Learning the Hard Way, Weather & Conspiracy
Join us in this free-flowing, thoughtful conversation covering weather control ideas, wild conspiracy theories, fitness, and hilarious (but painful) childhood stories. Intelligent, funny, and insightful, this episode is full of unexpected turns
Now in the show
Episode Art 5 pieces
Full Transcript
Yeah. So, would sue and. Oh, and so being in China, you know, they're, ringing in 2 or 3 times a day. Still, which is great. So I'm able to get somewhat of a play by play, but, I'm going to wait till they come back and get the full rendition of the experience. So, we were talking about, these different layers of industrial complexes, which we thought would be a, decent topic to go over.
And, we have the classic, whole, you know, warning of the military industrial complex, I believe, as Eisenhower, you know, warned of the military industrial complex. But you look at the United States in its current form, obviously, the country we have the most context in is the United States. Well, sure. So you look at our government and its quasi relationship, where it's, integrated relationship with big business.
And you can just see, maybe distinctly, probably a dozen distinct industrial complexes within, you know, thousands of potential sub, industrial complexes within, in. Yeah. So, the first, first and foremost industrial complex, quote unquote, that we're all contained was the military industrial complex is when we were first. I think that's what, brought that into the, into the public consciousness idea of a complex of an industrial complex was first introduced by Eisenhower's war, you know, warning of, our nation becoming a big, giant military industrial complex.
And, that warning was well heeded. But if you look at fast forward to today, I think that we have a robust and clearly, well established military industrial complex in full effect. We did we do, and like you said, it is in concert with other industrial complexes, carving up the resources, the available resources, the available energies and people.
You know, it's it's not the only one. It is one of the easiest to glam on to and almost like, you know, baby's first industrial complex. You can pick that one apart so easily and you can see the connections easily. It's these big blue Lego bricks. These other ones are a little finer and a little more enmeshed in society, and they're a little bit difficult to kind of pick apart.
Right. So, once again, you.
So, the military industrial complex kind of important is, is, specifically interesting to me. Back in the day, John and I were, so named Raphael, I guess. Sure. Why not? He won't care. So we were working on a piece of software for the aerospace industry. Cool. And, in doing so, we went to a lot of trade shows and conventions and related, you know, the kind of thing that you expect in the aerospace industry and, and one of these conventions we went to there was representatives from Lockheed and Boeing there.
And, there was a presentation done by the, the Lockheed Fellows, like Lockheed Group and, Lockheed Martin. And, they were talking specifically, which was which was kind of weird because it was like they're saying the quiet part out loud and felt like, but they were openly saying at this convention, not only how they do a whole bunch of things that they do, but, speaking directly to not using the language, saying, saying directly, you know, military industrial complex, but they were speaking to that the actual needs of a of a military industrial complex in how they do what they do.
And, it was scary revealing. So first of all, they, they write lore themselves like, they, they actually like, give bills to legislatures to bring forward on their behalf. Yeah. So, and that was, that was reinforced later when Sue was working with. That's what I was the only surprise that you said, Sue pretty much said, they said the same thing.
Right. We had fully formed policy two, you know, people in the government, and they just execute right? So, there's this like, clear, it's almost like a bravado or like a brazen, you know, they that really takes you off guard if you've ever seen it before. Yep. Yeah. So this is what we do, right? Like we write the legislation that then, you know, gets more or less rubber stamped.
Yes. Inevitably sent into law. And so what that kind of lends person to believe not just in the military industrial complex, but all these industrial companies, which we will talk about, this idea of, you know, industry coming in and, running whole segments of our economy, you know, and being so intricate, so integrated and so instrumental in their power and the overt nature of it is, is not even this doesn't need to be hidden anymore.
It's not like a bunch of people in suits with smoky backroom with cigar smoke, right? Like carving up the future. It's just direct corporate activity. Yeah, yeah. And so, there's really, in my mind, no real difference. Especially when we talk about all this array of industrial complexes. There's no real, distinction on where industry ends and government begins and vice versa.
The lines have been blurred on purpose. Right. And, but then it's just that, like we've said before, it's kind of at least in our opinions, the result of late stage capitalism, it's late stage capitalism is, you know, basically everything. It's. It's, consolidation, it's M&A, mergers and acquisitions and acquisitions, eating entire segments of the economy.
It's, you know, it's it's, It's not it's not a good thing for the healthful effects of capitalism. It eats those that it basically all the things that people say about a free market don't exist anymore when you have hyper consolidation, there you go. And so if we have these array of initial complexes really being a stand in for what our government is supposed to be, the historic, classic kind of ideological, entities like the EPA, for example, really becomes less and less seen.
It has less and less significance over time as we move forward, because it's just a back end deal being made anyway. So, you know, with a stroke of a pen, a legislature can just rubber stamp something demand or a, you know, bill or law or whatever, that's put into play by some particular industry trumping all of the action.
Mr. Trump, you know, overriding all of the activity that's being done to kind of be by default against that. So I give these really well thought out and well placed, ethics rules, for example. So you have maybe like, let's say that I was in some particular role in government, I wouldn't be allowed to be taken out to dinner by somebody, by some company that these really strict ethic rules, as far as, you know, what you can take as gifts and, you know, junkets and all that kind of stuff.
But then overarching way above that is industry already writing laws in that particular segment. Yeah. So it's like it it makes the idea that, like, I can take a ham sandwich from some a company, you know, ridiculously sounding it where a higher level, they just say, here's your new law, like Nancy Pelosi, you can't take a ham sandwich.
But what she can do is, you know, do a myriad of things, like you said, take legislation wholesale from them or go on a golf trip or, you know, do insider trading with information that they give her to enrich herself. They, they didn't brighter, but they sure as hell told her when this product's coming out. Right, right.
The idea that they could take the information they learn in these committees and whatnot just directly apply to their own stock portfolios is seen. Whereas then you can't take, you know, nice dinner, you know, so ridiculously disproportionate. It's like, I would rather have material public, you know, material information. Then, for you to take me to dinner anyway.
Sure. It's kind of obvious when somebody has a $200,000 a year salary and made 4 million that year, you know, something's going on, and we're talking. Those are the people who don't know what they're doing or are making 4 million, you know? Right. You only made for me. It's like, what were you doing? Do you have ethics? And so there's this really nice pipeline for, you know, socialism for the wealthy elite.
I don't like elite because I don't think that's that's proper term, but, like, the, kind of socialized welfare for for ultra wealthy individuals and for businesses. Right. And this is the big players in these businesses that businesses themselves have these like, you know, definitely incredible array of, social programs that subsidize them tremendously. Yeah. When grants, tax subsidies, tax deferments.
Right, right. Sometimes direct government, you know, program grants, etc., something I don't think we've said, but, a plutocrat is a wealthy person who, in essence, runs things. Right. We have a plutocratic anti-democratic regime right now. We have a regime that, like you said, offers welfare for the rich and, well-connected and shunts the poor off into the corner.
Yeah, I kind of see it as like a pump and dump kind of scheme in a way. So, like, you pump up the, these industries with these, you know, subsidies and, you know, social welfare programs to these big corporations, and they go out and they use those, those funds and those incentives to have the capital to hire and acquire the best talent, acquire the best talent there is out there.
Right? The fresh graduates, the, seasoned talent, the people that are at the top, top of the industry. They have the ability to pay the high wage for those people. And then when those people, produce for them and, crank out a tremendous amount of intellectual property, that then asset stays with the company. So you have this really nice pipeline to where the, the, the people, if you will pay for the subsidizes and big programs through these industries, the industries then go out and hire the talent and the stereotype produces the IP, which then stays with the company.
So it doesn't go back. The profits of that and the proceeds from that doesn't go back to the taxpayer. Yeah. Never goes back to the people, you know. So it's welfare. Yeah, absolutely. And with this massive amount of intellectual property, it's how you have these zombie corporations that have survived for forever. They keep lumbering on like IBM. IBM is coasting off of things that it did in the 60s, 70s and 80s right now because it's such massive intellectual property that they can pretty much say, look, our portfolio of these patterns, we can take you out, we can take you out, we can take you out.
And so they, large swaths of what we can and can't do. And these, these patterns really curb and box in innovation, future and past makes sense. I think that like what sustain your pattern of 30 years or something. So some of this intellectual property so so then you have this like kind of counterpoint to where government kind of has to step in and do some of these things because our competitors, their natural competitors around the globe are, in some cases subsidizing even more so in certain situations, like in China and other governments where the government, the big industry is the government was directly linked.
It's not doesn't have this indirect plausible deniability for a separation. You know, the the means of production belong to the to the government in. Yeah. In certain mechanics. And then, you know, you find in those kind of situations, perhaps communism can be more effective than capitalism can be more facilitating to capitalism than, than a democratic or I feel like in the short term when you're trying to get an economy going, but I'm not an economist, but I feel like in the short term, when you're trying to get things going, owning and consolidating the means of production might make sense.
But then whenever you get to a certain point, you need to privatize them again. Yeah. So I think in a communistic or socialistic setting where the government owns the means of production, they can probably, I think, have kept the gears of capitalism even more lubricated because the government can just make the executive decision that here's what happened.
Whereas in a more undemocratic or representative republic, whatever want, I want to dice it up. Scenario, the individuals and the corporations will have more, rights to block certain initiatives. So the government can't just say, hey, we're we're building this thing, you know, we're eminent domain. We have eminent domain, right? But it's not like a whole country wide in domain, if you will like.
So for example, in China, they can just say, hey, we're putting this new bullet train through here and that's where it's going. It doesn't matter what anyone says. We're not doing archeological studies here. We're not doing right. We didn't find Indian arrowheads, and now we have to shut the project down for six months. No, wait. Yeah, it's it's being built, right?
Yeah. And so there's some advantages there. Life. And so, also you come in communistic socialistic kind of setting, you can just say, well, yeah, there's environmental pollution, but that's our private. And so then you have these cities laden with smog and garbage everywhere. And that's just I'm sorry, that's just the price for progress right now. You know, as we develop, that's just what it is.
It is what it is. And yes, you have inflamed, you have rage, you have your every disease and you have all these kind of, congenital problems coming from these massive, you know, pollution, you know, Somalia, you know, it's like you're seeing your face every day and, you know, sorry, but that's just the price. Yeah, yeah.
And so it becomes like a, industrial complex of humanity to some extent. So, like, you know, these people at large are working in the factories producing major quantities of and getting them black. Don't have diseases. Sure. Like the classic coal miner. Yeah, yeah, yeah. See, that's so sad. Yeah. Your generational coal miner is just part of it.
Yeah. And so there's really like this separation from the people. And then you go back to this whole concept in general of maybe in a global elite, let's say the one percenters of the globe, I think, tend to abstract and abstract is the best word. They kind of abstract away the, the human element of it and begin to look at human beings as simply as resources, not animals saying pawns on a chessboard.
I'm talking about, like the any given human being is simply a resource. They're a means to it. Yeah, yeah. Let's go with let's just go with, say back to your idea of you've got a corporation that has intellectual property that's operating in a high technology space, say, Tesla. Tesla hires engineers that are highly specialized and skilled in certain areas, is high wage, is subsidized by, you know, say they set up the Gigafactory in Texas, subsidized.
Oh, for 15 years. You guys don't have to pay taxes and taxes. Oh, for, you know, this and that. And so, you know, it all goes back to that. It's that's the machinations of how they do it. They take and then Elon Musk, the richest man in the world scripts, skims the cream off the top and rolls it into his next venture.
That man is running Six Ventures right now. You know, it's and he's just an extreme example of the basic way to operate and to become, for all intents and purposes, an oligarch. So the oligarch is is an interesting, term because when you look at the antics of our politicians and our leaders, you know, and how they, rub elbows and there's favors being done.
And we just talked about this whole wide array of industrial complexes. It kind of can't be really categorized as anything but an oligarchy or to even a more extreme, a kleptocracy. Yes, yes. And so if we if we're going to, progress to this, to this arena, if our whole country is going to be reoriented under the domain of, of a kleptocracy, then you can say, well, maybe that's a necessary thing because we're trying to have competitive advantage against, you know, all these other nations that are doing comparable or even more extreme things.
But then we, kind of kneecap ourselves or cut ourselves off at the, you know, a, a knees here by having anti-competitive consolidation in these industries where we have just we might as well have a state owned, you know, airline at this point. I mean, there's like three of them. Yeah. And so why do we, like, kind of hide it?
I mean, I remember Biden saying something, especially about the Ukraine situation, saying like, you know, we're we're sending all of our old hardware over there and send anybody to replenish our supplies, replenish those prices of factory. And Kentucky is doing it, you know, like those are jobs, right. And that that to my mind, you know, is just insanity.
Like, that's, that's saying it's good that we're bombing over here, throwing away, getting rid of all of our old equipment. Right. And they're going to pay us loans on, you know, they're going to be paying us back for that. And then in the meantime, that's good because it's jobs. But but yeah, but it doesn't make me scream. Yeah.
Who Jesus. Bacon win take 5000 I mean, it it doesn't. You know, it makes me pause too. It makes me scared. Yeah. And so with these, industrial complexes, carry with them the unbridled spirit of capitalism that comes in. And that spirit of capitalism is an omnipresent force that it has. It has a certain direction that it forces things in.
So like when you're, running a company, you're, you're kind of forcing the machinations of capitalism to make that company more profitable year after year. Right. And so there's an omnipresent force of capitalism driving these, kind of kind of the wind in the sails of all these different industrial complexes, because the industrial complex represents the conglomerate that's more effective than the individual.
Right? So like the bigger the business, the bigger the leaders, the bigger the, you know, pie basically the industrial complex, to put it in basic business terms, is the idea of vertical integration scaled up. It's taking an industry's idea of vertical integration, and it's scaling it up to an entire complex of anything related to it. It swallows everything and integrates it.
Yeah. And when you have the complex, you have people that are, you know, bright and really smart, particularly in their independent fields, working on their independence slice, their little sliver, their compartmentalized, you know, component. And that's key to making that happen with silos. Right. So the silo gets the human mind and imagination to focus on that task, that that mission, that small focus factor.
And rather than the broader picture of what's actually happening here. And so you can get, I think, good people to do bad things by compartmentalizing them into such a specific, you know, roles. And so you know, in doing so the, the, kind of all the gears can work really well together and produce something, for lack of better terms, evil.
Right. When all the little cogs are doing good. Yeah. You're right, but in their own, within their own paradigm, within their own, kind of sense of morality and obligations to themselves and their family, in their society because they're doing well. But in the grand scheme, you know, it it's it can be extremely, derogatory, harsh, harmful, you know.
Yeah. Bad, evil. Yeah. It's just like the guy who invented leaded gasoline. I mean, he's like, in demo videos. He's pouring it over his hands. He's showing he's like saying, oh, it won't hurt your kids. Then three days later, he's in the hospital, you know, and it's like, you know, all these things that were needed, innovations or things that would help us over the hump.
They're ultimately bad in the long term. Leaded gasoline crippled, been hurt us for a long time, and it's still hurting other nations. Yeah, sure, sure. So, like, you take something like, a cherry picking industrial complex. We started with military, but you can take something like the health industrial complex. Health care industrial complex, or call it. And inside that industrial complex, you have a lot of people, hell of a lot of people that got into that whole career field track to begin with because they wanted to help people be well, sure, they wanted to, you know, he'll heal the injured and and the Hippocratic Oath right here.
The sick. Right? Yeah. And then but they get into the machinations of that particular industrial complex and they, they have the, the some, some of the bastion of those, you know, things are artifacts are still there, but then it's over arched by or it's umbrella by the whole machinations of making money and and perpetuating the industrial complex.
So next thing you know, you have someone who is just then, you know, they're in for the right reasons, and they still are in for the right reasons. But there are inevitably those motivations and ambitions and observing that particular aspect of that particular industrial complex. And so when you zoom out and you look at at the end of the day, is that what's the what's the nature, overarching nature of the health care system in the, in, in the paradigm of the industrial complex as to extract as much money from people as possible.
It's not to make people well, right. It's to get as much as you can for, you know, inter health care and in essence, it's shifting value from people from IP to whoever you're trying to please. In this case a shareholder. It's always goes back to this. You're right. Right. But in the military industrial complex, the value is not necessarily being shifted to shareholder, but it's being shifted to, you know, certain groups who want to align their pockets with the resources, you know, and, you know, but it's all about shifting value and how do we.
Tip the scales in our favor? We are all parts of these complexes. We are all elements and sometimes unwilling agents of those complexes. How do we turn it back? So the one idea I threw out the other day when we were talking about this exact topic was that, maybe through some type of, technology or new type of thinking, new type of conglomeration we come up with, like the human industrial complex.
Yeah. This, this, industrial complex. That's, that's over it. It's it's clear out what it is and what it's stated to be. And the people involved with that are really kind of vigilantes. And, you know, industrious towards the health and welfare of people. In essence, this is somebody totally crazy, right? In essence, this is something cast in the image of the old consumer protection groups and ideas espoused by Ralph Nader.
Right? Sure, sure. You know, but it's that spirit. But but it's taking that spirit. But it's layering on the amplification of technology. Yeah. And with the overt, you know, objective of making it an industrial complex. Okay. Like, like so making it using the mechanics of an industrial complex to benefit, to inevitably, you know, reverberate back and so reverberate back, help people and to be a self-perpetuating thing that feeds and creates itself and heals itself.
Exactly. Yeah. And so the, a human industrial complex could be one of which, you know, has this quasi arm into government. Sure. Has this power and feedback loop to where taxpayer dollars are inevitably subsidize this, this industrial complex, right, with, with the irony that that industrial complex inevitably search the public at large. Because you're, you're really, going to have this push pull for traditional social programs if you say, hey, let's, you know, inflate, snap, to to where, like, nobody goes hungry, right?
Let's inflate, you know, the housing, urban development. Let's inflate that to where nobody is unhoused. And you keep doing that, you're going to get extreme pushback from the public at large, right? Because like, oh, what did they do to earn it? Right? You know, I work hard every day. You know, I, I do it the normal way. Why does this person hand out?
You know, but in essence, what we're talking about is trying to use this and does this human industrial complex to move the needle so that to reframe these ideas, to reframe the way people look at things and to have more of a managed capitalism? Exactly. So. Right, exactly. So, like if the candidate that supports this particular industrial complex is going to be the candidate always wins, right?
Because it's an industrial complex, it's positive feedback loop. At least that then isn't just going to some packets pocket. It's going back with the people. Yeah meaningful sale. So it's like a it's like a socialistic, endeavor within industrial complex. It it is, it is and and I guess that's what I, one of the things I did want to talk about in that, you know, I've been puzzling over how do we maintain these social programs in the context of a quasi capitalist society where we manage capitalism, we carve out an area for humans because humans aren't taken care of by capitalism.
Exactly. You know? Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. So right now there is a welfare industrial complex in place there it is. All big industries tainted. And, you, Yeah. So the Snap program, the, supplemental nutrition. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, sure. Yeah. So the snap, the snap program, for example. So like, you know, man, I think is the one that processes the card for, the Snap program.
And so there's like these, surrogates or these parasitic. I mean, it depends on your point of view, but there's all these companies that spin up as so there's all these companies that kind of spin up as subsidiaries or secondaries or, you know, like, primary or secondary tertiary type things that line up all around these different industrial complexes.
So just the admin fee, you know, for running the Snap program is incredibly big business should, you know, something like that. And so these, The concept of these various industrial complexes runs so deep. You know, we can probably talk a whole season podcast on this, but. Well, I'm, we're trying to, you know, summarize the basic, flavor and nature of industrial complexes in general.
And so I think that you even have like some negatives in perhaps like even like a nonprofit industrial complex. That's true. I think like you can have these, kind of quasi. So let's say that the government has a set program in place, and you can have then a bunch of nonprofits facilitating that program that are that are pushing an agenda.
And in the process of pushing that agenda, you could you could then have a feedback loop that goes back to the politician, a great example that fits your model organ donor. Each state has its own private contractor that's run it, that's implementing the program. Yeah. And through like the far the, the, the, the big government regulations regarding like how different companies have to, interact with government in terms of bids and contracts and all this kind of stuff.
I mean, the rules, like I said earlier, are so ridiculously stringent, stringent and like, as ethical as you can possibly imagine. But then all you have to do is zoom out and take it to one higher level, and then there's no holds barred, like there's, you know, you can have lobbyists, you can have, you know, like I said, industry's making direct connection directly, legislation directly, you know, coming out of these different organizations.
But I think the nature of the industrial complex through the lens of capitalism or through the omnipresent forces of capitalism creates, almost, I think it's fair to say an immoral backchannel. Right, because it's serving the ultimate purpose of capitalism problems above people. And so by nature, these industrial complex has become intensified and and more refined and more intense over time, where in a way they become very immoral and very derogatory.
Let me give you an example. So like the prison industrial complex, right in the prison industrial complex, these big conglomerates that that, build prisons and manage prisons on a private level, need to have a constant influx of criminals, of inmates to, you know, feed that particular complex. And so there's no incentive then built in for recidivism or for like non recidivism.
Right. You want recidivism for rehabilitation, right? Recidivism becomes the model of that particular industrial complex. Right. Well, it's that absolutely contrary to what we're trying to accomplish with the, you know, the prison punishments, punitive system. Sure. We're we're in theory, trying to create a mechanism for rehabilitation for, you know, non repeat offenders. Yeah. But one is an industrial complex.
You can believe the you you create the environment for the exact opposite. You incentivize recidivism. Yeah. Right. Like sure. Guy goes back on the public convinced of the crime comes right back in. Right. And the more in every industrial complex that has the fundamental elements of capitalism behind it, it's a perpetual growth model. It's exploitation is that it grows its bottom line, it grows.
It's infamously right. There is no cap. Sure. And so then that industrial complex has to then by default, pull in with it. You know, whether it's by design, by nature, by, you know, whatever the reason, I'm not like pointing a finger specifically at an individual or a group, but but by its very nature, then it creates an immorality within the, within the infrastructure.
And so, you know, it's marketing people, it's lobbyists, the lobbyists from the prison industrial complex outside. Right? The, the, the lobbyists are then going to work doing their job in a real compartmentalized fashion. But what they're advocating for is more prisons. Yes. And more people in those prisons. Right. And more profitability, inevitably, for the company. And so I don't think that that necessarily best serves humanity right.
I think, in fact, over time, it becomes the exact opposite. It becomes a disservice to humanity, a great service to the shareholders and stockholders that have leveraged themselves well and found political gains, recognize different channels, you know, in in the nature of an industrial complex, they've done their job within that environment. But that environment in and of itself, because it is a negative feedback loop to humanity.
And so I think if you take the industrial complexes and we've talked about health care industrial complex, the prison industrial complex, right. The you know, big pharma industrial complex, you know, you name that military industrial complex, there's industrial complex, you know, education industrial complex. You can you can pinpoint and define an industrial complex in every industry is sector of our economy because we've had anti-competitive hyper consolidation in every industry and in every way because we are I mean, that's where we're at.
And so the the ones that emerge as the winners in these paradigms are the ones that are willing to go to the more extreme to put the profits over people. And that's a negative feedback loop. Nebula is not going to work. It's going to it's going to it's like the snake eating its own tail, inevitably. Right. And then you get I think there's really not a stretch to argue that the nation that does these industrial conflicts is the best, is the strongest on the international stage, at least for some time.
Right. But inevitably, like, what are you if you win that game and you become the proponents, what are you actually representing the world in? Ultimately, what you're doing to win that game is you're trading. You're for lack of a better term, you're defying everything you for making everything. It's a new word. I've that my vocabulary. So you know group we're advocating for the disinterested ification of things.
But ultimately it's you. We talked about it outside of the podcast just now. It's it's an extractive model. It's a shifting of resources. And there's only there's a finite amount of these resources. There's a finite amount. You can only take so much abuse before things start fall, surely. And then if you have an entire government system, an entire culture, entire society predicated on layers of industrial complexes, it's I don't think it's really outrageous to, you know, say that that's an end game of failure.
Well, so I guess the game is to have the ebb and flow or the pension pull of all these various, you know, mechanisms to where your nation does better in the short, medium and long term than others would the kind of footnote that you'll be amending this whole system as you go forward. So I'm saying so like you're saying, okay, the whole world is in this particular state.
Yeah. Okay. So we're going to do best. We're going to be the best competitors in the state for this time window. But then with the footnote or the knowledge that ahead of time we're going to then recycle that back, you know. So do you think that there's overarching plans that the. I don't know who the oligarchs in charge and all of these countries are implementing over time.
Are they playing the long game or is it like you kind of see with with the CEO, you know, in the 1822 to 24 months range? Are they playing that game or are they playing the game? I think that they're playing, a game of like really, really sophisticated Jenga. Okay. Right. What can I pull out?
Yeah. What can I take or extract? Like you said, the extraction model and consume for myself which aka put it on top. Yeah. Okay. And what's happening is that technology and all these incredible advancements are serving really sophisticated, calculated, scientific ways to pull lower bricks out of the jail. Jenga prop, Jenga puzzle, Jenga tower and put them on the top and, and claim the victory.
Right, right. And the almost like, psychopathy of the whole thing is that they're willing to continue to play the game knowing inevitably, everybody knows inevitably, what happens in that game. And so it's like brinksmanship is like, you know, not only geopolitical but, societal brinksmanship. Yeah. You're seeing how far we can push a society where the haves benefit tremendously so much out of proportion to the have nots.
You know, we see how far we can put that almost in a brinksmanship type model. All right. You know, I can use tools and technology to, push it even further. Right. But there's, unfortunately, there's an underlying reality is that we live in a time, an era where technology has made us the most productive and the most profitable of any time in any of human history, of the greatest productivity of ever.
Yes. But the distribution of the fruits of that productivity is not, proportional. Yep. And uneven. Right. And I think that one of the greatest magnifiers of that disproportionality is these industrial complexes that we're talking about. And that's the that's the underlying nature of it. It's our yes, it's our unswerving dedication to capitalism. We look at it as both the bane of our existence and our Savior.
It can't be both. Look, it can't be. It's it's hurting us. And I'm not saying I want to be a communist. I'm not saying I want to be a socialist. I'm saying I want people to say to acknowledge that the free market exists no more. And we must manage our way out of this. I think that, yeah, I agree with you completely.
And I think that what we need to do to, start making big gains is start to throttle back the, you know, social welfare programs for the elite, the rich, the big corporations, corporate welfare as it needs to be, needs to be ratcheted back. Yeah. And then, not just not just then shift that to public or civilian welfare, but I think we need to do is that, turn that into an opportunity, shift both welfare structures, okay, both for the bottom and the top, shift those into an opportunity, system in the middle.
Okay. So that, like, everybody can then access that opportunity to so know, opportunity, like, greater access to education. Sure. Education and all the traditional markers that, like, you know, how you get yourself out of that poverty. Okay. So socioeconomic programs shifted from welfare programs, especially corporate welfare programs ratchet those back. Yeah. Tamp down the industrial complexes and take that money and reinvest it into the opportunities.
You know, take socioeconomic opportunity advancement. Yeah. It in, in, in realized gains for the majority of Americans. Okay. Yeah. That makes sense to me. And I mean, you know, it might just be my pension for this, but I feel like a crux of that could be universal basic income. You could be could be. No. Yeah. I mean, universal universal basic income inevitably is a subsidy for the wealthy.
Anyway, because the people that get that money go out and the economy and they spend it. Yeah. And it goes back. And so there's a baseline I think that is unrealistic to establish. There as a foundation for everybody. And then, what's nice too, is that the people with the means of production, the people where you go and spend the money, the merchants that you go to the grocery store spend money, you go to, you know, whatever and spend the money.
Is that, the that, that tier, that middle tier of the economy can dependent on a steady income, right? Services. I mean, everybody needs to recruit the there's a recurrence on the need to eat. Yeah. You know, there's a recurrence on the need to, you know, use basic facilities and, you know, and we talk about monthly recurring revenue.
I mean, I think what you're saying is really what we need to think. There's a monthly, weekly, daily recurrence of need. And how do we fulfill that need rather than ignore that need, ridicule that need. And basically Nelson. It. Yeah. Yeah I think the bottom 25% of our economy isn't necessarily well served by proxy wars around the world.
Sure. But the military industrial complex definitely is. I don't think the diabetes with obesity ridden general populace of the of the United States is best served by a health industrial complex. Right or not, but but but you know, the the reinvestment of that, into certain protocols like, you know, changing, changing the dynamics of what's allowed and allowed in our food supply.
Yeah. You know, would then pay back, you know, kind of tactful and maybe, you know, what we would save and what the government pays in, in the health care complex, we'd save in better health and wellness for the general populace. Yeah. Preventative. And we'd have a we'd have better engines in the economy. We'd have better little capital with soldiers.
I mean, we'd have people who could, you know, cheerlead that much better. I mean, you got to take you guys are doing it wrong. You got to take care of the resources that are that you're extracting from. You've got to build them back up. You can't just continually tear them down. Yeah. And so if there if we could perfect this, concept of a human industrial complex or otherwise, social industrial complex where we, you know, take all the, the benefits of the mechanisms of capitalism, you know, like efficiency, you know, cut waste, you know, or ever, ever drive for, for more efficiency and more productivity to and we put that back into a,
you know, health and wellness umbrella. I mean the sky's at that point, right. Yeah. And it ultimately it's a lot of creativity. It does. And I think I think we had hit upon the other night and maybe an element of it, personal agents for people that help manage their lives, their data, their, you know, and how they share that and how they share their energy and what they allocated to, you know, not saying that it offers necessarily continually prescriptive things, but that it guides cajoles convinces to help you be a little bit better.
So imagine a hyper sophisticated AI agent that can go through and help manifest the human industrial complex and improve people individually on a, you know, individual level, and then also have a broader vision of how do we, you know, take that to the yeah, industrial complex level, because these agents are working together. Yeah. Well, there's a there is an overarching purpose that's at a higher level intact.
Yeah. I mean, and then this whole thing at the end of the day kicks an enormous amount of creativity to move us from, you know, this layers of industrial complexes into a brave new world. You know, it takes a lot of a lot of creativity and ingenuity to do that. And I think that with the tools that we have, you know, at our disposal today, who knows what's going to be, available in the future.
It starts to become obtainable. Yeah. So I think we can take the power and the, you know, the, the energy than an industrial complex creates and find ways to then, you know, not necessarily divert it, but transform it into. Right, like something that just now benefits those big conglomerates but also benefits people almost transmute it, you know, transmute, you know, turn it from the the bad allocation that it is into some good allocation.
And, yeah, I get you I think that was a great quote. So use the best and brightest minds that we have. And in conjunction with the best technology, we have to transmute the current array of industrial complexes and unbridled capitalism into, right, some kind of new creative expression that combines the best elements of all those into the best possible outcome for people.
It sounds pretty amazing. It sounds good to me. Let's Patman, let's do it. Alia.