S8 Bonus | 从美国大选再来看安·兰德和被她影响的硅谷
54:33 Share

用 声音。

碰撞 世界。

生动活泼。

欢迎来到 我是 next 科技 早知道 第八 季， 和 全球 创新 第一 时间同步。 Hello, 大家好， 今天 是 我们的 一个 bonus 节目。 上周 我 回到 了 硅谷 美国 国庆 长 周末 我也 和 很多 朋友们 见面 聊天。 发现 大家 不可避免 的 还是会 聊到 前 两周 刚刚 发生 的 拜登 和 特朗普 的 电视辩论 的 话题。 我 关注 到了 很大 的 一个 变化， 就是 硅谷 科学院 的 人士 其实 一直 都是 支持 民主党 的那 今年 好像 有了 蛮 大 的 一个 转变。 所以 今天 我们 就 不聊 硬核 科技， 来 聊 一 聊 今年 的 大选， 来 聊 一 聊 一些 科技 大佬。 他们 坚信 的 哲学 就是 客观主义 object vim 然后 也 聊 一 聊 客观主义 背后 的 提出者 安兰德 和 他的 小说。

这 一期 是一个 全英文 的 节目， 嘉宾 是 安兰德 协会 era institute 之前 长期 的 一个 支持者。 他 对 安兰德 的 作品 和 他的 哲学思想 体系 也是 非常 的 了解。 当然了 他 也是 硅谷 的 一个 连续 的 创业者。

这 期 节目 之后， 我 和 节目 的 小伙伴 们 会 休息 几周 的 时间 来 给 自己 放 个 暑假。 当然 在 这个 暑假 过程 当中 也 不会 一直 休息， 我们会 准备 几个 系列 的 话题， 比如 像是 我们 一直 想做 的 AI 与 教育 A I 与 芯片 等等 这样的 一个系列 话题。 今天 的 节目 大家 可以 看一下 我们的 soo 找到 这次 节目 我们 聊天 的 脉络。 对 英文 不是 特别 熟悉 的 听众 朋友们， 我 觉得 最好的 一个 办法 就是 把 我 这个 节目 直接 扔 到 各种 大 模型 里面。 然后 让 大 模型 直接 不管 是 翻译 还是 朗读 出来， 那 我 这里 就 不做 更多 的 翻译 了。 好的， 在 节目 开始 之前 还 想要 告诉 大家 一个 特别 重要 的 消息， 那 就是 生动活泼 旗下 的 声音 特稿 节目 跳进 兔子洞 的 第三季 正式 回归 了。

这 一季 节目组 做了 一件 特别 有 挑战性 的 尝试。 从 去年 的 12月 开始， 节目组 的 两位 制作 人家 熏 和 梦妮 花了 七个 月 的 时间， 制作 出了 一个 涉及 众多 利益 方， 卷动 着 巨大 财富， 鲜为人知， 却 跟 我们 每个人 有着 千丝万缕 关联 的 故事。 我们 把 预告片 放在 节目 的 最后， 欢迎 大家 留 到 最后 来 收听。

The U. S. Presidential debate started two weeks ago. We have been seen those like shift from silicon valley entrepreneurs, leaders, their kind be very different from what we have seen from the past, maybe a decade.

Ash and an trump even got on all in podcast, which has Jacob Jackson, always has been an opposer to trump. So I start wondering, like what has to say? A valley philosophes people with entrepreneurs believed in.

And then the on pop up, right? Like a lot of people actually like Peter tiles. And the people said that Steve jobs, who per founder, travis, has been advocate for iron philosophy, which is objectivism.

I think what you're seeing in silicon valley with respect to the election has very little to do with the philosophical shift in silicon valley and quite a lot to do with the change in the democratic party. Awaken ing of silicon value to some of the misconceptions that they had about the democractic party. So in the past, to many people, the democrats seemed quite reasonable and are responsible, are almost, say, less religious alternative.

Republicans were viewed as the more kind of conservative Christian party, more religious. A lot of silk valley leaders aren't particularly religious. And even the word progressive sounds progress.

That sounds really good. Many leaders in the local family, I would say we're probably democrats by default. Our default culture is democratic values and has been for decades and decades and decades.

That's been true. And I say democratic values with the big D. M. In the the party. And I think what happened with biden, I don't think you're seeing people decide that trump is different than what they thought, although there's some of that. There's some people realizing that he's not bad as the mainstream media let on.

But I think what you're seeing more of is a realization that what we are told about the candidates isn't true from the mainstream media perspective. And by then, even back in twenty sixteen, when he was running his access to the media was very controlled. I'm sorry, I said twenty sixteen and twenty twenty, his access to the media was very controlled.

Granted, IT was during COVID know they had him broadcasting from his basement and not attending events in that kind of thing. There was a suspicion among some people at the time that part of the reason for that was that he was not on one hundred percent cognitively. He wasn't one hundred percent capable that the people around him where may be afraid to let him loosen in the public, they were afraid that he would come off as suffering from some form of dementia or two elderly ly or something like that.

I think what's happened since then is we've had for the past several years, there has been a lot of suspicion that he has been in cognitive decline. And the mainstream media, which is where most people get their news, has been covering for him. They've been saying, oh no, everything's fine.

He's fine that's just a lie that he's in cognitive decline. He's just sharp as ever. You've had major people like red hofman and say, oh, I just had lunch with them last week.

He's Better than he ever was, right? Which is, you know, lie read, often lied clearly. So these people say these things about him.

And I think they expect to be believed. They expect to be able to propagate this lie and have people believe them. And so they thought that they would get away with IT. And I think what happened in the last debate, and actually even leading up the last debate, IT became IT started to become clear to people that actually, biden, not the one in charge.

Nothing like this happened before in U. S. History, or this is something .

not this bad of me. There is so regan headdresses think IT was all hammers. He had cognitive decline in the second half of his second term.

Staff kind of covered form a little bit and and you know managed IT, right? And so i'm sure that it's happened before. What hasn't happened is someone running for office in such a horrible state of decline.

We're not talking about he have to finish the next few months with some dementia. We're talking about he's asking to run for another four years starting from the state. And cognitive decline generally well often can accelerate quite dramatically.

That's pretty much everyone outside of washington thought, right, you have to power if your president right.

And IT turned out you don't IT turns out there is an entire bureaucracy that has way more power than you do an trumper in into that. And I think he's still dealing with that. And so in terms of selective prosecution, so that happened.

And then so people are looking at biden and saying, well, we kind of know who's in charge now IT seems like this unelected, faceless bureaucracy is in charge, not names that we can't name a person in charge. It's all these unelected bureaucrats. I think it's started to become clear to people that biden is the ideal candidate for the the bureaucratic state because he does what they tell him to do, right? He doesn't have easily controlled.

And so I think people started to get afraid that, wait a minute, these executive agencies, I mean, the executive branch of the government is enormous. It's much bigger than was ever contemplated by the founding father, is an enormous branch with lots of enforcement. And if they're actually in charge, that's scary.

And I think that's what people are scared about. You can see IT in, for example, getting back to business and tech. You can see IT in the ma space right now.

People have been very afraid under the by ministration to do, but that they can't a lot of men ideals get killed. Both the S C, the justice department. They haven't been very business friendly.

And so if you want to do if you want to do merger, you're likely like Linda on's gonna go after you. Probably, right? She's going to say no.

Just on principal icon is the share of the federal trade commission. Her ftc has been quite aggressive in going up for murders and acquisitions. If you want to acquire another company, it's very unlikely that IT will get approved.

IT will probably get chAllenged by the ftc under her administration. Now is that because that's what biden wants? Or is IT because that's what the bureaucracy wants? We don't know.

It's very hard to tell because we don't know what biden wants. We're not sure biden knows what biden wants. So you know, once you've lost faith in the idea that there's a strong leader with a vision, IT becomes very scary.

It's a very scary prospect because suddenly it's people like lan icon who are in charge. I think one of the reasons you seeing people gravitate towards trump is as much as his some of his personality might not appeal to people. And he's got a lot of bravo and certainly there's his he has a lot of comes with a lot of baggage, right? The guy knows what he wants and he's very straight forward about IT.

He will fight that bureaucracy if he wants to, on issues. And so I think people would rather have some clarity than they would this unelected, unnamed bureaucracy and charged. And Frankly, I think if you had a strong democrat opposing trump, you wouldn't see so much support for trump. P from certain family. I think you would still see a lot of support for the democrats, but given the current situation, people are rightfully afraid that the country is being run by a nameless bureaucracy.

This is like a design aster's debate, and it's like a joke, like the two elder lies, like saying that you suck you on the 是 is like disGrace for a country like this after the first night of the debate。 And then IT doesn't seem like democrats party want to change the candidate. There's has been lot of discussions and then whether kala maybe even using governor of california, could be a popular candidate, but IT seems like they're still pushing by in as the candidate for now. Why would her take on this?

So first of all, you're right, the debates are joke. But the fact is the debates have been a joke for quite some time. This was just a particularly obvious example.

is getting worse, but they still didn't wanted to get another candidate to replace them. Some.

some, some have to express for that. The problem is there's a couple problems. First of all, he would have to agree. So biden has already locked in the delegates necessary to be the democratic nominee. So the only way the democrats could run someone else, as if binton said he's stepping out and he hands off the delegates to someone else.

Now biden will do that if the person he listens to most want them to, right? Basically he seems like he's probably just like any nice old man he's probably very sumptious to whose whispers ing in his year that seems to be jill biden largely right? So yeah, so if he wants to be the first lady, he's not onna drop out.

If he wants him to drop out, he'll to drop out that my personal theory about who he's listening to. So a lot of people do want to replace him. But in order for that to happen, he would have to give his delegates back. And that's only gonna en if he doesn't voluntarily, which means will only happen if someone who with influence convinces him to do IT. If you look at the options, let's say he were to do that come a Harris, hated with a passion.

Really wonder why that she's so hated.

Well, I think if you see her appearances and I see how he speaks to people, SHE doesn't come off as very articulate. SHE sounds kind of dumb, repeats herself a lot and is condescending. When I talked about before the race to presidency being about how you feel, because that's how american people vote.

SHE feels bad. SHE feels unlikeable because she's condescent and kind of dumb. So no one really what she's like. SHE feels like the bureaucrat at the department of motor vehicles that's causing you a headache for three hours because they're incomplete. That's what he feels like. So people don't want that now, Gavin newsom, I don't personally like his policies, but Gavin newsome is very popular and very likeable. I think if Gavin newsom had been the candidate a year ago, he would have a very, very strong chance .

of beating truck. finally. Sounds like he they played wrong card.

Yeah I think and it's pretty clear that he is on the short .

list of candidates and especially he visit a china how thing was last year and then he visited the differences go to so has been a lot of kind publicity for him yeah .

and you know if you look at many presidents throughout history, the the charismatic, like what people get elected, right? Give a new some bill clinton, J, F, K. I mean, these are all people who probably weren't elected because of their policies. They were elected because they're good looking and charismatic.

And people like like the feel of that.

you and I think what hurts america, Moore, is that the same is true at, well, the same plus other problems are true at the level where the primaries happen because we're basically a two party system. So many people. Will just go in and vote for the party candidate. They know they're voting democrats, they don't care about the name or they know they're voting republican, they don't care about the name. That's been true.

Now trump has sort of disrupt at that, and trump and biden have both disrupted that a little bit because you have a lot of democratic looking at biden going, oh my god, like I can't vote for that and you have a lot of people looking at trump saying a, well, he represents things that you don't like, but he's Better for these reasons. He's also much more of a populist than past republicans. He's not a traditional republican.

So in recent times, that's been upset a little bit. But who has won the advertising war for candidacy is the republicans in the democrats because you basically don't vote for anyone else. Very few people vote for any other parties.

So if you don't get that nomination, you're basically aren't going to be president. And that nomination process is on the republican side, is a little bit more like regular elections, is kind of transparent. And you see all the people, and they are get on debate stages and they do their thing on the democrats IT seems in recent years, there seems to be more back dealing, backroom dealing and things happening. If you look at hilary clinton, SHE was clearly chosen by the democratic party elites as the candidate that was going to run.

I think we should come back to the topic I wanted discussing the first place, like why slow on delhi has change you are mentioning because the democratic party seems like a huge unknown, like a black box. And then people are scared of that. And then especially for second value people, they want business right in the business first.

yeah. And then like this shift is basically based on that. And then I wonder, like is there any philosophy of theories? The consequence, a named popular and an in lot like famous entrepreneurs been evoked errent philosophy. And then there are like, and when institutional kind of organization has been pretty popular, I know that you self has been donor of the such organization before. So can you just tell us little bit about and ran like, and also maybe your personal experience, how you discover and run away, change you and then why you canna advocate for that group?

So sure, there's a lot there as well. But I think at the outset, it's important to point something out. Iran was a philosophy, although a lot of current academics will dismiss her in the same way that engineering professors would dismiss Michael dell.

But he built a computer company, so, and he didn't go to college. So why is that kind of thing? right? He didn't go get A P.

H. D. In philosopher, but SHE was definitely a philosophers. However, her fame came in fiction.

SHE wrote two, well, more than two fiction books, but two very popular fiction books. One was found head, and one was at was shrugged, at was struggled. Her magna ops IT was her last work.

It's very long. And IT came out in the fifties. I think IT was one thousand nine hundred and fifty seven. I think at the drug has sold over ten million copies at this point. Probably maybe is close to fifteen now I don't know, haven't checked.

But IT was shrugged and fountain had been so popular that many people read them and are familiar with their work without necessarily meaning. They believe in her philosophy and and love her philosophy. For example, in high school, I had to read the fountain head. IT was in a signed book. Now no one, including me, understood or agreed with her philosophy when I read that book.

But the school, or IT, was a public school.

and he was considered another fiction writer, and he was a friction writer that was unique. And so just like we, you know, we might read, or sen. Scott Carter, George, or well or so.

she's recognized for her literature value.

SHE was recognized for her fiction. And I don't think she's again, I don't think the critics loved her, but the population loved her, right? For example, I don't know what critics say about JK rowling, but she's sold the hell a lot of books.

So you have to call a good fiction writer, right? So it's similar. I don't think I rand sold as much as Harry potter, but he was very popular for her fiction.

Now one thing about her fiction is SHE uses IT as a platform to articulate her philosophy. And so sometimes people have aesthetic issues with her work. And y'll say, well, I don't I don't like the way you'd presented this or executed on this, but sometimes people have a love of her work aesthetically. And they're maybe parts of the philosophy that he was a spouse, but not the half thing. So I want to separate people who are fans of her fiction work and like IT, and like some things from people who I would say are iron devotes, like devoted to her philosophy.

There's nothing in between. And some people kind of like her work and also inspired by her thought behind them, maybe they cannot be free and then be selfish. They kind of focus on yourself and some Young people who read a probably kind of in between.

What do you think? Certainly it's not binary, right? And and i'm not saying and actually most people who like your philosophy love her fiction work as well.

So but there are people on the whole spectrum, there are people who like the work fiction wise, but don't like her philosopher at on their people who like her work fiction wise and love her physical y and of course, the people who just don't like her work generally. I guess I should talk about why I know this so early on in my career, I grew up very Christian. I was in a Christian house in very fundamentalist Christian. And I found, I ranted. My early twenty years .

was recommended by a colleague.

He was recommended by a colleague, and I was working at that actually large defense contractor. And IT was at struggled out. Atlas ck is the most philosophy leading fiction of her fiction.

Um there's there's lots of philosophy in there after that was shrugged when he was done writing fiction. SHE did right for years and years a lot of non fiction explaining ideas or going deeper on ideas. And so I also read a lot of her nonfiction work.

And personally the impact for me was SHE turned me into a nazi est. I can give her credit for that, but I think that the core of her philosophy is that you are responsible for your own judgment. Personally, you can outsource that.

Of course, we outsource to experts, but we use our judgment to decide, is this the right expert? And whatever we are responsible for your own own judgment only you can think right there's no such thing as multiple people thinking together, but you can collaborate but your each an independent mind so you know you're responsible for your own thoughts and actions. And that the second component that really stuck with me was the only way to validate whether something is true or not is through the ease of reason.

Reason is how. Reason is what we call a method of reality. Correspondence does this thing, that i'm this, this idea does this alleged fact does IT correspond with observer able reality, right?

It's a very simple sounding concept, but it's what makes reason powerful. And it's what makes reason separate from something like faith. Faith is believe in something apart from, or contrary to the evidence of reality, right?

So if I were religious, and I said why I believe in god, that's not a reason position and theologists will agree with you. It's not a region. I mean, some Christians might argue that this reason, but theologists will agree with you.

It's not a reason thing. It's faith. You have to take IT on faith, which means believe IT, despite or contrary to the evidence of your senses.

I think the big religion that is often overlooked today is not Christians or islam or booties m any of those. The big religion is statism. This belief that the state knows Better than to have faith in the state, have faith in mean democracies, is actually good example.

I won't pick on china or any other authoritarian system, but we've just talk about democracy. Democracy is this, this belief that if a majority of the people want something that must be the right thing, or it's the fair thing, it's the just thing. If a majority of the people want IT, that's not true.

In fact, that's often completely false. So there's this faith that people have in government, in state, in the community that what the authorities or the community or what the people say is somehow true. They'll believe that that's where morals come from.

People get confused with the difference between morality and legality. Those are very distinct concepts in iran's philosopher. So objectivism is the name that he gave her philosophe. Just to be clear, when I say that, I think one of the major problems, though, with a lot of these movements, is, let's be clear, iran is dead. SHE died in one thousand nine hundred eighty two.

The idea that you should go read what he has to say and try to predict what iran would think about some particular issue today is kind of silly. You can guess at what you might think, but the entire point of her philosopher is that is your job to decide, right? And too many people, including i'm going to be critical of the iran institute right now, including many people of the Irene institute, they have lost sight of the fact that objectivism is not a religion worshipping iran. It's the idea that you are responsible for your own judgment, and you should use reason to validate that judgment.

Can we possible bit here? This is for a lot people not growing up in the U. S. In the Christian family. It's kind of hard to can I make the connection like why a novel changed someone like you become ac as just like kind of disconnected there? Well, I mean.

I think the important thing is it's the intellectual curiosity and the devotion to reason that does IT. So if you grow in an environment, and most people in the world grow in an environment, something like this, whether it's my religion .

that like parents were the, I said so .

a lot of unquestionable. Fs, right? Those on question beliefs can be overtly religious. I can be Christian. They can be beliefs about the state.

It's right because the government that is right because probably you can those can be it's right because there was a great leader that said xyz at some point, like those are faith based directives, they're not necessarily rational. IT might be that what was said was rational, but I might not be. One thing that any kind of religion doesn't like is questioning. They don't want you to question. They don't want you to be skeptical.

You already have to see that in you when you're growing up and then let you were kind of questioning about lego, whether there are so month in the air.

Well, I think because religion was pushed on me so much, I was very, very concerned with whether IT was true. And I believed that IT was true for a very long time. But I like to say that i'm an atheist st, because I took religion seriously.

You'll hear a lot of people say things. For example, they will say things like, oh, we should live for the sake of other people, or we should sacrifice yourself for other people, right? If you actually believe that, quote, docker, md, right now, if you actually believe that you would sign your organ donor carden kill yourself, that's what you would do.

That's what IT means, that other people are more important to you than than you. If you don't think you are the most important and that you're more important than strangers, if you don't believe that about yourself, if you don't feel that way about yourself, you should sign your organ donor carden kill yourself to house according to logic, according to reason. And the fact is, people don't do that.

They don't do that because they are, they do care about themselves more than others. They might do that to save their child because they say they care more about their child than they do. And sometimes they do that for causes, right? This is why men get inspired to go to war for various causes.

They, they are, are willing to sacrifice themselves for some cause. But the point of iran is really irresponsible for your own own judgment, and for me. The scepticism was because I took religion seriously and because I took IT seriously.

SHE made arguments that were moral arguments, that were rational, moral arguments. And they're not compatible with some of the Christian beliefs. Some of the more right. They both believe in not murdering, for example. And I had to at some point I felt like I had to make a choice.

Am I willing to say, well, i'm not going to use reason in these cases and i'm gone to use reason in these other cases? Or am I is reason the way that i'm going to that all of my ideas, am I going to subject myself? You can almost think of IT is like making yourself a slave.

Am I going to be a slave to truth and reality? Like am I going to subject my ideas and my thoughts to what my judgment says, reason dict ates? And if I see a contradiction, am I gonna and corrected in myself? Or am I going to deny IT and ignore IT and pretend IT doesn't exist? And most people choose the latter.

They deny that they ignore it's uncomfortable, makes them feel icky inside, they go home and have a drink. They don't want to confront the fact that many of their ideas do not play out properly in reality. They don't work in reality.

And so that's my journey. That's why I am here. And I know i've read all of her on fiction.

I know I rends philosophy very well. I think it's not very popular, but I was put in that way. It's not very popular. Most of the world Operates on some form of faith, because you can't control people without faith. If you tell everyone to use your own judgment, they might not follow you and that's a problem for most leaders.

But do you think if you followed her thought and and eventually you are kind of emerging to a leader like we just talk about, like a lot of to become valley like unique minds, and they are just like one of a kind of their own view. And then do you think that's kind of like somewhat self selected? Like for example, like a much is like always think through first principle and then this is kind of like them similar in a sense like you don't follow other people though and you do not like just treat everything as granted .

yeah I think there's bound to be statistical overlap. And the reason for that is it's not a one to one correlation, obviously, but the reason that there's some statistical overlap IT is in order to be a successful entrepreneur, usually you have to be pretty reality focused. Usually, at least when IT comes to your business, maybe you're not reality focused when IT comes to morals or who you vote for other things like that.

But when that comes to running your business, if you look at your sales numbers and the declining, you can just say, well, I feel that they're good. Let's go pray that doesn't work. You will go out of business, right? So you have to deal with situations.

You have to deal with what's the in front of you. You have to measure reality. You have to be courageous enough to look at the ugly things in your business and try and work on them. And that intellectual curiosity and dedication to looking at reality is very similar to the objectives st mindset.

So you will likely have a large overlap between successful entrepreneurs and many objectives st ideas IT doesn't mean that anyone who says there an objectively will be successful and IT certainly doesn't mean anyone be successful is necessarily embracing objectives st. ideas. So on average, over time, the business leaders who accept the reality and confront reality win. And the one who don't don't, and that's again, that's on average, is over time IT doesn't mean you can find counter examples. Of course.

you can then maybe thought of the characters, the characters in this book, like hank, like Francisco hank, britain, there are all like entrepreneurs. yeah.

I think one thing about iris SHE worships and using that term intentionally SHE worried business. SHE thought business men were great, and he thought entrepreneurs awesome.

which is really unlikely, the culture, unlike the culture right now.

yes. And the reason he thought this, there's two reason. One has remember that she's imagining when he thinks of an treatment. Ur, she's thinking of an entrepreneur, the free market, as soon as you have something like the inside of states, we have a mixed economy.

You have a lot of success based on qualities that would not be in an iron hero who you know, who you can bribe, what of politics you have like that kind of stuff, right? That's not the kind of entrepreneurship SHE embraced and loved. SHE embraced and loved the entrepreneurship of hank roydon, who worked in the coal mine, saved up money to buy a little piece, and then built that up more more, and then, know, invented a new metal.

And IT wasn't about who he knew, what is network was, how was marketing was. IT was about building something real, right, that he built. And SHE really had a lot of respect for that.

And I think that makes sense, that he had a lot of respect for that because at the end of the day, what raises the stand of living isn't government, its invention, productivity. That's how standards of living get raised. The reason that you and I are having this conversation in a house with equipment that would put the the richest kings of a hundred years ago, IT will put them to shame.

There will be in awe of how we live. And the reason for that isn't some central planning economic strategy. It's not some, you know, the right political leader blubble.

It's not any vet. It's that individuals worked their butts off to invent and build new things, which that's what productivity is. And when it's done well and it's done right, they employ other people and you end up with the some being worth more than all the parts.

You end up with a win win scenario, right? That's what builds wealth. That's what builds stand, a raised standard of living. And that's what SHE worships. And SHE recognized the value of entrepreneurs and their minds nest the prerecorded for having that politically, which is freedom, right?

That's what SHE recognized, right? That make me thought about, you are just saying U. S.

Is living, borrow time and then scan valley. The whole technology advancement is driving us moving for and then creating more values. This probably seems like that seems probably the only driving force, yes, nowadays. And then I don't know like if we compare to the the blaze in the books is like there might be a train rack somewhere.

sometime down the road. Well, I mean, look at look at the united states economically. I mean, I don't remember how many are we yet.

Twenty trillion dollars in debt, maybe more. I don't remember something ridiculous right now. We're at our debt is increasing and and just a massive, massive way.

We're completely insolvent. I mean, the truth is were actually in solved, just the rest of the world doesn't. They're willing to like give us some more rope to hang ourselves with, right? Like do not try to cash.

But the only thing let's we can talk about inflation, which has been a big issue in the U. S. For the past few years, right? The fed has has been with inflation.

Well, inflation happens obviously when you print money, that's what happens. You print money, the money become fora thi, therefore Prices go up. That's what Price inflation, that's what cause us Price inflation.

But only so we can say, okay, how long is that sustainable? How long can you keep doing that? And I think what iran got wrong was SHE didn't count on entrepreneurs being as productive as they are, which is kind of funny, because he thought they were the only most productive force.

They were the best production force. SHE loved them. SHE still underestimated. Because what entrepreneurs have done and what business has done is that has kept the government going longer and longer and longer.

The government can print trillions of dollars and productivity increases fast enough that IT doesn't destroy the economy. That's how the city has been Operating for a while now. People are worried that it's gona catch up.

I thought I was gna catch up with us ten years ago. I was wrong now with A I. I'm not sure when it's gonna atch up with us because we're going to be so much more productive.

We are just talking about nuclear fishing energies. So if that happens in next maybe ten, twenty years. So this day, the train right day may not happen.

Yeah I think it's weird. You you can view from a free market perspective, you can view the government and regulation as this leach, this kind of parasite that sucking the blood out of the host. And you think eventually you you can keep sucking blood, venture, the host will die. But if the host is growing exponentially, the pair that just keeps growing.

we have so much bacteria or like virus an hour skin would probably just never noticed them were too strong .

yeah and so I do think eventually need catch up with us. So this is a mistake. I think that a lot of objectives sts make on a lot of people that think about this philos y make in the long run, reason wins in the long run.

Spending money you don't have is not sustainable in the long run. The free market work out. The question is, what does the long run mean? Is that a million years like, okay, in the long run, recent wins in the long run? That's true.

I mean, A I thing is perfectly timed, right? If you think about IT, the us without A I, the us. Is about to be really, really hurting in the next decade, really hurting.

And now there's this lifeline that's oh, maybe we can be a hundred times more productive than we were. okay. I think .

that I am not economist. The whole reason that we are we're not in the grey recession again is because to A S pretty much striving all the stock market. The magnificent in seven, I think there's tesla drop out of IT. Now it's like six. What's the six .

name again?

That is super six.

And the truth is productivity has has risen dramatically and that has saved us. If the government can print money and tax and hurt business and hurt people, let's say that their impact on you is to reduce your wealth by ten percent every year. If technology increases your wealth by fifteen percent every year, you don't care.

You don't notice IT, you're growing. You're growing slower than you would have, but you have nothing to compare IT to. That's what allows us to keep going. So it's very likely that this will keep going in its current form for quite some time because A I has a significant amount of promise.

So iran's philosophy allow people said that she's like derivation from some from nicky and some part of IT and some part of she's like a also like strong uh avocation a frederic hike. Can you tell us more about like.

yeah and i'm not just saying this because I like island. I would say this about other philosopher who I think get treated the way you do. But every philosopher is somewhat derivative, can't ripped off plato.

You can look back at the greek philosophers. You can then actually look at some eastern philosopher and see that they said some things that are similar. So first of all, you get, sometimes you have two different people coming up with the same ideas, but often you have people building on other people's ideas.

And so rand never claimed SHE mean sheet. For example, SHE used the phrase a is a all the time, which is her meta physical statement. A thing is what IT is.

A is a that came from arastra. SHE didn't pretend to make that up, SHE said. IT came from a very clearly, SHE didn't pretend to make up all of her philosopher.

What he did was take the good at what he felt was the good or the good ideas from the previous flosses and synthesize them into into one system. I think there's a lot of value in that he did. I think he also contributed some things of her own, but philosophes rather complex subject, so to say, oh, it's all derivative work. You just haven't read IT. I think that's just a statement of ignorance.

He was saying there's a system, yes, that her work is more like a system comparing to other philosopher. So what do you mean this?

So you use this idea of first principles. Earlier, rand, similarly built off the first principles. And SHE.

When I say a system, SHE said, OK, here's aristotle, metaphysics. This is why it's that. This is why it's important.

Here's the epithetic logy to support IT. Here's the ethics that come out of that, right? Those and they're all related and they are all self consistent.

There's no contradiction ran system ran ethics and politics. And I would argue sue is wrong on some atheist, but whatever those things don't have they don't have international contradictions. A lot of philosopher have I I actually think a lot of illusory.

Hers aren't actually philosopher at all. A lot of philosopher say sound bites, and then they'll say something else that's completely contradictory to their previous sound bites. They basically write fortune cookies.

They just, and they built, they put them in collections of books, and they know like they have lots of phrases that are kind of catchy and cool or interesting ideas. They don't mess with one another, right? And so one of her values is that they mesh and that they are life affirming.

So you can have systems that match. Nicki is an example of, I would say, any system. You you should also evaluate a system not just internally, but whether IT corresponds to reality.

So I think niche failed on some reality correspond, but he was largely self consistent. But of course, the conclusions were nalty. M, I like IT. IT becomes a completely useless philosophy.

And I think what rand saw, I don't know if you saw this explicit, but I at least I see IT in her philosophy, you know, years, years after her death is, you know, you had, you had religion. Religion was waved from morals to be transmitted to people, at least in the west, right? You go to church and they have you.

They give you ten commandments, and you end up with the society of people who know not to steal or murder each other or whatever. They they very clear rules. It's a religion.

So a lot of what I ran with fighting against was SHE saw amErica in its essence. SHE saw what he felt made amErica special in its not make amErica great. You want to be to be to, at something, do a trumping.

SHE saw what made amErica great, right? And he wanted to make amErica great again. SHE literally. SHE saw you saw what the ideas that that founded america, how they were separate and unique from other countries.

He thought IT was special, and he saw that the culture and the philosophy that had become part of american culture was an enemy of the very ideas that made amErica successful. And so the reason she's hated is because SHE attacks mainstream in a major way. SHE attacks mainstream institutions. SHE attack like SHE mainstream philosophy was her target, and that made her extremely controversial.

People hate to her. I mean, even the nowadays, I have listened to a podcast to me by a chinese philosopher who I think she's like in the U. S.

Of from institution like philosophy that domain and real man SHE introduce a book and basically her description of the book is um the book from its literature value is super low because is more like rent from herself and their character is not like complicated and basically that the people is just like excEllent. Bad people are just worse. Bad people are bureaucrat scholars and basically don't invent anything. They don't do any productivity things. So basically does her criticism of our in red yeah.

I mean, rent was very about this. And I actually like IT, and a lot of people do like this. We live in an age where people want everything to be morally fuzzy. If you have a hero now in a movie, he's got to have a drinking problem or a .

drug problem with the .

right and and the idea behind that is well as unregistered. No one's perfect, right? It's a very cynical attitude to have um and is born from self hatred.

I don't like this. Carry this heroes is two heroic. You should have a problem.

The major flaw, right? That's an issue. But rand intentionally, intentionally distort her characters to their essence.

So did digne. Tigers sometimes have that. I'm sure he did.

But IT wasn't part of the book because it's not relevant to who he is. IT doesn't matter. Did you make mistakes? yes.

Did hitler love is mom? maybe. Actually, I don't think he did.

But you know what is a good artist? I don't know. Maybe, but that's not the essence of hit.

We are using evil persons, so we don't need to talk about his good qualities. I think we live in a culture right now where people don't like to see heroes in. One of the reasons for that is they don't like moral standards.

So rand was presenting a moral standard. This is the standard that the heroes like, like Francis good dhoni a like hank, and they're the standard. Well, we can.

We live that way. No, none of us, we're gona actually achieve that standard is a black. And why? This is a presentation of the essence of her ideas.

And so SHE wrote characters that encapsulated the values that he believed in, and he wrote characters that capitated the values that he felt. We're destroying america. Those were the characters.

And I think if that's your critique of the book, it's a little bit soft. C, because you're not taking the book for what IT is. SHE wasn't trying to write a quainter tino film actually.

You know what a great example of this superheroes, and not the modern superheroes, but a lot of superhero law, right? A lot of you fans of superheroes, i'm not really a huge of superheroes, but a lot of people, are they like that? This villain is a villain, and the good guy is a good guy.

That's what attracts people to IT. I think most people trying and tear her down because they don't like her philosophy s so they trying to tear down. The bay area silicon value in particular is very religious. The religion isn't Christianity is radical leftism. So but we have seen .

that this change a little bit. I mean, at least you can talk about IT more than ever, especially like we all like to all in podcast or and then they got trump. Well.

it's be clear about the all in podcast. They invited biden and chamar, who's one of the four members of the olen don't. He donated a lot of money to biden in the first campaign and asked by iten to come on.

The pocket binds. People declined for obvious reasons. So they have invited all the presidential candidates on their broadcast.

Biden is the only major one that didn't show up. Trump t did. So that's why trump es on the podcast. And like I said, thinking silting, really, I think what you're seeing, I don't think there's a lot of over advocates for objectivism or iron in silicon valley. But I think there is a there is an overlap between the personality that would like some things about iran's work and the personality that would .

be an successful entrepreneurs. For example, of illum is not iran's objectivism, but he's actually, you can see his changing from what he believes in the past. And now he's own twitter and in law p has him because what he believed.

That's an example that demonstrates the religion. And I was talking about and silicon valley, which is, you know, you're in a religious environment when you have heroics, people attack each other for not just for supporting the wrong candidate or the wrong ideas, but being friends with someone who supports the wrong candidate .

or the wrong ideas.

So the culture ist IT does. And I think to some extent, I don't think it's going to go away anytime soon.

but it's getting much Better. Yeah, yeah.

IT is much Better. But I think one of the reasons is much Better is the narrative around biden has unraveled what that means. There's something bigger than biden is.

What happens is the media has lost credibility. These people have lost credibility. They've been saying things, radical things ever since twenty sixteen when trim got elected. There's been a lot of radical statements and radical things being said by the mainstreet media. Trump is a not see this in that biden is perfect .

felon and then they're read into and he's like his crimes so pty right?

And that's you know that's why David sacks calls this law fare. So just to be clear, for people who aren't in the united states, I don't remember exactly this statistic, but it's something like this. It's going to explore your mind, be ready.

The average american commits something like six files a day. what? Yes, there are so many federal laws on the books. yes. So my point is, anyone who's been successful, anyone who's been successful either in business or as a politician, probably has has committed in families, they're probably broken some walls because that the laws are so volumes.

And so there's so much my usha and stupid details and things can get blown into famines that are like forgetting to file something that anyone could be prosecuted. Now the the reason the system still works is because people don't prosecute each other. People don't go after that, because if they did, everyone would be in court all the time.

The problem is, if you get someone who comes long, who is hated university like trump, they have a whole listening of things that they can go after him for. If they want to prosecute you, they will find something and probably convict you as they did trump. The media and the mainstream have lost one hundred years of credible people.

Just don't believe them anymore. You've been in charge and the american people, including in silicon valley, are starting to look at this and say, wait a minute, there's a huge bureaucracy. They're not just inconvenient. They're actually trying to seize power by getting joe biden elected. Joe biden is their candidate, and that scares the heck out of people .

and especially the icon bali people there.

But they want they want clarity. Any business person, I mean, you can see this, you can watch them, the markets prior to elections. Business people want clarity.

They prefer less regulation if they can get that, of course, that's regulation less business. They prefer all that stuff. But most importantly, they need clarity. Biden does not represent clarity. Its massive uncertainty because he's not in charge.

Do you think this is no way back?

Well, a lot of people think there is going to be a switch. I know Jason kanas has been. He tried to bet David sex that there would be a switch.

David .

sacked out. I, X.

I have a listen to x.

He needed to man up there. I would have bet Jason, uh, Jason, I think is wrong. There will not be a switch.

Biden will be the candidate. I don't. And who's going to win?

The biden will be the candidate. I don't think there's going to be a switch at all. I could be wrong. Of course.

so far.

you will see any .

lasso ts on this. I would .

encourage people to read the fountain head first.

then I would shot .

yeah the foundation is not a philosopher. It's just a good story about architecture. I know a lot of architects. We really like the fountain head. Don't really like I round at all. Um so read the fountain head it's a good book and if you like the style, then go head and and read out a shark down. Just be aware that what you're getting into when you read it's it's a long book and it's going to be heavy on philosopher.

But the point isn't to, you know, when you read something that controversial and outside of the mainstream, have an open mind approach, IT as a, instead of trying to debunk everything, read IT all first with an open mind. Really consider the arguments, really think about IT, and then afterwards you can be critical of IT. So I would suggest, I think it's something that everyone should read, Frankly, because I think one thing that makes iron unique is he did actually understand the essence of united states SHE did understand what made the us. different. And most people don't innovation.

the productivity.

I think you would say individuals M A very few people understood that. I mean, we had fredric Douglas, the famous anti slavery. He understood at some point in his his career when he was lecturing, he understood about how the us.

Was a slavery, for example, was a contradiction compared to the U. S. ideas. And he was supported the ideas of the us. Originally and said, you know, his criticism of the government was IT wasn't living up to its own ideas, and he is correct about that.

So there there been a few people who kind of get to get IT, but rand got IT and share t particulates IT really well. And whether you like the united states or not, understanding the essence of IT, if you understand the essence of IT half as much as I rented, you understand IT one hundred times, is more than the average american, because they just don't understand that at all. So I would read the .

books is a great party. Thought it's .

been the sexiest host i've ever had.

Sorry, thank you.

这就是 我们 今天 的 whats next 科技 早知道。 欢迎 大家 在 评论 区 和 我们 留言 互动， 加入到 科技 和 创新 的 下一步 讨论 中 来。 另外 如果你 想 支持 我们在 播客 内容 上 的 探索 和 创新， 欢迎 大家 加入 我们的 生动 胡同 会员 计划。 详细 的 加入 方式 和 信息 请 查看 本期 节目 的 show no， 我们 下期 再见。

那天 我是 在 家里 刚 起床， 一会儿 会儿 就是 圈子里 的 一个 朋友， 还有 我的 一个 师叔， 然后 就 给我发 信息， 然后 就 问 你们 团队 的 壮 壮 咋回事？ 壮 壮大 名 叫做 赵一楠， 本来 这 一切 都曾 是 关于 他的 一场 意外， 女子 兴起 全场 冠军 的 健身 网 红 壮 壮 在 健身房 突然 去世。

说什么 都 有啊。

说 什么的 都有， 不过 这 仅仅 是 一颗 洋葱 的 表皮。

其实 这个 圈子里 的 这方面 的 事儿 很多。

你说 去世 的 很多， 对， 有得 白血病 的、 得 癌症 的， 有 猝死 的。 在 一层 一层 剥开 壮 壮 短暂 的 23年 人生 之后， 我们 发现 了 故事 的 另外一个 主角， 它 叫做 科技。

科技 科技 科技 科技 科技。

这 实际上 是一种 药物， 它 能 让你在 短时间 里 变成 所谓 的 超人。

相当于 本身 这个 肌肉 原先 是 一根 手指， 用了 之后， 一根 手指 里头 可能 变成 了 两根 骨头。

当时 给 我的 感觉 就是 这个 东西 好神奇。

每天 都有 成千上万 的 人 把 这种 药 灌注 到 一个 一次性 的 注射针 管 里， 然后 将 一根 长达 3.5 厘米 的 针头 扎进 自己的 大 臂、 大腿 和 屁股。

二 爸 当时 心情 是 比较 害怕 的， 他们说 扎 血管 也就 死， 更 害怕 了， 我自己 是 不敢 扎 的， 其实我 第一次 扎 完， 我 就 想着 我会 不会 死 啊。

这种 药物 本身 并没有 成瘾性， 但 却 能 让 他们 一针 接着 一针， 停不下来。 对， 因为 像 我说 的， 你 这 有 一人 的 无数 人， 这点 疼痛 不算什么 的， 只要 能 变大， 再 疼 一点 无所谓 的。

当你 身体 出 状况 的 时候 已经 晚 了， 这人 基本上 已经 无法挽回 了。

从 一个 年轻 女孩 的 意外， 到 一类 被 美名 为 科技 的 药物， 再到 一群 用药 上瘾 的 人是什么 将 他们 联系 在 了 一起。

很多人 也不 理解， 其实我 自己 也不 理解。 但是 我 就 想 站在 那个 舞台。

你 只要 来， 我 就 保证 你 能 拿到 第一名。

所谓 的 灰色地带， 灰色地带 就是 这个 东西。 其实 你 南昌 健身 肌肉 非常 大 的 一个 产业， 可以 用 它 挣钱。

因为 这个 东西 是 暴利。

有 多 暴利， 这 能 说 吗？

几十倍， 你 关 了 我 再 跟你讲。

关 了 你 再 坐下。 从 7月9号 开始， 跳进 兔子洞 第三季 将 为你 讲述 一桩 未 解 的 意外死亡， 一门 建立 在 人性 弱点 上 的 生意， 和 我们 所有人 都 追求 的 关于 美的 另外 一张 面孔。