Tales of Abundance
Tales of Abundance artwork

All episodes

America Started as a Socialist Experiment. It Almost Killed Everyone.

Episode 82 · 15 July 2026 · 1 hr 8 min

Open on Spotify

Show notes

Jamestown Colony Socialism: How America Almost Died Before It Began

Jamestown colony socialism, with its shared labor, shared food and no private ownership, ended in starvation, and Plymouth went the same way. Randy Lorensen, Dr. John Oberg and Anthony Marino look at how giving settlers their own land changed everything. They use that history to frame America at 250: private property, incentives, the Bill of Rights and the pursuit of happiness.

America started as a socialist experiment.

And it almost killed everyone.

In this episode of Tales of Abundance, Randy Lorensen, Dr. John Oberg, and Anthony Marino look back at Jamestown and Plymouth—two early American settlements that began with shared labor, shared food, and no private ownership. The result was disaster: starvation, resentment, collapse, and death. But when people were given their own land, their own work, and the ability to keep what they produced, everything changed.

That lesson becomes the launching point for a bigger conversation about America at 250: what the Founding Fathers actually built, why private property and incentives matter, why the pursuit of happiness is not the same thing as a promise of happiness, and how America drifted from a limited republic toward a massive federal system.

The guys also wrestle with where we are today: career politicians, government growth, broken incentives, the K-shaped economy, taxation, opportunity, immigration, entrepreneurship, and whether America still offers the greatest shot at abundance if people understand the rules and take ownership of their future.

In the Abundance Briefing, they cover the launch of the Texas Stock Exchange, solar-powered desalination that could make clean water more abundant, and the first approved small modular nuclear reactor—a major step toward energy abundance.

If you care about America, freedom, incentives, capitalism, entrepreneurship, abundance, and how to create a better future without waiting for someone else to hand it to you, this episode is for you.

Pilgrims Tried Socialism, Founding Fathers on Private Property, and America 250

What you'll discover:

  • Why Jamestown and Plymouth nearly collapsed under shared labor and shared food
  • How ownership, incentives and private property turned things around
  • The Constitution, the Bill of Rights and George Washington walking away from power
  • The pursuit of happiness vs. a right to be happy, and why that difference matters
  • Career politicians, government growth, and how to build abundance inside today's system
  • In the Abundance Briefing: the Texas Stock Exchange, solar-powered desalination and the first approved small modular nuclear reactor

Timestamps

  • [00:00] Jamestown, Plymouth, and America’s failed socialist beginning
  • [02:03] Why socialism sounds good on paper but fails in reality
  • [03:28] Why the early settlers may not have had many better options
  • [05:21] Ownership, incentives, and why private property changed everything
  • [06:19] The Founding Fathers and the birth of self-determination
  • [09:48] What the founders risked to create America
  • [10:52] The Constitution, limited federal power, and the Bill of Rights
  • [12:27] Why the Bill of Rights limits government, not the individual
  • [13:13] George Washington’s decision to walk away from power
  • [14:44] Why peaceful transfer of power mattered so much
  • [16:58] The Boston Tea Party and taxation without representation
  • [20:06] The pursuit of happiness vs the right to be happy
  • [23:23] Why the Declaration was about being left free, not being given things
  • [24:11] Career politicians and how government changed
  • [26:15] Consolidated power, money, and political incentives
  • [29:22] Elections, donors, and who politicians really speak to
  • [32:00] How the federal government grew far beyond its original design
  • [35:04] How to create abundance inside today’s system
  • [36:51] The Five F’s and why abundance must be built intentionally
  • [38:18] Two competing messages: victimhood vs ownership
  • [42:25] What happens when government keeps spending other people’s money
  • [45:02] Why opportunity still exists, even in a broken system
  • [48:31] Where America may be headed over the next 250 years
  • [49:47] Why America was intended to be a republic, not a pure democracy
  • [51:31] The pursuit of happiness is not a promise. It is an invitation.
  • [52:45] The Texas Stock Exchange launches in Dallas
  • [54:53] What the Texas Stock Exchange could mean for New York and Wall Street
  • [56:20] Solar-powered desalination and the future of clean water
  • [59:15] Why energy is the bottleneck behind abundance
  • [59:56] The first small modular nuclear reactor is greenlit
  • [1:02:46] How much power a small nuclear reactor can actually produce
  • [1:05:27] Energy abundance, data centers, and the future of human progress

🌿 SPONSORED BY AG1 (Athletic Greens)

Fuel your health and performance from the inside out.

Try AG1: https://shop.drinkag1.com/tales

About the hosts

This is a hosts-only episode with no guest: Randy Lorensen, Dr. John Oberg and Anthony Marino. (Host bios are on the host pages linked below.)

Find us online:

Hit Subscribe so you never miss an episode of Tales of Abundance. 🔔

Related episodes

Meet the hosts: Randy Lorensen · Dr. John Oberg · Anthony Marino

Transcript

A full transcript is below. It was generated automatically from the episode audio, so expect some spelling errors in names and terms.

[00:02] travel back to6007, 419 years ago. We're in Jamestown, Virginia, and 104 settlers step off three ships. They have a deal. They work for a company back in England called the Virginia Company. And the agreement that they've all signed is that everyone works together. All food, all labor goes into the common storehouse. Nobody owns anything. By the winter of6009, 500 people lived in Jamestown. By the next spring, 60 were still alive. 88% of them died in one winter. 13 years later, Plymouth Colony is established by 102 settlers on the Mayflower. Same deal. Common storehouse, shared labor, no private ownership. They called it the common course. Now, theirs was more religious. The other was a was was a corporation. But the first winter, 44 died, starved to death. Three years later, people were still starving. Finally, in both cases, they made a decision. Governor Bradford with Plymouth Colonies, John Smith, with Jamestown, they gave people their own land to work, their own land to keep. And they and what was happening previous in both cases, you can probably guess, people were saying, well, you know, I work harder than John or Anthony does this or this person doesn't do that. women were like, "I have to take care of the kids."

[01:24] After they got their own land, the exact opposite. People worked harder. They the women that previously didn't want to work because they were home taking care of the kids were taking the kids to the fields with them. And all of a sudden, they started flourishing. And that is, you know, in a lot of ways the founding of America. We started out, nobody really talks about this, but we s started out as a socialist experiment experiment in two different ways. And it ended the same way that socialism has always worked throughout history. And so what what are the lessons, John, Anthony, what are the lessons that we should learn from this? — Go ahead, Jeeoff. — I look I, you know, over 20,000 years of sociology that I've read about, I have not seen where socialism has ever worked as an experiment. going back to the earliest, you know, groups, tribes of 150 people that were nomadic when somebody wasn't producing, sometimes they were excused from the tribe to go find a different tribe and sometimes they were just kicked out and killed. And so I while inhumane and unacceptable in today's world, I think, you know, generally speaking, um there's been societies that understand that that productivity matters, you know, and I think I would say that even the biology of the body is meant to work. And so I think sociology is nice on paper or I'm sorry, socialism is nice on paper. I think communism is nice on paper, but I think it's been a failed experiment in most cases for all the reasons you just talked about is that people want to control somebody else or expect someone else to provide for them versus taking care of themselves. And and I've got a bias toward that myself. So I I recognize that bias, but that's that.

[03:00] But I do think that, you know, having community and taking care of one another as a choice is an important part of community as well. And that often gets missed in kind of an unchecked capitalism which I think can be just as dangerous as like a purely socialistic environment. So I think there's like we're seeing today the the polar ends of things can be problematic and having a balance or moderation. I have a little sign on my desk that says moderation in all things including moderation. Oscar Wild. So — yeah, I'll defend the Jamestown and Plymouth folks from the perspective of I don't know what choice they had when they came when they, you know, cross the ocean. They were they were, you know, escaping, if you will, the totalitarian government, a government government that in the case of the Plymouth folks, they were their religion was being suppressed and repressed and oppressed. And so they they were, you know, as they crossed over, it looked good. Looked like a good idea. And John, it's interesting you said something about, you know, tribes in the past, what they did when someone didn't contribute. Had that been in place in in this in these instances, would there have been a different result? And if that were in place now, would we have a different result? In other words, if someone doesn't contribute equally to the to the cause, can they be how could we cast them aside? You know, do we put them on the street and have them fend for themselves? Things like that. So I'm, you know, yeah, it didn't work, but what what else were they going to do at the time? I mean, you're talking about a hundred people coming to a land that they had no idea what was here, what the what the land would reap, what what they were going to see when they got here.

[04:40] They saw some good things. They said some difficulties. Hell, their weather was very different than the weather that they left, especially in Massachusetts at the time. So, it's not surprising that that they struggled as much as they did. I feel for them. I I understand what they what they were up against. But eventually, as you said, they found not so much a solution, but another way to go about it, which which got them to start advancing one step at a time. There was still tremendous struggles during that time. This was, you know, this was a brutal brutal journey for these folks. and then the folks that followed along. So — yeah, I think it's right. It was the same people, same land, same tools, but what changed was ownership or more importantly the ownership changed the incentives if we really want to get down to first principles. It changed the incentives, made people work harder. And you know, people came here to be part of this collective, which seemed nice. And then what it really turned America into was a place of rugged individualism, freedom, and an opportunity to chase success and an opportunity to be free.

[05:56] So Anthony, let's do a jump. We're going to go from the early 1600s to 1776. It's a 250th year anniversary of the country. So, you know, this culture kind of stayed through and and I want you to talk a little bit about the founding fathers and what you know how they set up a country once it really became officially a country in 1776. — Well, you can't well you can't ignore the fact that 100 years later they were still under the thumb of the crown in a lot of ways. So despite, you know, owning their own land and producing their own products and and produce and what have you, they were still, you know, at at the mercy of the crown, right? They were sending things back to the crown. They were still bending the knee. And along came a group of men who said, "Well, wait a minute. What are we getting for all this? you know what what's our ROI on bending the knee to the crown and they you know they decided that they were going to lay their lives on the line literally lay their lives on the line to extract themselves from the control of the English crown and the the I'll call them politicians but the power brokers that the king sent into the colonies to set up governments to control commerce, you know, to keep their thumb, you know, on on the population. So, the founding fathers had a completely different view of the world. And this is this is the birth of self-determination, true They, you know, in their writings, not just in the constitution, most believed, not all, there was there was arguments here. Most believed that the central government should have very very few powers and I and I won't get the history right but the powers that it should have is you know to pro protect the borders some level of of taxation very few very few powers and the power to the people was was pushed through the states so not only did they believe in self-determination you know the the the the right to pursue to happiness, not necessarily to be happy, you know, freedom of speech, the freedom to carry firearms and to protect yourself, all those inal inalienable But they they wanted to do it not in a central government per se, but they wanted people in each state, which they viewed as individual communities, different communities. Georgia was different than Massachusetts, was different than Pennsylvania. You know there were agrarian economies, there were fishing economies, there were cattle raising economies, there were manufact manufacturing started to become a significant significant economy especially in New Hampshire and the New England states textiles and so on and so forth. So they saw the differences in people and wanted those people to and that's the essential core of where they were. Now, we can have a conversation about where we are. I'm not going to bring the conversation down, but that was their tenant. You know, self-determination at a local level at it. And by the way, risk your life.

[09:28] You know, the license plate in New Hampshire still reads live free or die. So, it's it's it's sobering. If you step back from this and get rid of the vitriol and, you know, all the yelling and screaming about it, it is a very sobering time when you stop and think about it. I went to Philadelphia for one of my last weekends. I was living part-time in New York and I we we went for a weekend to kind of visit all the historic sites in Philadelphia and a couple things struck me. One was just what people gave up who didn't lose their some of these people lost their life obviously but there were a lot of people that were very wealthy that lost everything financially like financial ruin to put the United States on the map as it is today and the the intelligence were with which would this group of middle-aged men by today's standards 30s and 40s for most of them with the 81year-old Ben Franklin as the you know the elder statesmen of the group the amount of wisdom that they put into documents that carry forward through, you know, a couple hundred years of things they could never foresee is beyond remarkable. Like just amazing how forward-looking they were. And uh you know, that's why a lot of people say that those documents were divinely inspired. But just an amazing bit of work from a very large group of people that had a hard time coming to consensus, but did an amazing job.

[10:52] — Yeah, they good. Well, you know, Anthony, you mentioned the powers that they had. The Constitution is really, everybody should read it. If you haven't read it in a while, it it's a fairly quick read. It's not very long, unlike today's laws. You should go through and read it. But they the Constitution outlines that the entire federal government would have three departments, state, war, and treasury, plus a postmaster. That wasn't exactly. And they literally limited them to 17 specific powers. They were very clear. Here are the 17 things. It was like being able to set the weights and measures of money, which was gold and silver. They did not have the right to like print money like we do today. They had to establish post offices, raise an army for defense, and it could only be funded two years at a time, maintain a navy, right? So that's kind of the same in the 17. create courts below the Supreme Court, regulate trade, grant patents, and basically it was 17 very specific powers. And they were very clear in the 10th Amendment that everything else was the power of the Like if you if you really read what they intended, those are the only 17 things that the federal government was supposed to do. And then they created the Bill of Rights, which really put a leash on government, right? like the Bill of Rights. Read read the Bill of Rights.

[12:19] There isn't one thing that limits a individual's freedom. It's 10 different things that limit government's reach and gives people freedom. — Exactly. I mean, they shall not is referenced in that in that Bill of Rights so many times you probably can't count them. The government shall not shall not infringe on your right. Shall not infringe on your right to bear arms. is specifically telling the government you can't do these things that other basically what other governments had done where where most of these uh settlers had come from you know whether it was England, Germany uh the Norwegian companies countries you know mostly mostly western Europe at the time but you know as time went on it was also western no eastern Europe you you know at the time different companies Czechoslovakia and what have you. So it was really a restrictive document that unfortunately has been you know watered down to say the least as we sit here today. One thing we skipped over you know to show what these these people were made of. They were a stock that was it's like the best Wagu beef on the planet. I mean these people were made of stuff that is amazing. and and one person in particular, you know, as the government took hold and we we began to be a independent country, George Washington at the time had been a general that led the the the army, you know, through the wars and was was a great hero. He became the first president, was elected unanimously when he served a second term and then they wanted him to keep serving and he refused because he did not want to become a king. He he he saw the future as clear as a clear as belly. No one really understood stotood it before, but he had he had amassed a fortune, lost a fortune, and at when all was said and done, he said, "No, not going to be your president any longer. I'm going to go back to my farm. I'm going to go do whatever I did before someone else needs to step into the breach." And they set term limits right back then. You know, they they did that. So, it's it's an amazing thing to turn down when you stop and think about it. I could be king. I could be king. And he said, "No."

[14:44] I mean — that might be the single most consequential decision after those documents were written in in the country's history to be able to and then you know it talked about how he turned over power to Adams then Adams to Jefferson I think was the way that went and but all in and and these people I don't think any of them were really close friends right I think it was it was contentious relationships politically I think you know uh at the time and so really powerful to hand power peacefully to a political opponent. And you know, I talked to some friends that I have in the Washington DC scene and they talk about like, you know, even in their lifetime, they would have bitter political rivals that would regularly eat together and they were considered friends even if they had very different political points of view. And so I think that's a really impactful and important part of a healthy society is being able to have discourse with deep disagreement, but still respect for somebody else's point of view. Even if you don't agree with the point of view, respecting it as a point of view that may be different than your own and you know being able to accept that someone holds that point of view and then to go along with the majority. You know, in terms of the the words that are in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were were argued veheimately by a number of all of these folks, all of them.

[16:06] Eventually they agreed and and other people compromised on many of them. Right? There was a faction one of the mistakes of the constitution the bill of rights has to obviously do with slavery and there was a a ton of uh debate about that. You know let's let's eliminate it now was the discussion. Well [sighs] you know the three-fifths clause is you know is in that is in that document. So there was tremendous compromise with these men and women and they and they moved on. You know, they didn't shoot each other for the most part. They they moved on and then they continue to work in government to foster and create, you know, the Supreme Court and the Treasury Department and all these other things that have that have come about uh in concert with each other with a lot of debate, which I think is just wow, what a lesson that went. — Anthony, I want to go back to your old hometown. Tell us about the Boston Tea Party, right? you grew up in Boston and this is a little bit you know a couple years before your time but you know what they were willing to do there.

[17:10] — Yeah, I was I was I you know I I was I was in grade school. I mean, at at the end of the day, you know, all it was like a it became, you know, the crown decided to stick a thorn in the side of, you know, the the population in in Massachusetts and elsewhere, basically in imposing a sales tax. And that was the straw that broke the camel's back because and and the phrase taxation without representation, you know, became the the rallying cry. And primarily it happened because they weren't getting anything for the tax. You know, they were just, you know, it was like they were tithing to a church. And that's exactly what they ran away from when they came here. They they they wanted self-determination. They want they wanted to work these things out on their own. and they were willing to suffer to do it if it meant plowing their fields day and night with, you know, not the greatest tools in the world and enduring brutal winters and stockpiling whatever they stockpiled to get through the winter. And then to have someone come along and say, you know, we're going to tax your tea, whatever it was, 10%, the equivalent of 10%. I I forget the exact number. It didn't matter. It was the principle of the thing. And that's that's it at its core, the principle of the thing. That's what mattered to them. It It wouldn't have mattered if it was a tenth of a cent tax. It was the principle of the thing that that drove them to dump the equivalent of a I don't know several thousand pounds of of tea into the harbor and rally in their uh churches and their communities and say we, you know, we're not going to tolerate this.

[18:48] knowing full well that there were in and among them that were going to get word back to the crown and get orders from the crown to you know extract the funds anyway. So they knew exactly what was coming and they weren't afraid to uh to deal with it. — Yeah. It Anthony the uh 92,000 pounds of tea worth about 1.7 million today. Right. And I I think you put it well when you say a sales tax, but it was a sales tax on tea. Like it wasn't even a sales tax on everything. And earlier when you said the Constitution, like I think it needs to be clear. I don't think most people understand this. There was no income tax. There was no like like we really didn't have any taxes back then on a federal level other than tariffs, right? And we've had a lot of hubbhub about tariffs in the last few years. Well, tariffs were a tax and they understood that, but there were no income taxes or sales taxes or none of that stuff existed. Now, some states had some property tax and many states, most states had pole taxes where everybody today wants everybody to vote. Um, you had to be older. You had to pay a pole tax in most states. In a lot of states, you had to own property and pay a property tax. But, — yeah, you had to be a white man.

[20:06] — And so, hope — Yeah. So anyway they had a little different you know little different view. So John pursuit of happiness again today everybody thinks they have a right to be happy. The founding fathers talked a lot about a pursuit of happiness. You want to talk about that? Yeah, I think you know people confuse that all the time, right? is is like the pursuit of happiness means you have the right for the pursuit not the right that you know and you know I talk all the time about happiness generally is found in people as a byproduct of a life well-lived and the pursuit of that freedom is something we have here that is very different than you find in other countries and and and there are people all over the world even today that want to come to America for precisely that and I remember a trip where I was in Europe and talking to someone in a field of trade and they were in the same field of trade as many generations before them. I met someone in my most recent trip to Europe where I think it was the fifth or sixth generation inside the family business and it was predetermined you know what they were going to be doing and you know it's very hard in those couple of conversations I learned for people to change their station and in in the US it's very possible to to change your station. I mean you think about you know people that start businesses and build you know huge businesses and change their economic position. It's certainly easier, I think, to for people that have it their you born into a rich family to, you know, have kind of won that lottery and have more opportunity. That's sure.

[21:30] But the number of people who are immigrants that come in and build really interesting lives for their children and their children's children, it the story gets told over and over and over again. That's just not a common thing in other places. And that goes back to, you know, this idea that we are a country built on the freedom to pursue those. — Yeah. It wasn't it wasn't easy, you know, and it wasn't equal, you know, the outcomes weren't equal. What was equal was the the right to do it. You know, there were there were merchants. There were there'd be two silver merchants on the same street in the north end of Boston. one turned into Paul River who was wealthy and became famous and in that and maybe down the street there was another silver merchant who you know probably made a living but he wasn't famous and he wasn't rich. It doesn't mean that he could go up the street and take Paul River's wealth and move it down the street to him or her. He just had to change his business model, work a little bit differently and so forth. they they then and now have the right to pursue whatever they want to pursue.

[22:39] The road there could be might be a little more difficult for one person versus another. Some people might have a leg up at the beginning. Maybe they they're capitalized because of some family wealth and so forth and so on. But doesn't stop or doesn't eliminate the fact that you can take that first step. We've talked about this to a bloom in the face, but I I think that's you from the from the very beginning, whether it's Jamestown, Plymouth, you know, the Revolutionary War, it wasn't it wasn't it wasn't necessarily easy and it wasn't necessarily fair and the outcomes were definitely disparit. — Well, that good friend who said exactly that, Anthony, said you can start with equal starting lines or equal finish lines. The first is more capitalism, the second is more socialism. You can't have And you know, Anthony, your silver your silver example or silver merchant example is a great one, right? That but that's all they asked for was the equal opportunity. Paul Rivere and the guy down the street, they both started with the same opportunity. And maybe one of them started ahead or who knows, I don't know their background, their education or whatever else, but the thing that always kind of jumps out to me if you read also like the Declaration of Independence, nowhere in it did they say, "King George, you have to give us blank." They weren't asking for freebies or handouts. They said, "Stop doing things to us. Leave us alone and let us pursue our happiness." John, let's jump forward 250 years to today. Let's talk about how things are different today than where we left them 250 years ago at the founding fathers.

[24:10] — Yeah. And I mean, without being political, I think you can have an intellectually honest conversation that starts with the facts, right? I think the facts are the founding fathers didn't see themselves as career-long politicians and they didn't see politics as a career. They saw it as a community service that they did in addition to the other work they were doing and it was going to be time boxed and then they would move back to the work they were doing and and that was a great way to keep people grounded in what was happening. And there are all kinds of problems we could point to around like it was white men who were land owners as the people. And yes, I think we all agree that that there's some there's some flaws in the way the system came from in that perspective. But today we do have career politicians that sometimes aren't fully connected to the people they're representing which I think is you know perhaps problematic. I think having career politicians I think the stat that I saw was more than half of the people in Congress are And you know, it strikes me that that you know, they don't have the same health care system that they've regulated other people into. Those are some of the disconnects that I see. And and so um it's different. You know, they don't have the same rules for trading inside the stock market, which I think is problematic where, you know, it's legal for people in Congress to be inside insider traders, which is clearly outlawed for anybody else. And even Martha Stewart went to jail for it, right? And so and and so I think that there's some disconnects that I think we should just be intellectually honest about and ask ourselves if that's the way that that we want that we want our system working. So you know you have a system of things like the I think the the rural electric commission gets like a half billion dollars a year that was funded for rural electricity. We've had rural electricity in the US for decades now and now that money still goes to that commission and now gets used for other things that I don't maybe they're very valuable things. I don't know much about that particular thing but I think we have to be willing to sunset different departments that come in for a period of time and we don't tend to do that and so I think you know this is back to what you know Munger said Charlie Mer said about you know follow the money and I'll show you the Yeah I think you're wrong about one thing when you said and you said they they don't represent the people. They actually do except it's a very small group of people. It's not the populace.

[26:27] It's a small group of people that fund their campaigns. That's who they're answering to. So, we jumped over 250 years pretty quickly. And how did we get here? You know, during that time, a lot of things transpired, but the consolidation of wealth and power over the last 250 years has manifested itself into what we have today. So we we use capitalism as kind of a the uh the overarching piece of it. It capitalism is just a word. You know, economics, the economics of the day is what draw what drives things. And you know, the 1800s had its economic profile, good and bad, right? The industrial revolution resulted in great innovation and magnificent advances in productivity. And for a period of significant period of time during the 1800s, the national average of of income rose along with productivity equally and the the middle class emerged. It was a there was a 50-year period the early 1900s when we start to get taxation. We start to get, you know, kind of toying around with the money supply. We have world wars, you know, that resulted in insane debt in the uh in the in the country two times.

[27:46] Uh you have the the outcome, not the outcome, the creation of the military-industrial complex with its own motivations. You know, war is good for us. The heck with the, you know, 18-year-olds that we're sending into battle, whether it's one, two, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, so on and so forth. So this consolidation of power around wealth is got us on the I won't say on the brink, but it's got us in a place that's going to be very difficult to unwind. How are we ever going to get back to the time when in 1778 100% of the people that were entitled to vote would vote, right? There was no real restriction on the the people they decided. But even then, it wasn't 100% of the people. Women couldn't vote. You you you could vote if you were African-American, but you had to pay a poll tax, which you probably didn't have. So, that was their way of restricting that stuff. But — Anthony, I want to bring you back forward to we're I want to bring you back forward to today. We're trying we're trying to focus on today here. So, what what's the what's your takeaway on this on today versus 250 years ago?

[28:58] — I'm telling you what my takeaway is. We've got a consolidation of power that we're going to we're it's going to be very very difficult to extract ourselves from without term limits. And you think Congress is going to vote for term limits? You're dreaming. So, you know, — it would take a lot of George Washington's, wouldn't it? — Or it would take a constitutional Congress, which would be really hard. — Yeah. The the other the thing I would add to I think you're right about they're talking to their donors, but the other group of people they're talking to I would also argue are the stupid people and and this is not to offend people but it might but that's okay. — If you think about if you think about — that was fairly offensive by the way but go ahead. — You don't know what I'm going to say. — You guys have no idea where you have no idea where I'm going. — So keep going half right. — You'll be half right. — We have an we have an election. Most people have already decided who they're going to vote for. And there are people that have done all this research. There's other people have done some research or have strong beliefs. But elections are decided by the people in the middle who haven't made a decision.

[30:06] And by the way, what's the number one way that they convince these people? Through 30 second and one minute TV Okay. I would submit to you that anybody that votes for the president, like would you hire anybody to work for your company if you just had them give you a 30 second to one minute TV commercial and that's how you decided with no other information that's the person that's going to work for me. Right? Your company would you've missed you've missed the you're looking at the whole not the donut. Andy, the the problem with the elections is that the primary system that didn't exist in 1778 and for most of the 1800s, — by the way, the founding fathers were very against political parties, period. — They didn't want them. — What I'm saying to you is that the primary system we have today is teeing up who our choice our our choices. And in rare instances, [snorts] the primary candidates have a constituency, a perceived constituency that are going to result in that particular person being elected in that particular state, county, city, and so forth. We don't have full free and fair elections where there are 10 15 people on the ballot that can be selected for president or senator or congressman or city council person or whatever. So again, who get who gets the primary The people that can afford the 30 second commercials to get on the ballot as the Democratic or the Republican nominee.

[31:46] That's where the problem that's the root cause. I'm not disagreeing with any of that, but at the at the end of the day, the people in the middle decide the elections cuz there's a certain number of people they're going to vote R and there's a certain number of people they're going to vote D and there's people in the middle and those people do almost no research, right? And they do whatever feels right at the time. And so they're speaking to their donors, but they're also how can I get votes from those people? By the way, John, to just to switch topics here or to continue with where you were on this, you know, that the size of government you referenced just I like the numbers. We talked about earlier the Constitution outlined three government departments. There's now over 430 government or federal agencies. Back in 1816, so not going back 250 years, we had 5,000 total federal employees. Today there's 2.1 million plus the military plus contractors. Um, and we could go on and on with this, but anyway, it's just there's, you know, it's it's unbelievable. And, you know, again, Anthony mentioned the money. There was no income tax until 1913 when we went off the gold standard and started printing money and everything else as well. So, — you know, back to the elections, you know, I think you're yes, people do whatever research they're going to do, a lot, a little, none, but when they go when they go to the poll, whether it's a primary or a general election, they're they're they're punching their ballot. They're flicking the the uh the machine based on their selfinterest, their perceived self-interest at the time, given what they know. And how did they end? That's what they're doing.

[33:30] Nobody. Nobody. If there was a ballot measure that said, "Punch this. Punch this ballot and you will be enrolled and drafted into the United States Army to put your life on the line against this men and women in Congress because we want to have a constitutional amendment to have term limits." How many people would do that today? I don't think you know there might be some some limited number of people this people their self-interest today is defined by it's not defined by freedom it's not defined by the pursuit of happiness it's defined by what do they perceive is in their economic best interest and that is so far away from what was founded 250 years ago that you couldn't they're not even in the same stratosphere. So anyway, you I'm on my high horse and I apologize for it. But uh well, actually, I'm not apologizing for it.

[34:33] Screw you. I'm on my high horse. — I like it. All right. Even if you're wrong, I like it. No, you're not you're not wrong. I just, you know, I think — Randy, I did a quick research just in in 1800, there was about 130 federal civilian employees, which represented 0002% of the US population. today 2.1 to 2.7 million employees 6 to point8% of the population not including contractors or military personnel it's a much bigger tax burden and everything else. So all right let's talk about more importantly how do we benefit ourselves our family like how do we use this to create bund abundance in the environment that we live in today we may not like it we may not like the elections we you know I may not like the taxation or the broken money and all that different stuff but these are the g these are the rules of the game as stated today so — yeah look I this goes back to what I was saying a minute ago which is like people still flock from all over the world to come here for our system which allows for the pursuit of happiness and you know I tell people I work in the health care space and I tell people in healthcare like you know I think there's a reasonable argument that the healthare system is broken but there's still things we can do as individuals to become more healthy inside of a difficult system and so while our system is not a perfect system and may not ever be a perfect system there are a lot of opportunities inside of our system and I would argue more opportunities here than other places and so you know what can we do to find that opportunity and I think you know that you you can and there's opportunity abundantly throughout the system in our country and so find the opportunities that fit with what you do want to do and I had a mentor that told me once like if you focus on things to complain about you're going to find things to complain about if you focus on finding opportunity you're going to find opportunities you get what you look for it's that whole idea that when you buy a purple car you see purple cars everywhere the next day and so you know my encouragement ment for people is wherever you want abundance, start looking for it. And you're going to find it here more plentifully than you will other spaces. Not to say you can't find abundance other countries as well, but I think it's more plentiful here because of the background that we come from back in the 1700s.

[36:51] — Yeah, I think I think that's a great level one statement, you know, in the spirit of, you know, what got us started doing what we're doing here today and the five Fs. I don't think you can create abundance across all five of them at one time. I think you've got to, you know, focus, okay, how am I going to create abundance in my family? How am I going to create abundance in my community? How am I going to create abundance in my fitness? You know, in my finance, each of the individual 5s, you've got to have a plan for because they don't all come in one big pile. You know, you don't get a great job and your family and your friends are fixed, you know, and your fitness is fixed. you know, things are left on the table. In fact, they could be hurt by, you know, taking a tech job that's got 12 hours a day and weekend work and so forth. It could have a negative impact on those other things. So, you've got to be conscious of all five of those things as you pursue abundance, which to your point, John, you is available to you in this in this country and in this world for that matter. It's it nothing nothing going to be easy, but nothing is standing in your way. Is that pos is that is that a possible statement? You know that there are obstacles sure but all of them can be overcome for all most can be overcome you know short of disabilities and other things like that.

[38:18] So yeah I think you focus on all five of them. I — I think what I heard from John was more about mindset and I think that fits with there's two real messages that are competing for our attention today. one of them. You know, there's a lot of people, but Mandami seems to be the the most, you know, the biggest name right now and the one that's communicating this one most effectively, whether I like it or not. And that is that the system owes you. You are, you deserve to be happy. You deserve health care. You deserve a house. You deserve whatever it is that you want. And we just need to take from these people over here and give to you. The other the other message is more again and by the way I would argue that is the Jamestown Plymouth Rock message when they were started right was here come here be a part of this system and you will just get taken care of and then I would argue the other is more the founding father's message of hey here's an opportunity go out build it kind of what you're saying Anthony it may not be easy but there is an opportunity and you can go do this and I was thinking about this the other today unrelated to this topic.

[39:28] But I think immigrants to this country appreciate message two. They come here most of not all of them. There's been some problems recently where they come here for message one. But I think a lot of them come here for message two. The most successful people they don't take it for granted the way people in America grow up taking it for granted. And I think maybe they also haven't been brainwashed with message one as much. But I think that that's the big thing. whichever of the five Fs people want to work on. If you come in with the attitude of I'm a victim, somebody else has to do this for me and the government's going to take care of me, life's going to be freaking hard regardless. And if you come in with the attitude of, hey, I got an opportunity to pursue what I want, there's going to be challenges. I agree with you. It's going to be hard, but you can do it. And I think there's a lot of great immigrants that have done a great, you know, a lot of the big CEOs and people making a difference in our country are not from here, — right? Yeah. I'm not, you know, Yeah. On the on the surface, the this democratic socialist movement of of take and give, take from the rich, give to the poor, you know, sounds sounds pretty like a like not a good idea. But there are elements of the condition that we're in as a country where they're right in some ways. You know, the the the you know the lack of housing that's occurred in the country and especially in densely populated areas is caused by a number of things that you know the rank and file don't control. Right? So the transportation systems aren't haven't been kept up and are are becoming expensive and unreliable in some places.

[41:13] So they have a point in terms of their day-to-day living. And you know, it's funny if you think back to when this mass immigration was happening during the Biden administration, and I'm not being political here. I'm going to talk about the actual immigrants. You may recall that there were there were immigrants who came in who weren't satisfied with the amount of free stuff they were getting. They were complaining about the meals. They were complaining about their access to health care and so on and so forth. And I don't know what happened to those people in terms of where they are today, but it wouldn't surprise me if some percentage of those people said, "Shoot, I'm not going to count on this government. I'm going to go do something on my own." and make something happen. And they broke out of that, you know, give me something for free spiral because that opportunity did exist for them to get a better meal, a better home, a better better hotel or whatever the case might be. So they they're right in some cases. Their overall solution is not going to work, but there are some things that we could do better as a society to to alleviate some of the pain that the K-shaped economy is creating. Well, I think that's that's the reality of the Buffett amendment that was propo, you know, but Buffett proposed publicly and never really got proposed, which was if you can't balance the budget as a as a politician, then you're not, you know, available for re-election, you're not eligible for re-election. And so, you know, back even in the 18th century, 1700s, a Scottish historian said that a democracy can't exist as a permanent form of government. Period. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves large s from the public treasury. And then Margaret Thatcher centuries later said there's no such thing as public money. There's only taxpayer money. And she constantly made the point that, you know, if you keep taxing people who make money because they start businesses and run businesses, eventually they'll leave your country and then the government won't stop spending. Somebody else has to pay. And that somebody else is you, right? We always run out of other people's money — like that. And that's the problem.

[43:19] — Yeah. And I and and then you layer that with what we're discovering, which we've known this all along, but the the magnitude of the waste is is just confounding the problem. It's not this is not a spending problem. We've got we have the money to spend. We're just so inefficient in our spend. And it's you can do the NGO thing. You can do $24 billion onem tracks in California and hundreds of, you know, $30 billion on homelessness that results in more homelessness. You go down the list and so you step back from that and you say, "No wonder people are feeling they're at the bottom of the K-shaped economy because the money's not getting to me. The help's not getting to me." Look at the the Veterans Administration. It's better today, but for 30 years, it was the worst health care system on the planet. And we had supposed great politicians that were trumpeting veterans rights and so forth, but from the 80s through the early 2000s, it was do your research on that. It's where people went to die, not to get well. It was an horrible hor it was like institutional. We're still people would say we're still there as a VA, but I think that's — it's not it's not Yeah, I'm Yes, there's still plenty of improvement. Anything governmentr run, you know, can be 10% better for 10% less starting tomorrow. I agree with that. But man, we have had abject failures across the board. The government waste in defense, picking the wrong weapon systems, it just it goes on and on and on. So you can understand why people are saying, "Hey, you know, — but at the same time, Anthony, back to abundance." It's like in in the middle of all of that, in 2017, you and I bought a business, took it from a little business to a much bigger business, and funded an entire family's retirement in a 10-year period. Like like like that exists, right? Like that that opportunity exists. I think, you know, there's so many opportunities in the US.

[45:22] And I think technology is making it so that opportunities are more democratizable and less expensive to get into. What what used to cost, you know, a million dollars to stand up a business today costs less than $100,000, maybe less than $10,000 in some cases. So I think that, you know, for someone who is upset about all these things at the system level, has every right to be upset. And abundance exists today in ways I think it didn't even 20 years ago. much more democratized, much more available, much more cost-effective to start and run a business, much more available to have control of your financial future in the short term despite the fact the system is still broken and maybe breaking. Like I don't I don't discount that, but I think it's about like what do you control? And there's a lot of opportunity we have and despite the fact that taxes are different and all those other things, like I still think that today is is the best opportunity that I've seen in my lifetime. um for in a lot of ways not maybe from the cost of capital maybe not from the frothiness of the market but there are other things like you know the ability to code technology not being a technologist and the ability to have access into markets you couldn't before like I think those things are better so again I think it's what you focus on I choose to focus on the positive acknowledge what's not so positive and then try to make a difference but also acknowledge how you can move forward without being paralyzed we got to move we got to move fellas we got to we got to move to the our last One more thing.

[46:48] I'm not I'm not going to let let this go because I [snorts] I do think we're ripe for success in this sense. The the call it the the people that don't have the philosophy degree degree from you know ABC university but may may be uh very happy with a workingclass job which is sounds derisive but it's not meant to be. There are literally millions of welder construction jobs of in and the like that don't require a degree, just require skill. And you know, those jobs are going to go to people who are willing to work and work hard. And it we could have a divide here where the K changes, but the demographic of the K changes, you know, because, you know, let let's face it, who's building your house today? who's, you know, working the working at the side of the road, you know, who's in the factories, not the kid with the philosophy degree, right? And so more and there are there are literally R and I looked this up last week. There's like 7 million open open jobs right now in this country. Very few of them require a degree. By the way, I have I I could go for hours on like three or four different topics here, but we we got to move to the I have a lot of opinions on democracy and the money and a lot of other things that were mentioned and incentives, but let's move to Anthony. You'd ask a question in advance. Where will we be in 250 years?

[48:15] This is the 250 year anniversary. I think we just generally make that where are we going in the future because I think it's really hard to look 250 years in the future. But um you asked the question so you answer it where you know where do you see it where do you see this thing going? — Well it was not a good question because it's unanswerable. You know the way things are moving right now 250 hours is more like the time frame that things are curing cancer and vaccines and all this is just happening so so fast. But I think we're we're going to be in an abundant society for people who want abundance in their 5Fs. It's got to be more and more available to people, not So that's how I'm going to that's how I'm going to say it. — Yeah. I mean, I think, you know, I've heard it said that, you know, democracies can't live last, you know, 250, 300 years. And you look at the rise and fall of Rome. I think there's going to be kind of some reckoning that hopefully we come out better side and prove that wrong is my hope for what happens and my hope is that we, you know, continue to give people opportunities where we have a, you know, a level as level a starting line as people would like to see happen. And I think that'd be a great thing. And so that's my hope for what happens in in kind of the near and long-term future and what I hope for for my kids and my kids' kids.

[49:47] — All right, the democracy thing, by the way, I know this is going to hurt people's ears, but America was never intended to be a democracy. In fact, one of the things that we didn't talk about in the 250 years ago, the founding fathers were really, really, really clear. They hated democracy. They knew democracy wouldn't work. And the the basic concept is if you have two foxes and a chicken in a democracy, you know what's for dinner. And you know, we've got to figure out how to get back to a republic or fix this. But at the same time, we are so blessed to be living in a place where we have AI, robotics. I mean, the things I'm doing right now with AI, I mean, I'm I'm creating a product that literally two weeks ago I could not have created. And I could only create it with like the newest AI and robotics are coming and all these different things. You know, we have flying cars. I mean, the future is here. I mean, there are spacecraft. I mean, SpaceX is launching multiple times a month and they're reusing rockets and there's multiple companies now that have are putting data centers in space.

[50:54] There's multiple, you know, people trying to mine the moon and mine asteroids. And all of that is going to make a better world. And I just think right now it's a little rough for some people, but there is so much opportunity if you just lean into, you know, the right things and train yourself. And like you said earlier, John, in a way, it's it's it's never been easier, but I also think the message that's out there has made it much harder because people think that it's supposed to be given to them in so many cases and they've they've bought this story. So — you know, — the one the one liner you have in our notes is, — you know, the pursuit of happiness isn't a promise, it's an invitation. — I just love that. I love that statement. — So I'll leave it there. — Let's go to break right there. Uh listeners, download, subscribe, tell your friends, and uh we will talk to you after the break with the abundance. — Here at Tales of Abundance, we know that fitness is just as important as money or milestones. It's one of our fe fives, but lots of others. Taking care of my body while I build my life is one of the more time consuming and difficult goals to chase. That's why we're partnering with AG1. It's a daily drinkable habit.

[52:10] Less than a minute that's formulated with 75 plus vitamins and nutrients and designed to support energy, digestion, and immune defense. It even has a few grams of protein uh that we're all chasing these days. If you want to try it with our affiliate link, you'll also receive a free AG1 flavor sampler plus vitamin D3 plus K2 with your welcome kit when you first subscribe. $72 value. Go to shop3G1.com/tails. John Anthony, our first story out of Dallas is the Texas Stock Exchange. I don't hear anybody talking about this, but this thing launched trading July 6th. So, by the time you listen to this, it'll be out more than a week. It's going to be much more digital, a direct competitor to Wall Street. And by the way, this is being backed by Black Rockck, Citadel, Chase Bank. I mean, the big boys are here. You know, Chase now has more employees in Texas than they have in New York by like 2:1. And it used to be more skewed the other way. Uh Goldman Sachs has built a new uh building next to this, like a huge building bigger than what they have in Wall Street. And that thing's going. I mean, I I think this is a big story mostly about what it means and you know where it's going. But yeah, your Yeah, I mean I think it's super I mean I'm not the ringer came in. I I don't know if you mentioned Dell coming in being listed on the Texas stock exchange is one of those things. And so what you're seeing is a movement from kind of I think tax efficient business efficient places from a tax and rule of law perspective into places that are businessfriendly. And you know I saw some things online even over the weekend where there was questions about Dell doing this for example where they're moving away from Delaware's you know court of chancery to an untested court in Texas. But it was worth it for them.

[54:14] And so I think that says a lot about the trust in the legal environment and the tax environment. And I mean and and I think Delaware's got a fairly good tax environment for most corporations as an example. And even Jamie Diamond was talking about that movement from New York into Texas. And he says there's still great people coming to New York, but you know, Texas as the current placeholder is drawing a lot of people in economically. And we're going to see a lot of economic growth result as a result of that. Anthony, I'm going to ask you a little different question. How do you think this like like think this through? I guess I'm asking a game theory a little bit. What is this going to do to New York? Not today, not tomorrow. Where's this — It could be faster than you think. You know, uh, capital chases efficiency. And you know the New York the Texas stock exchange is positioning itself lower cost more less friction for public companies more competition in trading. They want to you know Texas obviously is got is really really working hard to become a financial hub and a head corporate headquarters state you know and they're appealing to people that aren't happy with the way things work on the stock on the New York Stock Exchange. What I'm what I'm surprised by, one thing I am surprised by is it's not a 24/7 stock exchange. I thought that would be one of the components of it, but it's not. At least not not yet.

[55:39] I mean, you can still trade futures 24 hours a day and things like that as you can on the stock of the stock exchange. But, uh, you know, we'll see what the law in the long 10 years from now. Who knows? I mean, it's not going to be an overnight thing, but competition is great. That's what I think. — Yeah. I your your thing that it could be faster. You know, New York is talking about all these crazy new tax. It's already a high tax state. You know, how many people don't want to go to a lower tax state and then if they incorporate more, it only speeds that up. And I think this is a, you know, there New York, like the California money, a lot of it flows to Texas. The New York money, a lot of it flows to Florida and some of it to Texas, but this could give Texas a really competitive advantage there. So, let's move to our next topic. Solar powered desalinization is now cheaper than bottled water. Now, we're always skeptical when this stuff's out of China, but from the China's Academy of Sciences and Shenzen University, they built a solar desalinization device that produces drinking water with zero grid electricity. And basically, they've got little solar panels that throw out clean water. Um, you know, what is it? a 75 square meter outdoor prototype produced over 20 lers which is more than 5 gallons of clean water a day. So I think this is pretty cool. I know John you're excited about this one.

[57:07] — Yeah. I mean this I mean super by by the way commercial commercially bottled water is pretty expensive. So that maybe but but it's a great start. And so five gallons a day with solar panels like that's it's pretty amazing. And then, you know, you think about what's happening with kind of the salt batteries that you've seen some of the news around lately and how you might combine those couple of things to solve both an energy and an energy storage problem with kind of not as much environmental damage. Like I think these two things coming together could mean a lot. So you have clean water, [snorts] you have a use of the byproducts for storage. I mean I I'm really excited to track this story over time. Yeah, I'm, you know, I'm stunned that we we um as a universe with all our engineers across the world that desalinization and improving access to clean water isn't like at the top of every single list on the planet in terms of a problem to solve. We have, you know, desolate parts of the of Earth that are in desperate need of of clean water, clean sanitation, and so forth.

[58:17] And there there just doesn't seem to be, you know, the energy behind it in in the United States at least, and I don't I can't speak for Europe and and other I think the Middle East is a is also a leader in desalinization. I know it has its downside in terms of the environmental impact around the coastlines and things like that, but Jesus, you can't live without water. You can you can you can live without a lot of things, but you cannot live without water. So, it it it uh it confuses me that this isn't like a number one thing. — well, there's a lot of people, I mean, we know some people, all of us, that are, you know, contributing to digging wells in Africa because there's lots of people that have to walk miles and miles to get water. And this seems to me that if they can prove this out, sending those resources toward building something like this is even better than digging a well, right? And probably much cleaner, purer water. So, I think this is Yeah, I think this is really cool. But, you know, the the roadblock here, just as it is with AI and almost everything, it always comes back to energy. You got to So, the solar power is the key. And I'm hoping AI is going to make solar, you know, better and we can fix fusion or fision or, you know, whatever other energy sources it can create. And when it does that, you know, the cheaper energy becomes and the more abundant energy becomes, the easier things like this, you know, I don't think desalinization is a is a tricky thing scientifically. It's just it's another way that we have to use energy and why energy is so important in every thing. So, moving to the next top that takes us to the next topic. you know, America hadn't deployed, you know, we we've just not been put deploying nuclear reactors, but the first small modular reactor has been green lit. And, you know, this is the Tennessee Valley Authority is putting this thing forward.

[1:00:09] And I hear all kinds of stories of all these little mini nuclear reactors, right, that can go and, you know, power smaller places or data centers. I think this is really effective whether it's the last topic of desalinization or you know whatever it's moving toward this can really help lead us toward energy — Yeah. The nuclear energy is was the the uh data center boogeyman in the 80s. You know we had we we had power plants all over the world that were producing abundant energy. France for instance I can't remember the percent. Someone can look it up, but it was well over 50% of their electrical power came from nuclear power. I don't know what the percentage is today, but I know it's a lot less. Germany, the same thing. So, here we are, you know, 3M Island closed whenever it closed in the 80s because of, you know, fair-mongering. No one died. There was no radioactive leak anywhere. No one got sick. But we shut down a plant that was providing a tremendous amount of power to a a wide part of good part of Pennsylvania. So I'm glad that we're we've turned that corner. It's a it's still a ways away. It still it still has regulatory issues and the fact that someone has to greenlight something that could save the world is, you know, just mindboggling. You know, this should be this should take 15 minutes. you know, you want to build a a mini plant to uh run your, you know, two square mile data center and have no impact on electrical cost and the environment in Columbus, Ohio. Go for it. You know, as a matter of fact, it should be a requirement.

[1:01:55] — Note to self, Anthony will be on no nuclear reactor approval commission — They s they solved the waste problem. They sol they solved these problems. Once again, man left alone will solve its problems. Government got in the way of this. It has put us in this position where we've got we're relying on fossil fuels, which is fine for now, but for the long run, it's it's not going to meet our needs. We clearly have the supply. The supply of energy is below what the demand is and will be going forward. And no amount of fossil fuel is going to fill that gap. Doesn't it could all bubble up to the surface today. It's not going to fill that gap. So get on with it. As I say, you know, move on. You know, Randy, I had to look this up what a small reactor was. I didn't really have an understanding of what that amount of power was. And so it's about the third the size of a traditional reactor. And you could put multiple of these reactors on one nuclear site if you wanted to. That's enough power to power 200 to 250,000 homes per year full tilt continuously always on uh or or the equivalent of about 400,000 horsepower.

[1:03:14] — So I thought super super cool uh to have that type of power and assuming it all the things you know Anthony just said about you know the impact and the and the safety of it and all those things but that's that's pretty promising. — Yeah. And there, you know what I've heard about these and I don't know all the details but that if there ever is some kind of a catastrophe that they're much much safer and oh by the way nuclear you know even 3M island I that you know got shut down I don't think it actually killed anybody right you know and so this is much safer it's another source uh you know one of the things that's interesting I I was reading recently the Nixon administration passed a law basically requiring the government to open it was 100 200 500 it was a it was a huge number John you might want to fact check the exact number a huge number of nuclear power plants and literally from that they also created the nuclear commission to oversee it how many power plants got created — since zero they they literally set out this was a national strategic like this was really important. I think I think it might have been a hundred of them and zero got created because it just became too hard like even though there was a government mandate it was just never filled because it was so hard to create them. Did you find a number John?

[1:04:42] — We can't build single family homes because of regulation in this country you know and without without dragging this this is actually a positive nuclear runs 24/7. what the the power the supply issue and the demand issue is not at 7 o'clock in the morning. It's at various peak times during the day. So these these power plants can run and as battery storage becomes better and better which it will that power can be stored and used during those peak demand periods. So there's a lot of stuff cooking in the energy industry, but you know, we got to get out of our if anyone's listening from the government, we got to get out of our own way. — Well, they're listening or AI is listening on their behalf, but anyway. — So anyway, — yeah, it's, [clears throat] you know, a a country's there's all kinds of studies, country's economic health, their happiness, a lot of different things are really tied nutrition, health, a lot of things are really tied to energy. So being if we really want to be pro-human in almost every way of abundance, energy is is really one of the biggest biggest things that we got to solve.

[1:05:55] — Another example with China is ahead of — So yeah, Nixon's project independence was originated with the atomic energy commission and it talked about a thousand nuclear reactors by the year — So I was only out by a factor of 10. I said 100. So a thousand. Yeah. never came close to happening, — right? And we didn't get them because the atomic commission that they also created shut them all down or wouldn't allow them. — Well, today there's 90 commercial reactors today. — But but did they So that that was done John was that 1973 or so somewhere around there. — 1967 was the first 1967. So as they were seeing that OPAC was taking over oil, they were you know there was a fear that we we were going to be dependent on OPEC and so forth. So they created that that commission. That's great. — Well, this is John. You talk about who we're getting messages from, right? And — you know, I believe that almost all of that nuclear FUD came from oil companies because they were the ones that they were afraid of getting cut out. Like there's proof now that, you know, Germany shut down all their nuclear facilities a few years ago. I think they're in the process of opening them back up. But now it's been tracked that that all that FUD and the whole bunch of money came from Russia because Russia was selling them oil and natural gas.

[1:07:12] And I just listened to a podcast a couple weeks ago. There's a guy, super credible guy that, you know, speech writer worked for the treasur speech writer of the Senate, worked for Treasury. I'd love to give him credit. I can't remember his name. and they have just from one person in China, $300 million has flown into the US to fight data centers. Their estimates are that that guy has shut down several billion dollars. I don't remember the exact number, but it was the billions of dollars of data center and energy projects across the US. and they've tracked just that one guy at 300 million and growing from China. Right. So, you know, I think that's your message, John, if we got to be careful where, you know, who is sending the message and what are their incentives. All right. Anyway, I think this is great news. Like, it's just until we are, you know, Elon wants solar, this gets us there, we're tiling space, etc. All of that's moving in the right direction to a more abundant future to, you know, give us all the breakthroughs that we've been talking about. Uh, gentlemen, until next week, listeners, go out and spread a little abundance this week.

[1:08:24] Don't forget to like, subscribe, and do all the things you do to refer your friends to make sure they listen