of all on the hook. Like I don't feel that I don't have responsibility for this. I feel like I do. I feel like I do.

Now you know my philosophy which is in two occasions I've preferred being a stepdad than a biological dad. Now why did I willingly take on these stepdad functions? Because in both cases it was an attractive proposition. So you don't think other single women can learn how to become an attractive proposition so that men will say you know I would love to be part of that deal. Let me in. Yeah let me tell you this. There is not much competition out there, is there? Anybody single? Anybody single watching? Have you noticed that weirdly there isn't much competition out there? Here's what I mean. If you go to the gym and have a job you're in the top 10% of all eligible men. That's true. If you go to the gym and you have a job you're in the top 10% of all eligible men. Was that hard? That wasn't hard. What would it take for a single woman to have multiple men who want to marry her? Not hard. I'm not going to say go to the gym because then I look like a sexist jerk. I'm just going to say that it's not hard to get into the top 10% of eligible people. It's not hard. It really isn't. You just have to be nice to people, build your talent stack, work on your appeal, right, which is mostly fitness and diet. Pretty much anybody can get in the top 10%. Pretty much anybody. Let's say for their age. You'd have to adjust for age. And yeah so I would say that maybe if we were a little less woke we could be more beneficial to the base problem which is you have single women that no man wants to marry. I'm sorry if there are a lot of single women that no man wants to marry you should at least ask yourself can the women try harder? It has to be asked. I'm not letting the men off the hook whatsoever. The men have to be held to the maximum amount of reasonable responsibility for whatever they do. But they're not the only ones in the conversation. That's all I'm saying.

Remember I told you that nobody really understands inflation and debt and the Fed and all that. Do you believe me when I say that literally nobody understands it? Like the experts don't really understand it well. Here's a little more evidence to that case. There's an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal by Richard Vigilante. I hope I'm pronouncing his name right. And I won't give you the whole thing but his basic point is that nobody understands the topic and that the only person who did was some economist in the Reagan era and maybe Reagan himself. And I'm going to read just a little portion of it and all I'm not trying to get you to understand it right. So when you don't understand this don't worry about that. That's not the point. I want you to understand that here's somebody who makes what I think is a fairly strong argument that nobody understands it.

All right so here's his definition. This is Richard Vigilante for the Wall Street Journal and I recommend the piece. It's eye-opening. He said that Reagan beat inflation not by reducing the official money supply. So remember everybody thinks that inflation is caused by an increase in M2, the money supply. But Reagan beat inflation not by reducing it. Okay so that's the first thing that's opposite of what everybody thinks. Like everybody thinks increasing the money supply is that's inflation. That's all it is. Too much money for too few goods. But Reagan beat inflation not by reducing the official money supply. M2 nearly doubled during his time. Okay that's opposite everything that everybody believes. But he did it by boosting demand for money. How do you do that? How do you boost the demand for money?

The great lesson of the Reagan era is that money supply is determined by investment opportunity. What absent such opportunities, no matter how much money the government gives people they will reject it and turn it into stuff, meaning they'll buy goods. So people have two choices of what to do with money, simplifying things. They can put money into just buying things that they like or they can invest. If you give them better opportunity to invest then that money supply just gets sucked up into investments which creates new taxes which creates all kinds of goodness. But if you take that money supply and there's too much of it and there's just a lot of money people will say you know I don't need this new thing but my money's not worth much and I'd like a chair. I'll just turn my money into a chair because the money's going to be worthless. I might as well have a chair or something like that. I'm simplifying too much.

And so what do you think of that? What do you think of the idea that all we would need to do is a Reagan-ish, Trump-ish change in, I think what Reagan did is he changed the capital gains taxes and some other things to make investment much more worthy. And he beat inflation because he came in after Carter, right? So he came in during the stagflation near the worst of all possible worlds. So if all you do is make it better to invest you solve everything.

So now I'm going to give you two rules of economics that could explain everything, right? Number one is if employment is good you're probably fine. I keep telling you that if you just look at the one variable, is our employment rate good, you're probably fine as long as you're not ruining the country with inflation or debt, right? So that's the big variable. So here's the one rule maybe, maybe the one rule that tells you if you're in trouble in inflation in the long run is whether you're making investment look like a good option. So if the government is continuing to make investment look good you solve every problem. So two things to know your economy. If your employment is good you're probably in good shape as long as your inflation is also good. And you can predict that by your investment situation.

Now what would happen if Republicans take control of Congress and the presidency? Four words. I got four words for you. If you think the Republicans are going to take both the Congress and the presidency, four words: you better own stock. Because from our current bottom, and I think we're close to some kind of a bottom here, if Republicans go ahead and do what people kind of sort of think is going to happen, take control of things, there's almost no way that they won't make investment more attractive. And that will fix the inflation or it will look like it is which then the anticipation actually changes the reality. And we could be entering the single best investment opportunity of all time. I wonder if that'll get quoted somewhere. So I'll say it again just in case somebody wants to quote it somewhere.

These two situations I think are unprecedented. Correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not a historian. I say it's unprecedented. We have the economic badness that's pretty bad, the high inflation, the big debt. So we've got the economic badness and the shortages and everything else at the same time we have what looks like a Republican sweep upcoming and almost unstoppable. Have we ever had a situation where the economics were at their lowest point, the Republicans look like a sure bet for taking control, and the Republican policies are the exact prescription for fixin