https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=Q9m_6TVJysI
You should accept yourself just the way you are. What does that say about who I should become? Is that just now off the table because I’m already good enough in every way? So am I done or something? Get the hell up. Get your act together. Adopt some responsibility. Put your life together. Develop a vision. Unfold all those manifold possibilities that lurk within. Be a force for good in the world and that’ll be the adventure of your life. Especially for young people, they have a messianic urge that emerges in late adolescence and runs into early adulthood when they’re trying to sort out their lives. They want a project and they want a vision that they can be involved in that does have some larger scale social significance. And this seems to me to be an exciting vision. It’s like, well, how about we don’t have any direly poor people and then we see how that goes. If you can improve the seed stock so that crops are more pesticide resistant, which you can’t, or more pest resistant, which you can do, then you can use less pesticide. You can increase the yield per acre and so that uses less farmland. It’s like, why wouldn’t the greens be absolutely 100% on board with this as well if they could drop the zero-sum presupposition and the anti-extra-most to feed idea? It’s like, well, we serve women when they’re the most vulnerable and now we serve children when they’re the most vulnerable and there’s no downside to that. There’s just upside, so that sounds like a perfectly good adventure. Exactly. And one of the things that we find doing these projects is that it’s amazing, as you also pointed out, that we spend so much time focusing on some of these other things like plastic in the oceans and climate change and many other things. These are all worthy things, mind you, and a lot of people will argue that we should do them because they will help the world’s poor. The problem is they’ll help them very ineffectively. So for every dollar spent, they will only help them an infinitesimal part, whereas if we spend that dollar on some of these projects that we’re gonna be talking about, you can have an enormous impact right here, right now. So again, it’s not to say that we shouldn’t do all the other wonderful things. I’m simply making the argument we should probably do this first. Yeah. Hello, everyone watching and listening on YouTube and associated platforms and on the Daily Wire Plus too. I’m here today. I’m pleased to be here today live. So that’s also good with Bjorn Lomborg, who runs a think tank called Copenhagen Consensus in Denmark. And Bjorn has done the most detailed and reliable analysis of spending prioritization, I would say. There are a number of enterprises that are underway on the international front, but it’s a chaotic mess of jumbled priority. And that’s a big problem because it makes everything super expensive and inefficient, which might be a feature rather than a bug. And Bjorn and his team have spent, well, it’s more than a decade now, damn near 20 years, determining how to prioritize our approaches on the national and international front in relationship to the multitude of problems that beset us. And it’s important to stress multitude because we have a proclivity in the woke West to reduce the entire panoply of problems that confront us or opportunities, depending on how you look at it, to a single climate emergency and then to reduce that to a single cause, carbon, and then to assume that if we oppose carbon, we’re now acting as the appropriate representatives of the messiah on the planet. And none of that constitutes acceptable theology, let’s say, let alone policy. So I’m gonna talk to Bjorn today about what he’s been up to recently, but then we’re gonna walk through 12 projects that Bjorn and his team of economists, it’s a meta team of economists because there’s many teams working, what they believe, where we can do the most good for the least amount of money in the shortest period of time with the highest return, all of that, multi-dimensional calculation. So good to see you, Bjorn. Likewise, thank you. You’ve been at Stanford for a couple of weeks. What have you been doing there? So I’m a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford. And so I gave the first presentation of the project that you just described, which is basically a project that tries to say, look, we’d love to do everything in the world. And everybody sort of promises everything in the world. And we actually have it documented because the world has made 169 different targets, its priorities, they’re called the Sustainable Development Goals, where we promised we’re gonna fix, as you mentioned, climate, but we’re also gonna fix world peace and we’re gonna get rid of corruption. We’re gonna make sure that everybody are well-educated and don’t starve and get out of poverty and that we get more parks for handicapped people in urban areas and we recycle more. And the list just goes on and on. And there’s something almost comical about the total effect of that because we’re promising everything to everyone all the time. But of course, we’re actually not delivering on those. We promised this from 2016 to 30. So this year, we’re at halftime. We’re at halftime of all the global promises. So remember, this is promises that every single nation in the world has signed up to, the US, Canada, pretty much everyone, I think Syria’s the only one that hasn’t done this yet. So we promised all this stuff, we’re not delivering at all. And so what we’re trying to say is, look, if we can’t do it all, what should we do first? What are the smartest things? One of the things I worked on, one of the relatively early documents in the sustainable development goal world, that was the secretary general’s report on sustainable economic development, that was about 15 years ago. And one of the things I found very peculiar about it, it’s actually what tilted me over towards your work eventually was that there were 200 goals. And I thought, that’s a lot of goals. It’s like, at some point you have so many goals that really what you’re saying is, we’re gonna do everything at once. And that’s a stupid plan, because any number, any one of the goals is actually quite difficult to attain. You have to build a structure and systems that will move towards the goal and you have to put the spending in place and you have to evaluate the outcome. It’s actually very difficult. You have to build the local apparatuses. And so I asked the powers that be, why the hell there were 200 goals? And their answer was, well, each of the priorities has a constituency somewhere, spread across countries or in a given country. And we don’t want to offend anyone by rank ordering our priorities. And I thought, well, that’s all well and good. Plus the upside of that from a political perspective is that you get all the moral cache of being concerned about everything that you would be concerned about if you were good without any of the responsibility for actually doing any of the difficult work. And so you can go to COP26 or whatever the hell it is and posture on the world stage about your commitment to these wonderful goals and appeal to 200 different constituents and walk away while having agreed to spend a tremendous amount of money stupidly, but shining at least in your own eyes and in the eyes of the press. So then I was looking around, I thought, well, there must be someone somewhere sensible enough to understand that 200 goals is absurd. And the only group that I could really find that had a method for rank ordering priorities was your team. And so do you want to explain exactly how you do that? And then we can progress with our discussion about what you think should be done? Yeah, so you’re absolutely right. Look, it’s much easier for politicians to just promise everything to everyone because then they just seem like good guys and they don’t actually make any decision. Of course they do in reality because every year you have a budget and you don’t have any different resources on your budget. So in your budget, you actually show what it is that you really care for. And so it ends up being a few things that you focus on, but often without much concern about efficiency. So what we’re trying to bring to the table is in a sense, and that’s what economists can do. We’re basically helping, and I should just say, I’m a pretend economist, I’m actually a political scientist, but I work with a lot of really, really smart economists. And they look at how much will it cost and how much good will it do? Remember, some things are very desirable, but really, really hard to do. So for instance, getting rid of corruption in general. I’ll actually tell you, we do have one good solution. But in general, corruption, huge problem. It costs about a trillion dollars a year or more for the world, but we don’t know how to get rid of it. It’s really hard to do because the systems that are needed to get rid of corruption are exactly the ones that are corrupt. So it’s really hard to do something about it. This has been a real problem as the former Soviet Union countries have tried to retool, because even if you import Western structures, nobody trusts them because the corruption is so unbelievably widespread. And the problem with corruption, of course, is that once it’s instantiated, it manifests itself at every level of society. And so that’s a good example of a low resolution concept. Well, there’s corruption. It’s like, yeah, but now you’ve said very little by saying that because the devil in that situation is definitely in the details. And so you might want to fight corruption, but that’s not a plan. And so, yeah, and so we should also, so you set up teams of economists that would rank order the goals, and then you averaged across the teams, which I also thought was brilliant methodologically, because you could argue that any given economist’s analysis of both costs and benefits has a margin of error of some substantive amount, right? And because it’s hard to assess and to forecast. But technically speaking, from the perspective of a social scientist, I would say that that’s an unbeatable methodology, even though it’s still gonna produce a somewhat problematic end, because you zoom in on where there’s multi-dimensionally measured consensus. And at least in principle, you’d be ironing out the errors of any given team of economists. Hopefully, yes. Well, at least in theory you can. Again, we’re not trying to make the truth of the world, but we’re just trying to make a much better resolution of what it is that we can do. So we try to identify what are things that we can actually do. Right, so they’re practical. Works. And that we have good evidence for works at low cost with high benefits. And so what we’re essentially doing is we provide, if you will, a menu for the world. So a menu typically comes with, it tells you what you’re gonna get, how much you’re gonna get, a tiny pizza or a big pizza, and how much will it cost. And then of course, you can make those decisions. So economists, they’re not gonna tell you, you should do this. Basically, we’re telling you, here is something that at very low cost can give you a lot of good food. How about that? So on the same way in the world order, we make a list of all the things you’d like to do where are really smart, or that is really very effective policies that we know works that would help a lot of people at low cost. Why don’t we do that before we do the stuff that’ll cost a lot but help very few people? Right, right. It sort of seems obvious. Well, we should talk a little bit about that as a fundamental presupposition too, because there’s a kind of utilitarianism there, which is that all things considered in the absence of other compelling reasons, you should do what you can the most efficient way. Well, why? Well, because what efficiency means, because people might say, well, you know, some things are so important that it’s worth spending the money on. It’s like, yeah, but there’s many things that are important. And unfortunately, when you spend, given that resources are not precisely infinite, when you spend money in one place, that means you’re not spending it in another place. And so if you believe that you have 12 things to do that are good, or 169 things, you have to value efficiency from the moral perspective, because in principle, efficiency is precisely that which allows you to address more than you would have otherwise been able to manage. And otherwise, what are you gonna make an argument for inefficiency? Which is, so- It’s weird, I like that. Yeah, yeah, so this is, well, I like this because it zeroed us in, your methodology. It also reduced a landscape of problems that was so diverse and disparate that there was no way anyone sensible could have possibly undertaken the enterprise. And then it’s extraordinarily practical. And so, and also the other thing that I found very striking was that in comparison to the amount of money we’re already spending on all sorts of things, the amounts that your teams have been recommending are really rounding errors in the total, let’s say, in the total world of international or national governance. And so, but it’s also demoralizing in some sense, because you understand that we could do the 12 most important and efficient things and do a lot of good for a lot of people, especially the absolutely poor. And we could do that without really even noticing it. Yeah, on the spending side. So that’s incredibly optimistic, but the problem is that you gotta ask yourself, given that that’s the case, what the hell have we been doing? And well, that’s something we’ll delve into today. So we’re gonna go through Bjorn’s 12 suggested projects and talk about their costs, but also about what they could do for people. And tell me if you think this is true. So imagine that there’s a rule of thumb ethic that underlies the selection of these projects. We talked a little bit about efficiency, but I think the ethic is something like, well, if we could alleviate material poverty, absolute poverty, not relative poverty, but to start with at least absolute poverty, enough for people to eat, make sure they have access to hygienic facilities, make sure they’re not inhaling indoor pollution to the point that they’re dying, they’re not starving, their kids have some opportunity, there’s some option for them to expand their temporal horizon across decades instead of being focusing on the necessity for the next meal, because that makes them impulsive, you might say, with regards to what they’re willing to do on the environmental front. And so at minimum, you’re trying to raise the standard of living at the very bottom end. And you won’t do that in a way that allows you to do that multiple ways. And that’s kind of the overall ethical schema, I would say. I think it’s what comes out of what we try to do. So we’re basically saying, look, there’s a lot of different things you can do in the world. We know there’s 169 things, and there’s literally thousands of different projects out there. We’ve tried to look at a lot of them and say, what do we have evidence for? And what are the costs? And so we’ve tried to estimate, and this is an impossible task, so we reasonably assume that we’ve covered the whole area of saying, where can you get an enormous amount of good for every dollar or shilling or rupee spent? And what we find is, so we’re looking at, where can you spend a dollar and at least do 15 of social good. Well, we should also point out, that’s not an expense then, that’s an investment. Well, it is an expense in the sense that, because if you’ve spent the dollar, you don’t get 15 of social benefits, typically in the poor world. You also mentioned that this is mostly for the world’s poor people. So we’re looking at low and low middle income countries. That’s world bank estimates, so it basically means that you live with less than, say 35 billion a year in funding, and that funding could come from rich people like Elon Musk and Bill Gates, it could come from our development agencies, USAID or GIZ or whatever, we’re spending 35 billion. This is, as you mentioned, a drop in the bucket, it really is a rounding error. If we spent that amount of money over this decade, we would every year save 4.2 million lives. This is 8% of everyone who dies in the world. We could avoid 8% of all death in this world. Of course, we won’t do that indefinitely because people have to die, but we would postpone that. That would be an incredible boon for a lot of people and a lot of societies. And at the same time, we would generate economic benefits worth 1 every day, almost 1 a day. Okay, so I wanna investigate something a little bit darker before we start our discussion about the projects per se. So one of the things that I see emerging on the chaotic and confused 169 goals front is an ethos that is also not precisely explicit, but that sort of lurks beneath the surface. And there are claims that go along with it. It might be that people who are listening think, well, this is all obvious. Obviously we should spend money in the most efficient way. We should spend the least amount of money we have to spend. We should do it so that it does the most good. But we should also understand that there are real resistances to this approach. And so one of the resistances that’s implicit and sometimes explicit is the notion that, well, first of all, we’re playing a zero sum game in the world. So if some people are rich, other people have to be poor. There’s not enough for everybody. And then, which I don’t believe to be true at all, and economists generally don’t buy as an argument. And then the next argument would be, well, let’s say we could make poor people richer, but that’s not sustainable because to support everybody in the world at the Western standard of living would take five Earths. I’ve heard that figure bandied about. And there are probably, there are way too many people on the planet. In any case, there should only be 500 million or a billion or maybe 2 billion if they lived in poverty. And so there’s this notion that the planet is truly finite in some fundamental sense. There’s definitely not enough for everyone. And there’s no way that we can elevate the living standards of the poor because all that would mean is that we’re gonna use up all the available resources faster. So what do you think about? First of all, on the zero sum game, remember 200 years ago, we have good data for the last 200 years. 200 years ago, almost every one of us were poor. We’re extremely poor. So we lived at less than what used to be called 1 a day or what is really 215 now. But fundamentally, we can absolutely have a world that’s much better, that’s much richer, and one that’s obviously much better for these people. Now, people are worried about, well, can we sustainably live on this planet? But what you have to remember is, this is not a question of whether we have the resources to it. Absolutely we have the resources. When you hear this, five Earths, that is a very, very bad comparison. I get why they made it, but it basically assumes that because of climate change, it’s almost entirely about climate change. Because of climate change, which is a real problem, because we emit CO2, you have to plant forest to soak up that extra amount of CO2. And if we all lived like Americans, then you would need five Earths. What they’re really saying is, you’d need five Earths of forest to plant. But that’s the most inefficient way to get rid of CO2. Much smarter way would be to put up, I don’t know, wind turbines and solar panels. You could also put up nuclear power plants. You could do that. We could have very, very little footprint. So actually when you do the math, it turns out that this is just hokum. Yes, there is a problem. So we will do well within one Earth, even if we were much richer, all of us, and even if there were more people, so about 10 billion people. Yes, there is problems with having 10 billion people, but having 10 billion rich people also means we can deal with most of these problems. While in rich, we should also point out. If you’re poor, that’s the real pollution problem. If you’re poor, you pollute a lot. You both, you cut down your forest to slash burn so you can grow some food for your kids. You’ll have terrible indoor air pollution. You will typically have very inefficient production. You will have all kinds of bad things. So we really need, not just morally, to get people out of poverty and to get them to a good life, but also actually that’s the only way we can get people to be so involved that they will want and they can afford to care about the environment. Well, we should also, we also have to watch very carefully the terminology we use because when we start talking about making people rich, we need to really explain what that means. Hey, Reagan, I know you’re picky when it comes to skincare products, so tell me, what did you think of Genucel Skincare? That’s exactly right, Garrett. I’m the type of person who wants to know exactly what ingredients I’m using in my skincare routine, which is why I’m loving Genucel. Their products are made with antioxidants and formulated by a compounding pharmacist, and they’re all about preventative skincare. With summer coming up around the corner, I’ll be using Genucel’s powerful retinol alternative, which is safe to use on your skin in the hot summer sun. They also have a dark spot corrector, which helps reduce the appearance of dark marks and sunspots. Right now, you can get them both in Genucel’s most popular package at genucel.com slash Jordan. You heard it here first. Don’t miss out on this amazing deal just in time for warmer days ahead. Go to genucel.com slash Jordan to get 70% off their most popular package. Every order subscription includes a luxury gift box with two free springtime essentials. That’s two free gifts, plus free shipping. Go to genucel.com slash Jordan. Genucel.com slash Jordan. When we go back 200 years and everybody’s scrabbling around in the dirt, what that really means is that people’s next meal is uncertain, and so is the sustainability of their shelter and the opportunities for them and their kids are extraordinarily limited. So when we’re talking about wealth, we’re not talking about cocaine and hookers in Vegas wealth. We’re talking about- I was not talking about that, Alicia. Yeah, well, people, the thing is it brings up this specter of the 1920s spatswaring capitalist who’s like a complete libertine on his time off. And it’s hyper consumption wealth, but that’s not what we’re talking about at the low end of the world. We’re talking about providing people with enough material security so that they can adopt a longer term view so that they can start to pay attention to what sort of planet their children and grandchildren might inhabit. And so that there’s both reliable provision of food and shelter, basic healthcare, hygienic availability, and opportunity for their children. And so it’s not exactly wealth we’re after here. It’s getting people away from zero. Absolutely, but also, the people who are watching this, but also everyone who’s really worried about that we’re gonna become these libertines from the 1920s. Do they live like that? No, they don’t. They live nice lives where they actually have heating in the winter and they have cooling in the summer. They have enough food. They don’t have to worry about stuff. Their kids go to school. They have a nice life and they can go places and experience the world. Everyone obviously would like to have that same kind of life. And so this is not about absurd consumption or anything, but this is about actually being able to have a good life. Well, it’s also, as you pointed out, it’s also one of the things that struck me when I was doing my original research on this front 15 years ago was the overwhelming evidence and Marion Toopey’s group has humanprogress.org has done a nice job of delineating that, that there’s actually a positive relationship between population growth above a certain level of standard of living, let’s say, and more abundance. And what I’ve come to understand in the intervening time, and this is something that’s very much worth taking apart too, is that we have this notion of natural resource. And that’s always struck me as specious, hey, because natural means it’s sort of there at hand. The only real natural resource I can think of is air, because all you have to do is breathe and it’s there, but you still have to breathe, right? So there’s still some effort involved in, okay, but when you start talking about even the next stage, which would be water, it’s like, was water a natural resource? Well, water is, fresh water, yeah, fresh water is a technological miracle fundamentally. It takes a lot of industrial infrastructure and innovation to get fresh water to people. And of course, oil, petroleum, is barely a natural resource at all. I mean, we had petroleum forever. No one figured out what the hell to do with it until what about 1860, something like that. And so now it’s a natural resource, but that’s only because smart people figured out how to use it. And so there’s always this dynamic interplay between human ingenuity and governance structures and plenty. And one of the things I’ve really come to understand is that abundance depends on the integrity of the individual, the moral integrity of the individual and the validity of the governance structures far more than it does on natural resources. There’s a zero sum presumption in the natural resource discourse. That’s just absolutely wrong. I mean, back in the early 1900, for instance, iron is a big thing. We used to have just iron if it fell down as a meter, right? Now pretty much everything we know is built with iron and steel. And back in 1900, Carnegie, the rich guy, worried immensely about the fact, because it’s also important for military use, he worried that we were using up all the good iron and that there would be nothing left over for future generations. And what were they gonna do? How were they gonna defend themselves? All that kind of stuff. But what he failed to remember is that when, sure, we use up the easily accessible and high quality iron ore, so we have to dig deeper and we have to use worse iron ore, but we also have a lot more technology that makes it a lot easier to dig and utilize poor iron ore and get it out cheaper. That’s what innovation means. So actually what’s happened is that while we have used up the easily accessible iron ore, we have access to much, much more, much cheaper, much more effectively, and for all of humankind. And this is true for pretty much all resources. Well, there was a famous bet between Paul Ehrlich and Julian Simon. Ehrlich wrote the population bomb for everyone who’s listening. He’s still beating the same damn drum. Ehrlich and the Club of Rome types back in the 60s prognosticated that by the year 2000, there’d be mass starvation. And not only that, that the price of commodities would spike dramatically as inevitable scarcity kick in. So Ehrlich and the biological types who think his way think in Malthusian terms. And Malthus was an English thinker. He was a pastor, if I remember correctly, who posited that all things being equal, natural populations would expand to the point where they started to over-consume the available local resources and then collapse. So that’s like the yeast in a petri dish model of humanity. And there’s a couple of problems with that, is that it rarely works that way in the natural world because of checks and balances that emerge in ecosystems. But even more importantly, the idea that we are best modeled as yeast in a zero-sum petri dish is, let’s call it a bit presumptuous, if that. Alfred North Whitehead, great thinker, pointed out that the reason that human beings think is so that we can let our ideas die instead of us. And so what that means is that what human beings have done is replace biological death. You die when you do the same old stupid thing too many times. So you have to either die and then new organisms emerge that do something different, or you have to shift the way you do things, which is kind of a virtual death. And that’s what thought and discourse allows, is we can stop doing stupid things and we can start doing more efficient things. And there doesn’t seem to be any real upper limit to that. And I think the evidence for that is, well, first of all, Erlich had that famous bet with Julian Simons, who was an economist, who said, all right, you can pick the basket of commodities, and I’ll bet you, this was in the 60s, that by the year 2000, you can pick the arbitrary date, that those commodities will be less expensive, not more. And that there won’t be instances of mass starvation, except unless they’re politically produced. And of course, Simon famously collected in the year 2000, because what happened, even though Erlich picked the basket of commodities, was that the average price of the commodities had gone down so substantially that Erlich had to admit that he lost the bet. And that hasn’t stopped happening. You know, I mean, I’m old enough now so that I can remember when everyone was concerned about overpopulation. And at that point in the 60s, we were still, human beings were still trying to get a grip on the fact that we were sort of now operating at a planetary level. And it wasn’t obvious how much damage we might do. You know, there was reason for debate at least, but now we have eight billion people rather than the four we had in the year 2000. And the data is quite clear that as population has increased and governance structures improved, especially since the Soviet Union collapsed, that all that’s happened fundamentally is we have more brain power, and everyone’s far better off than they were. Like in all… We certainly have more technology and that’s basically what makes it possible for us to be more people and be better off and possibly actually leave with less environmental impact. So one of the things we have to realize is, there is a real environmental issue, but fundamentally, yes, but you’re only gonna fix them if you stop people from worrying about where’s my next meal gonna come from? Are my kids actually gonna be well educated? So on. So it’s about making sure that we actually pull people out of poverty, put them on a path to prosperity, and then we will also fix a lot of the environmental problems. Well, that bromide think globally act locally. Now that’s a bromide that in some ways manifests itself on the motivational front for environmentalists. It’s like, well, there’s some truth in that is what we’re doing with this conceptual scheme is thinking globally. The global scheme is, well, how do we ameliorate absolute poverty? Well, what’s so wonderful about that, and this is what struck me when I first reviewed the literature, was that if we concentrated on ameliorating absolute poverty, instead of making the planet worse, we would make the planet better by the standards of the radical environmentalists themselves. And I thought, oh, that’s so cool. We could have our cake and eat it too, and so could everybody else. And you think, well, that’s too good to be true. And so then you do the micro analysis, which is what you’ve done, and you find out, well, not only could we do that, we should do it, and we could do it so cheaply that no one would even notice that we were doing it. It would just mean we’d stop spending money on some of the, well, possibly not even that. We could keep spending all the money we’re spending stupidly and do this. Yeah, yeah. So let’s delve into the details. So what we’ve done is basically look over all of the sustainable development goals and look at where are the really good buys? Where can you actually do a lot of good for little money? And so we’ve come up with these 12 things. So these are 12 different teams of economists who’ve looked at each one of these there, the specialists, the best people in their area, to look at how much would this cost? How much good would it do? And what would it mean that they’re the best people? How did you identify them? And how would you justify your claim that you have the right people working on this? So I think, so the short answer is if you ask people in the area, are these some of the best people? They’re not, obviously not. Okay, okay, so it’s reputation. They would all say, yeah, these are some of the best people. They’re not the only people who could have done this, but they’re some of the best people who are doing this, who have published widely in the period of literature. They’re all at the famous universities and they are the ones who set the debate on how to do this. Okay, so there’d be a consensus on their expertise, even if they’d be replaceable to some degree. Oh, sure, and look, again, our point is not, so I’m gonna tell you about these things and tell you for every dollar we spend, you’ll do 65. It will save about 25 lives, along with the cost of the nurse, it’ll possibly cost about 4.9 billion a year. That’s not nothing, but it’s a very, very small, as we talked about, rounding error. Most of, a large part of this cost is actually women’s time because we need to get them into hospitals. So it’ll take more of their time. So the real financial cost is about 1, you could develop, and this, of course, is where economists come across as crude because we actually put a value of saving a human life. This is a very long conversation about how you do that, but we do that constantly in human societies. We decide whether we put in roundabout or not. Roundabout will save people, but it also costs money and it also slows down traffic. So how much do we wanna do that? We make those decisions all the time. Well, that’s always that prioritization. Yes, and so we simply make that decision explicit, and we take all the costs, all the benefits. It turns out for every dollar you spend, you will do 2.8 billion, the total bill of all the 12 is 5.5 billion a year. Again, nothing. And that would be primarily to research enterprises? This would totally be for research enterprises, so it would be for the Skier institutions. So the- And that is what? These are the international organizations that have been around since the first Green Revolution that are basically consisting a lot of plant researchers. I’m not quite sure exactly what their- Are they agronomists? Probably. And they’re the guys who do all the different kinds of seed varieties, and can they be more salt resistant, more drought resistant? More vitamin A in rice. All that kind of stuff. And then we would be giving it to national research organizations so they are better clued into what specifically does this particular- So we started making that a priority like we’ve made investigation into climate change a priority. Exactly. We say, well, no, we’re gonna shift the moral spotlight onto food development, and the reason for that is to ameliorate absolute poverty, and there’s nothing in that but benefit economic and otherwise, and it’s not expensive. And look, we don’t need to do a lot of spotlight. This is 184 billion in benefits, both for producers, for the farmers, and for the consumers, for the city dwellers. So it’s about 30, 34 to one. So you’d get 30 back on the dollar for about 1.4 billion in total, all these things we just talked about, and it’ll generate benefits about 72 million, so virtually nothing per year. The benefit is that they will be about 9 per child per year. Remember, the average spend is about 21 per kid and it delivers about the same as what we talked about with the structured teacher plans. It delivers about two years of learning for every one year you go to school. This is just one hour a day. So again, fantastic improvement. So that’s about 31. Now, this is more expensive, you have to buy the tablets. Given that you just need it one hour a day, a lot of different students are gonna be using the same tablet. You need to have a place you can lock them in so they don’t disappear. Still, some of them will disappear also because of corruption. You probably also need some solar panels because these places don’t have electricity to recharge them. So every day they get recharged. All of that is included in those costs. The benefit is that this will actually give almost three years of learning for every one year in school. And that’s an hour a day. This is just one hour a day. So basically, if you spend eight hours a day, seven hours, you learn virtually nothing like you normally did, and then one hour, you learn almost all of it. Isn’t that amazing that we can do that? Yeah, well computers are unbelievably good when they’re used properly at finding that zone of proximal development. And for necessities like basic automatization, say of letter recognition, computers are unbeatable because they can do repeated mass practice in a way that would drive any adult stark raving mad. Because you could get a kid who can’t see the difference between Ds and Bs, for example, you could just have them practice that 500 times for 15 minutes a day for a week, and they’d have the letter recognition down. You’d never get that in the standard classroom. Not probably in the entire educational lifetime of the child. So yeah, that’s very cool. That’s all a possibility. Crucial bits here is that the cost is still, you still have the teacher, so the teacher will be sitting in the room helping oversee this. Actually, they very rarely need them, but you need to make sure that the teachers don’t think that the computers are gonna take over their job. And that’s incredibly important, otherwise you’re not gonna have the teachers play along, and then you won’t be able to do this. And it doesn’t have to be the case that the computers are gonna replace their job, and shouldn’t be the case. It just means that the teacher should be available to help solve the problems that the kids are encountering while they’re engaged in the learning. Exactly. And so overall, so Malawi, for instance, a country that we worked in where we pointed this out as a very, very good intervention, is now actually setting up this for the entire primary school system. Oh, cool. Again, these are things that we can do. We estimate that there’s, so there’s about 467 million kids in primary school today in the poor half of the world. We’re estimating what would it cost to get 90% of them one of these three things that we talked about. We don’t know whether they interact. We don’t know whether you can actually double up. You can both have a tablet and have teacher plans. We don’t know whether that works. Well, there’s no reason to assume that it would top out. Like I doubt if it’s additive, and it would be lovely if it was multiplicative. But if you look at the effects of programs like Head Start, for example, you don’t get that multiplicative effect. But I think you could reasonably assume some near linear effect. So we’re simply making the very simple assumption of saying, we don’t know what different countries and different schools would do, so we’re simply assuming you’d do one third of each of these three things. Which is a rough approximation, just simply to get a sense of how much good would this do. Turns out that this would do 9.8 billion per year over this decade. And the benefits would come only, we’re only looking at the productivity benefits that these kids would become smarter, hence get higher salaries. That means that they would help produce more economic growth in their long-term future worth about 2,000 per kid, depending on which property we’re talking about. So basically about 10 billion, both in preserved healthcare costs. That’s more than just the nets would cost. And in productivity costs. The total cost is 48 of good. It’s an amazing return. Even if you just look at the- The save the malaria parasite environmentalists haven’t come after you on that front, eh? No, I don’t think so. I think most people feel that, yes, mosquitoes and malaria parasites are something that we could just have in a zoo. We could have fewer of them, at least. Yes, yes, certainly. Okay, it’s good to have a consensus on that. Yes, yeah. So fundamentally, we could do an amazing amount of good. And you could actually, just by looking at the savings, you would get more savings in the healthcare sector than the extra bed nets would cost. Why are we not doing it? Because it’s two different pots of money. Right, right, right. So, and of course, it only comes- Weird structural impediments, eh? And it comes a couple of years later. So, this is the kind of thing. Again, imagine if, I don’t know, Elon Musk was to say, I am gonna spend 4.4 billion. But it’ll save one and a half million lives every year. Again, this is just one of those things. It’ll generate benefits of 2.2 billion a year, and the net benefit, sorry, the benefit is about 11 trillion better off over the next 50 years. But there’s a cost of about a trillion dollars. And that’s the cost of all the people who work in import exposed industries. So essentially think of, and this is obviously an old term thinking, but think of the people who work in t-shirt sewing industries in rich countries. Yeah, they’re not gonna have a job in five or 10 years if you open up for trade. Now, eventually they’ll be doing other works. And I think there are very few people who sit around and feel like, I really missed out on that t-shirt sewing opportunity. So overall, in the long run, we all get better off, but there are certainly losses. Those losses are mostly in the rich world. Because, and this is when you think about it, it’s not surprising because that’s where, yeah, that’s where you’re least effective at doing the stuff that poor countries do really effectively. And so what we see is that in the rich world, the benefit cost ratio of free trade, or more trade, is only seven to one. So you get 1.7 billion a year, that’s not nothing, but the benefits is 7 back for every dollar. How do you best address the problem of the poorest strata in the rich world bearing the brunt of the free trade problem? Well, so I think, first of all, you need to recognize this there. And then you also should say, we should have much better re-education. So these guys should have the opportunity. First of all, I come from rich welfare states where we would take care of these people. We would fund them for many years and say, you can get unemployment insurance for quite a while. You will get re-education. You can do all kinds of other things. So access to retraining. Essentially, and re-education. Sorry, that sounds like it. Yeah, I know, I know, it’s a hell of a term. So more secondary education, more education. That you would get all those things that would enable you to now get another job. And of course, one of the things that can happen is that you actually realize, oh, I actually really like doing something else. You know, you get stuck in one place. And so this could also be an opportunity. Again, that’s hard sell right at the beginning. Yeah, well, you know, I developed this software to help people develop a vision for their life, you know? So what they do, it’s a prioritization exercise that’s akin in some ways. I like it. It’s a very good thing for people to do. And we had the, we had students, I’ll just tell you one study. They went to a trade school, a Mohawk college in Ontario. And they sat down and wrote out a vision for their life on seven dimensions. And so that was the dimensions are intimate relationship, family, job and career, education, personal self-care on the medical and psychological front, regulation of temptation like alcohol and drug abuse, and use of time outside of work, right? So now imagine you could have what you wanted. Now you could have it in those seven domains, five years down the road, how would you strategize towards that? So we had students do this for 90 minutes when they first came into their orientation session before they went to trade school, or they wrote for 90 minutes about what they’d done in the last two weeks. And we decreased the dropout rate 50%. And so for a 50 back in the dollar. I see, I see. Because if you move your McDonald’s worker, you will get benefit, but not just nearly as much. And there’s also a number of costs there. So what you’re doing is you’re maximizing the ability of the most in-demand productive people to move. And your sense is that will be of benefit to them, but also to the countries that they’ve left behind. Yes, and also to the countries that they move to. Yes, of course. And we’re only saying 10% more than what you already have. So a country that has a lot will take in a little more, a country that will take 10% more of that almost no more. So basically, it’s a more intelligent immigration policy. It’s a politically feasible thing to do. And it turns out that it’ll cost about 50 billion in benefits, mostly to these poor people who are now moving to rich countries and becoming more productive. But also because they’ll be sending back money and helping generate more education and more investing in, as you pointed out, more investing in local businesses back where they came from. So overall, it’s a good idea. It’s not, you know, it’s about 20 back of the dollar. So it’s a good idea. It’s not the best thing we should do. Well, that’s why it’s number 10. Again, well, so we should also talk about one other infectious disease. So we talked about malaria. Okay. But to pick the list- So is this a side shoot or is this number 11? No, this is 11. Okay. This is 11. Well, if we’re counting right. Yep, we are at 11. I think at some point we need to go back and make sure because we’re not quite sure what the 12th is, but we’ll figure that out. But 11th tuberculosis, and again, there’s no point. And we’re not making a list of priorities. We’re saying all 12 are amazing. Yeah. So number 11. So they’re not necessarily rank ordered within the 12. They’re not at all. Okay, okay, okay. No, and that’s crucial for us because we’re not, usually we would have ranked order. Yeah. But these are so cheap and so good that we should just do them. They’re ranked ordered sort of, if you will, compared to everything else you can do. Yeah. Okay, okay. So we’re simply saying, let’s do those 12. That’s also why they’re jumping around. So that would be like advice to any national government. Do at least one of these things or two of them. At least one of them or two, please. 12. Yeah, exactly. So number 11 is tuberculosis. So tuberculosis is a huge disease. It’s killed over the last 200 years about a billion people. Yep. If you think back in the 1800s, pretty much anyone you know from the 1800s probably died from tuberculosis. So about a fourth of all death was due to tuberculosis. And all the people who died before that time typically had tuberculosis. It’s a very city-oriented disease. So we’ve known it throughout human history, but it was really only when people got together in big cities, you need a lot of people together in pretty dense areas for tuberculosis really to get going. So it happened around 1600 in European cities. We had a little bit of it in Rome back in ancient times, but this was really something that came to the fore in 1600, 1700. So in 1700, 1800 in London, for instance, about one of every hundred people died every year from tuberculosis. So more people died from tuberculosis in 1800 than died from all diseases today in London. Yeah, it’s just outstanding how much this is. Now, what basically fixed it was we got antibiotics. We know how to get rid of it. So we got rid of it around 40s, 50s. So it basically dropped down. It dropped down before because you got richer. When you’re better fed, you don’t get tuberculosis easily. You sent people off to sanitoria. So we think it didn’t actually help very much, but it got rid of them. So they didn’t infect someone else. But we basically got rid of tuberculosis. Yet it’s the world’s leading infectious disease killer. It kills some 1.4, 1.5 million people. It killed last year more people than died from COVID. So COVID certainly outweighed it in 2020 and 2021, not in 2022. And so tuberculosis is back as the leading infectious disease killer. Yet virtually nobody cares about it because we don’t get it anymore. It’s just poor people, it’s marginalized people. And so in India, when they got independence in 1947, they realized that they had a huge tuberculosis problem. They had about half a million people dying from tuberculosis every year. Last year, India had about half a million people dying from tuberculosis. Now, admittedly, they’ve grown to about four times the size. So it’s a relatively smaller problem, but it’s still a huge problem. So we can save most of these people by investing in two things. So it’s basically about making sure that we discover more of the tuberculosis. The big problem right now is that we believe, we don’t know. We believe that about 10 or 11 million people get tuberculosis every year, but we only diagnose about six of them. So the rest of them are this untreated reservoir. Now, what happens is that when you have tuberculosis, you’ll typically go to a doctor, but it’s also very stigmatizing to have tuberculosis in many places. So you kind of go to the doctor and you hope him to say, oh, no, it’s not tuberculosis. If you go to a private doctor, you do that a lot in India and many other places, the doctor obviously has an incentive to keep you happy. So he will likely say, no, don’t worry. Take this drug, this other thing. Take this green powder, whatever it is. And so you don’t get treated, and 45% of people who remain untreated die from this. So we need to get more people identified. You do that by screening. You need to do this in large proportions. So these are very marginalized people. So it’d be people in slum cities, it’d be people in prisons, and the people who do mining, mining communities, those kinds of places where you would screen people. So in Bangladesh, for instance, we worked with the world’s biggest NGO that has more than a million workers there. They would hire old women to walk around and knock on people’s doors and say, has anyone been coughing a lot lately? And try to get them involved and then try to get them tested and then you can get on treatment. Most government actually offer this treatment for free, but the problem is it takes six months to get rid of tuberculosis. And if you’ve ever gotten medication, you just have to take it for 14 days, you get better after a week, then it becomes hard to remember. Yeah, compliance is a huge problem. If you have to do this for a half a year, you’re likely not to do it. So what we’re also saying is, and we’re working together. We can do it in a way that’ll increase antibiotic resistance, right? Absolutely, if you stop. Yeah, yeah, very, very bad. Then suddenly get a situation where it becomes a resistant tuberculosis and it becomes much more costly and much harder to deal with. And a much bigger public health threat. Absolutely. So what you need to do is to incentivize people. One of the ways is, you have sort of alcoholics anonymous kind of where you meet once a week and say proudly, yes, I took all my tuberculosis medication. You can get an app. You can also have premiums. You get like a juice box or something for every week where you’ve done this, where you’ve taken your medication. And it seems a little weird to pay people to take their medication, but what you have to remember. It isn’t weird once you understand how likely it is that people won’t be compliant. Because they deny they have the illness or they’re skeptical of the drugs or they forget because you do forget things you have to do every day unless it’s really instilled as a habit. And so no, compliance is a major problem. And remember, if you have someone who’s untreated, chances are that that person every year will give on the tuberculosis somewhere between five and 15 other people. So by coughing. So the point is, if we can get that person to take his drugs or her drugs, it means not only would that person survive, but he or she won’t pass it on. And they won’t be making this multi-drug resistant tuberculosis. So we estimate that you can do about 6.2 billion. But the benefit will be, and now I forget, I have to look at my note. There’s too many numbers in this project. You said about 40 to one. So the benefit will be about 200 billion. So sorry, yes. That’s because I don’t actually remember that number. It’s 600,000 people will save every year for this decade. But as we get further in, it’s actually an underestimate of how good it’s gonna be because eventually we’ll save almost everyone. We’ll get tuberculosis down to 200,000. So it’d be nice to target that as a disease to eradicate if that was possibility. We’ve eradicated smallpox and damn, you’re killed off polio. We eradicated smallpox and that was an amazing achievement, but we haven’t gotten rid of polio. No. And it turns out it’s really, really hard to do these things. So again, we should probably be careful about saying we’d love to eradicate. It turns out that that’s very hard. Smallpox only infects humans. It doesn’t have a natural reservoir, as tuberculosis and many other diseases have, and that’s one of the reasons why it’s much, much harder to get rid of. Right, right. So what we’re looking at is minimizing it to the degree that that’s possible. So okay, so why don’t you take a look at the list? Well, I remember it now because we just talked about it. So number 12 is childhood vaccination. So obviously we know that vaccinations are incredibly good. As you pointed out, with smallpox, we’ve gotten rid of smallpox. Smallpox was a reason why we started with vaccinations. Probably before 1900, we estimate that one in seven people of everyone who’s ever lived on the planet died from smallpox. And basically we got rid of it. We killed about 300 million in the 20th century, and then we got rid of it. Last documented case was 1978. This is an amazing achievement. We estimate if we hadn’t gotten rid of it. Hoping there’s no lab in Wuhan that’s recooking it up. That’s true. Oh, now you just left me with that bad image in my head. Anyway, so fundamentally, if we hadn’t gotten rid of it, we estimate that every year we would have about five million people dying from smallpox. That’s just an incredible achievement. We’ve gotten rid of a lot of measles. So we give kids measles vaccinations. By all means, please get your measles vaccination. There’s a few people who don’t get it, and that’s a very bad idea. It saves literally millions of children’s lives. We have pertussis and tetanus, and we have lots of other things that we’re vaccinating against. We’re increasingly starting to vaccinate against a lot of other things you probably haven’t heard, or maybe haven’t heard about, rotaviruses. The major part of why a lot of children get diarrhea. If you get rotavirus vaccinations, you can actually reduce the amount of diarrhea and also reduce the number of kids that die. Great investment. We’re also starting to vaccinate against stuff that only happens far into the future. So for instance, hepatitis B. That’s not something that kids die from now, but if you vaccinate now, that means they avoid getting chronic liver disease and eventually die from liver cancer when they become old. If you vaccinate against human papillomavirus, HPV, you avoid, especially girls, getting cervical cancer. These are all great investments, and what we show is if you actually spent an extra 48 back on each dollar spent. The beauty of this is, again, it’s something we know how to do. It’s not rocket science. It’s very, very simple to do. So again, I’ve basically given you an outline of 12 amazing things, and these, I hope they’re sort of interesting stories, and they sort of give us both a perspective of how far we’ve come, but also how the poorest part of the world still needs to come further, and we know how to do this for 35 billion, and you could get benefits, so you could save 4.2 million people’s lives every year. That’s across the 12. That’s across the 12, and you could get economic benefits of 1 per person per day in the poor part of the world, for 35 billion, I can actually envision. So I don’t know if you remember somebody sort of suggested to Elon Musk that he could get rid of all of world hunger for 6 billion, I’m willing to do it. Show me how to do it. Yeah. And then turn it, oh, we can’t quite do that. So I’m not gonna offer Elon that deal because it’s not available. We can’t do something that good, but he could save, if he spent 175 billion on development aid. And a lot of this goes to nice things, but honestly, not nearly as effective things as what we’re, some of it goes to very, very effective things. We shouldn’t just dismantle the whole thing. But a lot of it also goes to, and I’ve seen this in a lot of developing countries where a lot of rich people come down and say, you worry about the climate, right? We’d like to give you a place to, we’ll collect the methane from your local garbage dump and get you some energy with that. And they’re like, yeah, that was not quite what we wanted, but if you’re gonna give it to us for free, we’ll take it rather than say no. But the sense is this was not what we would have chosen ourselves. And I think in some sense, we have a moral requirement to come out and say, maybe we should make sure we give the stuff to the developing world. Do you think these 12 steps that you, they fit into that category, these are programs that the developing countries would be thrilled to participate in if it was on the table? Again, I think if you ask any one politician, they would say some of these 12 and then some really dumb things. So, for instance, in India, one thing that they love to do, politicians, is pharma loan waivers. So, basically they say, you know what? You guys loaned a lot of money. I’m gonna waiver all of that. We’re just gonna pay it off for you. Which is obviously very popular and incredibly bad idea. Partly it’s incredibly costly for the government to pay off those loans because you now know that the government will probably do it next time. You’ll take up really bad loans. Plus you punish the people who actually paid the loans off. And the banks will increasingly not give loans to small whole farmers because they know that they’re gonna be forgiven. But the government will be really late in paying it off. So they’ll actually lose a lot of money. So they have all kinds of bad impacts. So, you know, politicians being politicians, and I understand they wanna get reelected, they’ll also be doing some bad proposal. But they will also want to embrace some of these great things. And we should all, as individuals, say this is some of the things we should be doing. What do you think people who are watching and listening, apart from being more generally informed about the fact that these options exist, and also hearing a narrative that isn’t, it’s sort of multi-dimensionally apocalyptic, which I think is quite interesting. Well, you’re saying, look, here’s 12 bins of serious problems. These are serious problems. Tuberculosis could get- But they’re not apocalyptic. No, no, no. They’re terrible. Right, right. But you know, you could, but if you were also paranoid, you could see apocalyptic possibilities emerging from them too. Like a really decent antibiotic resistant tuberculosis would be quite the bloody catastrophe. So I mean, there are places where positive feedback loops could be developing on any of these fronts. So what I’m pointing out is there’s many serious problems for us to continue with. I would love for people to take away from this conversation that if I want to be a good person, these are some of the 12. Just pick one and say, whenever people next time say, we should do something about plastic straws in the ocean, or we should do something about climate change, absolutely, but we haven’t been doing very well on these things, right? I actually have this really, really simple, incredibly effective policy proposal. Shouldn’t we do that first? Right, right, right. So you just have those arguments at hand. The argument is not to say no to everything else. Just to say, of all the things we can do, shouldn’t we do the very most effective things first? And so you ask me what’s gonna happen next. So the UN is gonna get together in September and sort of say, yay, we’re halfway on our sustainable development goals. And then in a more soft voice, they’re also gonna say, and we’re not doing very well. And so if we can get enough attention to these 12 things, and the fact that this will cost about 25 billion and end at 35 billion, and actually do an amazing amount of good. More good than we’ve done in a very, very long time at very low cost. And we know this is some of the most effective stuff we could possibly do in the world. I think. The doable doesn’t. The doable doesn’t, I like that. That’s the Financial Times. We didn’t even think of that. But yeah, it’s a great way of saying, let’s do best things first. Yeah, I can’t do my own title. Best things first. Yeah, well that seems like a good principle. All right, Bjorn, that was great, man. So for all of you who’ve been watching and listening, your time and attention is much appreciated. You’ll have to keep an eye out for Bjorn’s book, Best Things First, mid-April. And then you’ll have the arguments at hand in book form, and that’s always helpful. And thank you to the Daily Wire Plus people for facilitating this conversation, to the film crew here in Calgary, Alberta. That’s where we happen to be today. Bjorn and I happen to be in the same neck of the woods, so that’s good. And we’ll continue our conversations as we move forward. We’ve got other things cooking on the international development front, which I’m going to be talking about very soon on this YouTube channel, or may have already come out before this does. So, well, and I’m happy to do anything I can to facilitate communication about the doable dozen and best things first. So good to talk to you today, man. Likewise. Yeah, and? I’m actually writing in 35 papers around the world on all of these topics every, so the Financial Post in Canada, but the Biggest Daily in India and Indonesia and many other places in the world. And so we should be sharing that every week. Yes, absolutely, we’ll do that. That’s a short version of each one of these. So 800 words, you get the gist of every one of them. Yeah, and you said you’ve been getting a lot of interest in newspapers in the poorest half of the world, because they do see that the 12 proposals that you put forward are- Of course, they actually care about these things. Right, right, right, right. Yeah, yeah, well, and it’s also necessary for us, Don. One thing, maybe we could close with this. One thing that’s really disturbed me, like truly disturbed me in the last year has been this insistence, this apparent neo-colonial insistence on the part of wealthy people in the West that we just can’t afford to have the developed world strive to attain the same levels of security and opportunity that we’ve reached in the West. And first of all, I don’t think there’s any empirical evidence for that. I think it’s pretty damn weak claim on the factual front, given that if you make people richer, they start caring about the environment, plus their children don’t die and get to be educated, which seems to be a plus, but it’s also morally reprehensible. I do not understand why we think it’s in our proper moral purview to be saying to people in the bottom half of the developing world that, you know, well, turns out if you industrialize, there’s some costs and the environment bears some of those costs. And well, we just don’t think that you should do it and we’re not going to help you do it. And I don’t see that as moral in the least. In fact, quite contrary. It’s terrible. It’s terrible. You’re absolutely right, we’re doing it. Again, I understand this from the point of view. If you really believe the end of the world is nigh and global warming is the leading issue, then it may make sense to say, I’m sorry, everyone has to just stay poor. Actually, I’d like to make- You might want to start that with yourself. And that’s of course why this won’t work. You can’t even convince your own countries to become poor and you certainly can’t convince the poorer countries to say, yeah, sure, we’ll stay poor. So it’s not going to happen, but partly just simply making it a little harder for poor countries to get out of poverty is in my view immoral. But fundamentally we need to get people to realize, yes, climate change is a real problem, but it’s not this catastrophic end of the world. There is nothing in the UN climate panel, the new reports that came out from 2021, 2022, these 1,600 pages of- There’s no apocalypse eclipse. There’s no apocalypse in there. There is some problems that we will face and most of these problems will be much alleviated by people not being in poverty. So if a hurricane hits, if it hits Florida, yeah, it costs a lot of money, but it basically don’t kill very many people. If it hits in Guatemala, the same hurricane, it’ll kill lots of people and shut down the economy. That’s the point of being richer, being not poor, that you’re actually much more resilient. So again, we need to get people to realize this is one of many problems and it’s unfortunately one of the places where you can spend a lot of money and actually have very little impact. Whereas these 12 things, you can spend little money and have an enormous amount of impact. So again, my point is not to say that we shouldn’t spend money on all of these things and make sure that we try to make a better world, but at least we should- All the pet projects you want as long as you do the things that actually work. First. Right, first, yeah. All right, good. Hey, thanks. You bet, man, you bet. Yep, yep, well and again, thanks for everyone watching and listening and well, that’s that guys and onward we go. Thank you all. Hello everyone. I would encourage you to continue listening to my conversation with my guests on dailywireplus.com.