s together. I don't know if this is practical. This is just brainstorming, so don't be too critical. Take this as what I call the bad idea or the bad version. The bad version just makes you maybe think of a better version, right? So I'm just stimulating your thinking process. It goes like this: How could we manufacture things in the United States cheaply enough that we could compete with whatever was happening in China? Two ways.

Number one, as I see over in the Locals platform where we're well educated on this: robots. You can build with robots just as cheaply in America as you can in China. Do you know why? Because a robot costs the same if China buys a robot. It costs the same as if we buy a robot. And the robot works all night, and it makes you your stuff. So you get kind of close to the same cost. And you also eliminate the shipping. You eliminate all the time problems and the shipping, because it's made locally now. So robots is part of it. What I'd like to see is more of that. But we don't want to robotize too quickly, do we? You know, you don't want to go full robot, because that would wipe out American jobs as well. Yeah, unions are going to have a problem with it. So robots are part of the answer.

But we've got a million immigrants coming in. If we took those million immigrants and said you can come into the United States but only into these following zones—their manufacturing zones—and in these special manufacturing zones where you're welcome, you know, we'd like to know who you are and know who we're getting. We don't want the criminals. But we've got a lot of immigrants. They're not Americans, and we're not going to hold them to the same minimum wage. You can come live here, and you can even stay in factory housing, because it's better than whatever you had going when you left. And maybe you can take some English classes. Maybe you can work your way up to some kind of a plan where you could become a citizen, or maybe your kids can become citizens or something. So some kind of path.

Somebody says, be like slave owners. No, you want to do this as humanely as possible, and you want to give them a path in which they solve our problem while we solve their problem. Do you know what our problem is? China. Our problem is China. If we can solve China, and what it brings us is a million immigrants who work and produce things for Americans at low cost, and so they solve our biggest geopolitical problem. They bring youth into the country, because we need it for the long run. You got to bring lots of young people in. They bring in workers who, within their special zones, don't have any minimum wage, but they can still live a decent life while they're learning English and maybe preparing for some more substantial job.

Now the key would be that they could do this legally, but they couldn't leave the zone. So you'd have to have some control over that. But you'd want to make it work well enough that people didn't want to leave, because if they leave the zone, they're just going to get a low-paying job somewhere else. So if you had a good, safe area with maybe even some healthcare from the companies—not from the government, from the companies—somebody says that's a modern plantation. Compared to the alternative, right? So what you're saying is, gosh, you would be building a system that sounds like the company's store. Historically this has been a bad model. Am I right? Historically what I'm explaining would have been a bad idea. It would have just turned into sweatshops and slave labor.

But what's different about 2021? You just put cameras everywhere. Yeah, you just say, okay, if you're a company and you're going to hire these immigrants at less than a minimum wage, you have a responsibility to really be monitored. And that would be different in 2021. We could guarantee that these companies are watched very carefully to make sure that they don't become a place where their people are stuck forever and they owe money. It's a ghetto, any of that stuff. So the companies would have to make sure that the living spaces are well maintained. That'll be inexpensive. They'd have to make sure that the working conditions are human and that they get paid enough that they're not trapped there forever. You know, they have some way out.

Somebody says, here it comes to the deplatforming. All right, so I'm looking at your comments, and I see lots of "now they'll want reparations." Sounds like Dubai. I doubt it, because I don't think Dubai is worried too much about the working conditions of the immigrants. This sounds like something that would not take human motivation into account. I believe the opposite of that. I believe that this model relies on human motivation being exactly what it is. In other words, the only way to make this work is to make it more advantageous for immigrants to go through this process than to avoid it. Right? That's the key. Yeah, you'd have to design the process so that the people who are subject to it say, yeah, I'd prefer it. It's way better than the alternative, because the alternative, I don't know what's going to happen to me. But here I've got a definite job that's better.

We are past that point. Yeah. Now if you're thinking that I think this is practical and we could start this up tomorrow and stuff—not so much right now. It's not like the Uyghur camps. I guess people would be able to leave and go home anytime they wanted. They just couldn't leave and come into the country.

All right, here's CNN giving you some fake news with numbers. I'm going to read you what CNN said and see if you can tell me what's the fake news part of this. All right, here's the test. CNN says, quote, "A CDC study published in August suggested that people that got COVID-19 in 2020 and didn't get a vaccine were more than twice as likely to be reinfected—to get COVID a second time in May or June of 2021—compared with people who were fully vaccinated."

So you can get COVID if you're vaccinated. All right, you can get COVID if you're vaccinated. Everybody knows that, right? We're all—we all know that the vaccine doesn't completely stop it. It reduces the odds way, way down. So the odds of getting it if you're vaccinated are way down. Most of you don't know that. Most of you think that the odds of getting it is about the same if you're vaccinated or unvaccinated. It's not even close, right? Did you know that? How many of you didn't know that? Is there anybody here who thought that the odds of getting it were about the same if you're vaccinated or not vaccinated? Yeah, you'll see people telling me I'm wrong. Go research that. I won't argue it here. Just go research that, and watch that the other people in the feed are telling you that you're wrong.

Yeah, see, the thing that makes you think I'm wrong is a statistic that's misleading. And this is the statistic that says that in some places more vaccinated people are coming in with infection than unvaccinated. Right? So that's what you're thinking. There are these places that more vaccinated people have it than unvaccinated. That's not the statistic you should be looking at. That's misleading. And here's why. I'll give you the simple explanation. Once everybody is vaccinated—let's say in a town, just look at a town. Everybody gets vaccinated. What percentage of the people who get COVID are vaccinated? All of them. Yeah, 100 percent of the people who get COVID would also be vaccinated, because everybody's vaccinated. So the more vaccinations you have, you're guaranteed—given that you can still get it—you're guaranteed that most people who get it will be vaccinated. But that doesn't change the statistic that your odds of getting it at all are way, way lower if you're vaccinated.

Now, maybe not in the long term. In the long term maybe we're all going to get it, right? But you'd rather be vaccinated if you do. Well, maybe you don't. I won't say that you'd rather. I'll say that the scientists are telling you you'd be better off that way. But you make your own decision.

Crawley says you can't know that they aren't tracking vaccinated cases. Yes, sir. Yeah, they're not tracking everybody who got vaccinated, but they