There's something else here now, something new from explicitly on Paramount. Plus it's the series Stephen King calls scary as hell. Everything here is impossible, but it's also real. Sci Fi Vision calls it the best show streaming right now.
We're running out of time and we still don't know the rules. Don't miss what the Movie Blog calls something you need to watch. Saving those children is how we Overholes from Binge all episodes exclusively on Paramount. I'm Tom Bilyeu and this is Impact Theory.
My guest today is David Pacman. He's an insightful left leaning political commentator with biting wit and ability to cut through the BS of modern political discourse. While he and I don't necessarily agree on the cause or cure of our current economic woes, mainly the national debt, inflation, and why the cost of living keep skyrocketing, we nonetheless had a great wide ranging conversation on the madness that is the 2024 election cycle. Let me know what you guys think about this interview with David Pakman.
Whatever you think about the rigidity or fragility of our democracy, and maybe we'll talk about that, the stakes are higher because this is an inflection point, I think, for MAGA and Trumpism to some degree. If Donald Trump wins in November, it probably prolongs maga's control of the Republican Party into certainly the midterms in 2026, maybe into who the Republican Party selects in 2028 as their nominee. Whereas particularly with Trump being close to 80, if he loses in November, that'll be a lot of MAGA losses in a row starting in 2018. Or underperformances we can say.
And it's probably not only the end of Trump's political career, but but it may sort of be it for MAGA as well. So I do think the stakes are high. And what what is your biggest fear of Trump gets elected? Well, I don't want to be hyperbolic, so I would just look at the first term combined with not having another election to run and therefore being completely sort of unrestrained and unfettered, in addition to openly saying that he's interested in replacing career bureaucrats at so many departments with partisan loyalists and what that would do to the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, et cetera is scary to someone with my worldview, which is sort of a pluralistic respect our democratic institutions in the kind of mold of Northern Europe.
For my mindset, the idea of that is scary. You know, the more hyperbolic stuff I think I try not to engage with in a Blanket way. You know, if there's a specific issue that we want to discuss, we can, whether it's abortion or something else. But those are my concerns.
You've got a guy who is completely uncouth and breaks sort of the social norms of what it's like to interact with the public. You have somebody that lies voraciously, and obviously that in and of itself is deeply problematic. You have somebody that plays pretty loose and fast with world leaders and that obviously carries with it a certain amount of risk. You have somebody that has proven that they.
This is why I want to be very careful about how you view it. But that January 6th was very meaningful in terms of a legitimate attempt to undermine, maybe the most gentle word, to undermine the traditional peaceful transfer of power. And you put that all together and you have something that is certainly directionally not where you want to see us end up. I agree with all of that, and I think there's, of course, more to it.
Well, it sounds like we're going to talk about the economy in more detail, but certainly economically, the sort of blind tariff idea that he's now pushing, which seems like it would be bad for both businesses and individuals in the United States, concerns me directionally. I don't like the straining of relationships with our traditional Western allies that we saw under Trump. And I know that there's a view that it's good to shake things up and it's good to keep people guessing and on their toes. I don't know that it's been demonstrated that generically that that's a good thing.
I think under Trump and the way he executed it, it certainly was not. So, yeah, I think what you laid out certainly reflects my beliefs and I would even go beyond it. Okay, what would be the most meaningful things that you would push beyond that raise the stakes of this particular election? I think it's the ones I mentioned, including turning government departments into partisan political departments when they're really not supposed to be in.
I don't know. You know, this isn't like the most viral and click inducing topic, but I don't know that a lot of people necessarily understand that. A lot of the employees of these government departments, whatever you think about the missions of the departments, these are not political actors. Privately, I'm sure a lot of these employees vote, but they transcend administrations.
They work under Democratic administrations and Republican administrations, and they're really career bureaucrats that are doing so much of the diplomacy work and bureaucratic work. And it's a good thing that that's the way it is. And so the idea of turning those departments into partisan endeavors, sometimes with the goal of essential, essentially just ruining them. Right.
I mean, Department of Education is one where it's been overtly stated that many of these MAGA people don't even think there should be a federal Department of Education and just kind of let states figure it out or even let municipalities figure it out. Or when it comes to the US Postal Service, another great example of politicizing in order to then destroy, to allow private business to fill that role. I think all of that is extraordinarily dangerous. And when you look around the world at the countries that have gone in that direction, they are not the countries that democrats nor Republicans will often say that's the country we want to be like.
And when you look at the countries with the strong business environments, low unemployment, high level of quality of life, they aren't doing those things. They kind of respect this separation with these bureaucratic departments. So I think that's a huge deal. What do you think about people that think that there's.
What do you call the managerial class or the deep state that that begins to pose its own threat to democracy? I hesitate to engage with that without a disclaimer, which is that there are thoughtful, realistic ways to engage with what is in many cases a two tiered society or even multi tiered society. Usually when your entry point into it is talking about the deep state or the managerial class, terms that, for example, like Vivek Ramaswamy would use half a dozen times each time I would interview him. It starts us off in what in my opinion is a more sort of conspiratorial and unproductive direction.
I kind of prefer the language of social democracy, which is that it's not. You don't need to look under rocks or for the deep state or the Trilater Commissioner, the Bilderbergs or whatever the case may be. It's sort of all out in the open. Princeton has studied it and the desires of the wealthy are just and corporations are far more likely to be made law or to be reflected by lobbyists, et cetera.
You don't need to go into deep state to recognize that the middle class and lower middle class, the working class, however you want to find it, have disproportionately little political power in the United States. So that I think is what we really should be engaging with. And for me, even raising deep state as a term in the discussion doesn't really add anything. It's really going to clarify anything.
It's really Interesting. So first, I will flag myself fully as somebody who is paranoid about the deep state. But we can come back to that and hopefully you can talk some reason into me. But I'm really intrigued by this idea that the middle class and working poor in America are disproportionately powerless compared to other nations.
So certainly social democracy is something that's on my list of things that I want to discuss with you. I would not have seen that interpretation of that coming. So if you can, I might have explained it. I didn't mean disproportionately powerless relative to other nations.
I meant relative to the wealthy incorporations of the United States. I see. I see. That may have just been my misunderstanding.
Okay, so, yeah, that seems unassailable. So paint me a vision of what it is that you want to see as an outcome. So when you think about, like, who should be elected, whether Harris or anybody else, obviously elections will come and go, but there's something that you're driving towards. Before we met, I would have just said offhanded social democracies.
What he wants. You often reference Denmark, if you don't mind. Stack some bricks for us. What is social democracy?
How is it different from democratic socialism? And what would it feel like for a America to be that? For the average person, this is a really good way to approach it. So the first distinction between social democracy and democratic socialism is that social democracy is capitalism.
It's a form of capitalism. If you look at a place like Denmark, which has an as good or better business environment in terms of what it costs, how long it takes, bureaucracy, et cetera, for starting a business, when compared to the United States, it is a form of capitalism. It's a slightly more regulated form than we have in some ways in the United States. Now, as we delve into this, I think it's important to mention that depending on where you live in the United States, the state you live in may already be very close.
Not there, but very close to what social democrats like myself are kind of pointing towards. And in fact, if you look at the higher standard of living states in the United States, so these are places like Connecticut, Massachusetts, Washington, we could look at the list, what's called the hdi, the Human Development Index, which is a kind of blended metric that considers health and longevity, per capita income, education. It's sort of like a blended metric that tells you kind of like how good are the basic building blocks of life in the states. In the United States, where it's going well, Connecticut, Massachusetts, et cetera, it's almost identical to countries like Denmark, Norway, Sweden, et cetera.
It's very equivalent. So we're very close to what social Democrats want already in much of the United States. And the difference between social democracy and what I think a lot of the center right Republicans want. This is not necessarily talking about MAGA now, but a lot of center right Republicans involves taking just a little more at the very, very top to ensure that no one drops below a certain level.
We're just kind of. It's not equality of outcome, it's not socialism, it's certainly not communism or Marxism. It's basically saying, here's the current sort of range of outcomes. What we want to do is set up something a little closer to equality of opportunity, that no one falls too low.
And usually the way you do that is with a little more taxation at the very top. That all being said, I don't think it has to be that way. I mean, I'm not someone who goes around saying we need to pay more in taxes. To be totally honest, I am frustrated every April with how much I pay in taxes.
I would actually like to pay less. I think it's the distribution and the use of a lot of the tax money that's the problem. But now we're going to get more nuanced. But to kind of step back at the 30,000 foot view, we're not talking about dramatic changes, especially if you're already in states like Connecticut, Massachusetts, Washington, et cetera.
Okay, super helpful. So for anybody that doesn't know what is democratic socialism, you know, really a democratic socialist should tell you because one of the things I found is whether you're explaining what Jordan Peterson meant or whether you're explaining what democratic socialism is, usually the adherence to those ideologies will come back and say you either don't understand it or didn't explain it correctly. So democratic socialism, as best as I can explain it, is actually a form of socialism where to different degrees and in different ways, the means of production when it comes to corporations or the profits from businesses are socialized. The way in which it's done and implemented depends.
But I think it would be best for a socialist to explain it. I'm very much not one. Yeah, fair enough. I get that.
The reason I ask is for any of us to intelligently navigate the world, we have to have some sense, even if it's just a heuristic about that. So let me ask something that will get to the same idea. Why don't you want to be. Why don't you want America to be a socialist country.
Well, I have seen in looking at the last 500 years of history, as well as looking at the world today, that the best outcomes seem to happen when there is no more authoritarianism from government than what is arguably necessary for the size of the population. And I'll explain that in a moment. And that the countries that have what might be described in a book like why Nations Fail as Extractive Institutions sometimes will do well in the short term. Like, for example, the Soviet Union had a period during which you saw economic growth and to a degree you saw innovation, but you saw it under fundamentally extractive government institutions.
And so it hit a limit. And looking at the Cold War shows you kind of what happens when those limits are hit. So my starting point is, and I know that if you look at the comments on my YouTube channel, this might cause a shock to some of your listeners, I actually am not about more government involvement or more government control than can really be justified and demonstrated by what's going to generate kind of the best outcomes. So for me, I don't see any reason for a government to say we're not going to let markets dictate, you know, where the mobile phone market goes, for example.
I don't see a big problem with that. I think it's a perfectly fine and great thing both for innovation and competition, for Apple and Samsung and Google and whoever, to compete and to let markets dictate the flow of resources. I think that there are some specific areas where this is not ideal. And what's really interesting is myself and someone who's on the political right probably agree on most of them.
Like, for example, most Republicans agree we should socialize the military. We shouldn't have all of these different militaries. And if we need to do X or Y in another country, well, these are like kind of private militaries. Now.
There are mercenary groups. That's not really what I mean. We all generally agree, yeah, the military should be part of the government. That makes sense.
We usually agree, Republicans, Democrats, independents, that cities shouldn't have competing police forces. It makes sense to socialize police and fire only like kind of extreme Libertarians would disregard that. My view is that there's like a couple other areas where a little more socializing makes sense. I think healthcare is one of them, although I'm flexible as to the way we get health care for everybody.
I think public education is an area where socializing a little more than Republicans want to make sense. But the point of presenting it this way is that we're mostly all in the United States on the same page that there are some areas where socializing makes sense and a bunch of areas where markets make sense. We just disagree about probably a couple of them. The people who win, they're not smarter.
They just absorb more ideas faster. There are thousands of books right now on business, psychology, leadership, books that have already changed how the best operators think. And everyone you haven't read is a gap between you and the people who have. This is a bandwidth problem, not a discipline problem.
And that's exactly what Linkist was built to solve. It takes the world's best nonfiction books and distills them into 15 minute summaries you can read or listen to scattered over 9,000 titles. We're talking atomic habits, Thinking fast and slow. The hard thing about hard things Books you know you should have read by now.
Done in the time it takes to drink your coffee. And because it's built for mobile, your commute becomes a classroom. Blinkist also sends you personalized recommendations so you actually build a daily learning practice instead of just planning to do one. Start your free trial and save an extra 30%.
Go to blinkist.com impact Again, that's blinkist.com impact Start learning aggressively today. It will change your life. Let's talk about what is going on in your closet this time of year. Most people realize half of what they own isn't even worth keeping.
Things that look fine in the store, but they don't hold up. Pieces you keep but never reach for it. I know that one all too well. Spring is when you see it all clearly.
You don't need more, you need better. That's where Quince comes in. I picked up one of their cashmere sweaters and the quality genuinely shocked me. It's incredible.
It's incredibly soft, well made. You can feel the difference immediately. That's 100% Mongolian cashmere for you. And that is the same material luxury brands charge a fortune for.
Refresh your wardrobe with quince. Go to quince.comimpactpod for free shipping and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada as well. Go to Q U I n c e.com impact pod for free shipping and 365 day returns.
Quince.com impact pod let's talk about who's profiting from your personal information. Someone is making money from your data every single day. You just don't see the transaction. Data brokers collect your personal information and sell it for profit.
Your address, your phone number, your email, your Social Security number. Yikes. It's bought and sold constantly without your knowledge or consent. Scammers buy it for identity theft.
Spammers buy it for targeted harassment. Criminals buy it to find you. And the crazy part is, it's completely legal. The solution is Incogni.
Incogni tracks down your data across hundreds of data broker sites and removes it automatically. You authorize them. Once they handle everything else, they remove your data and keep it removed with repeated requests. Plus with custom removals.
You send them any link where your data appears and their team will remove it. They can't harm you if they can't find you. Go to incogni.com impact and use code impact for 60% off an annual plan. Try it risk free for 30 days.
That's I N C-O-G-N-I.com impact and use code Impact. Okay, that I want that to be true. But people are so fiery in their reactions to each side. If we're as close as you're saying, and you Sound Very reasonable, Mr.
Pac Man, I will give you that. So why then is there so much collision between the left and the right right now? What is the swing towards populism all about if we're really close to the outcome that you're saying we should be aiming towards? Well, I want to be clear that I think we're close ideologically.
Right? Like if you look at opinion surveys about abortion or should taxation be used to make sure no one drops below a certain standard of living? Or does it make sense to provide some amount of health care to everybody, regardless of ability to pay? Ideologically, in opinion polling, we are closer than we've ever been and kind of more united than we've ever been.
The electoral outcomes don't reflect that. There's a bunch of different reasons why, and I'll just tell you a couple of them. Number one, there is this thing called the narcissism of small differences, which is that the outcome, when there is agreement in a lot of areas but you still have elections and fundraising and political fights over who gets to represent US in Washington D.C. the differences by their very nature must be amplified.
If you have two Republicans in a primary running against each other and they mostly agree about abortion's bad and tax should be low, if they agree on 10 things, the race will become about the two things on which they disagree. So this is just like standard politics. To be expected, the differences must be amplified in order to justify vote for me and not for somebody else. That's number one.
Number two, there are still pretty significant cultural differences regionally in The United States and I spend a bunch of time in different conservative areas. And life day to day is often really different. Living in some of the kind of liberal cities of the United States as compared to like, for example, I spent time in northern Indiana where people spend a lot of time at gun ranges and in megachurches. Life culturally is very different.
So the environments also make people believe that our differences are maybe greater than they are. And then thirdly, as a result of at the federal level, the electoral College, in terms of how we elect presidents and gerrymandering at the state level also exacerbates these differences by virtue of a lot of factors related to how we elect candidates. And so this is not me pretending like everything's hunky dory. Everybody basically agrees.
But there is this kind of shared moral understanding that I think covers a bunch of the United States. And the reason that you see the kind of vitriol is the reasons I mentioned, I think amplified by impersonal communication on social media where you're not actually sitting face to face with somebody and talking. Okay, so let me give you a. Because that does not match with the way that I see people interacting with each other.
My take on it is probably not as well thought out as yours, but I'll give you a rough swag. I think that naturally humans are divided left and right. I think that from an evolutionary perspective it is inevitable that you will end up with tensions between these two sides. That there are people for whom the default emotional stance, which I'm sure paints their moral vision, becomes you can't leave people behind.
And that it makes a lot of sense from an evolutionary perspective why you would need people in the tribe that are like that. When you think of humans as storing calories for the future pre refrigerators in the bodies of other people, which is sort of a weird thing when you first hear it, but when you really think about it, it's like I went on a hunt, I was very productive. This time I come back with the animal, you didn't get anything. I'm going to feed you.
I'm going to make sure that you don't get left behind because it could be you next time that ends up getting the kill and not me. And so I'm quite literally storing future calories in the form of obligation in you. So cool. We understand why that becomes a thing.
But whenever there is an exploitable niche, then someone is going to exploit it. So you get what you call the freeloader problem. And so that's why you need people on the right who are about personal responsibility. And no, you can't just eat all of my meat.
There's going to be tit for tat. I need to see you bringing something to the table as well. So I look at it from that standpoint. You've got this evolutionary bifurcation between types of people that roughly fall in the left and right, that roughly can be generalized as people that lead with compassion in the.
The people that leave the responsibility. Everybody's on the spectrum. Of course, he's not binary things, but you get that tension now. Somewhere in the 90s, something culturally started to happen.
I've often heard it put on Rush Limbaugh. I'm going to guess that he was more a symptom of something rather than the cause, but that it became really about entrenching in our tribes. Now, I'm not familiar enough that I history to know what he was queuing off of, why he felt like this was the way to go, to begin tearing people down. Or if it really was the beginning of independent media with different radio stations becoming popular and getting syndicated.
And maybe social media really is just a modern incarnation of that. That certainly is possible, but I think that divide happened long before social media. So I'd love to know if you have a take on that. And then certainly social media exacerbates that a thousand fold.
But what do you think about that in terms of just naturally people are going to be divided into those two camps and the tension between them is actually useful. But something has become pathological recently. I'm not sure that the evolutionary case is as clear as you make it out to be in this sense. If we're talking about at the group level, when humans developed agriculture.
And by definition, one of the big advantages of agriculture was the storing of calories, right? And not as obligations, but quite literally. We now are going to be able to start specializing. Not everybody needs to find the daily calories that they need.
We're going to have some people specialize and grow way more food than they need. We're going to store it and or distribute it. And now we're going to be able to start investing other people's time in different things that they might be good at. Arguably for some it was, you know, the development of religious beliefs.
For others it was starting to look at medicine, transportation, so on and so forth. You already started to have the freeloader problem there. I just struggle. I've not seen evidence that the freeloader problem during the agricultural revolution or even now is really a Problem in the sense that I think it's natural that you will have it whenever a technology is developed and advances and opens new doors.
And if you look at, you know, we now know more about the agricultural revolution, and there was a mixed bag in the sense of not moving around as much did lead to more contagious disease and. Right. It's not, it's not a panacea. But big picture, the agricultural revolution accelerated technological development and the development of Homo sapiens in so many ways.
Yes, there were some freeloaders who didn't really specialize in anything, but they were still beneficiaries of the fact that we could store food. But I think that's just part of a system, and it's hard to argue that humanity didn't benefit in total from that revolution, even despite the freeloaders. So I guess my point to go back to is it's not obvious to me that the evolutionary case is as clear as you're making it out to be. Okay, one quick point on that and then I'll step back and see what you do think speaks to it.
So agriculture comes around somewhere 10 to 12,000 years ago, but we've been considered humans for roughly 250,000 years, so agriculture is still pretty novel. So from how the brain would develop standpoint, I think there's a case to be made that you have a much longer period of time where there is no way to store food then you had one, where there is now. Certainly agriculture has wildly changed our societies and all that, and we could do a talk on that. But the thing I'm really trying to get to in your worldview is just understand how you think we end up dividing on the left and right.
If we want to get rid of left and right, are we just trying to nudge people? Because my vision has always been you want left and right, you want the tension between them, you want them way closer to the middle than they are now. And so just curious to get your take on what causes this left, right, divide, and where do we want to move people? We try and get everyone to the left.
We try and get everyone in the middle. What's that look like? Yeah, I think that laying it out that way is much more in line with my views. And I've said many times that I would much rather have a Republican party that goes back to, you know, sort of like the John McCain Republican Party where there are disagreements about foreign policy, there are disagreements about taxation.
But not only are the disagreements far more substantive, they are disagreements where we are Closer to starting with a shared basis in fact. So we say, hey, okay, here are the facts. Now, we might have disagreements about where we want to go and the best kind of way to go there. From a biological standpoint, there's pretty good research that those who end up being what we in the United States we describe as politically conservative tend to have larger fear centers in their brain.
In other words, the idea of difference, the idea of change does lights up. I'm not using the right terminology because I'm not a neuroscience, but it sort of lights up parts of the brain that are responsible for rejection. And sometimes that rejection comes in the form of fear. Sometimes it comes in the form of disgust, as we see with some of the other social issues.
So there's probably a biological aspect to it. I do think that there's a huge urban, rural divide. To go back to the environment that you're kind of raised in now, there's probably a sort of vicious cycle in the sense that if you're already, for biological reasons, more suspicious of others or more fearful of different environments, you probably choose to live early and around fewer people. So there's kind of a little bit of a chicken egg here, and we're kind of talking about the same thing, but I think that that's another factor.
So we might call it ag geographical factor and cultural factors as well that probably date back to how did your family end up in the United States to begin with. That's interesting. I see the curveball there coming at the end. So I think we'll both agree that there's a biological component.
There's obviously a very large cultural component. The part I don't yet understand in your worldview is do you want the tension between the two, or do you want to see people leverage culture to migrate more either to the center or to the left? I think that it is healthy not to have everyone exactly on the same spot in the political spectrum. So I think we can simultaneously say if we think about the spectrum as a sort of number line, there's a bunch of stuff way over here that's not good for society for a number of different reasons that we can identify all the way on the other side.
There's also reasons why, if that were the predominant worldview, that would not be so good. I do think that it is better for if I could sort of snap my fingers and say everybody has the exact views of David Pakman. I think that that's not ideal because I think it's clear that history has shown us that we often make advances when something is pulling one way or the other and you don't necessarily know in advance which direction the right direction is at any particular moment. I think the critical part is we need guardrails.
And so, for example, the idea of, well, here's an idea to do something different. The person who didn't win the election still gets to be president. That seems beyond the pale to me of the sort of pull push that we need. So no, I think that political disagreement is a healthy thing.
And there's many countries, including the countries that I think of as interesting models. You know my Forcoming book, I talk near Northern Europe. It's sort of like leash. Of course, everybody in my worldview talks about northern Europe, but I talk about Uruguay around 2010.
I talk about the Social Democrats in Germany in the 2000s. I talk about the Kerala state in India. And I think these are all different sort of scenarios, but they all benefited from not everybody being exactly on the same page. I hope I'm answering the question clearly, which is, no, I don't think the ideal thing is everybody matches my personal, exact political worldview.
Let's talk about the most powerful force in wealth building. Compounding. There's a reason that people have talked about this forever. You put an asset to work, it generates more of itself.
Over time, the curve bends way in your favor. Every serious wealth builder knows how compounding works. Most gold owners, though, have completely opted out of it. Monetary Metals changes that equation.
They've built a way for your gold to earn yield paid not in dollars, but in more physical gold, up to 4% per year. More ounces stacking every single month. Compounding one of the only assets that can't be printed, inflated or debased. And storage and insurance are included, by the way.
So hidden fees don't eat your yield. The average person is passively absorbing inflation. This is how you compound your way out of it. Click the link in the show notes or visit monetary-metals.comimpact to learn more.
This is a paid advertisement. This episode is brought to you by Nespresso. Hear that? That's your next obsession.
Every coffee a new world. Every sip a new taste. This is a new Nespresso. One touch, endless possibilities.
Ice flavored long, short. Because some days call for Nespresso kick. And sometimes a smooth silky latte just went. It's exceptional but effortless.
Like actually effortless. Simply press, brew and explore Nespresso. What else? Keep [email protected] welcome aboard via Rail.
Please sit and enjoy. Please sit and stretch. Steep Flip or that and enjoy via rail. Love the way.
No, that makes a lot of sense. So what now? I am taking that information. I'm trying to map it to where you want to move people to.
So we're starting with the base assumption that there's something very meaningful about this particular election. The collision between the two ideas we went through, certainly what's going on on the right, in terms of Trump representing a movement to turn bureaucracies into partisan entities that really should exist well beyond that they should be able to work for either side. That there is a fundamental undermining of the democratic, Democratic process, that your vision of the left, which is obviously where you want to see us end up, we're actually getting quite close to that. There's just a few more things we didn't get into necessarily deeply.
About one thing that you threw off the cuff, which was basically, we're just trying to even make sure that everybody has a relatively similar starting point. But that makes a lot of sense. And so if those are the two visions, then it becomes a question of do you trust yourself, or does anybody that holds that position trust themselves enough to say, hey, everybody, follow me. This is where we want to be?
Or do they say, look, I want to put my idea out there, I want to argue as much as possible, but the last thing I would want is for anybody to just blindly follow what I'm saying, because I know there will be second and third order consequences I cannot predict. And that probably more than anything sums up my problem with the current political structure everywhere that I've looked at, which is it always boils down to somebody thinking that they know the path forward, rather than running something I call the physics of progress, where you're holding yourself accountable to metrics, which it does not seem like we do, certainly. So a couple different things there. If you.
There is a certain egocentrism associated with, I would argue, people who do what you and I do in the sense of, like, it occurred to us that we should be speaking with microphones and that it's something other people should listen to. Right. So there's like, on some level, there is some ego associated with that. I think for people who run for elected office, it's similar.
It's, hey, of all the people, I think I'm the one that people should vote for and put me in the position of power to then go and do things. One of the things I always tell my audience is I do not believe that I am the ultimate source of truth. Truth. Everything I say should be Fact checked, my views should change if I'm presented with contradictory information, for example.
And it's good to be skeptical of anybody who says that they are the ultimate source of truth. This is one of the things to kind of get back to the election dynamics. You know, over the last however many years it's been, Donald Trump has told us he knows more than the scientists, he knows more than the generals, he knows more than the doctors, he knows more than the epidemiologists, he knows more than the senators, he knows more. Right.
That to me runs very much counter to exactly what you're talking about, which is. Well, hold on a second. Before we bring everybody along with whatever idea we have, we should establish how it is that we're going to determine what is real and what is not, what works and what doesn't work. So kind of as like a baseline level, I give my audience my best guess at the time, subject to revision based on new information that's coming forward.
So I think that goes to the first part of your question, which is this idea that we just impose. Here's what we should do without necessarily knowing if it's the best thing. Yeah, very much so. To me, just by way of quick heuristic, the right way to run a government is what Lincoln called a team of rivals that you actively court people who think differently than you.
Now, whether Lincoln did the following or not, I don't know. But this is certainly my worldview that you, the reason you bring together a team of rivals is you were trying to red team, blue team, ideas that you can measure the outcome of, that you will have stated ahead of time what the desired outcome is and then did this initiative lead us to that or not? And I think there are a couple things end up breaking that One is that everything is just so complicated that it can be very hard to get a definitive answer. And so you would need, literally, certainly multiple administrations would have to share an end goal so that people would need to state this is, I'm trying to take us, these are the things we're going to try to your public, these are the outcomes, reporting them as honestly as they can affect, inviting their rivals to report on it so that we can all look at it.
But then the other thing is that I, to your earlier point, I don't think we any longer have a shared set of facts. Now, this is the thing that I wrestle with tremendously because I don't know that there are facts to share. So when I, there obviously is ground truth physics, but we don't even Understand physics. So everything that we engage in is interpretation to some level.
So then I ask myself, okay, what. How do we influence the thing that causes us to look at something but interpret a different way? As far as I can tell, it's biology, beliefs, and values. So values speaks to what you were talking about.
Rural biology speaks to. Do you have the larger fear centers in the brain, and then beliefs are just outright choices, but people don't realize their choices. But you put those three together, and now people can really distort the lens through which they look at things. And so whether it's social media, a bigger cultural movement, the debt cycle, which we haven't talked about, I think is a huge part of this or all of it.
I think the way in which people are assessing the facts, just the distorted prisms that the left and the right are looking at things through, is getting more and more divergent so they can look at the same thing and see something wildly different. Do you see one? Does that make sense to you? And if it does, do you see a way to unwind it?
The way to. So I have an entire chapter, and there's really probably in some way two or three chapters in my forthcoming book. There's a chapter called what are facts? Not what are the facts, but what are facts?
And there's some very. It's good, but it's also really scary. Pulp study data from Pew Research center, where people were presented with 10 statements, and they were just asked, indicate whether this is a fact or an opinion. Right.
So, like, if I tell you chocolate ice cream is the best ice cream, I think you and I both would say, well, that's. That's of course, an opinion. And if I said to you, based on current technology, humans cannot live without oxygen, we would say, okay, well, that's. That's a fact.
A very high percentage of people. I don't want to quote it because I don't have it in front of me, but a shockingly high number of people misidentified which statements were opinions and which statements were facts. And this is very much visible in our politics. You know, when someone says millions of people died from the COVID vaccine, that is a statement of fact, not an opinion.
It's either true or it's not. And we don't have any evidence that millions of people died from the vaccine. But to really think about vaccine policy, to pick something, you have to understand whether that is a statement of opinion or fact and whether there's any basis to make some of these claims. So I completely agree with you that there is this more divergent situation.
I think where I disagree is there are. I think it's dangerous to fall too far into. I don't even really know that we have facts anymore. Not that that's what you said, but you were sort of saying that there's this ambiguity for you about even kind of figuring this out.
So I think that that is a major problem now. The solution, I think is a combination of. Of we should really be teaching both critical thinking and media literacy probably starting at age 10 to everybody that's not partisan. Although there are state boards of education, including Texas, that don't want that taught in public school.
I won't speculate as to why we should ask some of the people that don't want to talk. But you know, we get to. I taught a couple of college courses and I had 20 year olds in my class where basic media literacy like, hey, here's something, here's a message from media. How would you even start evaluating whether what you just heard is true?
Nothing, just no basis to even evaluate media messages. So I think that the way to push back against it is critical thinking and media literacy probably starting at age 10. It's very interesting because yes, ultimately people are going to have to understand how to look at something and determine whether it can be validated or not. I think the big catch is going to be that so many things are going to be hard to invalidate or validate.
Or that, as I say, there's statistics, lies and damn lies. And that even when you're looking at the data itself, the conclusions that you draw from it can be very jarring. So for instance, yeah, I heard you talk a lot about Denmark. And okay, we want to.
That's sort of a quick, obviously just rough sketch of where we want to end up. So I looked up Denmark. Where are they at in the GDP? So Denmark is 34th.
I think I wrote this down. They're roughly 34th. 32nd to 36th. Lies.
38th. They're 38th. Okay, so nominal GDP Denmark is 38th. US obviously is number one.
But if you look it up in terms of GDP, PPP, so purchasing power parity per capita, Denmark is 52nd, but the US is number two. And so I was like, wait a second, who's number one? And it's China. So I was like, wait a second.
In something that I care deeply about, a communist country outperforms the US and so then I'm like, hold the phone. So now I go from hey, GP is a great way to just Shorthand, think about, like, what's. What is an. What is a KPI that you can look at to say we're making the right decisions, are leading us in a good direction.
And then all of a sudden I was like, yeah, like, go democracy, go America. Amazing, amazing. And then the people that I think are the most, not the most backwards because just like brutal authoritarian regimes where people are starving to death, Stalin, Mao, like, those be way worse. But a place I would not want to be living under is actually outperforming us on a metric that I care deeply about.
So this is super interesting. There's a bunch of stuff there and you're getting to. I mean, this is why the corporate media environment just. It just can never really inform people in any kind of deep and nuanced way about stuff.
So a couple different things. Number one, I think it makes more sense to look at PPP than nominal gdp. That's a good start. China being very high to some degree is because it's a pseudo communist country, although they've become capitalist in so many of the industries.
But that's a different conversation because by virtue of being a communist country, there are entirely large swaths of products that are manufactured in China and are subsidized by the government, which artificially makes the PPP appear very, very high. So, like, that's a detail where even just looking at ppp, you need to understand more about it. So like, okay, that's super interesting. Denmark, out of roughly close to 200 countries, Denmark's basically at the line of the top quarter, right?
So 50 out of 200 roughly would be like you're at the line of the 25th percentile. What you have to understand about Denmark is you don't have to pay for health care out of that ppp. Like, you're not buying health care. You can take that completely out.
You're also not buying education because education is paid for through taxation. So that's kind of interesting because if you were to disaggregate that in countries, whether that's something that you're paying for out of pocket versus countries that you're not, that would also kind of change the numbers. And then just to throw a different metric out, you know, earlier I told you about how some of the blue states in the United States have very high HDI Human Development Index, which includes life expectancy at birth. How much schooling do you expect to get?
PPP is one of those. Denmark is number five in the world. So the outcome that they're having as far as far as quality of life. Once you understand, okay, 25th percentile with regard to PPP, but you don't have to worry about healthcare costs driving you to bankruptcy and all these different things.
The quality of Life There is fifth out of nearly 200 countries. That's pretty good. Yeah, this to me. So this, the point you made about China is exactly what I was trying to convey is at the surface it seems one way, but then as you start to dig in, you realize, wait, there's all these compounding variables.
The only way that they went from Mao's China to Xi Jinping China is open up capitalism and you know, let that thrive. But there still is the hammer of the state. And so it's like, oh God, like very complicated. And then the hdi, that kind of thing then begins to ask a question of values.
So going back to my notion that your frame of reference, that the distorted lens through which you view or attempt to view facts is built up of biology, beliefs and values. So now you value, for instance, and I'm literally just thinking of this as your talk talking. People may hate me for this, but this is true. You value ranking higher on the hdi, whereas I value people being able to play for the championship team.
And so I'm looking at what is the place that creates the most innovation, that attracts the best and the brightest from all over the world. And that's thrilling to me. But I also am self aware enough to know most people are not going to enjoy playing that game. And so now you get some of what I think is happening now, which again, the Planet Flag is not time to talk about yet, I don't think.
But the where we're at in the debt cycle I think speaks to a lot of the unrest that we're seeing. I think it speaks to a lot of the rise in populism because all of a sudden kids are like, yo, boomers in their 20s had it way better than I have in my 20s, which is true. And they have access to a freakish amount of information, so they know that's true. And so there's all kinds of things, things from the food that we're taking in, toxins, all that stuff, which is probably not a conversation for you and I, but you've got all that happening, but then you also just have.
It feels super lame for somebody coming into their early 20s right now. And they're very aware of it. And you now have them look at a country, their own country, sending foreign aid everywhere. And even if it doesn't actually impact them like they're not gonna realize that they're just like billions of dollars are leaving, but they're gonna feel some kind of way about that.
And so now you throw social media on the fires you mentioned earlier, which is further distorting those lenses that people are looking at this tribalism being innate to our sense of being. And you just get these two groups jettisoning away from each other. And we look back historically, this happens like clockwork on that debt cycle. And then it ultimately blows up and you get really bad things happening.
Which is why, for me, I also think that this election is unusually important. What do you do about dumb people that get to vote? And I say that truly with love, knowing that some people just, they fall below an IQ level where they will be able to parse these very difficult issues. And P.S.
i'm actually perfectly willing to accept I'm one of the dumb people that's below the line that can adequately parse these things. I'm perfectly fine with that. I'm just saying, what do you do with that reality? You know, I think my approach is pragmatic.
I've had so many conversations with viewers over the years when they call in and they say, david, you know, there should be restrictions on who's allowed to have kids. There should be restrictions on who's allowed to vote. There should be some kind of test where you have to at least understand, you know, you have to understand something. Or I think it's.
I don't think about it much because that's not how we're going to improve the country or the world, at least as far as the United States is concerned. I really try to focus on where we can make a difference. And there is no path to some kind of intelligence test to vote legally, nor is there any political will to do it. I think either party that proposed it would do nothing for them.
It would be a political loser. So I honestly don't think about it. I think what you do is you say, how can we make people less dumb? And that's what goes to, to use your term, I think that's what gets to can we start teaching media literacy?
Can we start teaching critical thinking earlier? What can we do about how should if at all, social media be regulated? I think these are the sorts of things I think is more useful to think about about, because I just don't think there's a path forward to solving any problem we identify with, figuring out how to prevent people from voting. Now, I will tell you, there is a political party that thinks that they will do better if they can prevent people from voting.
It's the Republican Party now we can argue about the reasons why and what they claim are the reasons. And you know, they will have their explanations. But over the last, I mean, it kind of goes back to Mitt Romney where they started thinking about this. Romney state director in Penn.
Was talking about using voter ID as a tool to reduce Democratic turnout so that Romney would win Penny in 2012 and thus the White House. Why would that automatically affect Democratic voters? Because all of the proposals that voter ID specifically or which one are you talking about? Voter id.
Voter ID is an interesting. The people who want voter ID will usually say something like, well, Trump says you need an ID to buy bread, so you should have an ID to vote. It's not true. You need an ID to buy bread.
So in case, I don't know when you last bought bread, but you don't need one. But often what's stated is the ID is free, so why would it be an impediment to anybody? The thing about the IDs is depending on what state you live in and the way that it's conceived of, very often in order to get the ID you need subsequent documents that lower income people are less likely to have. And those documents aren't always free to get, for example, birth certificates.
I know when I get a copy of my daughter's birth certificate there was a cost associated with it and I had to go to City hall and it had to be only during a three hour window on a Tuesday, during which people who are working may struggle to be able to go. Very often the documents you need to get the voter ID or the voter ID itself can only be done in certain parts of the state, often requiring transportation, which itself costs money. So anyway, I think the idea here is that there's a calculation that's been made in certain states that if we put in place a voter ID requirement in a certain way, it will disproportionately disfavor groups that we don't think are super likely to vote for us. It's similar to the idea of reducing the number of polling places in urban areas, which, as we know there's an urban rural divide.
In rural America, there's rarely lines to vote. In urban America, there are often lines to vote. If you reduce the number of places you can vote or reduce early voting hours, you will make the lines even longer. It is disproportionately Democrats geographically who vote there.
Some of them say, I gotta get to work. I don't have time to stand in this line, you can depress the Democratic turnout without hurting the Republican turnout. These are the sorts of things. Thanks.
Got it. So on voter id, this is one of those that I may just not know enough about to understand why it's controversial. But it seems so self evident to me that you should have to have an ID to vote just by way of and I know the punchline already is that there isn't any voter fraud, but if people don't have IDs, I haven't looked at it, but it just seems if people have IDs how do you know whether there's voter fraud or not? But why isn't the approach to make getting the voter ID easier rather than just saying you don't need id?
I actually would not be against a protocol for requiring voter ID if it included a guarantee that nothing that you would need to have in order to get the ID costs money. Right. So because it's very easy to say the ID is free, but if you have to accumulate expenses to obtain the documents to get the id, I think that it's a problem and it's arguably a poll tax. So there's also like a legal and constitutional argument here if there is a cost to obtain the documents to get the id, if we could have a system, I don't know if we could, but I'm open to it.
So I'm not irrationally just like, no, no id, I don't have a problem with it. If we can ensure that the cost aspect, including the downstream cost is dealt with and there is a long enough Runway period that there is no like a lot of the problem now is trying to implement with six weeks to go, hey, you're going to need an ID and sometimes actually just lying that you're going to need an ID and you're not really going to just to try to dissuade people from voting because it sounds confusing or intimidating. I'm not against it. Like I'm open to a long Runway path to everyone needs an ID with some kind of guarantee and that has to include transportation.
So like can you get the ID by mail? Well, a lot of Republicans don't like that for the same reasons they don't like vote by mail. They say that that's ripe for fraud. So I'm not unreasonable.
There are paths towards that that I would be okay with. It's just not really the motivation of the Republicans who are trying to pass voter ID with six weeks to go before election. Let's talk about a pattern that is guaranteed to be killing your progress. You know what you need to do.
You need consistent nutrition. We all do. You need vitamins, probiotics, greens. We all know that we should be doing more of it.
When your morning gets chaotic, you skip it. When you travel, you skip it. When your routine breaks, everything tends to break and that inconsistency compounds against you every single day. AG1 is designed to solve the execution problem.
One scoop 8 ounces of water and you're done. You're getting 75 plus ingredients, vitamins and minerals, pre and probiotics, nutrient dense superfoods. Everything that used to require six seven different supplements and perfect planning now happens in one drink that takes about 30 seconds to make. Right now AG1 is giving you $87 worth of free gifts with your first subscription description you get a welcome kit, travel packs, vitamin D3 plus K2 and flavor samples.
Click the link in the show notes or visit drinkag1.com impact to claim this offer.