of things which I am no expert on but I'll just ask this question. Isn't the guaranteed end result of those things that we keep carving each other into smaller and smaller categories until everybody has a reason to hate everybody? How else can it go? Because I would love to hear the thinking that says how this brings us to a better place.

It certainly brings us to — it's certainly good to talk about racism and sexism and all those things and try to deal with them as practically as we can. But if the moment you've dealt with it you said okay, okay we're doing the best we can to let's say make the world just as good for black people and white people. Of course we're not there but let's say we're doing a good job on that. The next thing that happens is well what about black people who are also Muslims? And then you say all right, all right that's a new category. It feels like every time you slice the category, well what about if you're black, a Muslim, and gay? Okay, okay we better do something about that category.

I don't see how you ever take this philosophy to a good end point. It feels like it's one direction to complete destruction and I can't even conceive of the exit path. I don't see the exit path where things get better and better and then you reach a good place. I'd love to have somebody explain to me the thinking behind that because I think like most left versus right differences it doesn't take into account human motivation. It doesn't take into account human psychology or the way an average person thinks or acts. This is the thing that the conservatives consistently get right and the left consistently gets wrong, which is forgetting that humans will always act like humans. If you design a system that can't work for humans don't be surprised if it doesn't work. I mean why would that be surprising?

All right. Bernie Sanders said one of the dumber things you'll ever hear. He said this: the mainstream media doesn't talk about it. Space, space, space. Congress doesn't talk about it. Space, space, space. Trump doesn't talk about it. Space, space, space. But three multibillionaires now own more wealth than the bottom half of our society. And he suggests that that would be very, very bad.

Now here's what's wrong with that. Now I've described myself as being left of Bernie but with this special caveat that I'm also good at math. I use good at math as a proxy for good thinking and good at logic. And I'm not like the world's best at any of those things. I'm just better than Bernie so I can see the obvious idiocy that he brings to the table.

And here's the problem. Suppose nobody knew how much money those billionaires had. It's just here's a mental experiment. All right. So Bernie has said it's a real problem that three billionaires have as much as the bottom half of the entire United States. That's an amazing statistic. It's like it's mind-numbingly, jaw-droppingly amazing. But imagine a world where you just didn't know they existed exactly like they exist now. The only difference is you didn't know how much money they had. Would you be worse off? It doesn't make any sense. If the only reason we're complaining about it is that we know about it but there's nothing underlying in terms of it won't hurt you if you didn't know about it, why is this his biggest problem?

Why is he raising this in a time of great uncertainty in this world and problems that are as big as any problems we've ever had? Why is he raising the only problem I could think of where if you literally didn't know it existed you would never find out because nothing would go wrong? In fact you'd be hearing Bill Gates is giving away hundreds of millions of dollars and curing malaria or polio or some damn thing in Africa and you'd hear that story and you say, huh, I wonder how he's paying for it. But would you be unhappy that Bill Gates was curing a disease in Africa? No, no you'd be kind of happy about it. You just wouldn't know how he paid for it.

Would you be unhappy if you found that Elon Musk had figured out not only a way to go to Mars but he had created an entire competitive space industry which makes the future of the Earth possibly far better than it would have been without our ability to someday effectively leave our gravitational force? What would you think about that if you didn't know that Elon Musk was worth billions and all you knew is that he was a guy who opened up space? He was a guy who built a network of solar shingles for your house that could work into your battery which someday might be part of a solution for green energy that would make the world a better place. Suppose you didn't know he was a billionaire but you knew he did all of those things. Would you be less happy? What exactly is Sanders talking about other than jealousy?

Does Sanders understand that the money that the billionaires own is being used? Jeff Bezos' ownership of Amazon is still mostly in the stock. That's why he's so rich. It's in the stock. If Bezos pulled his money out