Wealth Creation and Morality: A Discussion with Brian Simpson

Foreign. Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. Welcome to another episode of the Secular Foxhole podcast. Today we have returning guests.Brian Simpson is economics professor at National University in San Diego and he's written several books which, one of which is one of my all time favorites called Markets Don't Fail.And he's here today because he wrote a great editorial that appeared in several California newspapers called Elon Musk has a moral right to his trillion dollar net worth. Brian, how are you?

Good, Blair, thank you. Yeah, doing very well.

Great to have you as a returning guest, Brian.

Yes, Martin here, co host of the.

Yeah. What prompted you to write in defense of Elon Musk's wealth?

Yeah, really just the wealthy, productive individuals need to be defended. I think.You know, what they do in terms of producing wealth, being innovative, raising all our standards of living, it's extremely beneficial to everybody. Not just them, of course. They're producing products that we all benefit from.You know, whether it's elon Musk with SpaceX or Tesla or whatever it might be, we all benefit from that to the extent that we want to purchase those products and those products raise our standard of living.But other productive, extremely productive individuals like Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos, we all benefit from Amazon and being able to purchase things online. They are great benefactors to humanity from, from an economic standpoint.And really the fundamental reason why I wanted to def him is because of the moral reason. What they do is profoundly moral and individuals have a right to what they produce and what they earn, the income they earn.And we see that being attacked over and over again by politicians and other people wanting to expropriate wealth.And of course when Elon Musk's net worth went over a trillion dollars, I don't think it's still there now, still pretty high, but I think it's come down since, since the IPO of SpaceX. But he's earned that. He has a right to his own life just like everybody else.We all have a right to our own lives and the right to live our lives as we see best, using our minds to think and act, to produce values and pursue our own happiness.And so it doesn't matter whether, like I mentioned in the article, whether you earn a dollar or have a dollar net worth or a trillion dollar net worth, if you've earned it, voluntary trade, morally, it's yours by right. Nobody has the right to take that from you, politicians or whoever, criminals or whoever it might be.

And that's following, following along what you're just saying though. How does his wealth, wealth creation differ from other high net worth individuals. And how does that play into the inequality debate?

Yeah, I mean high net worth individuals, they're all extremely productive. Now Elon Musk, I think he' the, you know, even more productive. You know, he's just very, very innovative.You know, lots of ideas and being able to manage a lot of different types of businesses and harness the resources, not just capital goods, but the human talent to, to innovate and, and improve things in those areas.I think of, for instance, in, in the space business, he's improve and, or has helped improved, improve upon the building of rocket engines, making them less costly and, and efficient. And that's, you know, the rocket engines are an extremely complicated device.And I have a little bit of experience in this area because I started out in my first career not as an economist, but as an aerospace engineer. And, and so I know, and I worked on what's known as Delta launch vehicle. So this was in the 1990s.

In.

What used to be McDonnell Douglas is now Boeing though.So I was working, doing separation analyses for between stages of rockets and also the spacecraft and the launch vehicle that put the spacecraft into space.So yeah, rocket engines are extremely complicated and to reduce the number of parts needed to build them, you know, when you reduce the number of parts, generally you're reducing the cost of building those things. So he's enabled innovation and radically reduced the cost of getting into space. And that's extremely beneficial.So he seems to be, even when you're comparing high net worth individuals, far and away more innovative than others. But I certainly don't mean that it's a disparage like Jeff Bezos or Warren Buffett.I mean, Warren Buffett's retired now, but he worked till he's 95, I think it was, and extremely good at managing, you know, various types of businesses and employing capital in an efficient manner. So these individuals are just extremely productive and able to earn far more than the average person. And they have a right to it. They've earned it.It's honest, voluntary trade.And that plays into the inequality debate, I think, because that's where those who don't want inequality or want to lessen inequality, that's where they start their attacks. The ones who are the most prepared, productive, who are earning the most. So those people more than anything else, I think need to be defended.Not just from an economic standpoint, like I mentioned, you know, they're productive to people, but morally they, you know, we have a right to our own lives. And if they're Doing it honestly based on voluntary trade. They have a right to what they earn.They, they earn that by being that productive, by being able to manage those resources. So we need to defend them. And our standard of living depends on it.In a way, our standard of living is more dependent on those very productive individuals, those innovators. Those are the kinds of products that raise our standard of living more than anything else.So the Elon Musk's, Jeff Bezos or the John D. Rockefellers, if we go back that far with Standard Oil, you know, they, they have raised their standard of living tremendous amount.

True enough, true enough. A lot of the critics though claim that wealth itself harms society as a whole regardless of how it's earned.And can you continue elaborating on why that's wrong, if you will?

Wealth represents material goods made by human beings, made by man. So I mean, in a sense, certain types of wealth can harm human beings in, in the way that others use it.So if you run people over with an automobile, you're going to harm others. But it's not the wealth itself, it's how individuals use the wealth.Wealth, you know, in and of itself is a benefit to human beings that, you know, it's the material goods we produce. And goods are called goods because they're good, not, they're not bads, in other words, beneficial to human life.They, they support our, our lives in some way, shape or form, so we derive benefit from them. We can further our lives, our well being and our happiness through the use of wealth.There's, you know, there's all kinds of theories that, oh, you know, we're becoming separated more from nature as we become more productive, you know, because we live in homes that have air conditioning or, and indoor lighting and things like that. So we're not living as one with nature. But I'd say that's really, that's not a harm of wealth.I'd say that's specifically, that's based on environmentalist ideas and environmentalist ideas anti wealth and anti human because they seek to sacrifice human beings to nature. You know, one of their big mottos is back to the Pleistocene.And anybody who wants to go back and live like that, well, they're welcome to do it if they want to do it voluntarily, but they have no right to force others to do that. So I don't see any negative or downside to wealth. It's all beneficial. We have, it's.Some people can use wealth in harmful ways, you know, but, but that's really more or less their problem, their irrational ideas that they're embracing. And, and if they're using it to harm themselves, it's their problem. If they're using it to har. They're violating the rights of others.And that's what need a government to step in and protect rights. Like protecting the rights of Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos, whoever it might be.Well, the government must protect rights in general, protect us from the initiation of physical force. So people don't use things, whether forms of wealth or their fists for that matter, to violate our rights.So wealth is purely beneficial if you look at it from a rational standpoint, because it raises our standard of living, takes us out of the jungle.

True enough, true enough. Thank you for that though.But it was not that long ago, maybe four or five years ago, that Elon was the darling of the left, but when he joined Trump, he became public enemy number one. Why the shift in perception? And also we see a dedicated campaign to quote, abolish billionaires.Why shouldn't society impose hard limits on a personal or on personal wealth?

Right, yeah. And politics is becoming, becoming more and more tribal. I think certainly, certainly in the US between Democrats and Republicans.And you know, people are thinking or not thinking, they're thinking less rationally, so they accept certain premises.And if somebody doesn't fit into that group, so if you're a Democrat and somebody's a Republican, then it's almost like people don't even consider the viewpoint. It's just this, you know, the Democrats are my tribe, but it's true Republicans too. The Republicans are my tribe, so that's who I'm sticking with.And so I think that's a part of the reason why Elon Musk has become hated by the left.I mean, he was supporting Donald Trump Republicans and he was obviously in the administration for a little while in some sense trying to reduce the size of government. I'm not sure. I mean, he did reduce the number of employees I have in the government to some extent.I'm not sure how much of a long term effect that's going to have or how much effect on spending that really had by the government.

Doesn't look like it's had any effect on spending.

Yeah, yeah. Well, in other ways, spending has just been going up dramatically, so maybe it reduced the increase slightly.But, you know, and the left, of course wants more government spending. Democrats, you know, they want more government interference, more regulations.We see the, the shift to the left of the Democratic Party through the rise of the Democratic Socialists of America. You know, they're winning major elections. New York City mayor race is obviously one of the bigger ones.So there's certainly not going to be four limited government and reducing the scope and size and power of government. And so I think that's sort of the tribalism and also the desire for more government interference.I think those are two reasons why the left doesn't like or really has a hatred for Elon Musk.I mean, before he was known for working in the Trump administration, obviously he founded Tesla and you know, as an ev, and that's something very near and dear to environmentalists ideas. And so, you know, the environmentalists think electric vehicles are beneficial and to some extent they might.If it's based on voluntary trade and people want to purchase them, that's, that's fine. I mean, I think the EV market has risen to such extent due to a lot of subsidies provided by the government.I don't think it would be close to what it is without those subsidies. But, you know, once, once Musk associated himself with Trump, you know, that tribalism rose to the top.And, and I think that's why a lot of the reason why they have such, such hatred for, for Musk. But in terms of the, the second question you mentioned, abolishing billionaires.

Yeah.

Why shouldn't we put any hard limits on, on personal levels? Personally, I, I don't think we should have any limits. If you can, you can gain wealth again through voluntary honest trades.You're not committing fraud or anything like that. You know, the more wealth the better.And, and everybody else is better off because of that, that you have to produce products that other people want to purchase. So that's that win, win relationship with regard to trade and the same with regard to the jobs that you're creating in your business.You know, people will have more jobs and they're going to take those jobs, you know, based on their own voluntary choices to choose to take a job offer. So everybody benefits from that. This desire to abolish billionaires, it's just hatred of success. I want to penalize success, jealousy and envy.And very importantly, it's also power lust on the part of politicians I mentioned in the article. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and there are others as well. But, you know, it's, it's this desire to have control or power over others.How dare you do something that, that I haven't approved of. You're, you're earning, you, you have, that's too much wealth.I mean, if they really, I don't think it has anything or, you know, Maybe in some cases it has something, but I ultimately, fundamentally, it has nothing to do with, with helping those who can't help themselves. Because if they wanted to do that, then why not just do it voluntarily?Why not just, I mean, if, if you, if all the people, all the status and people who want government interference in the economy, all these people who want the welfare state, if they just provided funds voluntarily through private, voluntary charity to help people, you could easily help those who truly can't help themselves. I'm not talking about, you know, the parasites, the lazy people who just, or living off, you know, want to live off of others.They don't want to work.Basically only a very tiny fraction of the population in any society can't work or take care of themselves, whether they're, you know, severely crippled or mentally retarded or something like that. And, and it would be very easy through voluntary charity to take care of them. But that's not what the status do. That's not what they push for.They don't, they don't go around giving money to voluntary charities and trying to convince others that, hey, you know, you should give more to cheer that that would be fine for them to do. But they don't do that.No, what they do is they want to basically, in essence reach for a gun to force people to give, to help others, to give to, not to charities, but through the government, to the welfare state. And so it shows their power lust really, really shines through and that. So it's about gaining control of people's lives.It's about initiating force and violating individual rights. It's a vicious movement and it's really based on this altruist code of morality which I mentioned in the article. This belief is sacrifices of virtue.And Ayn Rand has shown very eloquently and in many different ways the destructive and vicious nature of altruism. And that egoism is really the only proper moral code for human beings to act on that that's consistent with the requirements of human life.And we need to act egoistically to further our lives and well being. And if we do that, we can all grow rich together.

You know, that's, that's a great point. There's so many misrepresentations of egoism or egotism. We had two mil, we've had two millennia of that. And it's so, it's, it's hard.You know, I've tried many times to say egoism does not mean, you know, you're walking past drowning children with your nose stuck up in or you, you get behind the wheel and you, you know, you're, you're inebriated beyond capacity and you get behind the wheel, you either kill yourself or you wipe out, you know, two or three or whatever, many dozen people. That's the, that's the epitome of selflessness.But they, some of them, some people look at me with like, they're just like they're so dumbfounded that they, you know, never heard that before in their lives. And other people, they all think about it but, and then they'll say I can't, I can't, I can't grasp that or you know, but.So we just have to keep on trying to explain it as best simple as we can. But I'm hoping you do that in your classes.

Yeah, I mean I'm an economist so I'm teaching economics mainly. But I do, I do always relate it to morality, at least in the beginning. You know, I'll discuss egoism versus altruism.In fact, there's a chapter in my book you mentioned Markets Don't Fail. Chapter one discusses egoism versus altruism.And I assign that chapter one at the beginning of every economics class I teach and I talk about egoism versus altruism and capitalism versus socialism in the mixed economy and compare and contrast and show how that capitalism is egoist based and socialism, the mixed economy are altruist based. And do talk about what egoism is in a little more detail. And ultimately the ego is the self and yourself. You are a rational being.Your mind is yourself. So in order to develop your values and pursue your happiness, you need to use your mind to the full extent possible.And also that means acting on principles, including mainly rational principles, right?

Yes.

Was respecting the rights of others. So driving while intoxicated, killing people just, you know, because maybe that's what some people might feel like doing.That's, it's not in your rational self interest. That's not rational at all. You know, you're not acting on a rational principle.You're violating the rights of others and at that point they have the right to defend themselves. So if, if, if they end up, you know, having to kill you to protect themselves, that there people have the right to do that.So you know, at a minimum, if you go around committing crimes, you know, people think that, oh, you know, acting in your self interest, you just, that means you do whatever you want to do, do whatever you feel like doing. Well, no, if you commit crimes, that's what you feel like doing. Well, people are going to Set their efforts against you.And the way that we do that in society is the government, you know, we have the police force or the military that protects our rights. And you're going to end up in jail, rightfully so if you go around committing crimes and violating the rights of others.And how is that in your self interest to end up where your freedom is justifiably taken away? You end up in jail or you know, if you go do things that are bad enough, you're going to end up killed by somebody defending their rights.They're going to shoot you possibly if they have to to defend their. So you end up dead. How is that in your rational self interest?So acting in your rational self interest isn't simply about doing whatever you feel like doing? No, it's acting on your, your judgment, your rational judgment. And that includes respecting the rights of others.

Well, let's, let's dovetail that into the DSA then because I have a neighbor who has the sign in their front yard saying, you know, can you imagine.org where all these things are laid out? No police, no jails, no. No bail, no prisons, no, you know, no borders, no military.And I'm like, okay, but let's, I'll direct all the criminals to your house. These people, it's right in front of me, it's right there. They want, they just want total anarchy.

Blair, I have to comment on that. I was living here in Troy, Ohio, there it was so safe so I could have the door open if I wanted.It was a safe place so that we have to build for a positive thing. I mean it's good to have prisons and police of course to protect individual rights.But it's what like Trump is doing now and others are chasing people, you know, and these ice and things like that, that's totally going in the wrong direction.But the DSA thing for me, coming from American in spirit, but in Sweden that some of these have called socialist paradise, but they haven't checked that even Scandinavia have developed. So in some way Scandinavia is more free than America in certain ways now.So it's interesting to see that they are building the democratic, so called democratic socialist America going in the wrong, totally wrong direction. And here in other areas it's learning from that bad experience. But I think it's a bit refreshing. I think it will be a positive backlash to it.I saw the other day here it was Bill Moore Mayer, what's his name, the comedian? Yeah, Bill Maher. He did a total episode about how dumb this is and out of control that it will be a backlash to it.So I thought that was pretty thoughtful of him to point out all the dumb things. But I want to then talk to the positive things. Since you have been here, Brian, now is the third time.First one is 2022 and then 2024 and your books and about Constitution and these articles, for example, in the Orange County Register. What have happened for you during this time?And the feedback on the article, have you got any positive feedback and have you seen positive signs regarding the free market and the Constitution?

Oh, over time? Well, in terms of the fee, I'll take the feedback on the article.The feedback on the article hasn't been a lot of feedback, but it's been all positive from the feedback I've received. So I haven't received any negative feedback on the article.But if you're talking about over time what's been happening in the US in terms of the trends, I think things are getting worse, and I think Trump is a part of that worsening trend. Trump is no advocate of a free market. That's. That's for sure.I mean, there might be some isolated things he's doing, like with regard to, you know, the epa, trying to reduce the, the power of the EPA or the Department of Education, both of which I would like to see abolished because they wouldn't exist if we had a free market. They both represent, you know, significant violations of rights. But overall, Trump is an authoritarian.And I think he, he wants people who agree with him. He's even, I've even heard that described in many ways that he, he wants people that, that do what he wants them to do.

That's why maybe. Yeah, Elon Musk was there. Oh, I know that it was for limited time.That was in the contract, but, you know, when Elon Musk was not saying yes all the time, he was not popular anymore. So that could be a thing also.

Yeah, I think so. And, you know, from what I've seen, you know, Trump certainly is not an advocate of the rule of law.I think one simple example is with the recent World cup soccer or football, I guess, where everybody else was. But that tournament, in one of the game, one of the matches, there was a US Player who got a red card and that meant he had to sit out the next game.And Trump called up, from this is what we've heard, he called up the fifth president and probably did a little arm twisting and things like that, and all of a sudden the penalty was overturned. And I think that's a perfect example. It's not the rule of law. But it's the rules that they're supposed to follow in the World cup tournament though.And I think that's how he is. You know, he wants gains however he can get them, even if he has to use the political process to get gains in terms of his wealth and so forth.So he's no advocate of the rule of law. And his immigration policy and his international trade policy are thoroughly anti capitalist.You know, the conservatives in the US like to, like to say that, well, we don't want open borders. Well, free immigration doesn't mean open borders, but it means people who are rights respecting, self supporting individuals.They can come and get jobs and purchase products here if they want and so forth. And we as Americans or in any country, you have the right to hire them if you want.You know, if I'm an employer, nobody has the right to tell me that I can't hire a foreign worker if I'd rather hire foreign workers than domestic workers. So it's a part of protecting, you know, our own freedom. Free immigration is.And free international trade policies obviously horrible violation rights on massive scale. One thing I wanted to touch upon though, I think Blair, you mentioned the dsa. Yeah.And they want to abolish all these things that we couldn't imagine people wanting to get rid of. Even the socialists of the past. So you know, from the 1930s they didn't want to abolish the police and things of that nature.So they were in some sense maybe a step above the da Democratic socialists of American.And I think it's the product that DSA is the product of just the growing irrationality, the irrationality that has, has existed for decades and, and it's creating these, these nihilistic individuals that literally turn everything on its head. So up is down, good is bad and so forth. It's all standards. And in fact, it's probably even worse because they abandoned all standards. Standards.I mean it's, you know, the left can't even tell the difference between a man and a woman anymore. You're a woman, you're a woman if you just feel like you're a woman, you know, or you want to be a woman, okay, you're a woman.And no, no, you might, as a man, you might want to be a woman or feel like you're a woman, but you're not a woman.You're just a man who wants to be a woman or feels like a woman, you know, so, so that's why, you know, they're allowing men to participate in women's sports. So, so the abandonment of all standards when you abandon the mind, when you ab.And you know, it may not happen instantly, but over time it does happen. You're going to end on all standards to achieve success and live in reality. And that's what this leads to. I think it's the.

Well, we even have a woman elected to the Supreme Court who couldn't define what a woman was. So I mean, it sits everywhere.

Right.

And again it's, it's 100 and what, 120. 150 Years of progressive education, certainly in.

The last century, which is thoroughly anti. Reason. Yeah. You throw out objective standards and, and that's. Yeah. And it's a little bit over time.And this is what you ultimately end up with, that there are no rational standards. That's, it's postmodernism, which, you know, is the intellectual sort of movement considered, I guess maybe the vanguard of our time.It's thoroughly irrational and destructive and it will only get worse. Unfortunately. I think it's going to continue to get worse in the US at least until before we see some positive changes.And I think there will be a backlash. And in one sense, yeah, it is kind of negative to think the trends are negative in terms of the abandonment of reasons.So epistemologically they're bad. The trends. Morally, morally they're bad. Politically, the trends are bad.But one thing that's, at least for the long term I see as a benefit is, you know, the two camps are becoming more extreme in nature. They're more. And what that means is they're more consistently embracing the fundamental ideas.So as the Democrats are moving to the further to the left, well, they're working out the inconsistencies and you know, the, the Republicans, they're not, you know, they're not advocates of capitalism, but they're becoming more religious. I would say they, they embrace the free market only as a means, I think, to, to support religion.They thought that was the way to, to spread religion, you know, because the communists were, were atheists and, and were opposed to religion. So they're in essence opposing communism and, and the opposition of religion that the communists had.Well, you know, in my view both those trends are irrational, but that works to our benefit.To the extent that they become more consistent in the ideas they embrace, it's much easier to point out the irrationality and show the real alternative that embracing reason, going by the morality of rational self interest and you know, that works to our benefit.And when I say our benefit, I mean those who actually advocate deep reason, morality, irrational self interest and laissez faire capitalism that works to our benefit.The problem is you kind of have to get over the hump where that irrationality grows and they have more power in government and they can do real damage as they have been doing before. The more fundamental philosophical trends can influence politics. So I don't know how bad it could get before it gets better.But you know, I, I, I am, I do have a positive, more positive outlook for the, for the distant future. The, the more long term future than the short term.

Well, you know, I certainly wish I could see it in my lifetime and I've tried to do everything I can to bring that about.You know, I've, as I've said many times on this show and I, I don't know if I touched on it when, when you, when you were a guest, Brandon, but I've over the years since I was introduced to the Fountain Head when I was 24, I've introduced 45 people to her ideas, Ayn Rand's ideas. Yeah. And all of them, all but one have said thank you. You know, that one person wanted to kill me.

Is that social down the street by any chance?

No, this was way back when I lived in actual and I lived in Nashville at the time. But so I mean I've in some small way I've tried to, hey, you know, you like to read here. Have you ever heard of Iran?And so yes, overwhelmingly positive results. But so I'm hoping in the long term and over the years that. Oh yeah, I remember, I remember if they see her name in the paper or something.

Yeah, I remember liking that book or.

I remember this or you know, and then if they, they and if objectivism becomes more recognizable in the culture, they'll go, oh yeah, hey that sounds good. You know, even that simple a thing would hopefully push it further along.

Yeah, that's all we can do is to pursue our self interest and, and you know, try to convince others to the extent that we have access to influence in them.

Yeah. And Brian, that you have done with your great work and being.

That's true.

Thanks again for being a guest here a couple of times. And so that's great. And I have a question related to Musk that it was pretty new thing called X money. Have you thought or seen that in the news?He has a history as a financial guy and he want to have that now on X. It's only available for premium user. I am on Twitter or X but only in the US so far.But I had hoped that it would be even linked more to real money like silver or gold or to Bitcoin.But it's more like a regular, you could say online bank in that way, but I think it have good, how to say conditions and if you have to save there and then you could use it and send it to other Twitter or X users and so on.But it would be interesting if it would be easy to like our podcast to show support and do this donation or giving back in a voluntary thing and then X or Twitter as I call it still would be a nice platform and tool for that. So it seems he wants I think to have an all in one platform of social media that you are spending your time on.And I mean it's interesting to see that it's still around and in a way it have developed with that service. So I think. Have you, have you thought anything about that?Like financial transactions online and doing it in a simple and safe way at the same time, right?

Yeah. Well, specifically with X Money. I have not heard of X X money. So is it a type of cryptocurrency then?

No, it's not. That's a thought. It will be in my view if it would be linked to real money like Bitcoin, I would be happy.But it's more like a regular, you know, card, bank card, whatever. But it's called X Money. But the thing is that you could.You have good conditions if you use it on X and you could simple send to another Twitter user or X user in different ways. So this will be for example, if we talked about soccer and World Cup.I mean in the future maybe you could pay in order to watch a live stream of like a football match for example or something. Or buying services and products in an easy way. And if that will then because he has Twitter is still plenty of users, even if many have left it.It's a great way of seeing how that could be used. It will be competition with the so called the old bank institutions and the regular banks and so on. But.And it could lead one thing could lead to another also.

So yeah, it sounds like it's more of an innovation in banking or finance maybe like micro banking or or micro lending perhaps as well too where the people don't have perhaps access to normal financial institutions could use this. But then he's probably using the national currencies. I would imagine the US dollar, maybe the euro too or the pound and things like that.It sounds like perhaps people might be able to access accounts that are denominated in, in those currencies. And yeah, I'm all for, you know, innovative ways of people engaging in banking or individuals providing banking services to others.And I'm for, I mean, as an advocate of laissez faire capitalism, I'm an advocate of free market money as well.So, you know, getting the government out of the monetary and banking system, including abolishing the Federal Reserve and, and central banks anywhere that they exist. And I think free market money. And as you guys know, I've written a book, two volume book called Money Banking in the Business Cycle.And I talk about how I think that free market money is gold or commodity money. And I still think that's true.Even with the rise of cryptocurrency, I still think gold and to some lesser extent silver, you know, commodity money is the best type of money and I think it would prevail even in, in, in competition with a cryptocurrency. But, but that doesn't mean that I, that people couldn't try as individuals to start new currencies because that's a part of the free market.Just like as an innovative producer you can introduce a new product, whatever that might be, whether you know, the automobile or smartphones or yeah, social media, whatever it might be, people can choose to use them or not. Then the same would be true in the monetary system and I think we'd have much more sound money.In the past, banks have issued bank notes based on gold deposited at the banks.And I think that's what you tend to have going on in a free market, if we had one today, and money, and that's the best way to ensure the stability and the centralness of a currency. Because people are going to manage that in a very judicious manner.They're not going to, you know, in a, in a, in a frivolous sense issue money like the US Government. I mean, governments have taken over the issuance of money to finance their own spending.I would argue, you know, they want to expand basically the wealth state and the regulatory state. And so they have a monopoly on the issuing of money.And so it's very easy to issue, you know, excess amounts of it when, when you have a monopoly, it's, you know, with the legal tender laws we have, it's basically that guarantees the, the government's monopoly in the US in the issuance of money.So I'm very much for, even though I think gold and to some extent silver as well would emerge in a free market as free market money, I'm very much for competition in the issuance of, of money and people attempting to, to issue, you know, even fiat money, like cryptocurrency is a type of fiat money where it's declared by fiat that can be used as a medium of exchange. They're going to have to manage it very carefully if they want people to accept it.You know, if the US Government was, if we could compete, somebody could compete with the US Government in issuing money. You know, it would discipline the US Government far more than without any competition and with the monopoly they have.So, yeah, yeah, I'm definitely in, in that sense. I, I think that's, that's the kind of innovation we need.And, and it's quite frankly, seems pretty typical of Elon Musk coming up with all kinds of innovations in a variety of industries.And that's why, you know, from an economic standpoint, one more reason why he deserves that trillion dollar at least now, close to a trillion dollars. I believe it might be down to only 800 billion net worth now, but he certainly deserves it from an economic standpoint and moral standpoint.

Here's a quick question, Martin, Let me throw this in and you can take back over.Would abolishing the Federal Reserve and saying opening the market for real money like the first step in stabilizing the culture or, but how do I want to put it? Would that be the first step in advancing toward freedom?

Right, yeah, I think it would be one of the latter steps. I mean, I think we have to start paring back the size and scope of government first.You know, that creates a lot of instability, that influence of the government.So getting rid of, you know, welfare, regulatory agencies, I would say, like the fda, the Food and Drug Administration, the epa, agencies that harm us, you know, more or less directly. I mean, we need money in existence.So that's something, I don't think that should be at the forefront in terms of abolishing at the forefront of our minds. I would like to cut back significantly the size and scope of government.And then as a part of that, probably not too much thereafter, too long thereafter, steps could be taken to move toward a gold standard in terms of, of the US Government's handing gold over to banks to back their assets. I think we'd have to start really backing the money supply. With 100% reserves.We have what's called a fractional reserve banking system, very small amounts of reserves backing the, the deposits, the checking deposits that are used as money. And that creates a lot of instability in the monetary system.So I think having that, at least at the beginning of the free market and money that's established. Having that money supply backed 100% by reserves would start it off with a level of stability that would be really unprecedented.It might come down a little bit. I tend to think if you had a pure free market and money, the reserves would tend to stay about 100% relative to the money that exists in the economy.Because I think banks would have to be very conservative if they knew that there wasn't somebody like the Fed or the treasury there to bail them out, they'd have to be much more conservative so they'd have far more, far more equity financing as opposed to debt financing.Most financing of banks today is through debt, you know, through, through things like checking deposits which are, is a form of lending to the bank banks. But I, I think that would, I'd like to see other areas of the government cut first before we start moving to a free market in, in money. See.

Yeah, I certainly want to see the Department of Education and yeah, I want to definitely just eliminate it, period.

Right.

Anyway, Martin, do you have anything else?

Yeah.Again I want to thank you Brian, for being a returning guest and as I said in an email here, I have added you to split to the previous episodes and I will do that to this new one.So if you listener, if you think this is value and you want to give back in a voluntary fashion, you could send a booster gram or a super comment going to for example, a new modern podcast application called TrueFans FM.And then you could send like a symbolic 1776 for example, that's around 1.7 or something like dollars and that will go directly to us and we will split it equally here.So that's a thing and that's fascinating how you could do it in a when it's free and open, but you have to talk about it and teach about it and ask about it in a nice way. And of course you listener, you decide what's the value you. So that's my call to action.Go to truefence FM and send us feedback and a note and yeah, great.

Well thank for having me.

Yeah.

Oh yes. Yeah, it's. We've had our guest today has been Brian Simpson, economics professor at National University, author.And the reason he was here was his great article on why Elon Musk deserves his trillion dollar wealth. Brian, thanks for manning the foxhole with us.

Thank you.

It's great to be here. Thank you.

Br.

Sam.