy it for 10 bucks a bag.Well, can you cover the cost of transporting it there (1:01:58) for nine bucks a bag? You probably can, right? And you can sell it for less than 10. If someone (1:02:04) else is already there selling for 10, you can sell it for eight and still make a buck in between, (1:02:08) right? Which means that you are really helping to ration ice because you’re taking ice from where (1:02:15) it’s not worth all that much because people then buy more than usual for that regular price. (1:02:23) But in this place where they don’t have ice, they’re very happy to pay 10 times as much (1:02:28) because they don’t have it and they need it, right? So that means that the higher price (1:02:33) attracts more of the good to the area where there’s too little, which is part of how the (1:02:39) price system works, right? It offers profits to redirect goods to where they do more good.(1:02:45) Well, if you have a price gouging law in place, that is really just a price ceiling saying that, (1:02:52) well, you can’t sell ice above a buck 50, say, per bag. Well, now is it worth it for you to buy (1:03:00) bags in an unaffected area to take it to those hurricane victims and sell it for $1.50? Well, (1:03:07) you would have to transport a ton of bags to make up for the cost, right? (1:03:11) Yeah. I mean, like McDonald’s cap turns, you’d have to have so much volume to make up for that (1:03:17) smaller percentage margin or profit that you’d be making.(1:03:19) Right. Which means most people wouldn’t even bother with it because there’s not, (1:03:23) you couldn’t make money off of it. And even if you made money, it’s just not enough.It’s not (1:03:27) worth your time. Right. So that’s not going to happen.What is the outcome of that? Well, (1:03:33) the outcome is that they don’t get ice. It’s that simple. They can wait for FEMA to transport ice (1:03:40) to them, but I mean, that’s not- And more honestly, no one gets ice (1:03:43) because no one’s sending it there because it’s not value.It’s not worth it to them to do it. (1:03:50) Exactly. So instead of getting gouged, you just get none and you all suffer.(1:03:57) Exactly. And of course, in the example in Mike Munger’s article, the government had not cleared (1:04:03) the roads, but these guys transporting the ice because they saw, hey, we can make hundreds of (1:04:08) dollars. And they thought that was great.They cleared the roads so that others could get there (1:04:14) with ambulances and wood and timber and whatever else people might need there. Right. So the roads (1:04:20) were cleared faster.People got ice because of these people who were really just trying to make (1:04:27) a buck. Right. So that’s how the market works.Because if you offer something that people want (1:04:33) a lot, they’re also willing to give up a lot and still gain. And that is the case in an affected (1:04:40) area. That doesn’t mean, of course, that it’s necessarily a good thing to charge a really high (1:04:46) price.But what it does mean is that if you coerce people and you tell them you cannot (1:04:54) sell for a high price, you don’t get these good effects at all. And then you become completely (1:05:00) reliant on a benevolent government to fix all these problems. And we all know what FEMA does.(1:05:08) It uses a lot of money, but it’s not very effective at anything except for maybe hindering (1:05:13) private initiatives to help people. I have a high school friend that just talked about FEMA (1:05:20) and is like FEMA is underfunded. And I’m like, oh, yeah, they do a job so poorly, (1:05:25) let’s give them more money.It’s like I love like the mentality of that never makes sense. (1:05:31) And I swear per I’m trying to break everybody’s brains. I’m trying to crack these skulls over (1:05:35) here.We’re just got to crack the shell. We’re not we’re not trying to hurt anyone. Trust me, (1:05:39) no one starts this way, everybody.We all we find our way to this through experience and through (1:05:46) time. OK, please, we have grace. Come to our side.We welcome you. We welcome you to this world. (1:05:55) If we can all start thinking this way, I think life would be better.I do her. Thank you so much. (1:06:02) Any final thoughts on any anything you’d like to share before we call it a day? Thank you again (1:06:06) for your time.I’m so grateful. No, this was a lot of fun and I appreciate the questions. (1:06:13) And I mean, do follow me on X. I’m easy to find.That’s why I post every day and I post everything (1:06:18) else that I publish in other places. I post links to them on X. Excellent. Thank you again.What (1:06:24) we’ll do is I’m going to hit stop here, but perhaps we’ve got a league of ordinary gentlemen. (1:06:28) It’s a panel of people that you’ve spoken with. We’ll have to invite you when you come back from (1:06:32) your time away and we will just have a fun chat and just, you know, chew the fat some more.(1:06:38) Sounds good. Thank you again, sir. Take care.Bye, everybody.