en debunked is heating it to a temperature that doesn't hurt the structure of the mask the same way the chemicals do but kills all the bugs. And the suggestion, I'm not a scientist, I'm not recommending it, don't try it at home, I'm just passing it along so you know what people are talking about. The heating an oven at 150 degrees for 30 minutes would remove any risk from the mask, except that I don't know exactly what it does to the integrity of the mask. You know, do we know that 158 degrees for 30 minutes in an oven, do we know that doesn't affect the integrity? So apparently it was tested and the reports are that that would be the one that would be the highest probability of giving you the safest reusable mask. But don't take my word for any of this. These are all preliminary. I don't think any of the studies meet the scientific rigor yet, but these are just indications.

All right, let's talk about the government is looking at backstopping businesses who might otherwise go into bankruptcy. And here's the question I would ask. I saw it described as loans but then I also heard some talk about the government taking equity. Now shouldn't we always take equity? Why would we ever do a loan? I guess each situation is different. Maybe some don't have it. Could be that some don't have stock so you don't have that option. But for any large company that is public and has stock, why would the government not take stock and own equity on behalf of the public in return for taking a failing company and turning it around?

Now what's interesting about the government investing in something is that when the government puts money into a business it's probably going to make it, especially if the government is making other changes to the economy in the world that would make it successful. So having our government take equity, I'm a big fan of that, because do you know where the stock market is right now? Yes you do. It's very low. If our government had saved any of these stocks that are in the toilet and just said all right you know we'll take 5% of your stock but we're going to keep you alive, what would that stock be worth two weeks from now? Double, you know. I'm pretty sure the government could double its money. Maybe not double it but let's say 30 percent in a year. I think the government could make 30 percent in a year simply by taking equity in these bigger companies that have stock. So if we're not doing that I'd need an explanation why.

Let's talk about the bill. I'm gonna check the news, see if there's a headline that says we've got a bill that's passed, because you know I'd hate to be cursing for no reason at all.

Because taking an equity stake creates an irresistible moral hazard, I believe that we have tested it, right? Did the government not take an equity stake in Chrysler? And maybe some economic historians can give me other examples. But I think it's already been tested, and for a short-term use I don't think anybody's seen a problem with it. But in fact, check me on it. It looks like it does not look like our Congress has acted. So yeah, is that right? Looks like our Congress has not acted.

All right, so here's my opinion on this. So you've seen the news that Democrats apparently have tried to add some pork to the bill. Republicans say that's what's killing it. But at the same time Democrats are saying that Republicans are making this big slush fund. It doesn't have enough controls on it to know w