I mean, obviously, if a president could make the economy great that, and there was like a button. He could press theyd be pressing that button at the speed of light. The government just is not good at running things thats. The main thing do you feel uh. The government is standing in the way of innovation at all. Well, sometimes, the government, i dont, think the government tends to stand in the way of innovation, but sometimes it can overregulate industries to the point where innovation becomes very difficult. Um i mean in the i think the auto industry used to be a great hotbed of innovation. At the beginning of the 20th century, but uh, but now theres, so many regulations that intended to protect consumers. Um i mean the body of regulation for cars could like full. You know this room its just crazy. How much regulation there is that down to like what the the headlamps are supposed to be like and the they even specify the use, some of the elements of the user interface on the dashboard, and some of these are completely anachronistic. So you feel you can argue with these regulations. You just have to well, you can argue with them, but not with great success, and you can actually get these things changed, but it takes ages. Um, like one of the things were trying to get is like like. Why should you have side mirrors if you can have say little video cameras, tiny video cameras and have them? You know display an image inside the car um, but there are all these regulations saying you have to have side mirrors and i went and met with the secretary of transport.
Like can you change this regulation? Still? Nothing has happened. That was like two years ago um. I said i think, im just glad that the pres you know being the us president, is like being captain of a large ship with a small writer and so theres just a limit to how much good or bad a president can can actually do. I mean obviously, if a president could make the economy great that, and there was like a button. They could press theyd be pressing that button at the speed of light, so you know that they just but they they cant. So i cant that cant just magically make the economy good. Um. No president wants the economy bad ever um that they, you know like theres, just a limit to how much they can do um and um. I guess there is the nuclear thing which is, i dont think we would like just arbitrarily launch nuclear missiles yeah president can do that uh. I dont think so i mean i think that hes no hes the commander in chief, i still dont, think that means you can just launch nuclear missiles or whenever you want yeah um. I think congress would be like quite upset about that and yeah, but i think i think, like the military would be like yeah. We really think congress should be consulted on before we launch uh yeah im, quite confident that the military would not just you know, randomly agree to launching nuclear missiles at somebody.
I think the reality of being president is that youre actually like the captain of a very huge ship and have a small rudder, because, because obviously, if i mean if there was a button that a president could push that said, economic prosperity youd be like theyre hitting That button real, fast, full steam ahead yeah measure the speed of light by how fast they measure they press that button, because that would be thats called like the re election button um. So so so im not sure how much the president can really do but um, but i think i think uh uh, you know im generally a fan of like minimal government interference in the economy. Um, like the government, should be kind of a like the referee, but not the player um and there shouldnt be too many referees, but but um there is an exception, which is when theres uh an unpriced externality such as the co2 capacity of the oceans and atmosphere. So when you have an unpriced externality, then the normal mechanisms do not work and then govern its governments role to to intervene in a way. Thats, sensible and the best way to intervene is to is, to put it, is to assign a proper price to whatever the the the common good is thats being consumed, um and then, and so youre saying there should be attacks on gas. They should attacks on carbon. You know if the bad thing is uh carbon accumulation in the atmosphere.
Then there needs to be attacks on on that um and then we can. That will rest. And then you get rid of all subsidies and all everything else um, and it seems like logical that you should tax things that are most likely to be bad rather than you know like thats. Why we attack cigarettes and alcohol um because those those are probably bad for you um, so so uh yeah. So you want to err on the side of taxing things that are probably bad and and not tax things that are, that are good um, and so i think it given that there is a need to gather tax for the um. You know to pay for the federal government. We should shift the tax burden to to bad things and then adjust that that tax of that bad thing, according to whatever is going to result in in the behavior that we think is beneficial for the future. You know the only alternative would be to say: okay lets, give the stock to the government or something, and then the government would be running things and that the government just is not good at running things. Thats. The main thing um but theres like like a fundamental sort of question of like consumption versus capital allocation um. This is probably gon na get me to trouble, but uh the the paradigm of say, communism versus capitalism. I think is fundamentally um sort of orthogonal to the reality of uh of of of actual economics in in some ways so uh.
What you actually care about is like the responsiveness of the feedback loops to the maximizing happiness of the population um and if, if more resources are controlled by entities that have per response in their feedback loops. So if its like a monopoly corporation or a small oligopoly or in the limit, i would say the monopolistic corporation in the limit is the government, so you know its just its its. This is not to see if people work at the governor bad, because if those same people are taking put in a better sort of operating system situation, their outcome will be much better um. So its really just. What is the responsiveness of the organization to maximizing the happiness of the people, um and um, and so you want to have a competitive situation where its truly competitive uh, where companies arent gaming, the system, um and and then, where the rules are set correctly, um and And then you need to be on the alert for regulatory capture where the the referees are in fact captured by the players, which is you know, and the players should not control the referees, so um theres a limit to how much harm any given president. Are you sure about that? Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, so youre not worried about? Are you backing in either of the candidates at this point? Try to stay out of this situation because i dont think thats the finest moment in our democracy. Well, given that its not the finest moment in our democracy, do you think the best thing is to stay out or well see to get in im, not sure what what im going to do to head off to the worst im, not sure how much influence i Could have as as one person on the outcome, so i mean if i think i could make a difference.