ine because if most of the world were not afraid maybe we wouldn't do what we needed to do to be fine. But it's one of those good ways to predict the world.

So let's see if I can remember them all. Help me out. So you've got the Adam's law of slow-moving disasters to predict that we'll figure our way out of stuff. There's "oh we'll be fine" which assumes that we get too much scare in the beginning and we'll be fine, we'll figure it out. Follow the money, that always works. Everything is fake news. And am I forgetting any?

How does Adam's law work if we ignore and don't look at things? Then it doesn't work. The slippery slope fallacy. The slippery slope fallacy says things will keep going until a counterforce pops up. But it always does. That's harder to use to predict the future though because you don't know when the counterforce pops up. You can only be sure it does.

All right, here's another one. Another way to predict the future: if there's anything that can be hacked — and I'll use hacked in every sense, not just computer hacking but something you can hack — if something can be hacked and there's a large potential gain, a low risk of getting caught, and a lot of people involved, over time there's a hundred percent chance the system will get hacked. Am I right? Because I know there's at least one young viewer who mocks me when I say "am I right" but am I right? All right, you know who you are. How young? I don't know, five, six, maybe five. I heard I have a fan who's very young anyway.

Suppose you decided to calculate reparations. Here's a thought I had today and this is just the bad economist in me. I tend to think about very geeky things. You know people always wonder like what's it like to be me because I have an unusual job. And one of the things is you wouldn't believe the weird nerdy thoughts that go through my head. Here's one. If you were going to calculate reparations, how the hell would you do it? Right? Other people have asked this question but let me ask you this.

If you were to study the amount that the government spends on its people — people who have needs, various needs, whatever the government provides — would you find any difference between the per capita of what we spend on Black citizens and have spent for however many years versus White citizens of America? Would there be a difference? And should you include that? Because you could imagine including it in either direction.

Suppose you found out that in addition to whatever systemic racism is lingering from slavery, what if in addition to that the average White citizen was getting more from the government than the average Black citizen? Well then you should also say well that's even worse. So throw that in the calculation so you can give the Black citizens even more. Because you know you would have a government who not only abused them during slavery but then systemic racism but then for whatever reason was even giving White citizens more money for decades if that was what the numbers told.

But what if it goes the o