videos where she was not being asked by, I think, the committee, she had said separately and earlier that there were things that needed to be looked into in the election, meaning that maybe there's some questions that should be answered about the election.

Now that's pretty different from saying the election was rigged. And do you think that those two things are necessarily incompatible? Here's my take. I'll overlay my opinion, and maybe that's unfair, but I feel like hers is so close to mine that I can do this. So I'm going to defend my own opinion.

I separate the question of whether the election was fair from the question of whether you should support the system. Because I often think, maybe always but I'll say often, that protecting the system is going to be a higher priority than maybe fixing any individual outcome. I just think the system's more important. So as soon as the system elected Biden, I like many people said, huh, I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. So I had my questions. Many people had questions.

But some of you will remember that I also immediately congratulated him on Twitter and have never backed off from my decision that the system elected Biden. So when I say congratulations Biden, I'm saying okay, I got some questions, but I'm not going to dismantle the system. You're going to have to give me a lot better evidence before I'm going to break the system, because that's like the backbone of the country.

So I also have an assumption, this is part of the context for my opinion, that probably elections have been rigged in this country for hundreds of years. Yeah, maybe in small ways, maybe in big ways. Maybe it made a difference such as the Kennedy election. Maybe it made a difference in Johnson's political life. Maybe not. I don't know. I wouldn't know. But in all of those cases I would still support the republic and the voting system.

So I believe that Ivanka is saying something at least consistent with what I'm saying. I won't burden her by saying that her opinion matches mine, but at least it's consistent. Which is that when Barr said the election is fair, he couldn't know if there was any unknown fraud, right? I mean by definition you don't know the thing you don't know. So if there had been problems and nobody knew what they were, how would Barr know that? How would anybody? So Barr couldn't know what he claimed to know.

So when Barr says the election is fair, here's how I interpret it: the system elected Biden, which is what I say. Yeah, the system did what the system did. We observed it. It might have had problems, but I'm going to support the system until you give me really, really good evidence that there's something wrong. And in my opinion I haven't seen it yet. I could. It's possible. And I'm not sure it's possible to audit the full system. I'm pretty sure it isn't.

So I would say Ivanka is on good territory if she says she accepts the Barr interpretation that the election was fair. I interpret that just meaning that it happened. There was an election. We observed an election. It picked a winner. So yes, that happened. But then you should also look into it if you've got questions. That just seems like common sense. The system is better, the system is healthier if you look into any allegations, because then you can keep making sure that you're finding anything that's a problem.

I've got a theory that maybe a lawyer should not be allowed to run for office. And it's based on a very obvious and simple concept. People do what they're trained to do. That's why training works. It wires your brain to think in a certain way. The benefit of learning economics actually has very little to do with economics. I don't know if I've ever told you that before. But the benefit of learning economics is it wires your brain to simply view things a certain way that's productive. That has nothing to do with the economy in many cases.

If you took economics so you could predict the future, well good luck with that. And nobody can do that. All the economics in the world isn't going to tell you what's going to happen next year. Too many surprises. But it does wire your brain to know, for example, that if you're saying something is good or bad, you better be comparing it to something. Which, as amazing as this sounds, is not automatic thinking. It's not even common sense. People will often just look at a thing and say that's good or bad without regard to what they're comparing it to, which is the only relevant question.

So once you take economics, you automatically see things as pairs. It's either this or that or this or that or the third thing, etc. So that wiring just completely changes how you act all the time. You can't turn it off. You could not force me to not consider alternatives when I look at