money into NATO and then taking it right back out to buy our weapons. So it's not really monetizing it right? It's not monetizing it. Because a lot of it's our own money.

Here's why you're wrong about that. It's a concept called sunk costs. Here's how you should do that analysis. Were we going to pay our 2% to NATO like the other countries were supposed to? Yes. We were going to give NATO money no matter what they did with it. That's called a sunk cost. Meaning that part's not going to change. The money will come out of our pockets and it will go to NATO. Nothing will change that. That's the most public agreed upon thing that all of the countries will try to get to their 2% in the not right away but there's a schedule for that but the United States most certainly is signed up for a certain amount of money that we will definitely take out of our pockets and definitely give to NATO. If you know that that won't change and can't change in any reasonable way then that doesn't count in the analysis. So in other words if we're going to give NATO money anyway the only question is do we want some of it back in the form of buying weapons from the US? And that's apparently what Trump's doing. So if you understand the concept of sunk costs the money we give to NATO is just going to be there no matter what no matter what they do with it. Wouldn't it make more sense for us to have as much of that as possible come right back to the United States in terms of purchasing American products, in this case warfighting products? Of course it would. Of course it would.

So we may have created a situation or Trump may have in which we don't have to solve the problem at all because the two sides that are fighting prefer the war. And again when I say they prefer the war they would both like the other side to stop fighting and for their side to get everything they wanted out of it. But that's not going to happen. So instead they don't prefer stopping because that would give the other one the win. So they prefer to fight. So Trump monetized it. I could not be more proud of my president. If that's what's really happening and you know I'm getting ahead of it a little bit. Maybe that's not what's happening but if that's what he came up with, well we can't stop it. We might as well monetize it. I would be so impressed. I mean I would just be so impressed if he monetized it.

Anyway Russian President Vladimir Putin allegedly is in favor of an Iran nuclear deal in which Iran would not be allowed to enrich uranium on their own. But since Putin is a weasel do we think he's just trying to be useful for world peace? Or is it more likely that if Iran is not allowed to enrich that they would have to depend on other countries such as Russia to provide them with the uranium that's already enriched for their medical use and for their domestic nuclear energy use. And that would give Russia some leverage over Iran. So I feel like this is more about Russia having some leverage over Iran but I doubt it's because he's trying to be useful.

In Great Britain according to The Telegraph there are some serious people who think that Britain should build more bomb shelters because they expect to be in a war with Russia. Are you following that? That the UK is acting like it's preparing for war with Russia. Why would the UK want to have a war with Russia? That seems like the worst idea in the world for