Speaker 1: And this is show right, everybody, welcome to your On
Speaker 1: Brooks Show on this Tuesday, August sixth, uh fifth, not
Speaker 1: August sixth yet stole August fifth, fifth fifth little jet
Speaker 1: lag yea, hopefully everything everybody's having a good start to
Speaker 1: you a week.
Speaker 2: As you can see, I'm not at home.
Speaker 1: Uh, this is uh, this is I am in Lisabon, Portugal.
Speaker 1: This is an office I rended in Lisbon. So, uh,
Speaker 1: you're stuck with this background for the next We are
Speaker 1: stuck with this background for the next three weeks, so
Speaker 1: almost three weeks that I am going to be in
Speaker 1: in Lisbon. So I will be, you know, trying to
Speaker 1: keep you guys up to date on my travels as
Speaker 1: we go along, telling you a little bit about what's
Speaker 1: going on over here, just impressions of the different different places,
Speaker 1: but and also covering the usual, the news and everything else,
Speaker 1: so you guys stay up to date. All right, Let's see,
Speaker 1: I just need to get Yeah, the setup here is
Speaker 1: a little different, so I'm just trying to get everything
Speaker 1: up to speed. There we go. We've got people on
Speaker 1: the chat, We've got people watching all right the time.
Speaker 1: The schedule for this week is going to be a
Speaker 1: little in and out. We'll see. I'm hoping to do
Speaker 1: a show tomorrow at twelve pm East Coast time, and
Speaker 1: then the show on let's see Thursday and Friday, we'll see,
Speaker 1: and then I'm not sure I'll be able to do
Speaker 1: a show on Saturday and on Sunday.
Speaker 2: I think I'm.
Speaker 1: Going out with a bunch of The objective is here
Speaker 1: in Portugal. Our fans are here in Portugal, to dinners
Speaker 1: are probably not. Time difference is about five hours, is
Speaker 1: exactly five hours to the East coast. I'll be in
Speaker 1: Italy later in actually in September, and then it'll be
Speaker 1: six hours. So again we'll have to shift the schedule
Speaker 1: and it become even more complicated. I don't know. You
Speaker 1: guys like the stripes, don't Oh, Silvanus is here. Oh,
Speaker 1: I haven't seen Silvanas in a while. Hey, Savanas, thank you,
Speaker 1: and thank you for the fifty dollars. That is very
Speaker 1: very generous. Really appreciate that.
Speaker 2: All right, let's just jump in, we'll jump into the news.
Speaker 1: I'll just say I don't know first impressions of Lisbon.
Speaker 1: You know, I like Lisbon. I've been here several times.
Speaker 1: We've had a great little airbnb apartment here, and I think, what,
Speaker 1: what is a very nice and philly central area. Uh yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's not as walkable as Barcelona was from
Speaker 1: last year, partially because uh streets and narrow. Uh these
Speaker 1: little stones, the streets are, the pavements are all these
Speaker 1: little stones, which is kind of pretty, but it's very
Speaker 1: slippery to really be careful, very hilly. A Barcelona is flat,
Speaker 1: lots of trees, white boulevards, easy, easy, easy to walk through,
Speaker 1: shade everywhere. Easy. Here it's a little different. Everything's narrow,
Speaker 1: smaller cobblestones. Yeah, But other than that, it's it's it's
Speaker 1: a cool place to be. We were so far day one,
Speaker 1: having a good time, all right, And we got this
Speaker 1: office and it's all set up, and we got the
Speaker 1: cam and sound and everything's working, and we got a
Speaker 1: great internet set up, so we should have no problems
Speaker 1: as as we move. As we move forward, how's the picture,
Speaker 1: you guys? Okay with the picture lighting all of that.
Speaker 1: Just let us know. Savannas's excuse is he was on vacation.
Speaker 1: So I take it that you don't watch your on
Speaker 1: book show live when you're on vacation. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: not your top priority when you're on vacation. I am kidding, kidding,
Speaker 1: all right, So let's start. I mean, the you know,
Speaker 1: the Congress is going to be incredibly competitive in the
Speaker 1: election next year and in twenty six, and Republicans are
Speaker 1: very worried because there's a good chance the Republicans are
Speaker 1: going to lose the House. The election, the mid term
Speaker 1: election is usually one in which the incumbent political party loses,
Speaker 1: and right now the Republicans have what a three vote
Speaker 1: majority in the House of Representative.
Speaker 2: It's very likely.
Speaker 1: You know, if you had to put odds on it,
Speaker 1: just put aside all the politics and what's going on
Speaker 1: in the world, just straight straight precedent, you'd have to
Speaker 1: argue that it's incredibly likely that Republicans lose the House
Speaker 1: of Representatives. I don't know if they lose the Senate,
Speaker 1: that's going to be a lot closer. They probably don't
Speaker 1: gain in the Senate, but I don't think Republicans lose
Speaker 1: the Senate either, So it'll be interesting to see. It'll
Speaker 1: be interesting to see what happens, But houses good chance
Speaker 1: that they that they lose it, and they could lose
Speaker 1: big given how unpopular. Trump is the only thing saving
Speaker 1: Republicans right now from completely being slaught in the medium
Speaker 1: election is the fact that there's only one thing more
Speaker 1: unpopular than Trump. And the thing that is more unpopular
Speaker 1: than Trump is other Democrats, so less popular than Trump.
Speaker 1: But Trump is very unpopular. The tariffs are very unpopular.
Speaker 1: I think by next year people will feel the tariffs.
Speaker 1: They'll pay the cost of the tarists. We'll talk about
Speaker 1: taffs in a minute. But people have said, oh, you
Speaker 1: can avoid the trouts by just not buying stuff that's
Speaker 1: made in outside the United States. It's easier said than done.
Speaker 2: Like what smartphone would you buy now? Right now?
Speaker 1: There's an exception for smartphones, right, but if the tarts
Speaker 1: go on smartphones, what smartphone would you buy? But put
Speaker 1: that aside. A lot of the things you buy that
Speaker 1: are labeled made in the United States States have components
Speaker 1: that are not made in the United States, so you're
Speaker 1: paying a TA one way or the other. What about clothes,
Speaker 1: Any of you buy clothes, how many you only buy
Speaker 1: clothes made in America? Like, do you have anything to wear?
Speaker 1: There's almost no clothes made in America. So you can
Speaker 1: try to go out there and buy buy America and
Speaker 1: you know, avoid paying the tariff that way. But the
Speaker 1: chance that you can actually be successful is very, very
Speaker 1: very low. It's just not doable. It's just not practical. Anyway.
Speaker 1: The consequence of the fact that Republicans are probably going
Speaker 1: to lose the House is a is a little bit
Speaker 1: of panic in the Republican Party, and the consequence of
Speaker 1: the panic is to try to figure out how to
Speaker 1: minimize the losses or to reverse them. And one way
Speaker 1: to do that is what's called to gerry manda.
Speaker 3: That is to re redo the borders of the districts
Speaker 3: to elect elect members to the House of Representatives in
Speaker 3: order to maximize the number of Republicans that get elected.
Speaker 1: So the state doing that right now that has already
Speaker 1: proposed a map that they believe would increase the number
Speaker 1: of Republicans in the House of Representative by five is Texas.
Speaker 1: And what they basically do, what we jurymandering, what redistricting
Speaker 1: basically comprises up, is drawing the lines to the districts
Speaker 1: in ways that in a sense, concentrate all the Democrats
Speaker 1: in a few districts which you're going to lose and
Speaker 1: diluting their presence and all the other districts, including districts
Speaker 1: maybe they used to have a majority. Now you split
Speaker 1: that district up in a way that puts all that
Speaker 1: splits the Democrats with the Republicans in a way that
Speaker 1: Republicans have a majority in each one of those. This
Speaker 1: is being done almost since the founding, and it was
Speaker 1: a it was a major it's a major way in
Speaker 1: which the parties reach.
Speaker 2: Again, now they do it.
Speaker 1: They have to do it every ten years after the census,
Speaker 1: because that's the time in which you get actual population
Speaker 1: numbers and you know who's living where, and it's a
Speaker 1: time to kind of redo redo the districts, the congressional districts.
Speaker 1: But what Texas is doing is what is a twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five, So we're not anywherey of a census. They're
Speaker 1: doing it in the middle between two censuses, which is
Speaker 1: not usual.
Speaker 2: It's not something usually done.
Speaker 1: It's it's an exception. But it's legal. There's no there's
Speaker 1: no case to be made that it is illegal. It's illegal,
Speaker 1: and there's no case to be made. This can't go
Speaker 1: to the courts. There's arguably the courts will intervene and
Speaker 1: if the gerrymandering is done along racial grounds, that is,
Speaker 1: to to basically make sure that blacks don't get any
Speaker 1: representatives out of places where there were a lot of blacks,
Speaker 1: as I think the state of Alabama's been trying to do,
Speaker 1: and the Supreme Court has denied them and kept keep
Speaker 1: sending it back to redo, so they don't want to do.
Speaker 1: You know, the courts generally will not review cases where
Speaker 1: it's just political. So, I mean, so before we get
Speaker 1: the Texas case. Just to give you some history, the
Speaker 1: term jury mandering. Jury mandering goes back to eighteen twelve
Speaker 1: when Massachusetts Governor Eldbridge Jerry signed a bill redrawing state
Speaker 1: Senate districts to benefit the Democratic Republican Party I guess
Speaker 1: against whom, I'm not sure, against the Whigs. So some thought,
Speaker 1: you know, that the districts were very odd shaped, that
Speaker 1: they looked one of them looked like a salamander. A
Speaker 1: newspaper illustration dubbed it jerry manda, and the term has
Speaker 1: now come down to describe any district drawn for political advantage,
Speaker 1: drawn in order to maximize a particular party's presence in
Speaker 1: a particular district or to minimize so uh jerry mandering.
Speaker 1: Uh I I Elbridge. Jerry. By the way, UH lost
Speaker 1: a reelection campaign to be governor of Massachusetts in eighteen twelve,
Speaker 1: but he won election that same year as vice president
Speaker 1: with UH president UH James Madison, so he was James
Speaker 1: Madison Vice president again. According to the US Constitution, political
Speaker 1: gerrymandering is not illegal. In a twenty nineteen case it
Speaker 1: came out of North Carolina, the Supreme Court ruled the
Speaker 1: federal courts have no authority to decide where the partisan
Speaker 1: jerry mandering goes too far. UH Chief Justice Justice Roberts wrote, quote,
Speaker 1: the Constitution supplies no objective measure for assessing whether a
Speaker 1: district map treats a political party fairly. So Supreme Court's
Speaker 1: not gonna save the Democrats from losing the fight vote
Speaker 1: seats in Texas. Now, the dream, the plan, the redistricting plan,
Speaker 1: has to pass the House and the Senate. It has
Speaker 1: to be and then signed by the governor of the state.
Speaker 1: Texas was going to vote on this this week or
Speaker 1: last week, and the Democratic Democratic politicians just left the state.
Speaker 1: They left the state to deny the Republicans in a
Speaker 1: sense of qualum which would allow for vote. So this
Speaker 1: is the delay tactic. They can't stop it. If they
Speaker 1: stayed in Texas, state marshals would have showed up and
Speaker 1: forced them to go to the state house. As it is,
Speaker 1: they're being fined five hundred dollars a day, and Texas
Speaker 1: will now sue the Democrats for dereliction of duty in
Speaker 1: a sense or vacating their post. And so you know,
Speaker 1: this is where we are again. It's legal, it's not right,
Speaker 1: it's not good, it's not just. I mean, it would
Speaker 1: be good if I don't know, Congress could pass a
Speaker 1: law saying you can only change the districts after a
Speaker 1: census once. So once every ten years you get a change.
Speaker 1: You get to change the districts based on census information.
Speaker 2: Which makes sense.
Speaker 1: But the reality is that right now Congress cannot They
Speaker 1: cannot get a bill passed if there's any opposition, if
Speaker 1: the Republicans oppose it, I don't think there'll be enough
Speaker 1: Republicans supporting this. The only thing that could cause Republicans
Speaker 1: to maybe support something like that is if Democrats do
Speaker 1: the same thing in other states. So Illinois has threatened
Speaker 1: to do it. Now Illinois only has three Republican districts.
Speaker 1: Maybe they could get rid of those three, I don't
Speaker 1: know much more significant is New York is trying to
Speaker 1: do it, could try to do this, California could try
Speaker 1: to do this. Now in both places, it would require
Speaker 1: them to deal with different provisions in the state constitutions
Speaker 1: or in the legislation that have tried to control gerrymandering
Speaker 1: in the past, try to limit it and minimize it.
Speaker 1: But I think if the political will is there, and
Speaker 1: I think if Texas does this, the political will is
Speaker 1: there for them to gerrymander. And there might be other
Speaker 1: Democratic states in which they can squeeze out a few
Speaker 1: votes here and there, squeeze out a few Republicans here
Speaker 1: and there, but it is it's a pretty despicable game overall. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, there are no objective standard by which you
Speaker 1: should draw districts, but it does make sense to make
Speaker 1: the districts, you know, geographically look reasonable rather than some
Speaker 1: of the absurdities that are being generated by by these maps.
Speaker 1: Jerry mandering, salamander, you know, these long, thin districts and
Speaker 1: stuff like that. Uh, all of this is really being
Speaker 1: done by the Democrats under the you know, under the
Speaker 1: influence of Trump. I mean, Trump has has told the
Speaker 1: Republicans that they need to do this. He put pressure
Speaker 1: on Texas to do this. And this is Trump's comment.
Speaker 1: You know it's it's perfectly trumpish to comment and probably
Speaker 1: trumpish and and you know you'll get it. Okay, here
Speaker 1: we go. Quote This is from Trump this morning. We
Speaker 1: have an opportunity in Texas to pick up five seats.
Speaker 1: We have a really good governor, and we have good
Speaker 1: people in Texas. And I won Texas. I got the
Speaker 1: highest vote in the history of Texas, as you probably know.
Speaker 1: And we are entitled the five more seats. Now. I
Speaker 1: have no idea if you got the most votes in
Speaker 1: the history of Texas. I'm skeptical, but it doesn't really
Speaker 1: matter what I find really that's part of the course
Speaker 1: for Trump. What I find really interesting is that we
Speaker 1: are entitled the five more seats. Now, who gets to
Speaker 1: decide who is entitled to how many seats? The President
Speaker 1: of the United States get to decide how many? I mean,
Speaker 1: maybe he should just we should skip the midium election
Speaker 1: completely and just have Donald Trump decide how many Sea
Speaker 1: seats entitled to, how many seats Republicans are entitled to,
Speaker 1: And that's what we should put in the House of Representatives.
Speaker 1: I mean, why bother with an election when we're entitled
Speaker 1: to some seats anyway, Again, this is a game the
Speaker 1: Republicans and Democrats have been playing since eighteen twelve, although
Speaker 1: they weren't Republicans Democrats in those days. But it's a
Speaker 1: game they've been playing since eighteen twelve. It's a game
Speaker 1: they'll continue to play. I this is particularly egregious, but
Speaker 1: not for the first time. They ben as egregious, if
Speaker 1: not I as egregious the cases in the past. Uh,
Speaker 1: this will just lead the Democrats to do the same thing,
Speaker 1: whether now in the future. Uh, it's uh, you know,
Speaker 1: it's a it's a zero sum, silly a political game.
Speaker 1: But Republicans are desperate. Remember this is an act of
Speaker 1: desperation of Republicans. Uh are w really really really worried
Speaker 1: about the mentum election, really really worried about losing the House,
Speaker 1: and uh, they really don't want to lose the House? Yps,
Speaker 1: tryna make sure the plug stays plugnant Like all right,
Speaker 1: what did yes? So I'll keep you updated. Democrats will
Speaker 1: come back to the state of Texas at some point.
Speaker 1: Democratic donors will pay up they fine of five hundred
Speaker 1: dollars a day that they're away, and Texas will have
Speaker 1: new districts and they will have probably next election five
Speaker 1: new Republican congressman. Of course, there's always an opportunity that voters, Yeah,
Speaker 1: voters get so upset with the politicians and with the
Speaker 1: Republican Party and everything else that's going on that they
Speaker 1: just tell them to go to hell and vote for
Speaker 1: a Democrat. Now, it's unlikely that will happen in Texas,
Speaker 1: but one can always hope. Wouldn't be great if voters
Speaker 1: penalize their own party sometimes for their misbehavior, both Democrats
Speaker 1: and Republicans. Wouldn't that be cool if people actually weren't
Speaker 1: fixated on a tribal affiliation with their political party and
Speaker 1: actually voted what they thought in terms of whether the
Speaker 1: legal party was doing good or bad, rather than a
Speaker 1: tribal loyalty. So anyway, that's that's, uh, that's what we have.
Speaker 1: And of course, uh. Trump's agenda depends on him keeping
Speaker 1: the House and keeping the Senate the only way to
Speaker 1: get legislation passed. Although he doesn't see to care much
Speaker 1: about the legislation, he can always, he can always, you know,
Speaker 1: sign executive voters. There is an issue of things like
Speaker 1: impeachment and controlling the House just just is a lot easier,
Speaker 1: for a lot easier for Trump. It would be a
Speaker 1: lot easier if any president to control both chambers when
Speaker 1: when the other party has one of the chambers, they
Speaker 1: get a bully pulpit, they get media attention, they get coverage,
Speaker 1: but more importantly, they get to pass the legislation, and
Speaker 1: they get to ignore your agenda, and they get to
Speaker 1: potentially impeach you. So's it would be a lot easier.
Speaker 1: All right. The Epstein case again does not seem to
Speaker 1: go away. It keeps coming back, and the White House
Speaker 1: has not dealt with it particularly well. Uh, And over
Speaker 1: the last couple of weeks they've tried to be doing
Speaker 1: damage control and trying to figure out what the best
Speaker 1: strategy is on how to deal with this. Obviously, Donald
Speaker 1: Trump name appear in the Epstein file, I mean, that's
Speaker 1: pretty clear. Trump has launched a campaign to say that
Speaker 1: it was put there by Obama and Biden, that it's
Speaker 1: all them. Of course, if that was it, then Wyden,
Speaker 1: Obama and Biden use that in the elections. It would
Speaker 1: never came up in the elections. So it's a little
Speaker 1: suspect my guess is his name is there, but so
Speaker 1: are the names of a bunch of a bunch of
Speaker 1: Democrats as well, And that's why Democrats didn't use it,
Speaker 1: because they didn't want to self incriminate some of the
Speaker 1: people within their own party. So the Republican base is
Speaker 1: the demanding that information be released about about the Epstein case,
Speaker 1: that the files be released, whatever the hell is in
Speaker 1: those files. They've been demanding, you know, they've been demanding action.
Speaker 1: They want action. They think there's one big conspiracy cover up,
Speaker 1: which it looks like it is to some extent, right
Speaker 1: it is a cover up anyway.
Speaker 2: To counter this, the Senate now is subpoening.
Speaker 1: So the Senate is not going to have hearings on
Speaker 1: the Epstein case, and as part of that, they are
Speaker 1: going to stay subpoenaed delivery of all Epstein related documents
Speaker 1: no later than August nineteenth to the Senate committee that
Speaker 1: is looking into this. Right, I don't, I mean, I'm
Speaker 1: assuming Trump is okay with us. It's hard to really
Speaker 1: know whether this is some Republicans who are feeling pressure
Speaker 1: from the MAGA base doing this in spite of the administration.
Speaker 2: They are.
Speaker 1: They're subpoenaing all the related documents. They also seeking communications
Speaker 1: about Epstein f between President Biden and his administration, anything
Speaker 1: that went back and forth. Then they're also requesting testimony
Speaker 1: from eight former senior law enforcement officials, including FBI Director
Speaker 1: James call Me, Attorney General William Barr, Mary Garland, and
Speaker 1: Jeff Sessions. Those you know, Bar and Sessions were attorney
Speaker 1: generals unto Trump in his first term. They also want
Speaker 1: a question and they're subpoenaed Bill Clinton as well as
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton, which would be interesting. I mean, as we know,
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton socialized with Epstein, and he claims he kind
Speaker 1: off all relations in two thousand and nine and didn't
Speaker 1: know of any crimes. So we'll see who shows up,
Speaker 1: what happens when they show up, what they actually testify to,
Speaker 1: what they actually say, what questions are asked. It's going
Speaker 1: to be a zoo, an unbelievable zoo. In addition, as
Speaker 1: we know, the number two at the Justice Department last
Speaker 1: week held interviews which Gilaine Gilaine I was told to
Speaker 1: ask a silent Gilaine Maxwell held interviews with Maxwell, and
Speaker 1: I think he has what is it eight hours of
Speaker 1: recordings or something like that, or many hours of recordings.
Speaker 1: I don't not sure how much, but significant times of
Speaker 1: recordings a committee. The committee is going to roughly nine
Speaker 1: hours over two days. Okay, Now she's received conditional immunity
Speaker 1: to discuss the case, and she's start asking for pardon
Speaker 1: of course, and she's already been moved as we know,
Speaker 1: as I mentioned a previous show to a low security
Speaker 1: prison in Tallahousee, Florida. No, she's been moved from a
Speaker 1: low security to a minimum security, which is even lower
Speaker 1: security than the low security in a minimum security prison
Speaker 1: in Brian, Texas, even though typically sex offenders are required
Speaker 1: to be housed at least in at least a low
Speaker 1: security facility, so this is an exemption, right. Anyway, they
Speaker 1: plan to play some of the audio. Now what's interesting
Speaker 1: is if they don't play all the audio, people will complain.
Speaker 1: So ultimately, if they start playing audio, they're probably gonna
Speaker 1: have to play at all.
Speaker 2: Otherwise mago flip.
Speaker 1: Out, conspiracy, cover up all of that stuff. So anyway,
Speaker 1: that's where we are again. It's gonna be an unbelievable zoo.
Speaker 1: You know. I'm looking forward to seeing all these people
Speaker 1: squirming in the sea. It'll be particularly interesting to see
Speaker 1: the different justice Departments people and Hillary, Bill Clinton. I mean,
Speaker 1: who else are they going to subpoena Everybody we know
Speaker 1: had some kind of relationship with Maxwell. I mean, that's
Speaker 1: a long list of people. So we'll see, we'll see
Speaker 1: a lot of high profile people named in the air
Speaker 1: plane logs of and a lot of people associated with
Speaker 1: them in different contacts in different places. It'll be I mean,
Speaker 1: particularly interested to see William Barr, who was a huge
Speaker 1: favorite of Trump's until he refused to throw the election
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty and support Trump's allegations about the election
Speaker 1: being stolen, and they was kicked out. Jeff Sessions, who
Speaker 1: was probably the first Republican senator to support Trump and
Speaker 1: was kicked out by Trump very early on a justice
Speaker 1: as head of the Justice Department, as Attorney General because
Speaker 1: of disagreements between them, and then of course they have
Speaker 1: to be eye directors and all of that. It's going
Speaker 1: to be interesting. It's going to be interesting. And maybe
Speaker 1: this is all coordinated to basically say there there there's
Speaker 1: no case, and to try to prove the maga. There
Speaker 1: really isn't anything there. There's nothing there. There's nothing about Trump,
Speaker 1: there's nothing about anybody else. There really isn't. There wasn't
Speaker 1: a pedophile reighing that he wasn't. There's no list, there's
Speaker 1: no relations to the intelligence services all of that, but
Speaker 1: who knows. Look, I mean, Tulsi Gubbat just came out
Speaker 1: with a completely fabricated intelligence report about the all the
Speaker 1: Russia stuff, supposedly in twenty sixteen, supposedly Lincoln Obama to it.
Speaker 1: And I'm blaming Obama for everything when you read, when
Speaker 1: you read the actual details of it, it's just bizarre.
Speaker 1: But she's a nutcase, So this is a surprising, and
Speaker 1: she owes Trump everything. She was going nowhere, and he
Speaker 1: picked her up and brought her into the administration, and
Speaker 1: she just made up this file to feed because Trump
Speaker 1: demanded it, and to distract people from Epstein and other things,
Speaker 1: and to feed mega stuff. As long as the conspiracy
Speaker 1: intels Democrats, Trump's happy to, you know, put poor fuel
Speaker 1: in the fire of Democrats centered conspiracies. So yeah, it's
Speaker 1: it's it's it's a crazy world we live in. It's
Speaker 1: a crazy world we live in. Okay, let's look at
Speaker 1: other crazy stuff to talk about conspiracies. So Trump now
Speaker 1: is putting out an executive order, whoops, where's my executive
Speaker 1: order that he is expected to sign soon. He just
Speaker 1: announced it maybe this week. He announced it a few
Speaker 1: days ago or today. I think he announced it today
Speaker 1: and he's expected to sign it later this week. Anyway,
Speaker 1: this will be an executive order that is that is
Speaker 1: geared to putting pressure against big banks over perceived discrimination
Speaker 1: against conservatives and crypto companies, and the executive it will
Speaker 1: threaten the fine lenders, the drop customers for political reasons. Now,
Speaker 1: the discrimination against crypto was real, there's no question that
Speaker 1: that happened. It happened under the Biden administration. It happened
Speaker 1: under the influence of Elizabeth Warren. It happened over a
Speaker 1: period of a few months. I mean, it wasn't hidden,
Speaker 1: it was it was pretty explicit. It was out there.
Speaker 1: And you know, a silver Gate Bank was basically shut
Speaker 1: down because its whole business model was the bank crypto
Speaker 1: and it was told by the regulators that that was unacceptable,
Speaker 1: and it basically shut itself down. In New York, bank
Speaker 1: whose name escapes for me right now, but it'll come
Speaker 1: back to me hopefully soon, was basically closed by the
Speaker 1: regulators at the same time. A couple of days after
Speaker 1: Silicon Valley Bank was shut down in twenty twenty three,
Speaker 1: and this is Silicon Bank was shut down on a Friday.
Speaker 1: It was shut down on a Sunday. It is a
Speaker 1: bank that I know because I know the bank well,
Speaker 1: Signature bank, Signature Bank. It is a bank that I
Speaker 1: know did not deserve to be shut down. It is
Speaker 1: a bank that was not any more insolvent than many
Speaker 1: other banks in the United States, or banks were basically
Speaker 1: insolvent at that point in time because of bonds, the
Speaker 1: bond portfolio. I did a show on that at the time.
Speaker 1: It was not insolvent, any more insolvent than the other banks.
Speaker 1: It could have probably manage a liquidity crisis that the
Speaker 1: banks were facing. It was shut down pri Meldy because
Speaker 1: it was a bank that dealt with crypto. Many other
Speaker 1: banks were just told to divest and they did so.
Speaker 1: This was an explicit policy of the banking regulators, inspired
Speaker 1: again by Elizabeth i and who campaign against crypto and
Speaker 1: her campaign against banks more broadly. So you know, this
Speaker 1: isn't surprising. It is a surprising, but this idea that
Speaker 1: you know, banks don't banks discriminate against conservatives is dubious.
Speaker 1: But the reality is the problem is not the banks.
Speaker 1: The problem with Crypto was the regulators who forced them
Speaker 1: to divest Crypto forced them to discriminate against Crypto. And
Speaker 1: the problem, you know, in as far as I know,
Speaker 1: banks don't discriminate against conservatives. And the thing about that is,
Speaker 1: even if they do, don't they have a right to
Speaker 1: do so. Isn't a bank of private business that has
Speaker 1: a right to discriminate in terms of who it gives
Speaker 1: loans to and who it doesn't. Now they can't based
Speaker 1: on race, for because of the Civil Rights Act. But
Speaker 1: so it turns out that, you know, if you there's
Speaker 1: some laws that you could stretch and imply that effect here.
Speaker 1: For example, the Equal Credit Opportunities Act now to create
Speaker 1: Equal Credit Opportunities Act again was written from the perspective
Speaker 1: of racial discrimination. Whether it could be applied for political
Speaker 1: political discrimination, I don't know. Now. I don't think any
Speaker 1: bank is going to try to defend itself over the
Speaker 1: right to politically discriminate. But shouldn't they have the right?
Speaker 1: Isn't that what private property means? And why would the government?
Speaker 1: What gives the right to government the right to go
Speaker 1: into a bank and say the discriminating Why is it
Speaker 1: any of the government's business who a bank gives loans
Speaker 1: to and who it doesn't give loans to. Shouldn't that
Speaker 1: be completely one hundred percent at the discretion of the bank.
Speaker 1: Now again, I'm all for not allowing politicians to dictate
Speaker 1: to banks which businesses they can and cannot lend to,
Speaker 1: for example, crypto, but that's not limited to crypto. It's
Speaker 1: being done for other industries as well. Democrats to do
Speaker 1: it regularly. I can imagine Republicans one day doing it.
Speaker 1: That should be banned, but that's on executive order. That
Speaker 1: would require rethinking of the relationship between economics and politics. Anyway,
Speaker 1: he wants to sue them under or go after them
Speaker 1: under the Ego Credit Opportunities Act, Anti SLUXED laws, and
Speaker 1: the Consumer Financial Protection Law. Of course, the Financial Consume
Speaker 1: Financial Protection CFPB Agency Bureau Trump is trying to shut down.
Speaker 1: On the one hand, he wants to use it in
Speaker 1: order to protect conservatives, and another hand he wants to
Speaker 1: shut it down inconsistencies. Why am I surprised? I'm not.
Speaker 1: The draft executive order doesn't name any specific banks, but
Speaker 1: it appears to have to an instance where Bank of
Speaker 1: America was accused of shutting down the accounts of a
Speaker 1: Christian organization operating in Uganda based on organization's religious beliefs.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, the bank says it shut down
Speaker 1: the account because it doesn't serve small businesses operating outside
Speaker 1: the United States. Go try to figure that out. I
Speaker 1: think the bottom line is that this is an executive order.
Speaker 1: It will allow Trump to go after any bank that
Speaker 1: rejects alone from any person that Trump thinks should get alone.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think that's what's behind us. Trump wants
Speaker 1: to be able to go in and tell banks who
Speaker 1: did lend money to and who not to lend money to.
Speaker 1: Why doesn't he have that power? He should have that power.
Speaker 1: He's king after the draft of the order that the
Speaker 1: Roste Journal has seen, so this is an Osti Journal
Speaker 1: article also criticizes the role that some banks played in
Speaker 1: an investigation into the January six riots. There was a
Speaker 1: criminal investigation. They're probably subpoena Why would they not play
Speaker 1: a role. Trump himself, when he was asked about this,
Speaker 1: recounted his own experience being dropped as a bank customer
Speaker 1: by several banks, including JP Morgan Chase. He said the
Speaker 1: banks discriminated against me very badly, and I was very
Speaker 1: good to the banks. Well turned out he wasn't very
Speaker 1: good to the banks. It turned out that he fought
Speaker 1: for bankruptcy several times, which is not good for banks.
Speaker 1: It also turned out that in his application for mortgages
Speaker 1: on several occasions for several real estate projects, he overstated
Speaker 1: the value of the property. So no, Trump was trying
Speaker 1: to screw banks whenever he could. I mean, that's his
Speaker 1: motors of perandi, that's what he means by art of
Speaker 1: the deal. So Trump's never good for banks. Banks had
Speaker 1: plenty of reasons for dropping him. Indeed, when Trump ran
Speaker 1: for president of twenty sixteen, during that period or the
Speaker 1: period before that, his banking relationship had shifted to Deutsche
Speaker 1: Bank because American banks didn't want to have anything didn't
Speaker 1: want to have anything to do with his organization, didn't
Speaker 1: want to have anything to do with him. Not because
Speaker 1: of his politics he was a Democrat, not because he's
Speaker 1: a conservative, he never was and isn't. It's because he
Speaker 1: was not a very good bank customer. Nobody wanted to
Speaker 1: have to deal with his shenanigans. That's why. So this
Speaker 1: is just another power grab by Trump, which is just
Speaker 1: another way for him to flex muscles against the group
Speaker 1: of institutions that he does not like. This is just
Speaker 1: another little step towards economic fascism, where the government controls everything.
Speaker 1: I mean they already controlled the banks to huge degree,
Speaker 1: but now it's completely politicized a or or or or
Speaker 1: politicized even further. It's already politicized with the crypto and
Speaker 1: Elizabeth walk now it's much more, even more politicized, cause
Speaker 1: now it's about whether it's his friends, and any one
Speaker 1: of his friends who doesn't get a loan will be
Speaker 1: a I the bank will be accused of discriminating a
Speaker 1: c against conservatives. I. You know, it's absurd. Again, the
Speaker 1: crypto discrimination, if you wanna call it, that was based
Speaker 1: on what the regulators told the banks they were allowed
Speaker 1: or not allowed to do. It wasn't a case of discrimination.
Speaker 1: It was a case where the banks were just following regulations.
Speaker 1: So this is just you know, more insanity on behalf
Speaker 1: of the Trump administration, more attempt to grab control, to regulate,
Speaker 1: you know, to step in and and and uh control
Speaker 1: business and in this case banking, which is already so
Speaker 1: so heavily regulated anyway. You know, one of the things
Speaker 1: that Trump has got the bank regulators, his bank regulators
Speaker 1: to do is is to tell the banks they have
Speaker 1: to stop assessing reputational risk posed by their customers. So
Speaker 1: certain customers and certain industries might pose a reputational as
Speaker 1: to the bank, then under Trump, they will not be
Speaker 1: allowed to take that into consideration. And again that's a
Speaker 1: way to clear his friends and to kill himself, and
Speaker 1: to make sure that they get the kind of banking
Speaker 1: that he wants them to get, not based on the
Speaker 1: rule of law, not based on private property in the
Speaker 1: bank's rights to decide who to lend you or not,
Speaker 1: but based almost exclusively on the whim of the president
Speaker 1: of the United States. And remember, you might like Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: and you might think he's the greatest thing ever, but
Speaker 1: he's not always going to be president. There will be
Speaker 1: other presidents, and all these powers that are granted to
Speaker 1: the executives will one day be in the hands of
Speaker 1: somebody you don't like as much. That you know. That's
Speaker 1: that would require thinking long term, and nobody wants to
Speaker 1: do that. That's that's that's real effort, all right.
Speaker 4: I'm I mean, the the tariff nonsense continues, and the
Speaker 4: tariff panic in many countries continues, and I know that
Speaker 4: some people view this panic as a win for Trump.
Speaker 1: Right. So for example, Switzerland is panicking, right, you know,
Speaker 1: thirty tariffs on things like watches, on chocolate, on other
Speaker 1: things we import from Switzerland other than those that have
Speaker 1: an exclusion on tariffs, which is pharmaceuticals. And even there
Speaker 1: we'll get to in a minute. The story is that
Speaker 1: Trump is going to increase tariffs to two on whereas
Speaker 1: it no I see here, yeah, on farmer and then
Speaker 1: huge tabs on chips. We'll talk about that in a minute.
Speaker 1: But in the meantime, Switzerland, so the switch president is panicking.
Speaker 1: He's rushing to Washington, try to meet with Trump, try
Speaker 1: to appease Trump.
Speaker 2: And of course Trump loves that. He loves the peacement.
Speaker 1: He said earlier that I don't know, six hundred million
Speaker 1: dollars that one of these countries promised to invest in
Speaker 1: the United States, he would decide where it's invested. Only him,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump would decide where that money was going to
Speaker 1: be invested. They'd given him like a private pool of
Speaker 1: money to invest in the United States. And this president is,
Speaker 1: you know, with the golden share in US steel and
Speaker 1: the United States purchasing of the rare earth material the
Speaker 1: government investing directly in shares, buying shares in a rare.
Speaker 2: Earth material company. I mean, this.
Speaker 1: Could very well be in many fronts in certain areas.
Speaker 1: The most interventionist governed ever, with all these tariffs and
Speaker 1: with giving favors to some countries and not to others.
Speaker 1: And the Swiss president is going to come groveling and
Speaker 1: and trumpell demand that Switzerland invest in Trump properties. I
Speaker 1: don't know what he'll demand the Switzerland invest in the
Speaker 1: United States, and and he'll lower the tariff for him
Speaker 1: and he'll get some favor. And it's just nuts. So
Speaker 1: a lot of panic and a lot of countries around
Speaker 1: the world. Now, a lot of people, people who view
Speaker 1: the world as a zoo some game, view this as
Speaker 1: a win win for America because if it's win lose
Speaker 1: and they are panicking, which means they are losing, then
Speaker 1: we must be winning. Yay. If you understand the world
Speaker 1: to be potentially at least win win, and that win
Speaker 1: lose relationships usually turn into lose lose, and you understand
Speaker 1: the tariffs are lost to American consumers and to switch manufacturers,
Speaker 1: then you realize the tariffs, these taffs on Switzerland a
Speaker 1: lose lose. The only differences that our government is too
Speaker 1: economically illiterate, too economically ignorant to understand that what they're
Speaker 1: doing is losing. The Swiss get that it's bad for them.
Speaker 1: Their making government does not understand it's bad for them too,
Speaker 1: And as a consequence, you know they are they are
Speaker 1: pretending that this is a win for the US and
Speaker 1: a loss for Switzerland when it's really a loss for
Speaker 1: both countries. So lose lose is what you're getting. India,
Speaker 1: you know, is right now in defying the United States
Speaker 1: digging its heels in. Remember India got twenty five percent
Speaker 1: tariffs even though I thought it had a deal for
Speaker 1: a lot less than that. You remember JD Vance was
Speaker 1: there a couple of months ago, and they thought they
Speaker 1: had a much better deal. But then President said he
Speaker 1: would substantially Racehoubse on Indian goods beyond the twenty five
Speaker 1: percent because of the amount of oil that India is
Speaker 1: buying from Russia. And India is basically saying they are
Speaker 1: not going to let the United States dictate who they
Speaker 1: buy all from, which is completely reasonable for India. They
Speaker 1: shouldn't be buying Russian oil, but not because the United
Speaker 1: States doesn't like it. And it'll be interesting. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is the thing, and I've said this over and
Speaker 1: over again. I said it not for months. If the
Speaker 1: United States is serious about China being a threat, China
Speaker 1: is a threat to the United States, then the one
Speaker 1: thing the United States needs to be doing is building
Speaker 1: an alliance with the countries in Asia that are the
Speaker 1: border China, that share the seas and the ocean with China,
Speaker 1: that have size and capacity to stand up to China. Clearly,
Speaker 1: India is one of these countries. It's got a population,
Speaker 1: it's larger than that of China. It shares a border
Speaker 1: with China, which actually is contentious where they periodically have scomishes.
Speaker 1: It is building a significant military, it's building a navy.
Speaker 1: It wants to have a say in protecting the shipping
Speaker 1: lanes in that region, in the region of Southeast Asia
Speaker 1: and Southern Asia. It is a you know, nominally a democracy.
Speaker 1: It claims to share many of our Western values. It
Speaker 1: should be an ally southerly, an ally vis a vi China.
Speaker 1: It's hostile to China already, and yet you know, it's
Speaker 1: also discovered that the Russian weapons system that's been buying
Speaker 1: for decades probably not very good. But it also is
Speaker 1: frustrated by the fact that the United States supports Pakistan
Speaker 1: and the Trump seems so friendly with the regime in
Speaker 1: Pakistan when the region in Pakistan is not friendly to
Speaker 1: the United States and is supportive of Islamis causes which
Speaker 1: are clearly hostile to the United States. So the US
Speaker 1: is doing a lot to alienate India's government in the
Speaker 1: name of Taos and again lose lose. India's gonna lose
Speaker 1: because it wants they export to the United States. But
Speaker 1: the US has the potential to lose here in a
Speaker 1: jew political sense, lose a significant ally in its confrontation,
Speaker 1: if you will, with China, and that could be now. Look,
Speaker 1: Trump can't think strategically. His mind does not work that way.
Speaker 1: He has a mind of a of a pragmatic thug,
Speaker 1: and pragmatism does not allow for strategy. His four dy
Speaker 1: chess is almost always one dimensional and short term and unprincipled.
Speaker 1: And that's what's going on here. As I've told you
Speaker 1: from the beginning, the one thing Trump hates are trade deficits.
Speaker 1: The one thing Trump thinks a good a tariffs. He
Speaker 1: loves tariffs. He enjoys taffs. And by the way, he
Speaker 1: enjoys the president of Switzerland having to come and grovel
Speaker 1: before him. So he can't think strategically in terms of
Speaker 1: what does this do to alliance visa China, how do
Speaker 1: we play this long term? How do we secure American
Speaker 1: interest in the region. That is way beyond his capacity.
Speaker 1: It really is. I'm not making that up. I'm not
Speaker 1: just slamming him. He just doesn't think that way. The
Speaker 1: only he's a great marketing professional, he's really good at that.
Speaker 1: He's good at understanding people people in America. He has
Speaker 1: no understanding of economics zero literally zoo and he has
Speaker 1: no understanding of geopolitics. And as a consequence, he has
Speaker 1: alienated South Koreans with tariffs, alienated the Japanese. He is
Speaker 1: now talking about massive tariffs on chips microprocesses. They're coming
Speaker 1: from Taiwan, another one of our key allies in the region,
Speaker 1: right on TSMC that makes basically all our semiconductors, all
Speaker 1: the advanced semiconductors. He wants a tariff that. So the
Speaker 1: one huge advantage the United States has over the rest
Speaker 1: of the world, including China, is tech. Let's cripple a
Speaker 1: tech industry imposing massive tabbs on chips. Now, somebody in
Speaker 1: the chat said, oh, no, tariffs are just a negotiating tactic.
Speaker 1: That is complete and utter nonsense. It's never been true.
Speaker 1: Trump has proved over the last year that it isn't true.
Speaker 1: He's proved, sorry, over the last three months, that it
Speaker 1: isn't true. What is he negotiating? What is negotiating? Israel
Speaker 1: gave Trump zero tariffs on all American goods coming into Israel.
Speaker 1: We still put fifteen percent taffs on Israel. There's no
Speaker 1: there's no negotiating value here. There's no negotiating anything here.
Speaker 1: As long as there's a trade deficit, tariffs are good.
Speaker 1: That is the principle by which Donald Trump functions, and
Speaker 1: he believes they are a great tool to punish countries
Speaker 1: for doing things he doesn't like, like Brazil with Bolsonaro
Speaker 1: fifty percent tariff, and like he doesn't like the fact
Speaker 1: that chips are being built in Taiwan. He wants the
Speaker 1: chips to be built in the United States, so put
Speaker 1: a huge taffs on them, which will really hood US
Speaker 1: semiconduct industry.
Speaker 2: It'll really hood a tech industry.
Speaker 1: It really hurt us. And it's not like you can
Speaker 1: mimic what the SMC has done in Taiwan. In the
Speaker 1: United States. Maybe you can, but it will take years
Speaker 1: and years and years to do and not the scale
Speaker 1: that TSMC can do it. We just don't have the engineers,
Speaker 1: we don't have the talent to be able to do
Speaker 1: It's a fantasy anyway. Tabs continue to be destructive and
Speaker 1: one of the consequences of this trade war that he's
Speaker 1: gotten into with the world, including China, is that China
Speaker 1: has significantly reduced the vase bailability of minerals, critical minerals,
Speaker 1: refine minerals, refined rare earth materials from which magnets are made,
Speaker 1: different infrared sensors, motors for drones, and things like that.
Speaker 1: They've limited the export of those materials two companies that
Speaker 1: they believe are using it for defense purposes, just like
Speaker 1: we're limiting chips sending to China. And the challenge is
Speaker 1: that there's a massive shortage among defense contractors in the
Speaker 1: United States. Lucky Barton and others cannot find enough raw
Speaker 1: material to build the weapons systems that the US military demands. Remember,
Speaker 1: Beijing controls ninety percent of rare earths now because they
Speaker 1: mind ninety percent of railroads, but because they refine ninety
Speaker 1: percent of rare earth materials. Just there's no refining capacity
Speaker 1: outside of China. It banned the sport of geranium, gallium,
Speaker 1: and antimony that are used for bullets, missiles, and night vision.
Speaker 1: And even though they supposedly in the last deal agreed
Speaker 1: to Trump's demand that they start selling them again, they
Speaker 1: haven't really, not in quantity. A US drone maker faces
Speaker 1: a two month delay after China blocked a magnet shipment Chinese.
Speaker 1: The Chinese supply of the magnets is demanding blueprints, the
Speaker 1: buyer's name, and proof it's not for defense. The company refused,
Speaker 1: so the order was stopped. Prices have gone up dramatically.
Speaker 1: This is a way in which you don't know. You know,
Speaker 1: the drone might say made in the US, but a
Speaker 1: piece of it is not. You're paying that tariff on
Speaker 1: that piece. One A film was offered samarium for twins
Speaker 1: for sixty x the normal price sixty x. Now serenium
Speaker 1: samarium is needed for jet engines like they have. Thirty
Speaker 1: five other firms support paying five x for some of
Speaker 1: the materials that they need. Well, then eighty thousand Pentagon
Speaker 1: components use minerals now under Chinese control. Now, how we
Speaker 1: got to this situation? How do we get here? Is
Speaker 1: a great question and something that if we had a strategy,
Speaker 1: we would look into and figure out a solution both.
Speaker 1: How about declaring an emergency for rail earth material and
Speaker 1: suspending all environmental regulations that prohibit mining it and building
Speaker 1: refinery capabilities to refine it. Now, that would be the
Speaker 1: use of emergency powers, or maybe get Congress to pass
Speaker 1: a law that would be even better. And let's see
Speaker 1: which Democrats voting against it. I mean, this is a
Speaker 1: real national security issue. We are dependent on China for
Speaker 1: eighty thousand components, and we should be I mean, the
Speaker 1: Pentagon should be spending huge amounts of money on building
Speaker 1: capabilities in the United States, and the President should be
Speaker 1: supporting that with executive orders. That's the use of executive
Speaker 1: orders that will be appropriate. Instead, we're going off to
Speaker 1: banks for discriminating against conservatives. Not only are we seeing
Speaker 1: a shortage, but there's a shortage in Australia, a shortage
Speaker 1: in other Western countries that have any kind of defense industries,
Speaker 1: there's a lack of stockpile, there's no leverage on the Chinese.
Speaker 1: And you know, now the Panda God supposed is finding
Speaker 1: funding miners, offering them grants, and of course made a
Speaker 1: big investment in that one mining company. But what he
Speaker 1: needs is refining, and what he needs is suspension of
Speaker 1: environmental regulations, and that it has not got yet. So
Speaker 1: part of one of the victims of the terraf is
Speaker 1: American national security. Not surprising at all at all. All right,
Speaker 1: let's see, so we did that, we did that, we
Speaker 1: did that, we did that. Let's say a few things
Speaker 1: about Gaza. So yeah, I mean, the more time passes,
Speaker 1: the more it's eminently clear that there's no massive starvation
Speaker 1: going on in Gaza. A guzens hungry. Years are some
Speaker 1: gauzens starving, maybe possibly? And whose fault is that? Well,
Speaker 1: it's clearly the first of ramas, not only because they
Speaker 1: could end it all tomorrow by surrendering and releasing the hostages,
Speaker 1: but also directly because they keep stealing the food. More
Speaker 1: food has gone into Gaza than is needed to feed
Speaker 1: the population. There is plenty of food somewhere in Gaza,
Speaker 1: it's just being held by ramas and not being distributed
Speaker 1: to the civilian population. So the only entity political entity
Speaker 1: starving the Palestinians preventing the Palestinians from having the appropriate
Speaker 1: amount of food is ramas. And yet interestingly, Israel is
Speaker 1: being blamed one hundred percent for whatever starvation is happening,
Speaker 1: and the degree to which it's being blamed is just unbelievable.
Speaker 1: I mean, the hostility towards Israel is maybe its highest
Speaker 1: it's ever been. All over Europe, people are hostile political parties,
Speaker 1: but also I think people in the streets in the
Speaker 1: United States survey has a survey has shown that people
Speaker 1: are shifting to an anti Israeli stand, particularly young people.
Speaker 1: Israel has done a very very poor job of explaining itself.
Speaker 1: The defenders of Israel have done a very very poor
Speaker 1: job defending Israel, and the consequence is that the hostility
Speaker 1: is all in Israel. You know, un delivered plenty of trucks,
Speaker 1: It's just that most of them, an overwhelming majority of them,
Speaker 1: will hijack Bahamas and Haramas controls. And if you count
Speaker 1: all the trucks and the food on them, Gaza should
Speaker 1: have plenty of food for two million people. I mean,
Speaker 1: they won't be They're not going to all become a beest,
Speaker 1: but they would not be stopping. Ramas understands that the
Speaker 1: world is always just looking for an excuse to blame Israel.
Speaker 1: The world is always looking for an excuse to go
Speaker 1: after the Jews, and it feeds them with an excuse.
Speaker 1: Every few months, it finds something. And what was really
Speaker 1: shocking is the Kramas released a video of a clearly
Speaker 1: starving Israeli hostage, in their words, digging his own grave.
Speaker 1: But you could see all the bones. He looked like
Speaker 1: he just left the concentration camp. So Haramas is starving
Speaker 1: the hostages. It's admitting to starving hostages. It's celebrating starving
Speaker 1: hostages by sending videos of it. Why pressure on Israel. Pressure,
Speaker 1: that's for the inside Israel audience is rarely see that
Speaker 1: they become all emotional. Released hostages. That's the only the
Speaker 1: matters stopped. The war, released the hostages. Hamas is also well.
Speaker 1: We talked about this a few weeks ago. It looked
Speaker 1: like Hamas was going to agree to a cease fire.
Speaker 1: Since then, as it's seen the world turn against Israel,
Speaker 1: it has refused any cease fire deal. Niteniao after he
Speaker 1: met last time with Trump and Trump told him to
Speaker 1: cut a deal. Antennia is basically compromising and compromising and compromising.
Speaker 1: Haramas was saying no, no, no, no, no. Oh. Hamaso
Speaker 1: looked like it was every time he compromised, they asked
Speaker 1: for more, and then he compromised, they asked for more,
Speaker 1: and then they basically basically walked away and said no
Speaker 1: to any proposal because the world just just gives them
Speaker 1: everything they want. I mean, the reality is that all
Speaker 1: these countries declaring that they will now recognize a Palestinian
Speaker 1: state means to Ramas that their strategy is winning. It
Speaker 1: means to Ramas that October seventh was worth it. Indeed,
Speaker 1: the senior official in Tramas were shown on video saying, well,
Speaker 1: keep doing October seventh.
Speaker 2: We're not gonna stop as long as we can. We
Speaker 2: will do it.
Speaker 1: Until the occupation ends, and the and the interviewer asks,
Speaker 1: you mean the occupation of Gaza, and the guy said
Speaker 1: absolutely not the occupation of Israel. They know exactly what
Speaker 1: they want. They want the annihilation of the state of Israel.
Speaker 1: They are explicitly genocidal, They're explicitly calling for a genocide.
Speaker 1: They're our moderates. They're not they're not playing games. They
Speaker 1: want to kill every Jew in Israel. And they say that,
Speaker 1: they express that opinion. They're not shy, they're not afraid.
Speaker 1: And Europeans and Americans look at that and saying, eh ah,
Speaker 1: just talk. They look at the lies that Ramas says
Speaker 1: about what Israel's doing. Oh, Israel, they're genocidal. They're really evil,
Speaker 1: They're really bad. It's just it really is unbelievable to
Speaker 1: see anti Semitism as common as popular as it is
Speaker 1: right now. It's just astoning. I don't know if you
Speaker 1: saw the video of this group of young influences, you know,
Speaker 1: on some buddy's podcast, all sitting on a big table
Speaker 1: and a bunch of them and they're all talking about Hitler.
Speaker 1: And you know, Hitler wasn't as bad as a guy
Speaker 1: as people claim, just Tucker calls and talking points. Wasn't
Speaker 1: a bad guy. And look, if he did what he
Speaker 1: did to the.
Speaker 2: Jews, he must have done something to provoke him.
Speaker 1: It just must have done something bad.
Speaker 2: You know, the Jews can't be blameless.
Speaker 1: And when somebody said, you know, given how much power
Speaker 1: the Jews have in America. What's the solution? And somebody said,
Speaker 1: somebody at the table said, seriously, genocide out words. We
Speaker 1: need to kill them all. These are kids, twenty year
Speaker 1: olds talk about slaughtering the Jews in America cause they
Speaker 1: have too much power. Cause what else can you do
Speaker 1: with him? I mean, Hitler figured it out, he was
Speaker 1: ahead of his time. We need to do the same
Speaker 1: thing he did. It's really scary And I can't even
Speaker 1: tell with those kids, I couldn't tell if there were
Speaker 1: right wing influences or left wing influences. Probably left wing influences,
Speaker 1: but they also sounded pretty much like tech the Carson,
Speaker 1: so I I can you tell a difference anymore. It
Speaker 1: wasn't a jubilee. Wasn't a jubilee. It was on somebody's
Speaker 1: podcast with a bunch of people sitting around. It was
Speaker 1: on the video of this was on YouTube on Twitter,
Speaker 1: sitting around uh uh, mostly girls, mostly women, and just
Speaker 1: it's just unbelievable, the vitriol, the hatred and the stupidity
Speaker 1: it usually goes together, and the stupidity. In the meantime,
Speaker 1: Nitagneo is now favoring the complete conquest of Gaza. It's
Speaker 1: only taking him a year and ten months. So he's
Speaker 1: you know, he's almost getting in it, almost getting in it.
Speaker 1: He's arguing to occupy Gaza completely, take the whole territory
Speaker 1: over and rule it. The chief of the IDF, General Zamil,
Speaker 1: is objecting, and indeed a significant portion of the idea
Speaker 1: is objecting. They think this would be a strategic mistake.
Speaker 1: And this is a bigcomfrontation. Now the idea of chief
Speaker 1: is antagno appointee. This is the guy nitagnow brought in.
Speaker 1: He got rid of the previous guy and he brought
Speaker 1: this guy who was supposed to be more Ali Nathaniel.
Speaker 1: So there is a real conflict among the leadership within Israel.
Speaker 1: I think occupying Gaza, I mean, it needs to be done,
Speaker 1: but it's it's going to be difficult. It's going to
Speaker 1: be difficult to hold the territory. It's going to place
Speaker 1: a lot of Israeli troops in Home's way. It's gonna
Speaker 1: encourage Ramas to engage in kind of localized terrorist acts.
Speaker 1: But Israel needs to needs to do this. At least,
Speaker 1: it needs to go in and occupy. It needs to
Speaker 1: destroy Kramas. Maybe then it can retreat and convince the
Speaker 1: force of Arab nations to come in to replace it.
Speaker 1: But Israel, now, I agree in Nathaniel in this it
Speaker 1: needs to go in now and destroy Kramas completely. And uh,
Speaker 1: you know part of that is it needs to just
Speaker 1: accept the fact that the hostages are probably the equivalent
Speaker 1: of death. It cannot keep waiting for a hostage deal.
Speaker 1: It cannot keep hoping and praying for the hostages to
Speaker 1: be released. This is a mistake done in October eighth
Speaker 1: when the decision was made, or sometime after October seventh,
Speaker 1: when the decisions were made not to risk the hostages
Speaker 1: lives at all costs, that that was the priority. The
Speaker 1: priority was bringing back to the hostages, when the priorities
Speaker 1: should have been destroyed Ramas. Save the hostages way you can,
Speaker 1: But the one hundred percent focus should have been from
Speaker 1: the beginning, the complete and of the destruction of Ramas.
Speaker 1: All right, So we'll see how that plays out within
Speaker 1: the Israeli politics government. The idea comtantly controls about seventy
Speaker 1: five percent of gods a strip, but the idea would
Speaker 1: be to occupy There are many territory which includes a
Speaker 1: lot of areas that are highly densely populated. There are
Speaker 1: certain areas where the idea has not operated at all
Speaker 1: because those areas they believe the hostages are being kept,
Speaker 1: and they believe that as they move into those areas,
Speaker 1: harmas will kill the hostages. And I think that's probably true,
Speaker 1: and I think they have to do it anyway, as
Speaker 1: heartbreaking as that would be to many families and many people.
Speaker 1: I know, my nephew's best friend is still a hostage.
Speaker 1: So a lot of my family, you know, prioritize a
Speaker 1: deal above all else. But it's a bad long term strategy.
Speaker 1: Strategy is that would again something people don't seem to
Speaker 1: hold on to very much. All right, finally, let's do this.
Speaker 1: What do I need to do? Yes, I want to
Speaker 1: share this graph. It's a fun graph. You've probably seen
Speaker 1: it before. This is a graph of hopefully you can
Speaker 1: see it. Price changes are very good from January two thousand.
Speaker 2: I know you can't see the title.
Speaker 1: So this is price changes January two thousand to June
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five, so over the last twenty five years,
Speaker 1: twenty five and a half years, basically goods and services
Speaker 1: and wages. So at the top there with the increase
Speaker 1: of two hundred and seventy one percent. It's hospital services
Speaker 1: just below, well quite a bit below that had one
Speaker 1: hundred and ninety four percent. It's college tuition and fees.
Speaker 1: Below that is college textbooks, that, childcare and nursery schools.
Speaker 1: Below that medical care services. Below that, average hourly wages.
Speaker 1: Average hourly wages have arisen one hundred and twenty seven
Speaker 1: point four percent. Now, this is not corrected for inflation.
Speaker 1: Below that is housing one hundred and eight percent. Below that,
Speaker 1: food and beverage one hundred and two percent. Below that
Speaker 1: listence somewhere here is oh, the black line crossing is inflation.
Speaker 1: Inflation's gone up by basically ninety percent during this period.
Speaker 1: So everything I've read to you up until now has
Speaker 1: gone up more than inflation, right, with hospital services a
Speaker 1: lot more than inflation. I'm surprised how housing has not
Speaker 1: gone up that much more than inflation. Inflation is ninety percent,
Speaker 1: housing one hundred and eight percent, So on a national scale,
Speaker 1: housing has not gone up that much compared to inflation. Generally,
Speaker 1: I feel like and and average hourly wages have gone
Speaker 1: up more than housing, so much. For all of those again,
Speaker 1: this is average, uh, this is average. Now, this is
Speaker 1: I'm using inflation. I know that term that is contentious, right,
Speaker 1: I'm using inflation here to mean a rise in the
Speaker 1: costs of goods.
Speaker 2: This is this is.
Speaker 1: I think this is CPI. I think this is a CPI.
Speaker 1: Maybe it's pc but it's one of those measures of
Speaker 1: increased prices that the government puts out right, This is CPI.
Speaker 1: I think now look at all the goods that are
Speaker 1: below that went up less than inflation. New cars went
Speaker 1: up twenty four point seven percent, most of that recently,
Speaker 1: and and that's gonna go up now. Of course, this
Speaker 1: is all. It doesn't include tariffs, cause this is excluding taxes,
Speaker 1: household furnishing, in operations, and clothing. Clothing is flat. Clothing
Speaker 1: has gone up zero percent, which is basically, you know,
Speaker 1: ninety percent less than inflation. So in real terms, the
Speaker 1: cost of clothing has gone down a lot, a lot
Speaker 1: even you cause this price has gone down a lot. Furnishing,
Speaker 1: furnishing and operation has gone down a lot. Cell phone
Speaker 1: services has gone down forty two point not in real terms,
Speaker 1: that's inhenomenal terms, which means it's gone up gone down
Speaker 1: a lot more if you adjust for inflation. Computer software
Speaker 1: gone down seventy two percent, toys seventy four percent, TVs
Speaker 1: ninety eight percent. Now what do you notice about this chart?
Speaker 1: What what is the difference between what has gone up
Speaker 1: and what has gone down? What are some of the differences.
Speaker 1: There's several differences here, which interesting, right? What are they? Well? First, first,
Speaker 1: all the ones, all the ones that have gone up
Speaker 1: more than inflation, provide heavily heavily regulated by government. Obviously,
Speaker 1: all the healthcare ones, hospitals, childcarell hospitals, many co care services,
Speaker 1: to education, college tuition, college textbooks, childcare, nursery services, all
Speaker 1: heavily influenced by regulations. And then housing, food and beverage
Speaker 1: not so clear that one's not that regulated except for sugar, right,
Speaker 1: except for consul but not as regulated. New cause, housing,
Speaker 1: household clothing, cell phone, computers, toys, TVs t not regulated
Speaker 1: at all, computer software not regulated at all, toys not
Speaker 1: regulated much, all of them way below inflation. So the
Speaker 1: things that are dependent on a private section with little
Speaker 1: regulation price went down. The things that are depending on
Speaker 1: government prices went way up more than inflation. But there's
Speaker 1: another way to look at this. The things that are
Speaker 1: imported that are actually made in other countries that are
Speaker 1: imported in the United States or that face heavy competition
Speaker 1: from the outside the United States are all down, are
Speaker 1: all significantly cheaper than they used to be, significantly cheaper
Speaker 1: than they used to be. I mean, TV is basically
Speaker 1: ninety eight percent cheaper than they used to be. Computers, computers,
Speaker 1: cell phones, cell phone, you know, self services is not
Speaker 1: really importable, right, so that's that's an American service. So
Speaker 1: that's all about competition and innovation. Clothing, which is all inputs,
Speaker 1: household furniture all inputs, new cars inputs in the United States,
Speaker 1: but heavy import competition, computers inputs, toys, inputs, TVs inputs.
Speaker 1: And then if you look at the top portion, everything's domestic,
Speaker 1: including food and beverages which are made and produced.
Speaker 2: In the United States.
Speaker 1: Rights food here, and they're all up. So the things
Speaker 1: that govern subsidized and the things made in the United
Speaker 1: States for US consumption prices go up. The things that
Speaker 1: are left to the market and that are imported prices
Speaker 1: have gone down dramatically, not even a little, but dramatically. Now,
Speaker 1: how to how do tariffs change us? We will see,
Speaker 1: But this is suggests that you know, if we care
Speaker 1: about cost of things and American people people seem to
Speaker 1: care about that. They don't like inflation. Then we don't
Speaker 1: want teiffs. We want competition, or we want free trade,
Speaker 1: because look what free day trade does the TV prices
Speaker 1: and computer software prices, and clothing prices and even new
Speaker 1: car prices. I mean, this is a pretty amazing graph,
Speaker 1: one of the most important graphs in the world. All right,
Speaker 1: it's quick that all right. So that is the news.
Speaker 1: August fifth, Tuesday, August fifth. Thank you to other super chatters.
Speaker 1: You guys have done great. Wow, we've got a bunch
Speaker 1: of stickers and we've got a few questions and yeah,
Speaker 1: this is good, this is good. Thank you. Let's thank
Speaker 1: the stickers. Jackson, thank you. As a Turk Economy. Thank you, Barba,
Speaker 1: thank you, Wes, thank you. Fifty dollars, Thank you Wes
Speaker 1: for the sticker. And then Dave Dave Dean fifty dollars
Speaker 1: for a sticker. Thank you, thank you, thank you, Jeremy,
Speaker 1: thank you for the sticker. Silvano's fifty dollars. You got
Speaker 1: a started right at the beginning. Thank you, Silvana. So
Speaker 1: it's good to see you here. He was on vacation.
Speaker 1: That's why it wasn't around all right. Let me remind
Speaker 1: you that this show is sponsored by Hendershot Wealth, hendershot
Speaker 1: Wealth dot com, slash ybs. They offer product they can
Speaker 1: help you reduce your tax bill significantly if you have
Speaker 1: a lot of capital gains, so capital gates taxes can
Speaker 1: be bruto. They can wipe out, you know, significant gains
Speaker 1: that you have, maybe on stocks, maybe in a company
Speaker 1: that you're selling, maybe in bitcoin that you're selling, and
Speaker 1: you know the government is taking if you're in California,
Speaker 1: it's taking over thirty percent of it. Now you can
Speaker 1: defer that and by deferring it really shrink the impact
Speaker 1: it has on you, and you can offset it. And
Speaker 1: they have a strategy that does all that. Now, I
Speaker 1: encourage you to check it out. If you're in a
Speaker 1: position where we have a lot of capital gains taxes,
Speaker 1: or if you're going to sell your company sometime in
Speaker 1: the future, you can set your financial situation up in
Speaker 1: a way as to minimize the taxes into the future.
Speaker 1: To do that, go to my YouTube channel and check
Speaker 1: out my interview with Robert Handershot. We talked for about
Speaker 1: half an hour about this product. Then if what you
Speaker 1: hear is even mildly interesting. Just sign up on their
Speaker 1: website and they'll call you and you'll chat about it.
Speaker 1: You know, it's not going to be hot, I promise,
Speaker 1: but if it's appropriate for you, you can save a lot
Speaker 1: of money. You can thank me later. Uh. The iron
Speaker 1: Institute is remaining you that it has on the on app,
Speaker 1: an app for the phone Google, you know, Android and
Speaker 1: Apple an app that is the Irne Institute app which
Speaker 1: basically contains the iron Ran library. Iron Ran talks, Ironran
Speaker 1: articles and includes then and peakoffs, seminal courses on objectivism,
Speaker 1: all of his courses Golding the History of Philosophy which
Speaker 1: is a must listen, but Understanding Objectivism and all his
Speaker 1: courses on O pah. Just you know, material you can't
Speaker 1: get anywhere else, an incredible value and you have them
Speaker 1: at fingertips on an app. Check it out. Go to
Speaker 1: iron Ran dot og, iron Ran dot oak slash start here,
Speaker 1: Iran dot oak slash start here and uh the be
Speaker 1: an icon there to get the app either either from
Speaker 1: the app store, Apple Store or the Google Store and
Speaker 1: download it so you can have it at your fingertips.
Speaker 1: And now, finally, Alex Epstein Epstein, Alex Epstein is the
Speaker 1: world authority on everything to do with energy, climate change, environmentalism.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's amazing the quality of the content that
Speaker 1: he puts out there. In the quantity of the content
Speaker 1: he puts out there, you will learn a lot about
Speaker 1: those areas in which there is.
Speaker 2: A lot of confusion, and of course you will.
Speaker 1: He provides talking points, so you will be He will
Speaker 1: basically help you become a better communicator, better communicator. So yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, check out check out Alex Epstein's Epstein's substack
Speaker 1: Alex Epstein dot substack dot com, Alex Epstein substect dot com.
Speaker 1: Doesn't cost you.
Speaker 2: Anything to subscribe. Go subscribe.
Speaker 1: You can also support him, you should, but you can
Speaker 1: also get it for free. Get a lot of it
Speaker 1: for free, all right, find out remind I don't know,
Speaker 1: there's been a little glitch with PayPal. I'll just mention
Speaker 1: some of your subscribers monthly subscribers on PayPal, and for
Speaker 1: some reason, there's just been a flurry of rejected credit
Speaker 1: cards over the last i'd say a couple of weeks,
Speaker 1: So please check check and make sure your coment with
Speaker 1: your contribution to the run book show. I'd say about
Speaker 1: ten of you are being somehow dropped, and I know that.
Speaker 1: I know some people who were dropped didn't want to
Speaker 1: be dropped, and they got an email from PayPal saying
Speaker 1: something like, we dropped you and we didn't do anything.
Speaker 1: So PayPal's got a glitch somewhere, So go and check
Speaker 1: it out, and if you still want to.
Speaker 2: Support the show, please return.
Speaker 1: Please fix the glitch or fix whatever the PayPal needs
Speaker 1: or if you want to, I think an easier solution
Speaker 1: than the PayPal it seems to be less glitchy, is
Speaker 1: jump over the Patreon. Go over to Patreon and uh
Speaker 1: and contribute there and just put in put in Patreon, Patreon,
Speaker 1: put you on book show and it'll it'll facilitate you
Speaker 1: being able to give a contribution there. So yeah, please
Speaker 1: become a supporter on patreon dot com. Roberts says, did
Speaker 1: you know that Lisbon, Portugal it's actually forty two miles
Speaker 1: closer to Detroit, Michigan than Puerto Rico is the Detroit
Speaker 1: I did not know that. That seems crazy? Is there
Speaker 1: a I mean, is the direct fly from.
Speaker 2: Detroit to Lisbon?
Speaker 1: And we can compare the how many hours it takes
Speaker 1: compared to the Detroit Puerto Rico. It's probably about the
Speaker 1: same forty two miles wouldn't make any difference, right, So
Speaker 1: it's probably about the same flight time that would be.
Speaker 1: That would be fascinating. It doesn't seem right, but I
Speaker 1: guess Roberts looked it up. He's measured it. He's taken
Speaker 1: his tape measure and figured it out. All right. All right,
Speaker 1: let's turn now to a super chat. You two can
Speaker 1: do a super chat. Just jump on in and ask
Speaker 1: a question. It's pretty easy to do, all right. Let's
Speaker 1: start with the profit. The profit one hundred pounds stalling
Speaker 1: in these days, the pound Stolling is quite a bit
Speaker 1: more valuable than he used to be Visa VI the dollar.
Speaker 1: So pound has gone up a lot, one point three
Speaker 1: to two. I think one point three three. It was
Speaker 1: down to like in the teens. All right, the prophet says,
Speaker 1: how do think about taxes? Am I sacrificing the present
Speaker 1: by purposefully earning less to stay in the eight point
Speaker 1: seventy five dividend tax packer with the plan of selling
Speaker 1: business in the future. Paying twenty five percent corporate tax
Speaker 1: plus additional thirty five forty percent on same money makes
Speaker 1: me feel sick. Look, yeah, it makes you feel sick,
Speaker 1: but the reality is that you know, let me see,
Speaker 1: secrific so earning less to stay in the eight seventy
Speaker 1: five dividend tax backet with the plan of selling business
Speaker 1: in the future. You'll pay capital gains at that point
Speaker 1: unless you unless you sign up with Handershut Wealth and
Speaker 1: to prepare yourself to not pay capital gains.
Speaker 2: You're paying twenty five percent.
Speaker 1: Coup of tax and then you don't want to pay
Speaker 1: the thirty four follow it to forty percent on same
Speaker 1: money when you when you pay yourself, when you enjoy it,
Speaker 1: when you pay your self a salary. I guess. Look,
Speaker 1: I'm all for finding strategies to minimize taxes. One of
Speaker 1: the reasons all of you, including the profit should be well,
Speaker 1: you're in England, so maybe it's maybe it's different in England,
Speaker 1: and you know said it wouldn't work necessarily in England.
Speaker 2: Although you should check.
Speaker 1: But I'm all for paying less taxes. The question is
Speaker 1: what are you sacrificing so you're earning less, which means
Speaker 1: you're living at a lower stand of living. Now you know,
Speaker 1: whether that's worth it or not is a question. Is
Speaker 1: the money that you are not taking out. Is it
Speaker 1: staying in the business and therefore growing with the business.
Speaker 1: Is it money that is growing at a reasonable rate
Speaker 1: of return, So that one day, because you're not pulling
Speaker 1: money out now, because you're not taking a bigger salary, now,
Speaker 1: that money will stay in the business and grow, and
Speaker 1: therefore you'll have a lot more when you sell the
Speaker 1: business one day, if you can sustain, if you're happy
Speaker 1: with the quality of life that you sustain at a
Speaker 1: low income, You're going to pay the taxes at some point, right,
Speaker 1: maybe a little less, but when you sell the business,
Speaker 1: you'll pay capital gains. So you're paying twenty five percent
Speaker 1: corporate tax. So how exactly, Now, Remember, if you pay
Speaker 1: yourself salary, that reduces your profits at the corporate level,
Speaker 1: which means that you will paying on that money. You
Speaker 1: won't pay twice, right, you deduct it at the corporate level.
Speaker 1: You only pay it at the individual level when you
Speaker 1: take it as an individual unless you're taking the money
Speaker 1: out as dividends, and then it's eight point seventy five.
Speaker 1: You have to do the calculation. What makes more sense? Right,
Speaker 1: if you take it out as dividends, maybe it's less,
Speaker 1: but you're pushing yourself up to the higher tax bracket. Look,
Speaker 1: there's no definitive answer here. The bottom line is you
Speaker 1: have to figure out what the trade off is. The
Speaker 1: trade is a low standard of living now for what
Speaker 1: is it for something beneficial in the future. And if
Speaker 1: it is for something beneficial in the future, is that
Speaker 1: worth Because it's in the future, anything in the future
Speaker 1: is worth less than in the present. If it's of
Speaker 1: equal size, is it worth a delayed gratification? And I
Speaker 1: can't answer that question. That depends on your time preference.
Speaker 1: It depends on how much you value the present visa
Speaker 1: the future. You know, the business is risky. Every business
Speaker 1: is risky. There's a chance that money won't be there
Speaker 1: in the future should you invest it now? Right, So
Speaker 1: you've got to introspect, figure out the true cost of
Speaker 1: this to your own quality of life, stand of living.
Speaker 1: Figure out the true cost of this in terms of
Speaker 1: the future, the riskiness, the value of money in the future,
Speaker 1: and you're delayed gratification, and figure out what makes sense.
Speaker 1: You know, if you pull the money out, you could
Speaker 1: invest that money and be diversified, not all your eggs
Speaker 1: in the same basket, which is also a positive. So
Speaker 1: you've got to weigh all these considerations. There's no one
Speaker 1: answer to this. It depends on your values, your preferences,
Speaker 1: your time value preference. For example, I hope that's helpful.
Speaker 1: If not, let me know and I can dig a
Speaker 1: little deeper or try give me more details. If we
Speaker 1: do that, not you have, I'll GOORITHM fifty dollars, thank you.
Speaker 1: I'm many advocates of socialism rich because socialist policies make
Speaker 1: the rich richer and the poor poorer, at least in
Speaker 1: the short term. If you look at Western europe socialistic models,
Speaker 1: wealth is more intergenerational than dynamic. Yeah, but it's also
Speaker 1: very old wealth in Europe. You know, it's a lot
Speaker 1: of it's tied to old businesses and old real estate
Speaker 1: and old investments, and in that sense, it's in the generational.
Speaker 1: But no, I don't think that's why socialists are socialists.
Speaker 1: I don't think people are motivated by some supposed self
Speaker 1: interest in maintaining their own wealth. Socialism sustains their wealth
Speaker 1: for them. You know, a lot of socialist countries have
Speaker 1: wealth taxes. Wealth taxes have to drain your into generational wealth,
Speaker 1: so maybe they still stay wealthy.
Speaker 2: But they it drains it.
Speaker 1: So under capitalism they would face competition maybe their businesses,
Speaker 1: but if it's invested in real estate and things like that,
Speaker 1: they would still have their wealth. So no, there's no
Speaker 1: benefit to socialism, even in a short term narrow sense
Speaker 1: for wealth, because socialist governments can easily place a wealth tax.
Speaker 1: That's why rich people leave socialist countries. That's why they're rich.
Speaker 1: Left Sweden in the sixties, in the seventies, in the
Speaker 1: early eighties because it was socialists they left. And it's
Speaker 1: just not the case that one can attribute these kind
Speaker 1: of motives to wealthy people. You know, what motivates people fundamentally,
Speaker 1: and rich people are different model ideals, I know, it's
Speaker 1: hard to believe or the lack of them. And most
Speaker 1: socialists are motivated by guilt, by guilt of the wealth
Speaker 1: that they are particularly see, it's the cause and effect
Speaker 1: goes the other way around. If you have wealth that
Speaker 1: comes down from generations, you're going to feel more guilty
Speaker 1: about having their wealth than if you earned it. The
Speaker 1: more guilty you feel about having the wealth, the more
Speaker 1: likely you are to vote for socialist policies that redistribute
Speaker 1: the wealth that you have. So it's the other way around.
Speaker 1: It's the fact that the wealth in Europe isn't a
Speaker 1: generational makes them feel more guilty about it. The bebo socialists, right,
Speaker 1: will a Grave. I'd like to see future talk on
Speaker 1: the new EU regulations called DSU created under the pretense
Speaker 1: of protecting children online, lots of subjective rules, trusted in
Speaker 1: flagger accounts for EU appointees and disinformation. I will look
Speaker 1: at that. The challenge, of course with the EU and
Speaker 1: keeping track is just the extent of the bad regulations
Speaker 1: that they have. I mean, they are just all over
Speaker 1: the place with bad regulations, and you know, it's it's
Speaker 1: just hard to keep track. But I will, I promise
Speaker 1: I will take a look at this particular one, you know,
Speaker 1: together with any other ones you guys flag. But yes,
Speaker 1: I don't quite pay as much attention to Europe as
Speaker 1: they do to the US, partially because it's so hard,
Speaker 1: because they do so much crap, so many bad things,
Speaker 1: and so much of it is done under the guise
Speaker 1: of paternalism. Europe is much more paternalistic in that sense
Speaker 1: than the US. But the US is pretty paternalistic too,
Speaker 1: quite a bit, uh, you know, But it mostly is
Speaker 1: just a power grab and an attempt to control our
Speaker 1: lives and the lives of business. Cyrus JMG for what
Speaker 1: I've seen, Gaza shows both deep poverty, tense slums and
Speaker 1: signs of normal life shops, bakeries. Cause is there a
Speaker 1: class structure And while Gaza rules officially are warlords of
Speaker 1: factions using jahamasus officially are warlords and factions those in control. Okay,
Speaker 1: so a few things. One, Gaza right now is mostly
Speaker 1: in ruins. So if you look at area photographs of
Speaker 1: Gaza right now, most of the buildings, a significant majority
Speaker 1: of the buildings have been flattened. Gaza today is rubble.
Speaker 1: So the places where the idea has been too and
Speaker 1: the places where the idea is bombed are basically have
Speaker 1: basically been destroyed completely. And if you lived in those places,
Speaker 1: you have to either live in tense or you're living
Speaker 1: among the rubble. And it looks that way. On the
Speaker 1: other hand, areas where the idea of has not been
Speaker 1: to and maybe the idea is not bombed because of
Speaker 1: fear that the hostages might be there. They're the ones
Speaker 1: where there's relatively normal life. They are using the hostages
Speaker 1: as human shields. They're also using their own civilian population
Speaker 1: as human shields to prevent the idea from destroying the
Speaker 1: buildings there. But the Gazza looks like dress and did
Speaker 1: after bombing. It's been flattened, or like Tokyo, it's been
Speaker 1: flattened much of it. Now there is a portion that
Speaker 1: hasn't and that's where you see relatively normal life in
Speaker 1: terms of now. Always the crass structure. There was not
Speaker 1: so much a class structure, but the were poor and
Speaker 1: rich in Gaza. The rich tended to be first of
Speaker 1: all hamas officials, people in governments. Second, people who always
Speaker 1: lived in Gaza, so families that have a long history
Speaker 1: in Gaza, versus the people who are kept in poverty,
Speaker 1: the so called refugees, people who might have lived in
Speaker 1: what is now Israel and ran away from that in
Speaker 1: nineteen forty eight, So refugees from seventy something years ago,
Speaker 1: seventy seven years ago who have never been accepted into
Speaker 1: Arab society, including in the West Bank and Gaza, and
Speaker 1: had been kept as refugees in poverty and in shanty
Speaker 1: towns and so on. So in that sense there's a
Speaker 1: class structure. And then finally Hamastazrul officially all warloads and
Speaker 1: factions those in control. Yes, there are warlords. There a
Speaker 1: variety of warlords, gangs basically organized criminal gangs that are
Speaker 1: also stealing food. And one of the gangs in the
Speaker 1: south in Rafa is actually working with the Israelis UH
Speaker 1: and they are actually protecting food convoys and helping these
Speaker 1: Raelis and they're anti Haramas. There are other gangs out
Speaker 1: there that are anti Haramas, and some of them are
Speaker 1: pro Hamas, but yes, they're definitely. Once you have a
Speaker 1: place like this where Ramas cannot rule the whole place,
Speaker 1: and where there's anarchy and where there's weapons everywhere, you're
Speaker 1: gonna have gangs and you're gonna have factions fighting over stuff.
Speaker 1: But Tramas is the biggest gang of all of them.
Speaker 1: Liam are there certain levels of authoritarian control Mixed economies
Speaker 1: won't tolerate. Even the Chinese are used to being pushed
Speaker 1: around once she out because they have reached mixed economy,
Speaker 1: middle class level of comfort. Yeah, I mean you saw
Speaker 1: that with the with the real demonstrations, real differents, sizeable
Speaker 1: demonstrations in China during the COVID lockdowns or towards the
Speaker 1: end of the COVID lockdowns. Where was it twenty twenty two,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three, wasn't it into twenty twenty three? I think?
Speaker 1: And she had to had to cave, He had to
Speaker 1: open up the economy in spite of up until that
Speaker 1: he had refused to do so because of all the demonstrations. So, yes,
Speaker 1: there certain level of authoritarian controls, and that will increase
Speaker 1: the desire people to be free, increase their willingness to
Speaker 1: take risks, their willingness to rebel against the authorities. And
Speaker 1: I think that China is experiencing that to some extent. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: for example, Iran is not yet experiencing that.
Speaker 2: And it you.
Speaker 1: Know, we haven't seen it do anything substantial in real
Speaker 1: authoritarian regimes like China and Iran, So we haven't seen
Speaker 1: a regime fall. We haven't seen she kicked out. Now,
Speaker 1: maybe that's coming later the summer, early in the fall.
Speaker 1: I don't no, but it hasn't happened yet. And it's
Speaker 1: hard to tell what the Chinese will choose to do. Andrew,
Speaker 1: whether personality or politically, can you explain how the application
Speaker 1: of the virtue of independence doesn't mean alienation from or
Speaker 1: position to others? Per se yeah. I mean you have
Speaker 1: to think about what independence really means, and dependence really
Speaker 1: means is using your mind. It really means making decisions
Speaker 1: for yourself. It really means that your mind is responsible
Speaker 1: for your decision about what is true and what is not,
Speaker 1: what you should do and what you shouldn't do. And
Speaker 1: that does not mean you don't deal with experts. It
Speaker 1: doesn't mean you don't get advice. It doesn't mean you
Speaker 1: don't go to the doctor, the dentist to get expertise.
Speaker 1: But it means that even in there, if a doctor
Speaker 1: gives you a diagnosis, you need to figure out if
Speaker 1: it makes sense to you. You need potentially to get
Speaker 1: a second opinion. You need to do some online research.
Speaker 1: You need to make to make sure you are making
Speaker 1: a decision that's educated. You need asked Adoctor a lot
Speaker 1: of questions. It's your life, is your responsibility. It's your
Speaker 1: responsibility to use your mind to make decisions. That does
Speaker 1: not have any implications about being other people. I mean
Speaker 1: implication is you shouldn't be a secondhander. You shouldn't just
Speaker 1: follow other people. You shouldn't do what they say blindly.
Speaker 1: You shouldn't join tribes, you shouldn't join collectives. But should
Speaker 1: you trade with other people? Should you interact with other
Speaker 1: people from mutual benefit? Well, absolutely, as long as you're
Speaker 1: doing it on your terms. So there's just nothing, nothing
Speaker 1: in the virtue of independence that suggests Jeff to isolate
Speaker 1: yours of Quite the contrary. Virtual independence gets you to
Speaker 1: think about the value of trade, the value of other
Speaker 1: human beings, the value of friendship, the love you, value
Speaker 1: of the value of sex, and all those suggest not
Speaker 1: living alone but interacting with other people. So it practice properly.
Speaker 1: You want to be with other people, You want to
Speaker 1: engage with other people. You want to gain the values
Speaker 1: that other people represent for you and can provide.
Speaker 2: You through trade.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Andrew James. Doctor Mike Israel did a video
Speaker 1: on Mike Mensa while he had some critiques of objectivism.
Speaker 2: In the video, he said he's.
Speaker 1: A big iy Ran fan. If there's a way you
Speaker 1: could get him on the show, that would be amazing.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm going to try.
Speaker 1: I'm going to try. I think I tried reaching out
Speaker 1: and I didn't get any response from him. I also
Speaker 1: want to see what is you know, what kind of
Speaker 1: critiques he has of iin RAND because I don't want
Speaker 1: to beg him on the show without addressing those critiques.
Speaker 1: And yet I don't want to get into a fight
Speaker 1: with a guest on the show. So let me see
Speaker 1: exactly what is involved. Dean, Dave, Dean, thank you, thank you,
Speaker 1: thank you. They've just came in with another fifty dollars sticker.
Speaker 1: It makes one hundred dollars, Thank you, Dave Andrew. When
Speaker 1: lefties say they feel unsafe in response to speech, I
Speaker 1: don't doubt that they do feel it, although it's despicable
Speaker 1: that the answer is for others to be silent. How
Speaker 1: does that phenomena intersect with motivation by fear? Well, I mean,
Speaker 1: I think that the feeling unsafe from speech is basically
Speaker 1: a result of the fear that they have. Fear that
Speaker 1: they have generally metaphysical kind of fear, because speech does
Speaker 1: not threaten them, if it's just speech. It's also the
Speaker 1: case that remember that they have been raised on valuing
Speaker 1: their emotions more than anything else, and when you elevate
Speaker 1: emotions above all else, when you elevated emotions above all else,
Speaker 1: then fear is all you're left with. Because emotions will
Speaker 1: not tell you how the world works. Emotions will not
Speaker 1: tell you what good and bad is. Emotions will not
Speaker 1: tell you if to cross the street now or not,
Speaker 1: so you face the world bewildered without any knowledge because
Speaker 1: emotions don't give you knowledge suddenly, not knowledge about the
Speaker 1: outside world. So you are you know you. The emotion
Speaker 1: that comes to dominate is the emotion of fear. What's
Speaker 1: going on Here'll say, something got screwed up here weird?
Speaker 1: Huh night, Uh sorry the uh something w g went
Speaker 1: weird on my web page. Kay, All the questions are
Speaker 1: back up and they're covering each other up. Okay, sorry
Speaker 1: what I'm saying. So, as I said, I, you know,
Speaker 1: I think that's connection. The connection is that fear leads
Speaker 1: to then emotionalism leads to fear, and then they fear
Speaker 1: everything around them. And they of course they've part of
Speaker 1: that is they fear. They fear.
Speaker 2: The things that people say to them.
Speaker 1: They fear bad ideas that they don't understand. All right,
Speaker 1: Zachary switch to a career in programming about three and
Speaker 1: a half years ago. I've been at a major US
Speaker 1: retailer as a software engineers incetent. Yesterday I got promoted
Speaker 1: to the next level, including a nice raise, thank you
Speaker 1: for your guidance, zachtarly cool.
Speaker 2: I'm really happy for you.
Speaker 1: That is fantastic, and of course it's my pleasure if
Speaker 1: you got something out of me that inspired you to
Speaker 1: do all that. Let me just make sure that I
Speaker 1: got yes, all right. The profit also asks, oh, maybe
Speaker 1: this was a continuation to the one before adding percentage
Speaker 1: might beforeio question from the other day, Call Global fifty
Speaker 1: percent value tilt, twenty percent, emerging markets fifteen percent, tech
Speaker 1: seven percent, biotech three percent, gold five percent to out
Speaker 1: real estate. Yeah, that looks about right. I mean, I
Speaker 1: like that portfolio. I don't know if the value tilt
Speaker 1: is a US value tilt to a global value tilt,
Speaker 1: but I generally like that it gives you. It gives
Speaker 1: you some biotech in tech exposure that's about ten percent
Speaker 1: and which you market fifteen You know, I don't know
Speaker 1: what's in co Global. I might go to forty percent
Speaker 1: co Global and put up thirty percent into the value tilt,
Speaker 1: given that you've you've got biotech in tech there. That
Speaker 1: would be the only change I would make if I
Speaker 1: was gonna do it. But of course, nothing I say
Speaker 1: here is investment advice. I just think value is really
Speaker 1: cheap right now has mean for a long time. It's
Speaker 1: underperformed for a long time, and usually there's mean reversion,
Speaker 1: so usually it overperforms. And I think in a period
Speaker 1: of stake nation, which I think we're heading towards, uh,
Speaker 1: there's a good chance that value out performs, not does well,
Speaker 1: but outperforms kind of broadly speaking, growth, even though tech
Speaker 1: might do well and biotech might do well, biotech and
Speaker 1: tech is basically for the for the possibility of of
Speaker 1: of you know, things going really really well. That's why
Speaker 1: only thinking, But basically I think you've got it right, Daniel,
Speaker 1: I built automated machinery for a living. Nearly all the
Speaker 1: materials and parts are imported, and that's for American manufacturing.
Speaker 1: The male laths and tooling are built all over the world. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean that's the reality. And that's why these these
Speaker 1: tasks are so dumb, stupid and evil. Really, they're really
Speaker 1: im all. This is really really immoral what he's doing,
Speaker 1: And it just makes no sense. There's no thinking, there's
Speaker 1: no strategy, there's no economics. Daniels, Do the bank is
Speaker 1: have to bake the cake? Do the bankers have to
Speaker 1: bake the cake? Well? They do, and then Trump takes
Speaker 1: a slice for himself without paying for it. That Dodo will,
Speaker 1: and regulators take up even biggest lives that Dudo bunny.
Speaker 1: Do specialists change a culture faster than generalists in terms
Speaker 1: of philosophy, in terms of ideas, No, I mean you
Speaker 1: need both, and you need both at the same time.
Speaker 1: And the ultimate generalist are the philosophers. And the ultimate
Speaker 1: generalist here is Iman. So in a sense, you've got
Speaker 1: the generalist Iman the philosopher. You've got a philosophy. And
Speaker 1: now what you need as specialist to apply it, apply it,
Speaker 1: apply it, apply it, apply it, apply it, apply it
Speaker 1: so that people can start seeing connection between things and
Speaker 1: connecting it to that philosophy, to those ideas. So what
Speaker 1: you need is a bunch of specialists, not one specialist.
Speaker 1: He can't change the world.
Speaker 2: You need a bunch of specialists.
Speaker 1: In a sense. Uh, you know, leveraging the generalists, leveraging
Speaker 1: the knowledge of the generalists, the philosophy, the principles that
Speaker 1: they've gotten from philosophy andrew. A way one can mentally
Speaker 1: transport to a benevolent culture period is through observing its artwork. Yes,
Speaker 1: I mean art is a way to experience a different,
Speaker 1: a different time, a different sense of you know, and
Speaker 1: to reinforce the positive sense of life that hopefully you
Speaker 1: have the positives within yourself of life, and to experience
Speaker 1: other cultures, other worlds in which life was more benevolent.
Speaker 2: I don't know if you've.
Speaker 1: I just thinking of an author and his name slipped
Speaker 1: my mind. Okay, maybe it'll.
Speaker 2: Come back, Harper Campbell.
Speaker 1: All these tarifts solely about market manipulation and inside of
Speaker 1: trading to make all of Trump's loyalists rich. That's why
Speaker 1: he doesn't want to negotiate away these tarffs. No, I
Speaker 1: mean there's some of that suddenly, to some of that,
Speaker 1: and primarily just to make him feel powerful and to
Speaker 1: have the world leaders come and gravel and to have
Speaker 1: businessmen come and gravel for favors. That's a big part
Speaker 1: of it. But no, it's it's a real hatred of taris.
Speaker 1: It's a real hatred of trade. Sorry to hell, hatred
Speaker 1: of trade. I know it's hard to believe, but Trump
Speaker 1: really has a zero some view of the world.
Speaker 2: He really believes trade deficits are bad. He really believes,
Speaker 2: you know, uh, what do you call it? Tariffs are good.
Speaker 1: He can't explain in a rational logical way why they're good,
Speaker 1: because they're not. Objectively, they're just not. But he hates them,
Speaker 1: so he acts on it. That's all it is. It's
Speaker 1: his personal hatred. He is a mook antilist. He has
Speaker 1: the economic knowledge of somebody from the seventeenth century, suddenly
Speaker 1: pre Adam Smith. As I said before, of a five
Speaker 1: year old James Zorn. Mamdani is more of a Marxist
Speaker 1: than a standard redistributionist. He did an interview calling for
Speaker 1: the abolishment of private property in order to provide universal housing.
Speaker 2: Can he be stopped?
Speaker 1: Yeah? I think he is more of a Marxist. He
Speaker 1: comes out of the kind of the Jacobean magazine, kind
Speaker 1: of part of the left, you know, less interested in woke,
Speaker 1: more interested in real Marxism, workers owning the means of production,
Speaker 1: type Marxism. Can he be stopped? I don't know. My
Speaker 1: guess is that if the three opposition candidates united around
Speaker 1: one candidate, that one candidate would win. But given the
Speaker 1: egos of the three people involved, I don't know that
Speaker 1: they will do that. Right, it's a current mayor Como
Speaker 1: and a Republican candidate. I mean they should choose one,
Speaker 1: and everybody else should quit. That's the way to stop him.
Speaker 1: But people in New Yorker's cool young New Yorkers, including
Speaker 1: the Jewish young new Yorkers, they hate Israel. They like
Speaker 1: that he's standing up against Israel. They hate capitalism, even
Speaker 1: though they're all making nice, really nice incomes off of
Speaker 1: the jobs that they have. They hate capitalism even though
Speaker 1: they love living in New York. But they don't like
Speaker 1: paying a high price for living in New York. They
Speaker 1: want Iowa prices and still live in New York. They
Speaker 1: think socialism would give them that, and they're just not thinking.
Speaker 1: They're not thinking the I mean taught to think. They
Speaker 1: have the mentality of, you know, an emotionalistic five year
Speaker 1: old join the club, not to have a joagorhithm. Every
Speaker 1: time the idea of gets closer to defeating evil, the
Speaker 1: media gets louder with lies. Yeah, the lies are constant.
Speaker 1: They basically the sympathies of the media with tramas. They
Speaker 1: stage photos, they lie about photos, they lie about information
Speaker 1: that they have the reporters on the ground or programas.
Speaker 1: So it's very hard even for editors who don't want
Speaker 1: to be programas to filter and figure out what's true
Speaker 1: what's not. I mean, the world is programas because the
Speaker 1: world is altruistic, almost everybody's programas. Michael Destiny is on
Speaker 1: a cross country anti Trump tour, definitely worth trying to
Speaker 1: do a live event with him. I'll try it, but
Speaker 1: I have to have a schedule first, because I can't
Speaker 1: just say I'm going to do it and then not
Speaker 1: do it. And you know, given where I am, I'll
Speaker 1: see if I can walk something else, blaze guitar lessons.
Speaker 1: What would you say Thomas Soul was wrong about? Oh,
Speaker 1: I don't know enough about all of Thomas OL's writings,
Speaker 1: but he's wrong about Christianity. He's wrong about economics being
Speaker 1: the science a science that deals with scarcity. He's wrong
Speaker 1: about I think he's I don't the term scarcity should
Speaker 1: not be applied to economics, although everybody does. He's he's
Speaker 1: wrong for not being totally lafay.
Speaker 2: He's not all out one hundred percent.
Speaker 1: He on sudden issues suggests that government should get involved.
Speaker 1: But I don't you know, I'd have to have to
Speaker 1: go flip through my Thomasoul books to remember which ones exactly.
Speaker 1: Those are the things that come to mind Christianity and
Speaker 1: their f altruism not one hundred percent less a fair
Speaker 1: and economics not being about scarcity. It's the economics is
Speaker 1: a study of production and trade. All values must be produced,
Speaker 1: that is the essence, and not or they're scarce scarce.
Speaker 1: You know, if you define scarcity right, it's true. But
Speaker 1: the problem is nobody holds it right. Blaze guitar lessons.
Speaker 1: How would you debate some about China's economy. I don't
Speaker 1: understand the question. What does it mean debates some? I
Speaker 1: mean is the question of why Chinese economy is doing
Speaker 1: relatively well or done relatively well in the last forty years.
Speaker 1: I'd say because they liberalized, because they opened up the economy,
Speaker 1: and those parts that will opened up, those parts of
Speaker 1: liberalized have done phenomenally well. And I could give lots
Speaker 1: of examples of that. So the state sector, the area
Speaker 1: where the state is involved, has not done well. It's
Speaker 1: not done anywhere near well. Most of the wealth, most
Speaker 1: of the employment has been created in those areas of
Speaker 1: the economy that were that are in the private sector
Speaker 1: versus those that are state controlled. And they had a
Speaker 1: huge boom in tech when they left tech alone. When
Speaker 1: they left tech free, which was in the two thousands
Speaker 1: until about really until about twenty eighteen twenty nineteen, and
Speaker 1: tech flourished in China, and I think I think it's
Speaker 1: stagnated since relatively speaking, Brian, I'm one hundred percent of
Speaker 1: zero US tariffs. The US might lose leverage to negotiate
Speaker 1: low time and US goods. But since government should not
Speaker 1: be in a business of negotiating any trade policy, should
Speaker 1: we care. No.
Speaker 2: I agree with you completely.
Speaker 1: I'm for zero tariffs, and I actually think that ultimately
Speaker 1: people would learn from example and they.
Speaker 2: Would reduce tauts too. We shouldn't care.
Speaker 1: I mean, it would be nice if everybody had zero towers.
Speaker 1: But look, there were a lot of non tariff restrictions
Speaker 1: on trade. This is the subsidies. I'm for US reducing
Speaker 1: all restrictions on trade, zero tariffs and zero subsidies as
Speaker 1: the first thing that you do, and let other countries.
Speaker 2: Deal with that.
Speaker 1: I mean, it places the US in a fantastic position
Speaker 1: to compete with everybody else. We would have the lower costs,
Speaker 1: best quality stuff. You know, we would be able to
Speaker 1: focus and specialize in a comparative advantage, and we'd have
Speaker 1: a huge advantage over the rest of the world and
Speaker 1: yet be trading with them to mutual benefits. So the
Speaker 1: United States would become richer really really fast. Now would
Speaker 1: become even faster. We become richer if there was zero
Speaker 1: taffs everywhere in the world and zero trade restrictions everywhere
Speaker 1: in the world. And I think we have other leverage,
Speaker 1: other mechanisms by which we can incentivize countries to reduce
Speaker 1: their terists to zero. But look, if I believe that
Speaker 1: Trump was using tariffs in order to reduce other people's
Speaker 1: tasts on our goods, and ultimately what he wants and
Speaker 1: what he's moving towards is the zero tariff world, including
Speaker 1: the United States, I'd be mildly sympathetic. But that's not
Speaker 1: what he's trying to do.
Speaker 2: Right With regards to the previous question.
Speaker 1: Saying, how do you debate someone about Chinese economy how
Speaker 1: people now people say it has a better system in
Speaker 1: the US, it doesn't.
Speaker 2: Chinese are dramatically.
Speaker 1: Poorer than Americans about GDP per capital if I remember
Speaker 1: right or less, they're very poor, much poorer than Americans,
Speaker 1: and they're less innovative, they're less productive, productivity per worker,
Speaker 1: value added per worker dramatically less in China than the
Speaker 1: United States. And those areas in China that have done well,
Speaker 1: as I said before, or those areas where they have
Speaker 1: embraced more free markets, and those areas that do poorly.
Speaker 1: But you know, look at the look at the real
Speaker 1: estate crisis in China, real estate prices in China, look
Speaker 1: at the debt that they that the provisional governments have.
Speaker 1: China isn't very very, very bad economic state right now
Speaker 1: now South America because the debt we've accumulated, but China's
Speaker 1: feeling it in a way we're not. And and again
Speaker 1: people's wealth is being affected in the way American's wealth
Speaker 1: is not. Not yet all right, I think this is
Speaker 1: the last question. H Andrews says, you mentioned how one's
Speaker 1: circumstances don't ultimately dictate one's ideas or actions. Ran referred
Speaker 1: to that notion as an alibi for weaklings. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean people are constantly trying to make excuses, trying to
Speaker 1: you know, shift responsibility, shrug off responsibility for their own lives.
Speaker 1: And that's an alibi for for weaklings, and and and absolutely,
Speaker 1: and you know, it's my circumstances, my parents, it's my neighborhood.
Speaker 1: It's it's uh, it's my genes, it's my and and
Speaker 1: people do it all the time, and and you might
Speaker 1: I catch yourself sometimes doing it. Don't give it to it.
Speaker 1: You in control of your destiny. You get to decide,
Speaker 1: You get to choose you need. You get to make
Speaker 1: your own future. You get to make your own soul.
Speaker 1: You get to shape who you are and what you are.
Speaker 1: Don't use genetics or environment as an excuse. They're a
Speaker 1: very bad one. All right, guys, I will see you tomorrow,
Speaker 1: probably at twelve noon. If it won't be a twelve
Speaker 1: noon for some reason, it'll be late at night because
Speaker 1: I'm giving a talk tomorrow at a jazz club in Lisbon.
Speaker 1: They've got a book club thing that they do. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna talk about an Affla shrugged, So that'll be fun.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you about that on Thursday when we do
Speaker 1: a show Thursday. All right, everybody, I will see you tomorrow. Bye. Yeah,