ther way? Because correct me if I'm wrong, don't we give more money to poorer citizens relative to how much they put into the system? Is that not true? Or is that one of those things that you assume is true but it's not? Obviously backwards because sometimes in economics you get that a lot. Somebody says not true. Yeah because I think there might be a contrarian view on this. But my point is this: without knowing that difference could you calculate reparations?

Because if what you're trying to do is say has the United States treated this group of citizens fairly, wouldn't you have to conclude all of the unfairness from the beginning of the country on to today? And if there was some big difference in the per capita spending or per capita benefit from the government if you calculate it some other way, wouldn't that have to be in the calculation?

Now of course all of it makes it impossible because you end up with so many assumptions and variables that nobody could come up with the same number. So if you did reparations you would end up just pulling it out of your ass because there's no better way to do it. You couldn't calculate it. It just wouldn't be possible.

And then I've also provocatively said that the correct comparison would be how American Black citizens who have a legacy back to the Civil War, how are they doing compared to the people who did not get captured as slaves and taken to America. So with the descendants of the African residents, are they doing better or worse than Americans? Because then what do you say? You say well you're still doing better than you would have done. So what's the right comparison? Do you compare Black African slaves and their descendants to the Black African non-slaves? Because that would be a logical comparison but it won't get you the right result, you know, then the societally approved result.

Everything is about what you compare things to. And that's one of the reasons that economists can usually agree with each other eventually and non-economists can't.

When we talk about the billionaires who want to control the globe, how many of you believe that's a good way of understanding the world? Okay, how many of you think that a fair filter on the world is that there's a global elite and they've got some kind of reset happening and the point of it is to take over the world and they would have the power?

Okay, there's something happening here that's really weird that I don't understand. Your comments are completely out of line with what I'm expecting to see. All right, I thought I would see 75 percent yeses but I saw 75 percent of those interesting. Now those of you who think yes, what do you make of the fact that most of this audience is fairly similar in attit