l predictors.

So when I disagree with climate change I'm not disagreeing with scientists on science. I'm disagreeing with scientists on my expertise not theirs. My expertise. I have another expertise too which is again persuasion. And so I have a theory of why maybe scientists could be fooled or biased or subject to confirmation bias at least on the financial part, financial predictions. And it is everything that you already know which is that there's a group think and there would be a penalty for going against the green. So if you're going to disagree with the experts at least have a theory of why they're wrong. So sometimes I have a theory that there are just too many penalties for them to say you're going against the grain. So it's cognitive dissonance or confirmation bias or that I have extra facts or extra information.

All right, here's another example of the same thing. I see this argument all the time about wearing masks and it goes like this. This was tweeted at me today. The problem with this, I'm sorry it was tweeted at me today that we know masks can't work because the tiny holes in the mask are way bigger than the even tinier virus. Now most of you have probably made this argument, right? How many of you have made this argument? "Scott, Scott, Scott the scientists have looked. They've seen that the masks have these big holes on them when you go microscopic and the hole is this big. The virus is the size of a pea you know let's say relatively speaking the virus is the size of a pea. The holes, the tiny holes in the mask would be the size of let's say a basketball hoop. How does a basketball hoop stop something that's the size of a pea?" Right? Have you made that argument yourself? Raise your hand if you've ever made that argument.

If you did you're just, you would know you're disagreeing with the majority of experts who say the masks work. Now here's my test. Do you think that the experts who say masks do work, do you think they're unaware of your pea going through a basketball hoop? Brilliant analogy. Because if they're aware of that fact then you're adding nothing to it. It's a fact they know. It's a fact you know that the size of the holes in the masks are so big and the virus itself is smaller. Do you think they don't know that? The experts, I'm pretty sure all of the experts know that. But they know everything you know which is let's say that fact and more.

All right so they know everything you know. They know that big hole and little virus exists. But the other thing they know is that it's been tested in a variety of real world situations and in the real world the evidence is very strong that masks work. So they're aware that when you test it in a laboratory you can come up with a very good reason why maybe you wouldn't. But it might have to do with the water droplets being bigger than the virus itself. So maybe they don't get through the basketball hoop. Could be that it changes the direction or the viral load. We don't know why. Don't know why. But the point is if the experts know everything you know about the size of that virus there's something you don't know and that's what you should take away from it. You shouldn't take away from it that the experts are lying if they know more than you do.

Now how often have I disagreed with the experts and let me see if I'm consistent with my own rules of knowing when to agree or disagree with experts. When the question came up of closing travel from China the virology experts said in the very early days no you don't need to do that. And I disagreed with vehement cursing public statements that we should close the travel from China immediately. Now who was right? Well I was right. I think history shows that I was right that we should have closed China travel as early as I said which was well before Trump did it which I think was a week later. But even though I was right let's examine if I was right for the right reason.

Okay so what was it that I added to this to the experts? If the expert says it's not a risk why should I say it? You know what do I know that the experts don't know? And here's what I do know: risk management. Are scientists experts in risk management? Because if you study the economics and if you have an MBA and a lot of experience in business as I do I would consider myself not like a world expert in risk management but certainly it's my expertise. So understanding risk and making decisions in the context of risk management is what you learn when you get an MBA. It's what you learn in business. I'm good at it. So when I looked at this situation I didn't say I'm smarter than epidemiologists. I said I don't think they understand risk management because the risk is catastrophic. And here we are, right? We knew the risk was catastrophic. We knew that it would be expensive to close travel but it would be better than catastrophic. So from a risk management perspective it was kind of a no-brainer that anybody who understood my expertise, risk management, would have found that an easy decision.

And in fact who was it who famously followed on pretty quickly was Trump. Would you say that Trump is also an epidemiologist? No. Is he an expert on risk management? Yes. Yes that's exactly what he is in the same way that I am. If you're experienced with business you are somebody who's been making risk management decisions for decades. Yeah Trump is very very experienced at risk management. So if you're disagreeing with the experts because you bring a different expertise that can be valid. Doesn't mean you're right but it could be a valid disagreement.

When the experts were first saying that masks don't work before they said they do I called that a lie on day one. Now did I call it a lie because of my expertise in virology and the physics of masks? No. I brought a different expertise to that and that different expertise is that as the creator of Dilbert and somebody who's worked in business for a long time I know how big organizations work and I know that big organizations will routinely lie to manage behavior. And it occurred to me that since we were talking about a shortage of masks at the same time we were talking, the experts were saying nah you don't need a mask but maybe the healthcare workers do need them. No you don't need them. Save them for the healthcare workers. It won't make any difference. It seemed very likely to me that they were making the decision to manage the shortage and it was not an actual scientific statement. So in this case my expertise in bureaucracies and how they lie to manage resources I applied to this situation and with no understanding of epidemiology or the size of the physics of the masks I correctly predicted that they were lying and that was the truth.

How about what I said early on in the pandemic and I was saying that we should at least do a major test and really really quickly on hydroxychloroquine because if it worked as claimed it would be huge. If it didn't work well it's not much risk. It's pretty low risk compared to the pandemic. Now my current thinking is hydroxychloroquine almost certainly at this point we could say wasn't the game changer. I don't know if it works a little but it certainly isn't working so well that everybody's adopting it. We would know that by now in my opinion. But was I right or wrong in saying we should go hard at hydroxychloroquine in the environment of not knowing whether it worked or not? I was 100 percent right as was Trump. Not right that it works but right that there's enough evidence that it works that we should go hard at it and know for sure because we tested it rigorously. That we should just go at it as hard as possible and at least eliminate it as a possibility. At least eliminate it. So I think I was right on that as well.

All right, so Swalwell. It turns out the information is that there's some confirmation that he did actually have a sexual fling with the Chinese spy Fang. So here's my take. We know that Swalwell pushed the Russia collusion hoax harder than anybody except Adam Schiff. And we know that it was a hoax and we know that that was very bad for the country. And so what Swalwell did was unambiguously very bad for the country. But it could have also been just a mistake, right? And I think that you have to allow that your people that you elect in Congress are going to make some mistakes. So I don't know that you would necessarily fire somebody for pushing the Russia collusion hoax because maybe he believed it, right? Maybe he was just wrong. That's not the worst thing in the world. And if Democrats said well we like him in general and even though he pushed this hoax or maybe they believe the hoax I don't know. So maybe that's not enough to lose your job. You could argue it is but maybe not for at least his voters.

And then there's a question of having a fling with a Chinese spy. Let's say he didn't know it. That's the reporting, right? The reporting is he didn't know she was a Chinese spy. Should you lose your job if you had a relationship with somebody that you didn't know was a spy and the moment you found out you cut contact? I don't think so. I don't think you should lose your job for being fooled by a spy if especially if there's no damage that you can identify. So you got two things that are sort of really close to something you should get fired for but individually I don't know.

Now suppose you added them together. He did two bad things. He didn't do one bad thing. He did two bad things. Is that enough to fire him? Well I don't know. I suppose that would be subjective. But here's the thing. Those two things he did wrong are not unrelated. Meaning that a Chinese spy you would expect to want you to put pressure on Russia and away from China. Now we don't know if that's why Swalwell did what he did. We don't know if Swalwell was motivated, persuaded or brainwashed in any way to push the Russia collusion hoax. All we know is that we watched it. And if these two facts are true that you saw Swalwell going balls to the wall to do something that a Chinese spy would certainly want him to do which has put all the pressure on Russia and hurt the integrity of our elections and question everything etc. He did exactly what a spy would want him to do, a Chinese spy. Now that doesn't mean he did it because of that but we don't know. That's grounds for removal. The fact that we don't know if the only reason he damaged the country so badly is because he was influenced by a Chinese spy, it doesn't matter if you can prove there was a connection between those stories. The fact that what he did was so perfectly exactly what a spy would want him to do that's enough. Even if he's completely innocent you can't have that person in public office. And I feel that that could be unfair to him.

Now I've told you before I've met Eric Swalwell a few times because he knows some people I know and in local parties and stuff. So he's been around a little bit and so I don't have bad feelings about him as a human being. And I don't like people who lose their jobs over politics and stuff like this. But this is sort of a no-brainer. This isn't one of those situations where you can put the well-being of Eric Swalwell over the well-being of the credibility of the republic. He's just less important than the republic. And I think he's got to go. I don't think, and by the way I'm positive I would say this if he were Republican. I don't know if you would, your mileage might vary, but I'm positive I would have the same opinion no matter his politics.

So I said provocatively that although I oppose all violence and I do, that if conservatives don't start planning now to control the streets they'll never win another election. There's no point in having an election because for all practical purposes whoever controls violence in the country runs the country. Let me say that again because it's one of those things it takes you a while to connect the dots. Whoever controls violence, meaning you can get away with it, is the government effectively, right? Even if they're not the government in name. Whoever can control violence is in charge. There's no exception to that. That's not like a bias or a correlation. It's a definition. Whoever controls violenc