Back to episode — Episode 1220 Scott Adams - Good News on COVID-19, Biden Warned us About Himself, Historians Screwed
Context —
ke before Trump was kicking their butts, and you say to yourself it's actually maybe it wasn't corruption. Could it be they were actually just that incompetent? I didn't want to believe it because it's easier to believe corruption, but maybe. Who knows. Other good news COVID-wise is that McConnell — Mitch McConnell — says that the top leaders in Congress are going to stay behind and not go home f…
← Previous segment →rent histories? How do you write a history book at let's say the college level that would include this era? What would you say about the Trump administration? Would you say Russia collusion was real? Would you say the fine people hoax actually happened? Would you say that the president really did suggest drinking bleach? Because these are the things that will become the permanent record. They become the new way the history is recorded. It's no longer some consensus, you know, winner puts it in one version. Literally what do you do when you don't have one history anymore? There will be at least two histories minimum. You know, you argue lots of them. But I'm thinking that — well let me put it in concrete terms.
Imagine if history simply followed CNN's reporting, right? Imagine if they just didn't vary from whatever CNN reported. And we would allow that if CNN ever corrected anything that the correction would stand. But basically the CNN's version of the world. Suppose you just took that and put it in a history class or textbook and said here's your history. It was in the news and you know the New York Times agreed with them and the Washington Post agreed with them. There's your news. Yeah, think about it. Would that be an actual history? That's scary. I don't even know what they will teach in school. I like actually literally I don't know how they would teach it, because who would agree what the real history was?
So here's what I'm thinking is our current situation when it comes to investing. I'll use an analogy here. In investing, one of the few things that everybody agrees on no matter what kind of an expert you are on investing, pretty much everybody agrees on one thing: diversification is really important. Because if you're not diversifying, putting your money in lots of different bets so that if some of them go bad you at least by luck you'll have some that went extra well to compensate. So in finance if you're trying to pick one winning stock you're just a sucker, because people can't do that. You know we know that people don't have any skill to pick individual stocks. Even really really good people aren't good at it. But everybody can diversify, right? So diversification fixes most of the problems that you would have in the way you think about investing. Just get that one thing right, you're in pretty good shape.
And I think the same thing is going to be true for the news and for history, meaning that you will have to read a diverse bunch of sources to actually have any idea what was going on. So you no longer can take a source and say, well here's my news. You've got to diversify. If you're not watching the news on the left and the right, you're not watching anything. And I wouldn't say that either of them get it right. They get different things wrong at different times. But if you're not seeing both, you don't know what's going on. You really don't know what's going on.
So Congress — I mentioned this yesterday — reached this big energy deal it looks like that includes nuclear energy, some new technologies for that, promoting that stuff, and also carbon capture. Now every person who's let's say in the middle, the political middle, thinks these are good ideas. I'm exaggerating a little bit, but I would say that people in the middle, whether they're Democrats or Republicans, if they're in the middle they probably like nuclear energy. Now on the right they might like nuclear energy all the way from left to right, but pretty much it's a good middle position. Nuclear power, no matter what you think of climate change, you still probably think nuclear energy is required. And carbon capture, I don't think anybody disagrees with it. If some company wants to capture the carbon out of the air, which is a thing, and turn it into commercial products, why not? How could that be a bad idea?
So here's my point that I'm working toward. I feel as if we get lost in what Greg Gutfeld often refers to as this prison of two ideas, that you've either got your Republican or you've got your Democrat. You know you've got your lefties or your rightie
Context —
s, and your government is going to be one of those two things. Or if you're lucky it could be deadlocked. But I think there might be something that's even better than that, which is alternating Trump-like presidents with Biden-like presidents. In other words, the best situation might be not a Trump-like candidate forever and not a Biden-like candidate forever. It might be — and I would make a stro…
Next segment → →