ight need to limit it to people who voted because they're going to try a little harder to be informed. But let's say the people who voted came up with a number of people to come in. The good part about that is that the wisdom of crowds would pick up how people feel about it and how people feel about it is actually part of the question. Because if you have a really bad attitude about it you might vote differently. You might treat them differently. So how they feel does matter. And the economist might ignore how people feel and just say oh the dollars are better this way. But if it were the wisdom of the crowds where you just polled the public and said should we let in another million yes or no, then people would look around. They'd say well how do I feel? Like does this feel like a risk to me or not? Because our feelings are part of the decision. You know if something makes you feel bad it costs you. That's a real price. So you can't ignore that. And I think the economist would ignore that whereas the wisdom of the crowd if we just sort of voted on it would capture how we feel and also a little bit a sense of the economics as best we could. It's a good suggestion. I think that's a productive suggestion.

All right, should cops attack what? Let the economist suggest and the people decide. Well there you go. There you go. That would be a twofer, wouldn't it? That's not bad. All right, so the suggestion is you let the economist make their recommendation but you don't follow it. You see how the public feels first because their feelings matter. You could easily imagine that the economists say this is going to be a good thing to let in a million people and you can imagine that the public saying you know I don't feel comfortable with that. Like I see your numbers. I just don't feel comfortable with it for whatever reason. And then maybe have the president have the final vote. But then the president could look at the economists or could look at the public or could look at both of them. Still you probably want the president to make the decision or Congress I suppose. But I'd love to see it informed by the public and the economist. Let the crowds specify and the economists verify. If you flipped it around I think the public is better at responding to the experts than the experts are at responding to just an uninformed feeling. I think it works better economists first. But that's a good suggestion. I like all the suggestions that at least make you think a little deeper. So that's a great suggestion.

Tyranny blah blah. Experts responding to feelings is how we got lockdowns. Maybe.

How much would you like to see me interview Rob Reiner? Would that be wild? No really you said no seriously. You don't think that would entertain you or is it just you don't want to hear any more from... oh my God. See here's why I would be the perfect one to interview him. Because I like him. I like him. I know he's just likeable. The stuff he says just looks bad crazy but that's