This thought-provoking episode explores capitalism versus socialism. We discuss the pros/cons associated with both, some related hot-button topics like healthcare and education, and we highlight the difficulty of change, especially for those who benefit from the status quo. Join us as we discuss this often-polarized topic.


Why not?

Why not?



What day is it, Justin?


Is it a Tuesday?

No, it’s a Wednesday.

It is a Wednesday, isn’t it?

And it’s Megan’s birthday.

Ah, happy birthday, Megan.


She’s 20 years old today.

Okay, I didn’t mean to laugh quite that hard.

You weren’t – I’m still having it that.

~ Yeah, well.

~ I just, I got nothing.

(laughing) – So yeah, well, happy birthday to Megan.

~ She’s still in her 30s.

~ Good for her.

~ That’s what I can tell you.

~ That’s fair enough.

~ And I’ll let it go.

~ I’ll let it go.

~ Or is it over me?

~ We’ll let it go with that.

~ Yes.

~ Yes.

~ She still got me.

~ Yeah.

~ Yep, I’m still the old guy.

She’s still the young spring chicken.

(laughing) – But yes, it’s her birthday today.

~ Well, neat.

~ I hope she has a good one.

~ Yes, any special plans that you can share?

~ Today, specifically, no, she’s got some plans as far as having a chill day and good things and I’m gonna make some cookies for her.

~ Oh, wow.

~ One of her requests.

So also I made a table for our deck, – How neat.

~ An outdoor table and kind of sort of as our birthday present for her.

~ How neat, yeah.

~ Neat.

What kind of cookies you can make?

~ Butterscotch cookies.

~ Butterscotch cookies.

~ That’s right.

~ Huh.

~ So she requested, I’m happy to oblige.

~ Nice.

~ Yeah, so.

~ Wow.

~ You can send me some good vibes.

I can make some good cookies.

~ There you go.

There you go.

I’m sure you can make some good cookies.

~ I can make good cookies.

~ Yeah.



~ Yeah.

~ When you think about sending vibes.

(laughing) – I knew I was gonna get caught with that one.

(laughing) Where do the vibes come from?

How do you send a vibe?

You have to like Make your brain vibrate.

Yeah towards somebody.


Yeah in a positive direction.

That’s right How can vibrate how can vibration be positive or negative?

I don’t take like a sign way.

I’m having your song.

Yeah Beach boys, yeah, I asked them about it.

I just I was asking you.

I don’t think I have a good answer anything – I think it’s just a positive feeling towards someone.

~ Sure, yeah.

~ Yeah, but I think about it, the ’70s, that was the ’70s, right?

When the Beach Boys were doing good vibrations.

~ I wish that sounded.

~ And it’s funny how it just seems like it has come back.

~ Yeah, it’s nice.

~ Yeah, lives is kind of a popular– – Yeah, it’s kind of a, yeah, right?

~ Yeah.

~ Back in the– – Vogue.

~ Now what’s the word we used to say that I looked up?

~ The Zitogeist?

~ Yeah.

~ Zeitgeist.

~ Zeitgeist.

~ Beetlejuice.

~ Exactly.

~ Yeah, Zeitgeist.

Back in the Zeitgeist.

~ Understood.

~ Yeah, that is interesting.

~ Yeah.

~ I think it’s a way to like, not be spiritual, but still be spiritual towards someone, if that makes sense.

~ It’s like a good blessing towards your two- – Yes, exactly, but without having to say, I’m praying for you or, you know, that kind of thing or like you said blessings.

~ Send and vibe, good vibes your way.

~ Yeah.

~ Okay.

~ Yeah.

~ It’s typically a very nice thing to hear, you know.

~ Just trying to catch up.

~ Yeah.

~ Yeah.

~ Making sure I was using it correctly in terminology.

If I should choose.

~ You can use that in your counseling sessions.

~ Oh yeah.

~ All right, let’s start off with some good vibes.

~ That sounds real nebulistic.

(laughing) – It is.

That’s the point I think.

~ There’s no clear.

~ There’s no clear.

~ It’s not offensive.

~ That’s right.

~ Unless you’re Mark.

~ No, I wasn’t offended.

I was just thinking about that, yeah.

As far as a practical sense.

~ I thought it would be weird to ask for a prayer that I made to cook cookies.

So when people hear this, the cookies will have been gone.

~ No, that’s true.

So it’s like, it’s nothing’s– – So all you can rely on is your good vibes at that point.

(laughing) Your prayers aren’t gonna help.

Can you send vibes in reverse?

I mean, over time, you know?

I know a prayer is, of course.

~ Yeah.

~ Yeah.

~ Yeah.

~ Yeah, that blessing song comes to mind.

Or bless you, keep you, make his face shiny, you know?

~ Yeah, that’s a huge thing.

~ Yeah, but it becomes part of legacy from my perspective.

~ Sure.

~ But yeah.

~ I think you can pray past prayers, right?

Don’t you think?

~ No, probably won’t get answered, but doesn’t mean you can’t pray it.

~ Prayers, is it effective?

~ Yeah, retroactive.

~ History?

~ Yeah.

~ I wouldn’t see why not.

~ I mean, Lazarus comes to mind, right?

~ Sure.

~ Not that they were praying he would come back to life.

They should have, they wouldn’t have their prayers answered.

~ There you go.

~ Keep that in mind.

~ Yeah, interesting, interesting.

is we can only, we can only pray.

I was thinking God would know the beginning from the end.

~ That’s right.

~ But if we’re praying about it, it’s either gonna happen or it’s something that has happened.

~ Yeah, well the thing is, but God knows.

~ Arguably God operates outside of time.

~ Right.

~ Right, so there’s no difference between asking for something in the future in the past, for him.

~ Sure.

I mean, that breaks our brain, right?

But I got you.

It’s not so linear for him.



But– So he would know the prayers that we’re praying in the future about our past.



So he could still answer our future prayers about our past.

He could.



Because he would know that they were going to be uttered at some time.

That’s right.


the thing in thing is if he listened to he knew we’re going to ask the prayer and he said I guess I’ll answer that then he would go back in time and then we would he would fix it no it’s not that he goes back in time and I haven’t asked him to come on now goes back in time changes it and then we don’t ask the prayer anymore because it never happened who right inception that’s not how I see it that’s – How do you see it?

~ I see it that he can hear, he knows our prayers for the future, and he takes them into account, even in the past.

Even what is my past now?

~ It’s part of the plan, the ultimate plan.

~ The ultimate plan.

That’s, yeah.

~ Yeah, I was gonna say that too.

~ You were gonna say that too.

But you chose to say what you said in the past.

~ This should be a time warp podcast.

Past, present, and future.

~ So now you need to just pause it and then fast-forward to the end and listen.

~ Well, you know that’s right.

But it’s interesting, I was thinking about how that ties into our topic.

Because I think as we think about our topic for the day, old versus new comes to mind.

’cause I think things do tend to get, like vibes, things do tend to become popular again, like bell bottoms.

~ Right.

~ Skinny jeans will come back eventually if they’re still around type thing.

But I think things get recycled.

~ ‘Cause history repeats itself.

~ History repeats itself.


~ Oh, you hear those birds?

~ I do hear those birds.

~ Very amplified.

I hope you like birds.

You’re listening.

~ ‘Cause it’s a nice cool morning, the windows are open, and yeah.

~ And that bird is happy, and we wouldn’t want to stop that.

~ That’s right.

~ Yeah, all of a sudden the history repeats itself.

I feel like, man, that one quote you have, the thing you talk about were the weak man.

~ Oh yeah.

~ You say.

(laughing) The bad times make strong men.

Strong men make good times.

Good times make weak men make bad times.




Good stuff.

There you go.

And that’s history repeating itself essentially and what was shunned by one generation starts to look appealing again.


You know, because you can see that pattern would have impacted that, right?

like things aren’t working the way they are.

Therefore we need something shiny and new.

~ Yep.

~ If you’re in bad times or if you’re in good times, you’re about protectionism and keep what we got.

~ Sure.

~ Even if it’s not exactly, right?

But yeah, but yeah, I agree.

That’s a good point about old and new.

~ Yeah.

~ So what are we talking about?

~ So when you think about that, I’m to see what other than that, what cycles come to mind?

What do you think of that something else?

Can you think of something else off the top of your head?

I mean, you can go to the topic, of course, but.

~ Well, I wouldn’t necessarily think of that topic because both of those concepts are fairly new in terms of what we call them, but maybe those systems existed previously.

~ Well, I think, and what we’re talking about is capitalism and socialism.

~ Okay, if you hadn’t, yes.

~ Pro-law, yeah, as if you could, No offense, anyone else out there is a little low, but we were.

But I think about that in the socialisms been around.


It’s not necessarily a new it’s it’s we’ve been able to see a cycle.


In what has been socialism.

I think of, you know, socialism in a lot of ways as, you know, similar to Marxism, you know, in that era, if you will.

And yet, I think it has become an a more popular perspective as we think about, you know, okay, I think, you know, no one, no one has to, you know, you don’t have to pay for your college education.

You know, that kind of thing.

I I think that’s socialistic in its thinking.

And yet I recognize how from my perspective, socialism kind of failed under Marxism in that era.

~ Which is kind of the extreme version of socialism, right?

Like by extreme, I mean, most ideal kind of mindset of how it should work.

Sure, but I think most things are presented.

Oh yeah, absolutely.

In their most ideal.

I say that, well, it’s kind of tipping my hand a little bit in the sense that I think it’ll be interesting to talk about so the democratic socialism thing that’s going on right now.


But I’m gonna have to jump there right now, but I feel like that is a different flavor, a modified flavor of the original, you know.

~ Yes, I hear where you’re coming from.

~ Extra intense version, right?

~ Okay, I see what you’re saying.

So it’s a modified version.

~ Yeah, yeah, yeah.

~ Because we recognize we– – Like a half-cap.

~ Okay.

(laughs) So we saw that the Marxist socialism didn’t work so we’re trying to reinvent it.

~ Yeah.

~ In such a way that it will work now.

~ Yeah, yeah.

So what’s interesting in the reason is, is because there are a pretty large contingency of people who don’t believe capitalism is working either.

~ Gotcha.

~ But it depends on your definition of working, and I think that’s really where the polarization comes, right?

Like once I will say that side’s not working, so we need this side, and the other side will, that side’s not working, and this one is, or whatever, you know, and I think it just– Can you explain that a little more?

‘Cause when you said one side’s not working, I was thinking I automatically went to work as in people are working, like a socialism dynamic.


But you were talking more about capitalism.

In other words, a model that’s not working.

Versus an individual that’s not working.

Well, this is something, yeah, right, right, right.

So I mean, look, that’s a good point.

And we should address that.

I would say a lot of people far from the ideas of socialism would say socialism really at its core is just about you not having to work and that’s dumb.

~ I got you, okay.

~ And that’s a very polarized viewpoint of it.

~ No, I hear you.

~ But one thing I’ve been hearing a lot from people who are up having appeal towards the democratic socialism or more, you know, is this idea that you work hard, but also there are some things that are just a right for you that are given as a right, because that’s what we believe in socially together is a right, so education would be one in healthcare.

Is the two most common things I’ve had.

~ Sure, no idea.

~ You can agree or disagree, but I’m saying that’s kind of the thing.

So there’s not this idea that you shouldn’t work.

It’s that your work shouldn’t have to account for those things.

~ Sure.

And I’m, yeah, because those things should be provided as a right to you.

Yeah, exactly.

Kind of, you know, one of the analogies is like you, you have this right to roads, right?

You can get across town.

You can get across the country.


Driving on these public roads.

There are a right that you have that is given by the government and it’s part of, you know, what you pay taxes.


Does that make sense?

there’s no reason that other than we just agreed together, that’s a good thing that you should have a right to.

So where do we draw those lines and say, yeah, but not healthcare or whatever.

And I’m not trying to make, here’s the thing, I’m not gonna try and make a case for anything, I’m just trying to say, I think there’s room for the conversation.

And like there are countries doing this, right?

I think Norway is one.

~ Okay.

were there a very successful country and they have very high taxes and they’re health care and you know school right colleges covered yeah education is covered to a degree right if you choose to go to a more expensive universe than you know whatever I think you know right there’s not limits but they’re doing that and their successful country and it hasn’t broken everyone you know and that because that’s the thing about socialism right especially Marxism is just everyone’s broke.

~ Sure.

~ When I mean that, I mean like– – Except for the few that are in control of that.

~ I don’t mean money broke.

I mean like spirit broke.

~ Oh okay.

~ Does that make sense?

~ Sure.

~ It’s like, you’ve talked about this.

We’re meant to work.

~ Right, purpose.

~ Yeah, you take away that purpose and say, well you’re gonna work, but it’s gonna be for the, everybody’s good and it’s really, man, just sucks the purpose out of each individual’s life.

~ Sure.

~ You just become a worker bee.

~ Yeah.

~ I’m curious what I, this is interesting ’cause that was the first I had ever thought about roads being a right.

~ Well, I, right.

~ ‘Cause I don’t know if that’s a right or– – Well, but that’s interesting ’cause I could say there’s things that I would probably use every day, like a road, like, you know, I wouldn’t necessarily consider it my right, you know, because in some ways I would automatically go to the fact, well, no, those roads are there, yes, but I also have to license a vehicle, I have to do these things, I have to pay for these things.

And granted, I can walk that road without paying anything for it.

So I’d still have the access to it, but yeah.

~ Well, I mean, roads is just one thing, but just go through the plethora of things that is provided through our taxes and through the government.

~ No, I hear you.

~ Yeah.

~ The list is very long.

~ Yeah.

~ So that’s kind of what I’m saying is like, where, why did we draw those lines?

~ Right, and I guess that’s where I think some of the polarization also comes from is because we want to assign, I would say those in the socialistic dynamic would say this is a right.

This should be a right.

And it’s like, okay.

why that, you know, and I hear understand, you know, where you’re coming from with healthcare and, you know, and right to education and there again, I would still, yeah, is a college education valuable to everyone, you know, in that process or, you know, ’cause I think so often it can get so focused.

And I think for years it has become so focused on, you know, college education that now we’re looking for trades and people that actually work with their hands-type stuff in such a way that we probably haven’t ever experienced before.

~ Well, I’m not gonna say this is for sure true, but if I recall correctly, I feel like European countries have way more trade reputation in schools, right, than college.

So like that, you could choose either path and have that paid for kind of thing.

~ I got you.

Don’t quote me, but I think that’s true, based on.

~ Yeah.

~ Based on one.

~ Justin is not saying he’s gonna leave, he’s anything against the United States and he’s moving to Europe tomorrow.

He’s not saying that.

~ No.

~ No.

~ He’s just aware.

~ Yeah.

~ Or thinks he is aware of a circumstance such as– – Right, he just thinks he’s his aware of things.

(laughing) – Things he knows.

The story of my life, this is how I see it.

So I can say whatever I want.

~ ‘Cause he thinks he knows.

And that’s okay too.

(laughs) – So anyways, back to that aspect of when you think about capitalism, ’cause it’s interesting as we have this discussion, it’s like there’s people that come to mind that we’ll talk about, like you’re saying, capitalism is just this terrible nasty thing, you know, that I have in my mind, And it’s like, you know, when you, and you know, it’s that democratic socialism perspective.


But yeah, and it’s just interesting how that has become more pervasive.



From a cyclical or yeah.

Well, we’ve talked about this too in the past about how the reason polarizing subjects become polarizing is because it becomes easier to push your point of view when you can quickly summarize and vilify the other point of view.

So like, I think any idea that becomes popular enough is going to find an enemy to say, I’m better than that, right?

And kind of summarize its problems in this cute little tidy package to say, look how bad it is.

So I mean, I feel like that’s just part of this whole, that’s why we do these conversations.


It’s like, let’s flatten this curve out a little better, like, you know, break down some of the problems with summarizing that other side.

So succinctly, right?


Because it’s not as never that simple.

And I think that’s where I’m at, even with the topic this morning, is like, okay, I’ll admit I’m pretty well entrenched if you can’t tell.

on the, you know, then I see capitalism as being a healthy principle, you know, in the process of when and as I define that, I’m willing to recognize, yes, parts of capitalism can take advantage of people.

And this is my how I see it from a pros and cons perspective, I’m willing to recognize capitalism can take advantage of people.


And that as I may, I’ll refer to it is that democratic socialization would be the other side of the spectrum that would say, okay, yeah, it’s not right to take advantage of people.


So in this democratic socialism, we won’t have our desire is to do away with, you know, this process where some people are taken advantage of.

And there are others who are getting all of the funds or having all of the income, making all the profit.

That’s where I’m, that’s where I’m, you know, yes, because in this democratic socialism, there’s the idea that that wouldn’t happen.


Or less so.

Less so, yes.

I mean, I have a caption version of it.

I would say that where the full-on version would say, it’s gone, you know, it’s very cool.


And that’s where we’re creating this continuum, if you will.

Yes, yeah.

That basically says on one end, you know, nobody has to pay and yet there just isn’t any purpose as we’re seeing it.

And yet there is this ability that we have in some ways to likely provide for education or for healthcare.

And then again, that dynamic becomes, okay, where do we draw this line?

So now do you have a right to a dog in a cat if you want one and you just go pick, I’m not trying to simplify, but where do those– – But it’s the same argument of the healthcare thing.

Like where do you draw the line?

Why do we get roads?

It’s like, you’re right.

At some point, we have to draw a line.

~ Yeah.

~ A lot of people would argue the line’s not far enough right now, and other people would argue it’s too far, right?

Like there’s certainly a ton of conservatives, minding people that say there’s too much government regulation in involvement right now, which I agree with ironically.

(laughing) Yeah.

~ So would you say, I mean, I’ll call it Obamacare.

Would you say that was a part of that democratic socialism where it started to become a process?

Okay, that’s we’re talking about the same thing.

Yeah, and I believe There are countries doing childcare Healthcare healthcare and I mean maybe childcare too Healthcare at the government level and it’s successful from From the perspective that we have right now with the amount of time they’ve been doing it right so that’s not a it’s not a crazy notion and that’s like, oh, what are they thinking?

It’s like, no, it’s a viable thing that there are countries that do.

That being said, the version that we came up with was just a typical kind of, I wanna say bastardized version of the original intent.

~ Okay.

~ Because it ended up having to have parents that were also Republicans, right?

If going with that analogy, And therefore what came out was kind of this amalgamation of having to please everybody.

And it’s just, I mean, especially it’s a rollout, right?

Originally, it was a laughing stock of the Republican side of like, look how terrible this website is, doesn’t work, that being said, I feel like it probably provides them opportunities where they didn’t exist before.

And there are many, many, many people in this country that are thankful that that became a thing, right?

~ Sure.

~ So at this point, I don’t know, I honestly don’t even know how engaged, how successful it is.

I don’t know if it’s successful.

I don’t know if it’s doing the job it’s supposed to.

I do know it’s not doing the job of the intent of the people who came up with this idea.

~ Sure.

~ I also know it’s doing more than what the people who didn’t want it to happen.

You know what I mean?

~ Right, right.

So I don’t know if that’s a great– Is it a positive?

Good example of like, you know, democratic, socialistic idea that’s currently in the works.

It feels like it’s a very much pared down, watered down version of it, but still bring some merit to some.

But again, this is very armchair, very how I see it.

Oh yeah.

I’d be interested to hear what people who actually know this stuff would say on both sides.

like people who say it doesn’t work in people.

~ I was thinking of Mary Beth and that kind of, someone who’s been in that health industry, and that dynamic where you hear, well, you don’t have access to other people and you have to, and I think I saw it in the community mental health, you have to go through these steps.

~ Yeah.

~ You can’t have access to that, yet because you haven’t tried this, this, this, and this.

So that’s the worst part to me about that, while my care is it, basically takes this democratic, social, holistic, ideal entry point and jams it on top of this terribly broken wonky system.

It’s just like it’s built on a terrible foundation, right?

The way insurance has always worked and the way healthcare has always worked in the US, which is very capitalistic based, right?

one would totally could and should argue that there are reasons why the US leads some innovation in terms of, you know, whatever, pharmaceutical things and treatment and it’s like, well, capitalism’s working in that sense.



But in the other sense, it means normal health care is broken.

I hear where you’re coming from.

You know, based on your best conversation, all that the way it’s systemized, the way They have certain quotas that they have to meet that don’t necessarily align with someone’s actual health Like just that whole system.

Yeah, go back to you know listen to that episode You’ll get the idea of it.

It’s like let’s take this system.

That’s this broken and let’s add on this other like Crazy attachment piece sure on the top to somehow create a funnel for some people to get into this crazy system Sure.

You know what I mean?

I do.

I do.

I hear where you’re coming from because in some ways if we think about it from a capitalistic perspective, you know, where, you know, if I may say big pharma, that kind of thing is driving the machine.


Or so it would seem, you know, based on what we’ve talked to and experienced that kind of thing.

Yeah, it does seem as if there is this desire to say, okay, this isn’t healthy capitalism.

If I may say so.

So we’re going to kind of amend that in some ways with this democratic socialism.

And we’re going to try and shift it.

And that’s how I.



You see why I choose the word I did.

It’s like this version that comes out at the end.


It’s just so silly.

That’s a nice way to put it.

But you’re hitting on this bigger idea that, again, I can speak pretty a lot of the talking points of the social-democrat, whatever they call it.

They’re great social.

Because a lot of the media I consume is people who are on that side.

I see a lot of the strengths and I think the arguments are good, but I also grew up in the capitalism argument and I can make that one, I think decently, but to me the more interesting argument is the democratic socialism one.

Whether I want our government to switch to that, well no, I really don’t think the kind of government that I think would work could happen in the US the way, you know what I mean?

understand that.

Okay, so because the foundation of Obamacare and the healthcare thing is a perfect example of that, like what you end up at the end of a thing is this compromise version.

And so I do think there’s some in order for some of that stuff to work, there needs to be some foundational shifts that are gonna up end a lot of, you know, the country in a bad way.

Like I don’t think it’s possible to do it any other way.

Whole industries are getting up and nitter shifter, whatever in order to shift this whole system to a way that is kind of fits the way that it can work successfully.


And I’m not arguing that that should happen, right?

Like I don’t know what the answer is other than that we keep working on it and seeing where our current system is failing and try and augment those things.

But I mean, I just feel like, would you and here again, I’m going to kind of shift it away from health care, not that we can’t, you know, stay there as far as that goes.

But I’m trying to think of other areas that would basically kind of affirm what you’re saying in this process.

But and I think of fuels or energy.


You know, as far as you know, our fossil fuel reliance, if you will, that could be another you know, and now we’re bringing, you know, electric cars into the dynamic, we’re bringing, you know, windmills online, you know, all these things that are costing or have a price tag associated with them, you know, photovoltaics as far as, you know, solar cells and that kind of thing, you know, versus, and I kind of think of that in some ways, as, you know, this, this process of trying to shift a foundational reliance on fossil fuel as far as gasoline and that kind of thing as we know it.

And I think that even what we might call the green dynamic or what was the other lady that had the green, she wanted to shut down.

Oh, she was like shutting down all the old antiquated government buildings.

I can’t think of her name.

You said green.

I thought of Ralph Nader.


I think that’s a great part of my life.

But he’s a green party.


But like you say, oh, sheucks.

But it’s okay.

There’s a lady here just recently.


You know, I was talking about, yeah.

But I think about it in that context of being able, you know, this desire to completely change.

and granted, I’m not opposed to supplemental things that, but I’m gonna almost, I’m gonna look at that from my capitalistic perspective and say, okay, is it beneficial long-term?

Are we just propping up a- – Trading one problem in our world for another.

~ Yeah, and are we propping up one system system, you know, like electric cars, if I may.

So as the government coming in to produce electric cars, but yet this isn’t really feasible for a long-term solution to offset our reliance, you know, that kind of thing.

That’s, you know, ’cause that’s a waste to me from that perspective.

Not that I’m not willing to look for alternatives, and I think there are some alternatives that are actually feasible, but for some reason, you know, we don’t always consider that.

It’s also about funding, right?

I think what you’re basically what you’re saying is the government’s throwing its weight behind electric cars and that kind of thing.

Therefore, that’s where the funding is.

That’s where the investment goes ’cause it’s like, well, if you’re successful, then we can get government backing and that’s part of our success metric, right?

So yeah, I think part of the issue with us not having other alternatives is just has to do with the focus of the– Well, and I think at times the government will prop up a dynamic that left to its own market and a capitalistic, it would fail otherwise.

Because unless the government threw that money in there, the average investor is saying now that’s not going to work.

That’s not going to make it.

Survival of the fittest and that’s not the fittest.


Yeah, I agree.

you know, that’s, that’s the other part of it.

I think that, you know, puts a, puts a negative taste because what it does, from my perspective, you know, it’s like now the, the person who’s just trying to mow lawns and put, you know, gasoline in their lawn mower to get lawn mows now has to pay a higher fuel price or something just because we’ve kind of made that market a little more volatile.


And now it fluctuates, it goes up, you know, because we’ve, you know, created.

And I’m not saying, but I think so often, as with a government dynamic, it’s when we’ve thrown this weight behind it, that it kind of shifts versus allowing something to build in such a way that says, okay, yeah, this is a viable alternative.

~ Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, and that’s, yeah, that’s the hard thing is like we do expect our government to do that sometimes.

where, where, where naturally things won’t occur, you know, sure, I did.


Well, I think, you know, propping up the housing market here just recently, I think that was, I think from what I hear from other people, bankers, you know, that kind of thing, that was a necessary thing for the government to come in and do now, whether it’s pro, whether it was necessary to prop up some of the, automotive, you know, years ago, Yeah, protect them from the natural ends that were coming at him.

Yeah, exactly.

Yeah, the bankruptcies and all that.

The bankruptcies, you know, you know, were, what was it?

Who was it?

Chrysler that didn’t take one and they had they saw a big bump in there.

It was Ford.

Was it Ford?


Because I just listened to the podcast episode.

Ford’s CEO was on it.

Interesting dude.

Oh, neat.

Yeah, he was talking about that.


Because I just recently saw their advertising that talks about how much, how many things they produce in the US too.

I know Ford is definitely.

But yeah.


So I think about that in that and I, I didn’t, and granted fossil fuels or energy is, is one more of those dynamics that I see, you know, where it kind of comes back to what you’re saying.

It would take a fundamental shift, you know, to do some of these things.

But I think, you know, yeah.



Can you think of another market?

Housing, you know, in automotive, we kind of talked about, but where do you know, where you see that dynamic between democratic socialism and capitalism, kind of desiring to morph one that is basically a foundational dynamic that we’ve become used to?

I don’t know, but I think I don’t know if I have an answer to that question.

Yeah, that’s okay.

Go ahead with yours.

Well, I was just thinking about how this is, I don’t know a ton about it, but I know I’m pretty sure the government controls the electric grid, right?

I hear you.

To a large degree.

I got you.

It makes sense.



And again, why’d we draw the line there?



they should have control over that.

Well, I think in a lot of ways it kind of feels obvious.

You know, if one of the great goes down, it could impact whatever.

I don’t know, stability, whatever.

~ Right.

~ Why don’t they then, well, here aren’t they in charge of internet, right?

~ Mm.

~ In other words, we’re drawing lines everywhere and saying this is where the government’s involved.

This is where it’s not, right?

~ Sure.

~ I think we get very hung up on, Yeah, but they can’t touch that because that turns us into socialism or whatever.

It’s like, well, why is that the thing?

I hear you.

It’s typically when the thing is something that is clearly for social good, right?

Like us, this idea of the idea of social benefit, right?


Health care or how I see what would be a social good versus what is currently in place.




Because we don’t think of roads or the electric grid.


The thing is for social good, it’s more ground level than that.


I don’t know.

It’s just interesting how we talk about it.

Well, it’s interesting that you think about it.

I mean, there’s that part of us that could say, yeah, if we have a federal government over top of this electrical, we’re able to balance out and make up for other states, if you will, that don’t have all of the ability to produce energy like some states that might.

You follow me?


I’m just in here again, nothing against anybody.

But you take a state like Texas that has, you know, southern states, let’s put it that way, who have sun most of the year versus northern, northeastern states that might not be able to take advantage of of photos cells and those kinds of things.

Whereas, you know, some places might have more wind options, you know, or hydroelectric dams where, you know, you know, you can generate energy and I can understand from a governmental perspective, okay, those places that can, you know, almost have the ability, I won’t necessarily– – The mandate.

~ Yeah, the mandate to provide for others that can’t.

~ Yeah.

~ And I can understand that.

But that’s working for us.

So it’s easy to kind of go.

Yeah, but that one’s necessary because look, you see how it’s necessary.

It’s basically kind of, I’m not saying this is what you’re doing.

But it’s like, that can become circular reasoning.

Like, well it’s necessary because it’s working.

It’s working because it’s necessary.

I got you.

It’s like, therefore it’s not the same as healthcare, for instance.


Again, we don’t know if that was fundamentally shifted to be more, you know, at the very low levels, government, whatever, right?

~ Sure.

~ Again, the shift that it would take, I can’t even fathom, but yeah, I’m curious if, it’d be interesting to know, which I don’t think we can know, if the way that the government handles the power grid has stifled innovation in that area in the US.

like these areas where the government is very involved in fundamental in the way the thing works.

It’d be interesting to know if that has stifled innovation ’cause that is one of the big arguments.

And I would imagine so probably.

But we kind of say that’s worth that, right?


The stability.

~ And I wanna say, based on where we are and the fact that the energy plant is right over there, We know a number of people who would argue that probably nuclear is the cheapest way to produce.

But yeah, it has a unsavory flavor to it for the, – Yeah, it gets bad press when they blow up.

(laughing) – And they cost a good bit to produce, to put the safeguards in place from a governmental standpoint.

It’s not like you can just put a reactor in your backyard with no oversight.

But yeah, it is interesting when we think about it in that stepping over or what it costs to do something versus what might seem more palatable but may not necessarily be as efficient.


cause other problems that yes are equally as distasteful.

You know, impacting the the world, sure, the environment, you know, and just in, but we don’t see those yet or that’s not as clear or maybe it’s not as eventful.

And or maybe they just don’t make the media type dynamic.

That’s why I mean, because yeah, so like, uh, what was that tsunami or whatever hit Japan?

And that’s what caused that nuclear plant to get submerged.

And, you know, they didn’t have the protocols in place for that type of event.

And that’s why it was a really bad thing.

But it’s like, that’s one big huge event.

Me too, it can all jump on and point to, but like the birds all dying ’cause of the windmills.

~ Right.

~ You know, it’s not one single event we can point to and I’ll jump on the news cycle at once.

And therefore now we have a villain we can point to.

And I feel like that’s part of nuclear’s problem, right?

when they go bad, everybody knows in those situations.

But overall, again, based on information from friends of ours that work there, like nuclear is one of the better ways to go in terms of impact on the government.

And you think, yeah, but it produces nuclear waste.

Well, they’ll produce some sort of waste and they’ll have– – There’s waste to do with that.

~ But we just have this idea of the villainy of a nuclear plant, right?

~ Yep.

~ So it’s gone out of favor.

We haven’t built very many nuclear plants in the last 50 years because of that, because we are a government by the people for the most part.

So like, you know, our representatives are going to allow new nuclei, exactly.

Who wants it?

Who wants the landfill?

Yeah, that kind of thing.



It’s interesting.


And it’s interesting that, I mean, as I think about, you know, just being able to have this conversation to allow, you know, kind of pull my personal biases and viewpoints back, you know, I think it’s interesting, because I think at the heart of some of this is our desire or reflects a desire for change.


And how difficult that can be.

especially the more, you know, beneficial that I see something being to me.

Yeah, the way it is.


Or the.



If it’s benefiting me currently, I probably have very little desire for it to change.


That’s normal.


That’s human nature.

Yeah, yeah.


And yeah, if you will, the our ability, and I think this is where the two come into conflict, And I think as I’m kind of wrestling with this, as the two come into conflict, it’s not everything has to always be about me.

And I can basically allow myself to be able to say, okay, is there a way that I can help someone else in that process, even if it might inhibit me a little bit?

Or maybe even a lot, if necessary.

~ The greater good kind of thing.

~ Yeah, that’s hard to do that.

You know, it’s interesting, you know, we talk about second order thinking before.

The Chesterton’s fence, so is this idea that, well, we can make this change now and it has these first order consequences, but what are the second order?

~ Sure.

~ And I would say both, you know, at every side of a polarizing argument, people are pretty good about second order thinking, the consequences of the thing they don’t want.

~ Oh, sure.

~ Right, like– – No, I hear you.

~ And like, that’s where you get all your talking points.

And that’s where people get really like yeah, that’s bad because if that happens then that will happen Which means that will happen yeah, but they’re not willing to do the same homework on the the status quo sure if we stay here What are the consequences to that?

What are the second order consequences?

We’re currently Entrenched in as a result of this status quo sure you know, I mean And of course both sides are good at kind of flinging that mud insane your second order consequences look like this You know exactly yeah, but yours look like this and I don’t know I just I thought that was it just sprung to my mind like how good we are about kind of really doing our homework and you know Listen to podcast whatever the news and going yeah, that’s right If if electric cars and that will happen in which means that will happen and yeah And instead of going, but if fossil fuels, then this is, and this is happening because of that.

It’s like, yeah, but I’ll take the devil I know, you know?

~ Yeah.

~ Right?

~ Yeah, no, I definitely, yeah.

And I think that can go so much further in our lives in some ways than just the topics of capitalism and socialism.

~ Yeah, so true, yeah.

~ That kind of thing as we, you know.

~ You know, there’s a term for government controlled by the companies.

you ever heard that?

~ Oh yeah?

~ Or that argument or that thing.

~ No, but I’d be curious to know.

~ Well, this isn’t the one I remember, but I did Google it.

It’s corporate, corporate, corporate.

~ Easy for you to say.

~ Corporate, corporate, corporate.

~ Okay, can you say that one more time?

~ No, I can’t, I probably can’t.

~ Corporate, corporate.

~ Yeah.

But that’s not, what’s in oligarchy?

Do you know what that is?

That’s the word that I thought.

~ I know of the word.

~ Okay, okay, okay.

~ Well, oligarchy is the one I was thinking of, and it’s a small group of people having control of a country organization or institution.

Basically, there’s been one of the arguments on the democratic socialism side, is that capitalism is produced in oligarchy.

In other words, the big corporations have the ability to lobby more than you do, Mark, for your little farm, right?

~ Yeah, I gotcha.

~ Therefore, the government is mostly, And then also funding, right?

~ Sure, I hear where you’re coming from.

~ Yeah, so ultimately, the people with the most money, aka corporations, end up having the most control in their war.

~ Sure.

~ We are in oligarchy because a small group of people run the government, it’s not by the people.

Does that make sense?

~ Yeah, yeah, yeah.

It definitely ends the way you come from.

~ Like, that’s a significant kind of viewpoint or stance that I think a lot of people on the pushing for democratic socialism is kind of a war crime.

there’s like, well, the way it is, the way capitalism has produced in oligarch, you think the government is for you, but they’re not there for Exxon.

You don’t even– – Gotcha.

~ Yeah.

~ And Apple or whatever.

Like the people who have the money to pay their way to the top.

~ Right.

~ You know?

~ Well, kind of like we talk about big pharma in the medical industry.

~ Yes, and big pharma, exactly, yeah.

So there’s a reason why we’ve had this opioid epidemic in the US is because of the lobbying for these drugs are good, right?

By people with lots of money, you know, pushing into the government system and therefore hiring, or hiring, causing politicians to get voted in who are then gonna vote for.

Yeah, we need to allow these drugs or whatever and then wouldn’t you know it?

Second order consequences, people are dying, right?

~ Sure, yeah.

~ You know what I’m saying?

~ No, I hear where you’re coming from.

~ But you know, these big pharma companies are doing mighty good as a result of all these deaths.

~ Sure.

~ Right?

~ No, I hear we come from them.

~ Financially, they’re doing pretty good and the investors are therefore doing pretty good.

~ Yep.

~ Right?

~ No, I hear where you’re coming from.

~ Yeah.

~ It’s kind of an interesting, and I’m not of those mindset that, well, if we adopt this other thing, it will fix it all.

~ Sure.

~ I don’t think that’s true at all.

I think they’re– – Justin wants to go back to Schruung’s for medication.

~ I’m gonna be a rogue.

That’s right.

Hey, if that works, you know, whatever Mary Beth says.

I don’t know.

I just feel like we live in a broken world.

And so therefore, and also entropy is one of the laws of physics, right?


Everything goes from basically, I divulves into devolves into chaos, right?


So from organization to chaos is the natural direction of things.

So we started the government with these– we hold these truths to be self-evident and created this very specific type of government that was very intentional and very defined and very– like principled, right?

And I feel like entropy has kind of taken over in the last 200-some years to where it’s I watered, it’s a decaf version of it, right?

~ I gotcha.

~ And it’s not the same government as it was then.

It can’t be for many reasons, right?

But also just the law of physics says, you know, anything that’s organized is gonna divulge into something less organized and more chaotic.

And that’s a physical thing, that’s a lot of physics, but you see it at work in general, right?

Like, because I think that’s a lot of sin nature more than anything.

~ Yeah, and I think that’s where I was, That’s where, of course, where my mind was going is that organizing factor of in God we trust type thing.

I think that are God, if you will, small G tends to shift with a capitalistic view or even a socialistic view.

And it’s like, okay, what is big G-God have to say about this?

And as we desire to forget about him and we tend to, our sin nature is gonna tend to, well, it’s all about me.

Whereas at times I need to be reflecting on, okay, how is my need being benefiting others or hurting others as well?

~ Yeah, you made me think of um, recovery, higher power.

So that’s a concept that’s in almost every recovery plan.


And even like an AA, whatever they say, the higher power can be whatever you want, but you need to have one.



It’s this idea that there’s something above you that’s more important.


You know, and that you’re willing to listen to over your own impulses.




which is very much kind of what you’re saying with.

In God we trust, I do believe was very much intended to provide that sort of perspective as a government to say.

Ultimately, we operate under a higher authority.

We’ve talked about this before too, right?

~ Sure.

~ We operate under higher authority.

So if it’s something we want, but it disagrees with that higher authority, we don’t do it.

~ Sure.

~ Right?

~ Yeah.

~ And like you said, we’ve kind of tried to get that idea out because we are our own higher authority.

~ But we know better.

~ We’re selfish and we’re petty and we’re, every addict will tell you, I need higher power because on my own, any addict who’s worked through some recovery goes, that higher power is crucial to it.

And again, one of the podcasts I listened to, he is an absolute atheist and he is an alcoholics anonymous And it’s not, he’s not very anonymous about it, but higher power is something that he talks about a lot, how it’s important for him to just give up control and recognize that, but he’s an atheist.


So there is something to this pulling ourselves out of our base nature and like what we think we need and want to cut basically what you were saying about, you know, what I want personally, you know.



So if we don’t trust in God, if it’s not in God, we trust that it’s in me, we trust in God.

Help us.


Yes, indeed.

Yes, indeed.

Well, I think that’s where we’re at for today.

That’s right.

This is capitalism and socialism revised.


So yes, the half – The half-cap version.

~ The half-cap versions.

This is how we see it.