Speaker 1: Hm though radical fundamental principles of freedom, national self interest,
Speaker 1: and individual wise.
Speaker 2: This is the Uran book show. Oh right, everybody, welcome
Speaker 2: to your own book show on this.
Speaker 3: Sunday, April sixth.
Speaker 2: I am in Israel, as the title suggests, and I
Speaker 2: think today we do uh.
Speaker 3: It's late here, so like.
Speaker 2: Yesterday, it's it's uh it is ten pm at night.
Speaker 2: I think we do a short show today, just covering
Speaker 2: some more stuff on the trade, on other things going
Speaker 2: on in the world and in the United States. Maybe
Speaker 2: a quick update on things happening here in Israel, just
Speaker 2: to give you a quick update. Somebody's asking if I'm
Speaker 2: hearing any bombs. I am not, and that's because I'm
Speaker 2: in the north of Israel.
Speaker 3: There was some missile it seems like I don't know
Speaker 3: exactly what's happening, but.
Speaker 2: Just earlier, a little earlier, just as I was leaving
Speaker 2: my parents home, there were some Ariid sirens down south.
Speaker 2: It looks like the in Gaza they launched some missiles.
Speaker 2: I'm pretty show those missiles be knocked out of the air,
Speaker 2: but knowing near where I am, so not to worry.
Speaker 2: I will be leaving Israel tomorrow. I will be heading
Speaker 2: back home. It'll take two legs to get there. I'll
Speaker 2: be flying into Madrid, spending one night in Madrid, and
Speaker 2: then flying home the day after that. You know what else, Yeah,
Speaker 2: in terms of logistics, they won't be a show tomorrow,
Speaker 2: they won't be a show on Tuesday. They'll be a
Speaker 2: show on Wednesday. And we'll get into some kind of
Speaker 2: schedule after that, although there's a lot of travel between
Speaker 2: now and the end of May.
Speaker 3: But all right, well let's talk.
Speaker 2: We'll talk today about a little bit more about tariffs.
Speaker 2: I want to give you a little bit of an update.
Speaker 2: And there was an excellent up ad today in the
Speaker 2: Wall Street Journal today or was it yesterday? When was
Speaker 2: this up ed in the Wall Street Journal? I see
Speaker 2: it now April fourth, So on Friday. It was a
Speaker 2: very good up ad on the Wall Street. Don't want
Speaker 2: to read a little.
Speaker 3: Bit from it.
Speaker 2: It kind of bolsters everything I've been arguing about some
Speaker 2: of these issues. And then we'll talk about we'll talk
Speaker 2: about different countries going to negotiate with Trump over tariffs.
Speaker 2: We'll talk about a lawsuit over tariffs, over the authority
Speaker 2: of the president to do tariffs. One second, we'll talk
Speaker 2: about the authority of the president to actually even impose
Speaker 2: these tariffs, and there's a lawsuit challenging that, and then
Speaker 2: you know, we'll see, we'll see what else we havever
Speaker 2: of course, the show is basically will be determined by
Speaker 2: the questions you guys ask. So this could be a
Speaker 2: very short show. It could be a very long show.
Speaker 2: Hopefully not a very long show, but could be a
Speaker 2: long show. And you can you can said questions in
Speaker 2: the super chat and I will answer them. Anything you ask,
Speaker 2: I will answer, So feel fee to do that, Feel
Speaker 2: free to do that. All right, let's see where do
Speaker 2: we want to start. You know, I'm in Israel, so
Speaker 2: just give you a quick update in Israel. Israel is
Speaker 2: you know, there's still significant fighting going on in Gazo,
Speaker 2: or at least Israel still is slowly advancing within Gaza,
Speaker 2: bombing in Gaza, putting.
Speaker 3: A lot of pressure, trying to put pressure on Karmas.
Speaker 2: The idea is that if Israel puts pressure on Armas,
Speaker 2: then Ramas will come to negotiating the negotiating table around hostages.
Speaker 2: The mood in Israel, the atmosphere in Israel is such
Speaker 2: that the focus is almost exclusively on bringing.
Speaker 3: The hostages home.
Speaker 2: There's very little talk on victory, there's very little talk
Speaker 2: on defeating Armas. There's very little talk about what happens
Speaker 2: next if and Ramas is defeated. Almost all the discussion
Speaker 2: everywhere and almost everybody expresses the same view, and that
Speaker 2: is that the number one priority, the number one priority
Speaker 2: of the nation is to bring back the hostages. I
Speaker 2: think this is an indication of a cup, not one.
Speaker 2: It has obviously inflicted a significant harm to its enemies,
Speaker 2: particularly Ramas and chrisbe Line to some extent, you're on,
Speaker 2: but it is not one. And I think whereas in
Speaker 2: the first few days, first few weeks after October seventh,
Speaker 2: there was this atmosphere in Israel of we're gonna crush them,
Speaker 2: We're going to thrash them, we're going to defeat them,
Speaker 2: We're going for victory, I think that's gone. I think
Speaker 2: the attitude right now is it's just cut the best
Speaker 2: deal we can. Victory of Ramas is probably impossible. Look
Speaker 2: what we did, Look what we tried. It didn't work.
Speaker 2: And by the way, I consider this a massive failure
Speaker 2: of leadership, of leadership by Nicha on his government, an
Speaker 2: inability to a win the war and do what is
Speaker 2: necessary to win the war. It's also leadership of communication,
Speaker 2: of inspiration, of keeping the Israeli public focused on what
Speaker 2: is important, which is the destruction of Commas. That's how
Speaker 2: to do over a year and a half when everybody
Speaker 2: knows you could have defeated them in three weeks. So
Speaker 2: it is always given up in a sense, it's given
Speaker 2: up the idea of victory. And then the question is
Speaker 2: then the question is, well, what do we achieve? And
Speaker 2: the Israeli public right now, a significant proportion of it,
Speaker 2: at least, seems to believe that the only thing that
Speaker 2: really can be achieved is the feeing of the hostages,
Speaker 2: and the way to do that is to cut a deal.
Speaker 2: And they are quite happy, well maybe happy to an exaggeration,
Speaker 2: they're quite willing to cut a deal with Hamas negotiating
Speaker 2: with terrorists. Fine, they don't seem to really care. I mean,
Speaker 2: maybe go they be negotiating with terrorists for what is
Speaker 2: it now, thirty thirty thirty two years since nineteen eighty
Speaker 2: three in Oslo. It's only a little more bloodshed, it's
Speaker 2: only the more destruction. It's only later to more harm.
Speaker 2: But but you know, Israel. Really, this is what happens
Speaker 2: every time Israel engages in the war. It seems to
Speaker 2: be going well, everybody supports the war. Then it bogs down,
Speaker 2: victory is not achieved, the public turns against the war
Speaker 2: and it seeks other alternatives.
Speaker 3: And that's what we're seeing here.
Speaker 2: This is the cost of not engaging in a ruthless,
Speaker 2: brutal war that would have won won it all for
Speaker 2: Israel defeated Kamas, achieved the victory in the first few days, weeks,
Speaker 2: certainly months after October seven. Now the memory of October
Speaker 2: seventh is dimming. The focus is exclusively and the suffering,
Speaker 2: and the suffering is horrific of the hostages and their families, and.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's it's you know, the.
Speaker 2: Hostages, by the way, the constant reports of the amount
Speaker 2: of torturing, the hostages enduring, the brutality of the Ramas captives,
Speaker 2: the isolation, the darkness, the the starvation, the and the
Speaker 2: just horrific conditions under which they're being held. And it's
Speaker 2: now a year and a half. A year and a half,
Speaker 2: these people were torn from their beds, dragged dragged from
Speaker 2: a music festival, or you know, some of them were
Speaker 2: raped and beaten and tortured even before they were taken hostages.
Speaker 2: Then they were taking hostage, many of them were injured
Speaker 2: and received very you know, mediocre or poor medical care.
Speaker 3: Uh and.
Speaker 2: Anyway, Uh that is uh, that is what's unassurely minds,
Speaker 2: how do we free them? And they're willing to give
Speaker 2: up anything almost and the rety public is clearly blaming
Speaker 2: then Tenniel government for the hostage is not being released.
Speaker 2: You know, they're not really blaming comas. And the sad
Speaker 2: reality is, as I said, they've basically given up on
Speaker 2: the idea of victory. They've given any up in the
Speaker 2: idea of completely defeening Kamas and and uh crushing them.
Speaker 2: There's also a lot of scandals going on, and I'm
Speaker 2: not going to get into all of them. Some of
Speaker 2: them I don't even know. I don't really understand. I
Speaker 2: haven't really dug into a lot of scandals that are
Speaker 2: problems for their nitennial government that the n government is
Speaker 2: accused of. And of course, one of the one of
Speaker 2: the biggest issues is, you know, one of the biggest
Speaker 2: issues is that they are being that the Natannial government
Speaker 2: has not really started the process of any kind of
Speaker 2: independent investigation of what happened on the seventh and how
Speaker 2: why it was caused. They don't want such an investigation
Speaker 2: because such an interification investigation clearly would indicate that the
Speaker 2: Nicennial government, over years and years and years and years
Speaker 2: of neglect of and wrong evaluation of the situation, basically
Speaker 2: is responsible.
Speaker 3: For what happened in October seventh.
Speaker 2: But beyond that, there is now something called Katar Gate
Speaker 2: Qatar Gate, and this has multiple dimensions, and again I
Speaker 2: haven't gone into all the detail.
Speaker 3: There's been multiple.
Speaker 2: Dimensions whereby the Natanio administration is accused of facilitating the
Speaker 2: transfer of billions of dollars from the Qatari government to Hamas.
Speaker 2: I think this is all true. You know, they have
Speaker 2: identified a particular businessman who facilitated the transfers from Doha
Speaker 2: to Gaza, and he is a quite friendly with Nteniao
Speaker 2: himself is often then a guest at the indianail home.
Speaker 2: And he's the one who got all that money from
Speaker 2: Katara to Gaza, money that ultimately was used to build
Speaker 2: the tunnels, to buy the weapons, to build the entire
Speaker 2: military infrastructure that not only cost twelve hundred Israeli lives
Speaker 2: on October seventh, but also cost now five hundred lives
Speaker 2: of soldiers who have been fighting in Gaza for the
Speaker 2: last year and a half. But beyond that, it's seems
Speaker 2: that there are members of you know, close to the
Speaker 2: Tino people in Nathaniel's office, in the office of the
Speaker 2: Prime Minister, who are being on the Katari Peiro that
Speaker 2: are basically, if you will, lobbyists for Qatar. And it
Speaker 2: is it is truly, it is truly horrific. Qatar is
Speaker 2: an enemy nation. It is an enemy nation of Israel.
Speaker 2: It is a country that has facilitated terrorism all across
Speaker 2: the world. It is an enemy nation of the United States,
Speaker 2: and the United States has chosen to bury its head
Speaker 2: in sand. The United States has chosen to pretend that
Speaker 2: Qatar is not its enemy. The largest American military base
Speaker 2: in the Middle East, after all, is in Qatar. An
Speaker 2: America can get away with it to some extent. Israel
Speaker 2: Kana Israel treating Katara as a friend, but treating Katara
Speaker 2: as neutral is life or death for Israel. To treat
Speaker 2: Katara the way that it does made October seventh possible.
Speaker 2: And that, of course, that of course is that, of course,
Speaker 2: you know, is the responsibility of this government. And so
Speaker 2: there is a katagate going on a number of a
Speaker 2: couple of people from Nintennial office of being arrested in
Speaker 2: a census foreign agents. But this is this is a big,
Speaker 2: big issue for this government and it's going to be
Speaker 2: interesting to see how Nintennio survived. Now Natennial, the one
Speaker 2: skill he has, the one ability that he has above
Speaker 2: all others, is to survive politically. He will grind it
Speaker 2: out and somehow survive. But this is Raelly government is
Speaker 2: co op. This Israeli government needs to acknowledge its responsibility
Speaker 2: for what happened on October seventh. The fact that it
Speaker 2: allowed the Tramas under its nose really to arm itself,
Speaker 2: to prepare itself, to train and to build the tunnels
Speaker 2: and to build up defenses and to do everything that
Speaker 2: it did that it allowed for, that right that it
Speaker 2: allowed for, that it let it happen. The fact that
Speaker 2: they allowed Iranian Katari money to flow into the Gaza.
Speaker 2: The fact that in spite of the many, many attacks
Speaker 2: from Gaza against Israeli citizens, these israel dithered and waited
Speaker 2: and refused to destroy Ramas and achieve and achieve victory,
Speaker 2: which it could have done two years earlier and had
Speaker 2: to wait for a disastrous event like October seventh to
Speaker 2: find wake Israel up and actually do a little bit
Speaker 2: of what is necessary. But the fact is it hasn't
Speaker 2: done what's necessary. It hasn't defeated the Palestinians, it hasn't
Speaker 2: defeated Haramas, it hasn't achieved victory. And the consequence of
Speaker 2: that is prolonged rule and prolonged uncertainty. And indeed, if
Speaker 2: it's true that missiles will fire out of Gauza tonight,
Speaker 2: then they haven't even destroyed all the missile launching capabilities
Speaker 2: of Ramas. You have to say that this government has failed,
Speaker 2: that Nitagnelle as a leader has failed, failed, completely, failed
Speaker 2: thoroughly in the one assignment that they had, which is
Speaker 2: the one assignment that any government has, which is the
Speaker 2: protection of the individual rights, the protection of the lives
Speaker 2: of its own citizens.
Speaker 3: So anyways, so that is.
Speaker 2: A little bit of what's going on in Israel.
Speaker 3: Of course that is.
Speaker 2: That is Uh, there's a lot more going on in Israel.
Speaker 2: It's a it's a country. That is Oh, one other
Speaker 2: thing I wanted to mention, and that'll lead us to
Speaker 2: the discussion of Tavis as well well.
Speaker 3: Two things.
Speaker 2: One is uh, a new political party was formed today
Speaker 2: in Israel in the under the leadership of Naphtali Bennett
Speaker 2: nough Taldy Bennett is somebody that I am I would
Speaker 2: much rather prefer see as Prime Minister of Israel than
Speaker 2: and it's a neelle. I can't say I'm a fan
Speaker 2: of enough tad E. Bennett, but enph Talty Bennett is
Speaker 2: certainly of the people in the political arena in Israel
Speaker 2: right now, based on my granted limited knowledge, is I
Speaker 2: think the most qualified and and the best uh uh
Speaker 2: to deal with the current situation. So it's going to
Speaker 2: be interesting to watch this new political party how it evolves.
Speaker 2: Who does it take votes from. Right now, a poll
Speaker 2: done today would make it the largest political party in Israel,
Speaker 2: but only by an inch, by one seat bigger than
Speaker 2: Ntennial's he could but of course we're not going to
Speaker 2: have it elections for a couple of years, although with
Speaker 2: the scandals going on right now, we might have elections sooner.
Speaker 2: But you know, between now and elections, anything could change.
Speaker 2: It's impossible to say what will actually be the outcome
Speaker 2: Ntennial because of all the scandals around him. He's already
Speaker 2: also facing corruption charges. He's in courts, he's regularly testifying
Speaker 2: in court in his own corruption case, and Antenna took
Speaker 2: a vacation this week. He chose as his location of
Speaker 2: vacation Hungry. I think he chose that for two reasons.
Speaker 2: One is hungry in spite of the fact that Hungary
Speaker 2: until yesterday was a member of the ICC, the International
Speaker 2: Criminal Court. Auban has said he would not hand over
Speaker 2: Nataniel to the court, so it was a safe It
Speaker 2: was a safe place for Natenniel to go because.
Speaker 3: He knew that he wouldn't be arrested.
Speaker 2: You remember that members of the ICC are under now
Speaker 2: obligation as members of the SEC to hand over Nathaniel
Speaker 2: to the criminal Court, to arrest them basically and hand
Speaker 2: him over to the criminal court. And indeed, the Criminal
Speaker 2: Court demanded that Hungary arrest Antennio and hand him over.
Speaker 2: Hungary refused and then withdrew from membership in the ICC,
Speaker 2: which is a good thing. The second reason I think
Speaker 2: Natanio went to Hungary is that I think he has
Speaker 2: some affinity to Aubon. I think he liked Trump, who
Speaker 2: will all have an authoritarian nature. Admire the ability of Aubon,
Speaker 2: under the guise of democracy to basically become a almost dictator,
Speaker 2: but certainly authoritarian leader of the country. Here, Oban faces
Speaker 2: very little opposition from the media because he has the
Speaker 2: media under control. He is basically taking control of all
Speaker 2: the kind of levers of power. There's no checks and balances,
Speaker 2: there is no real checks on his power anymore in Hungary,
Speaker 2: so I think they all admire him. I think every
Speaker 2: leader spiring to be authoritarian admires Putin, but they can't
Speaker 2: go to Russia. So the proxy for Putin is Auban
Speaker 2: in Hungary. Anyway, Today Nataniel surprisingly announced that he is
Speaker 2: flying to Washington, DC to meet with Trump. He will
Speaker 2: meet with Trump tomorrow. He is the first world leader
Speaker 2: to meet with Trump post tariffs, and supposedly on their
Speaker 2: agenda for them is one hostages. I don't know that
Speaker 2: they'll talk much about that. To Iran. I think Trump
Speaker 2: will update Nathaniel on his efforts to negotiate a deal
Speaker 2: with Iran and three and I think ultimately most importantly
Speaker 2: and why Nataniel is actually going is tariffs, teriffs. That
Speaker 2: is Natani always going to Trump to argue the case
Speaker 2: that Israel actually has zero tariffs visa v the United
Speaker 2: States does not tariff American goods, and therefore that Israel
Speaker 2: was treated badly by Trump's announcement on Wednesday that Israel
Speaker 2: would face seventeen percent tariffs in spite of the fact
Speaker 2: that Israel doesn't.
Speaker 3: Teriff for American goods.
Speaker 2: The US is going to argue that Israel runs that
Speaker 2: the United States runs a trade deficit visa VI Israel.
Speaker 2: That and that is true because of Israel's huge advantages
Speaker 2: with regard to high tech and as a consequence, there
Speaker 2: is a negative there is a trade deficit with Israel
Speaker 2: and the fact that Israel has a VAT, although that
Speaker 2: is irrelevant to tariffs, but is not going to stop
Speaker 2: Trump ignoramus Trump from using that as a argument against Israel. Anyway,
Speaker 2: It'll be interesting to negotiate. Supposedly, there are fifty countries
Speaker 2: now that are waiting in line to come and kiss
Speaker 2: the ring or to kiss the ass of the President
Speaker 2: of the United States in order to try to get
Speaker 2: some some I don't know, weakening of the tariff regime.
Speaker 2: At the same time, you have so as any always
Speaker 2: there primarily for that, I think, although the other issues
Speaker 2: will play out. He I think, is trying to get
Speaker 2: on Trump's, you know, stand Trump's good side, and emphasize
Speaker 2: and try to try to gravel and as much as
Speaker 2: he can and you know, basically present himself to Trump
Speaker 2: as his best friend now because partially because you know,
Speaker 2: is that Trump next week had changed his mind and
Speaker 2: become very anti Israeli, very anti as well. All right,
Speaker 2: So that is that is, that is not any are
Speaker 2: going to Trump. So let's talk more about the tariffs. So,
Speaker 2: as I said yesterday, China's imposed thirty four percent tariffs
Speaker 2: and all US goods. The EU is putting together package
Speaker 2: a significant package of tariffs on the United States, so
Speaker 2: many other countries. You know, this is going to be
Speaker 2: a fore blown tariff war. Ludwig the Common Secretary came
Speaker 2: out today on television saying that the tariffs would not
Speaker 2: be delayed. That is that Trump is fully and the
Speaker 2: Trump administration is fully committed to imposing this tariffs this week,
Speaker 2: and that they're convinced that these are supposedly good for America.
Speaker 2: Now he's lying. I don't think anybody's convinced the good
Speaker 2: for America. Maybe Trump is because he's ignorant, but I
Speaker 2: think anybody who knows any anything knows that these tariffs
Speaker 2: are disaster for America and for its economy, and certainly
Speaker 2: the stock market is sending any vidication possible to people
Speaker 2: that that is the case. All Right, I think I
Speaker 2: need to lower the volume, guys. Let's see anyway, this
Speaker 2: is only going to get worse, not better. And Ludwick
Speaker 2: is the tariff guy of this administration, is really pushing
Speaker 2: for this, and it's an unmitigated disaster, There's no question
Speaker 2: about that. You know, this excuse that everybody gives about
Speaker 2: why we need a global reset, this idea of the
Speaker 2: hollowing of the middle class, this idea of how awful
Speaker 2: the last fifty years were and how everybody's taking advantage
Speaker 2: of us, and how Americans are suffering as a consequence
Speaker 2: of globalization. Or There was a good upad on Friday
Speaker 2: in the Wall Street Journal. I highly recommend you read it.
Speaker 2: It's interesting. It was written by Nobert. Michelle Nobert is
Speaker 2: was an economist who worked for Heritage Foundation, but then
Speaker 2: as Heritage Foundation shifted to become MAGA and shifted to
Speaker 2: become anti trade and anti free markets, Nobert left Heritage
Speaker 2: and moved over to Cato, which remains a free market institution,
Speaker 2: at least when it comes to economics. Anyway, nobody is
Speaker 2: very good. I encourage you to follow him. Anyway, Just
Speaker 2: some facts right about the last forty years, and I'm
Speaker 2: reading from this upad on the Wall Street Journal. The
Speaker 2: US men of class has thrived over the past forty years.
Speaker 2: In fact, Americans of all economic backgrounds have done well.
Speaker 2: The share of household earning more than one hundred thousand
Speaker 2: dollars a year has tripled over the past five decades.
Speaker 2: This is all in real dollars, and the share earning
Speaker 2: less than twenty five percent fell by twenty five percent.
Speaker 2: This is what I told you yesterday, that the middle
Speaker 2: class has gotten smaller because more Americans have gotten rich
Speaker 2: categorized as rich. And indeed the middle class are shrunk,
Speaker 2: But so has the poor section of the United States
Speaker 2: of earning less than thirty five thousand dollars a year
Speaker 2: is poverty. That's shrunk by twenty five percent. I continue,
Speaker 2: for most of this period, workers in the bottom ten
Speaker 2: percent of income distribution experience stronger wage growth than those
Speaker 2: with higher incomes. The middle class are shrunk only in
Speaker 2: the sense that former middle income owners have moved up
Speaker 2: the income ladder. Materially, Americans are much better off than
Speaker 2: they were.
Speaker 3: In nineteen seventy.
Speaker 2: Over the past forty years, seventy percent of working Asian
Speaker 2: Americans spent at least one year among the top twenty
Speaker 2: percent of income owners. Notice, seventy percent of working Asian
Speaker 2: Americans spent at least one year among the top twenty
Speaker 2: percent of income owners, and eighty percent never spent more
Speaker 2: than two consecutive years in the bottom of ten ten percent. So,
Speaker 2: I mean, this is all statistical and demagogy and demagogy,
Speaker 2: statistical lying and demagogy. These people who claim that Americans
Speaker 2: in such awful economic shape. Now, this is not to
Speaker 2: deny that we could be doing a lot better, But
Speaker 2: the problem is not globalization. Indeed, globalization is what has
Speaker 2: helped us be as successful as we are.
Speaker 3: Todate.
Speaker 2: Globalization is an overwhelming economic positive for America. Global trade
Speaker 2: has been an overwhelmingly positive phenomena for America for Americans,
Speaker 2: I mean, he continues, the popular story of the death
Speaker 2: of US manufacturing is nonsense. You know. Mister Vance and
Speaker 2: his cohort maintained that increased free trade with countries such
Speaker 2: as China in two thousand or Mexico in nineteen ninety
Speaker 2: four killed Americans jobs. American jobs, well, let me just say.
Speaker 2: I'll say there's no such thing as an American job.
Speaker 2: It's your job, in my job. But anyway, it's true
Speaker 2: that the number of manufacturing jobs is lower than it
Speaker 2: was in nineteen seventy, but that's because we make so
Speaker 2: much more with fewer people.
Speaker 3: Blame technology, not trade.
Speaker 2: Real hourly output per manufacturing employee has been in an
Speaker 2: upward trend since nineteen fifty nine. Real US manufacturing value added,
Speaker 2: the sectest contribution to gross domestic product, reached its highest
Speaker 2: recorded level in twenty twenty two, not nineteen seventy twenty
Speaker 2: twenty two. Manufacturing output was close to its all time
Speaker 2: high in twenty twenty two, and the US remained the
Speaker 2: global leader in manufacturing value added per worker. In other words,
Speaker 2: China might manufacture more, but it adds less value. Workers
Speaker 2: contribute very little because they're not very productive, so they
Speaker 2: produce massive volumes, but their labor productivity is very low.
Speaker 3: That's why wages in China are low.
Speaker 2: In the US, we might produce less than China, we're
Speaker 2: still the number two producer in the world actual less
Speaker 2: than China, still then number two manufacturer in the world.
Speaker 2: But our labor, because it's so productive, adds every hour
Speaker 2: of labor adds enormous value to the products being made.
Speaker 2: Here's an example. Steel is one example in nineteen eighty.
Speaker 2: This is a stunning statistic. By the way, in nineteen eighty,
Speaker 2: one steel worker could produce zero points zero eighty three
Speaker 2: tons of steel in one hour. Zero points zero eighty
Speaker 2: three tons of steel in one hour. By twenty eighteen,
Speaker 2: one steel worker could produce one point six seven tons
Speaker 2: in an hour. That's what twenty times. So a steel
Speaker 2: worker today, or at least in twenty eighteen, was twenty
Speaker 2: times more productive than a steel worker in nineteen eighty.
Speaker 2: We're not talking about eighteen eighty. We're talking about eighty
Speaker 2: twenty times more productive. That's stunning. This, I continued to quote,
Speaker 2: this is a good thing. Waging income data in the
Speaker 2: United States show the rising tiders lifting all boats, especially
Speaker 2: the smallest. He continues, American manufacturers now operate more effect efficiently,
Speaker 2: use fewer natural resources, require less back baking labor, produce
Speaker 2: less pollution, employ more highly educated people than ever, no
Speaker 2: terror for trade restriction is going to reverse these trends,
Speaker 2: and the US shouldn't try to do so. Popularists may
Speaker 2: want to bring back the factory towns of the nineteen fifties,
Speaker 2: but most Americans are too busy enjoying the prosperity of
Speaker 2: the twenty twenties.
Speaker 3: So I'm not the only one out there.
Speaker 2: This is a pretty I'm just well understood phenomena. All right,
Speaker 2: what is going on?
Speaker 3: All right? Some good news? The all right? That's that?
Speaker 2: All right, here we go. No, that's not it. Anyway,
Speaker 2: I saw this earlier. Where did I put it? Okay,
Speaker 2: it's disappeared on me h. The is a lawsuit now
Speaker 2: by there's a lawsuit now filed against the Trump tariffs
Speaker 2: claiming that his declaration of emergency powers is unconstitutional and
Speaker 2: and and this would be great if the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: took this up. The reality is that we have dozens
Speaker 2: of emergencies having been declared by presidents over the last
Speaker 2: forty years, dozens and all kinds of rights limiting executive
Speaker 2: orders that have been the consequences of these emergency declarations.
Speaker 2: So it would be amazing if the stream Court was
Speaker 2: actually willing to take up willing to take up some
Speaker 2: of these emergency power questions and really issue in ruling
Speaker 2: that clarifies when it's appropriate to declare an emergency and
Speaker 2: when it is not.
Speaker 3: There is no emergency, no emergency.
Speaker 2: Right now in the United States that would justify Actually,
Speaker 2: there's no emergency ever that were justified. But there's no
Speaker 2: emergency right now that could even remotely justify Trump stampus,
Speaker 2: which basically represents a seizure of power by the executive
Speaker 2: from the legislature. Congress can pass the law to raise
Speaker 2: his taxes. Congress can pass a law to raise or
Speaker 2: impose tariffs. The president cannot do it intillaterally. Now Congress
Speaker 2: has defaulted in its responsibilities and given the power the
Speaker 2: president Emergency Power Team posed haras in times of emergencies.
Speaker 2: But there is no emergency, so there is a chance
Speaker 2: that the courts will save us from Trump's tariffs. It's
Speaker 2: pretty shaky grounds that Trump is trying to justify this.
Speaker 2: So now we've got, you know, these lawsuits. You know,
Speaker 2: Trump is attempted to bypass Congress by invoking the International
Speaker 2: Emergency Economic Powers Act, But in its fifty year history,
Speaker 2: no previous president to use it to impose tariffs and no,
Speaker 2: you know, and it's just there's nothing in the law
Speaker 2: that would suggest that it's an appropriate use of it.
Speaker 2: Now that i ee PA mentions things like embargos and sanctions,
Speaker 2: and it's been used against hostile powers like Russia and
Speaker 2: North Korea and Iran. But here tariffs are being used
Speaker 2: against our friends.
Speaker 3: It's not a hostile nation now, you know. To some extent,
Speaker 3: Trump is trying to show that.
Speaker 2: The tasks are related to, or at least the Canadian
Speaker 2: and Mexican traps have related to immigration and drugs, which
Speaker 2: he perceives as a security threat. But then how do
Speaker 2: you explain tariffs on Europe and other places? This is
Speaker 2: going to be really interesting. This is going to be
Speaker 2: really interesting. To what extent is the court willing to
Speaker 2: protect the war of the legislature in determining what tariffs
Speaker 2: are and to what extent will they allow for Congress
Speaker 2: to just shrug and renegan its responsibility and approve of
Speaker 2: the ability of the president to just declare any kind
Speaker 2: of emergency they want in order to pass whatever tariffs
Speaker 2: they want. I mean, where Trump is doing with these
Speaker 2: executive orders and with these tariffs is a complete negation
Speaker 2: of the whole idea of checks and balances that the
Speaker 2: Constitution articulates. And it would be amazing if a conservative
Speaker 2: court dominated by justices that were selected by Trump actually
Speaker 2: votes down these tariffs as unconstitution that would be amazing.
Speaker 2: By the way, for those of you interested more in
Speaker 2: the whole tariff issue and the whole manufacturing and bring
Speaker 2: the jobs back issue, highly recommended essay called buy America
Speaker 2: by American is un American? By American is un American
Speaker 2: by Harry Binswanger who wrote the essay in the late
Speaker 2: nineteen nineties, and as relevant as ever, so check it out.
Speaker 3: You can find it at a nine ran dot org.
Speaker 2: Just search put in quotation mark by American is un
Speaker 2: American and you'll find it. Excellent essay, unbelievably relevant to
Speaker 2: what is going on out right now, right now, all right,
Speaker 2: let's god, let's see. Let's see.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So this entity that is suing is the New Civil
Speaker 2: Liberties Alliance. I have not heard of them. Let's click
Speaker 2: on this. Let's find out who the They help protect
Speaker 2: civil liberties from the administrative state. That sounds fantastic, And
Speaker 2: here's their press release. Today we filed the first lawsuit
Speaker 2: challenging President Trump's new tariffs on all China imports. He
Speaker 2: imposed it under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a
Speaker 2: law that lets presidents freeze assets or block transactions during
Speaker 2: real national emergencies. It does not let them rewrite US tarifflaw.
Speaker 2: Congress has exclusive constitutional power to set tariffs. It already
Speaker 2: did so through detailed statutes.
Speaker 3: The President can't sit step.
Speaker 2: That by invoking vague emergency authority that says nothing about tariffs.
Speaker 2: A client, Simplified is a small Florida business owned by
Speaker 2: Emily Lee. She sells premium planners and home products that
Speaker 2: empower women. Her company imports goods from China that aren't
Speaker 2: available here, and she's already paid steep tariffs. The new
Speaker 2: Trump tariffs will drive her costs through the roof and
Speaker 2: force her to raise prices or cut back. Okay, so
Speaker 2: they are suing this. They write about the law. The
Speaker 2: law doesn't give president Okay. So here's what they say.
Speaker 2: Here's the bottom line. No president has ever used i
Speaker 2: ee PA this way, not even Trump in his first term.
Speaker 2: This tariff violates the constitution separation of powers, the Major
Speaker 2: Questions doctrine, and the non delegation doctrine make clear no
Speaker 2: executive can seize the legislative authority to impose economic policies
Speaker 2: of quote vast political economic significance unquote without a.
Speaker 3: Clear explicit directive from Congress.
Speaker 2: The law doesn't give the president this power, the constitution
Speaker 2: doesn't allow it, and the courts shouldn't tolerate it. We
Speaker 2: are asking the court to vacate the tariff and block
Speaker 2: its enforcement because if presidents can start taxing Americans by
Speaker 2: emergency order, the constitutionals limits on power don't mean much
Speaker 2: at all. I agree completely, So I support this lawsuits
Speaker 2: one hundred percent. I think they're absolutely right. I very
Speaker 2: much hope that judges block these tariffs, and they block
Speaker 2: it sooner rather than later. I hope this goes to
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court. I hope this court does a good
Speaker 2: job of basically criticizing and maybe vacating all these emergency
Speaker 2: power acts and institutions are presidents and all the rights
Speaker 2: violations that they have involved over many, many, many years.
Speaker 2: So some people are standing up against this, and yep, okay,
Speaker 2: final points are make and I made this yesterday, but
Speaker 2: it's worth making again to a large extent, that tariffs
Speaker 2: are pop play to a large extent, that tariff's are
Speaker 2: way for Trump to flex his muscles, their way for
Speaker 2: him to gain attention, their way for him to force
Speaker 2: global leaders and corporate leaders to come and grovel before him,
Speaker 2: Their way to get them to kiss his ring, to
Speaker 2: realize he's got real.
Speaker 3: Power in the world.
Speaker 2: And they give him that thrill of making everybody in
Speaker 2: the world dependent on him. He is a center of attention.
Speaker 2: He is the man that everybody's going to fly to see.
Speaker 2: He is the man that they're going to take out
Speaker 2: to dinner for a check for five million dollars. This
Speaker 2: is the most.
Speaker 3: Crony what is it?
Speaker 2: A swamp friendly legius, you know, economic policy. Ever, ever,
Speaker 2: it's truly a disaster. All right, we'll call that the
Speaker 2: news for Sunday, April sixth. Again, I'll be back to
Speaker 2: a more systematic presentation of the news starting on Wednesday.
Speaker 2: Starting on Wednesday, but this will have to do for today. Now,
Speaker 2: we've got some questions, but we're way off our targets.
Speaker 2: So our first our target is two hundred and fifty dollars.
Speaker 2: We've got about one hundred and fifty to go, So
Speaker 2: please consider supporting the show with a sticker with the
Speaker 2: question questions are great because I get to answer them.
Speaker 2: You know, if anybody out there is we don't have
Speaker 2: a single twenty dollars question, which is very unusual. So
Speaker 2: those of you so inclined, it would be great if
Speaker 2: you jumped in with twenty fifty one hundred, five hundred
Speaker 2: dollars questions.
Speaker 3: Get us past that goal.
Speaker 2: Don't, don't, don't let the goal be not reached. We've
Speaker 2: got the first hour goal of to fifty in the
Speaker 2: second hour goal of life hundred.
Speaker 3: Also a reminder to.
Speaker 2: You can support the show on Patreon patreon dot com
Speaker 2: and just put your one book show and you can
Speaker 2: become a monthly supporter of the show. All right, let's
Speaker 2: jump into this. Nephel, thank you for the sticker. We've
Speaker 2: got a number of stickers here, actually, Barbara, thank you
Speaker 2: for the sticker. And I saw I think Sylvanas was
Speaker 2: a Silvanas who did a sticker here. Savannahs yes, Savanas
Speaker 2: a sticker, and Jonathan Honing a sticker, So thank you
Speaker 2: Cold Savage. Thank you guys for the stickers. Really really
Speaker 2: appreciate Barbara. Another one, no, no, no, no on same one. Okay,
Speaker 2: thank you guys. I very much appreciate it, but we
Speaker 2: need a lot more so coming over value for value
Speaker 2: a trade. It's late at night here in Israel, you know,
Speaker 2: all right, So yeah, we're probably gonna make the short
Speaker 2: and equal to reality says nice made it live on
Speaker 2: dying for once. Good job, good job. Yeah these days,
Speaker 2: given I'm doing for Israel, it's a much better time
Speaker 2: for anybody in the UK, like equal to reality. I c. Saracen,
Speaker 2: what's your view on reports about Israeli killing Palestinian children?
Speaker 3: Is it true or not?
Speaker 2: I don't know what reports you're talking about, but do
Speaker 2: Palestinian children die during this war? Sure, the collateral damage
Speaker 2: to the fact that as Well is fighting to defend
Speaker 2: itself and in a war, children die. It's the one
Speaker 2: population that is mostly innocent. Also, there is one question
Speaker 2: is what constitutes a child. Hamas trains Palestinian children starting
Speaker 2: in age eight fourteen? Is a fourteen year old, a
Speaker 2: sixteen year old, the seventeen year old? Are they children
Speaker 2: that they count as children? But a Palestinian children dying
Speaker 2: in Gaza? Yeah, probably, probably in lesser numbers than are reported,
Speaker 2: but they're probably dying because they the terrorists, the Ramas
Speaker 2: are hiding among civilian population, and the only way to
Speaker 2: fight them is by taking the fight to the civilian populations,
Speaker 2: and the civilians are going to die.
Speaker 3: Who is morally responsible for their death?
Speaker 2: The moral responsibility for the death of every Palestinian child
Speaker 2: is on Hamas. It's on those who initiate force, not
Speaker 2: on those of polar trigger. Those are polar trigger fighting
Speaker 2: in self defense. The cause, the reason they're fighting is
Speaker 2: the initiation of force Bahramas and other Palestinian.
Speaker 3: Other Palestinian.
Speaker 2: Militants, okay, also icy Saracens. There was a video of
Speaker 2: an Israeli hostage kissing is tramasq. Is it fake or
Speaker 2: is it genuine? It's probably genuine, but it's probably done
Speaker 2: on the duress. You know, these hostages don't love their
Speaker 2: Hamas captors. They're not enthusiastic about it. They've been treated horrifically,
Speaker 2: not horribly horrifically. They were dragged from their homes, they
Speaker 2: were kidnapped. They don't They're not kissing the Harmas hostages
Speaker 2: because they like them. They may be kissing the Harama
Speaker 2: sasages because somebody put a gun to their head and
Speaker 2: said you better kiss the thing because we're gonna put
Speaker 2: it on TV. I think it's pretty disgusting to assume
Speaker 2: anything otherwise. But yes, so it might be true, it
Speaker 2: might be real, but it is a consequence of corrosion
Speaker 2: by Hamas. No hostage is loves his captor and enjoyed
Speaker 2: his captivity. Stephen Katz, what do you think of the
Speaker 2: odds are becoming an actuary after being a lawyer. What
Speaker 2: kind of things can I do to have a chance.
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't see any reason why not. You
Speaker 2: would have to study actuarial science. You would have to,
Speaker 2: you know, study for it. I don't see why you
Speaker 2: couldn't go and get a degree in actual science. That's
Speaker 2: the step you would have to take. Actual science is
Speaker 2: not easy. It's a m it requires deep mathematical skills,
Speaker 2: real mathematical skills, and it's it's complicated. I don't think
Speaker 2: you can go just from lawyer to actuary. I think
Speaker 2: you would have to get a degree. And there are
Speaker 2: places that are universities specialize in actuarial science, and that's
Speaker 2: where I would go.
Speaker 3: IC service.
Speaker 2: And you say these hostages are being starved the torches,
Speaker 2: but there are videos of them saying they've been app
Speaker 2: they're being well kept, some saying they were protected. A
Speaker 2: lot of them say that because they're trying to protect
Speaker 2: the hostages that are still left over. But as somebody
Speaker 2: who knows, people who know the hostage' is firsthand, the
Speaker 2: stories that they tell, not to the media, but in person,
Speaker 2: the stories that they tell are stories of horror, horrific conditions,
Speaker 2: the stories of of of and and we know this
Speaker 2: because of the forensic Effidets on the ground. Are being
Speaker 2: kept alone in the dark, being beaten, being provided very
Speaker 2: little food, are being provided, very little, if minimal, what
Speaker 2: do you call medical treatment are being you know, some
Speaker 2: of the hostages are being murdered in cold blood. Many
Speaker 2: of them are being beaten to the point where they died.
Speaker 2: Those the bee Bus babies, the babies, we're talking babies
Speaker 2: six months, What the exact ages were they were killed.
Speaker 2: They were murdered in cold blood. Their mother murdered in
Speaker 2: cold blood. We don't know what else was done to her,
Speaker 2: but one can only imagine. Uh, I don't know, you know,
Speaker 2: given the videos that Hamas filmed on October seventh, the barbaric,
Speaker 2: animalistic behavior that they engaged in, the raping, the torturing,
Speaker 2: the burning, Why would you even think that they would
Speaker 2: be treat their hostage as well. These are barbarians. They've
Speaker 2: proven themselves to be barbarians, and they have prided themselves
Speaker 2: on their barbarity. They videotaped this, they put it up
Speaker 2: on social media, they relished it. Dragging goals through the streets,
Speaker 2: dragging the bodies of women through the streets. I mean,
Speaker 2: these are not actions or civilized human beings. So why
Speaker 2: would you make any positive assumptions about anything that they do?
Speaker 2: And finally, they taking hostages, They're taking people of their
Speaker 2: homes and they are imprisoning them against their will, Why
Speaker 2: would you assume they treat them well under those conditions.
Speaker 2: I find it bewildering that you would even make that exception.
Speaker 2: Of course, it's not true. You know, I just watched
Speaker 2: video today of one of the hostages describing how horrible
Speaker 2: the treatment was that she was under. Well, she was
Speaker 2: aug one of the released hostages. They are dozens of
Speaker 2: these videos. You don't have to you know, maybe you're
Speaker 2: watching some propaganda channels of ramas pro rama sympathizers who
Speaker 2: are chooses a few exceptions of hostages that were maybe
Speaker 2: treated the simply versus the many, many, many videos of
Speaker 2: hostages that have been treated awfully, plus the first hand
Speaker 2: of testimony that the people who've actually talked to hostages
Speaker 2: that being released have talked about it. Yeah, Jennifer says,
Speaker 2: this icy guy is dishonest. There's something going on there.
Speaker 2: I mean, clearly his questions, all right, Michael, how does
Speaker 2: Trump think destroying everyone's stock portfolio is supposed to help
Speaker 2: his legacy? Narcissists care about legacy, Nihilists don't. I think
Speaker 2: he's talked himself into believing that there will be a turnaround.
Speaker 2: He's talked himself into believing that the long term consequence
Speaker 2: of this are all going to be positive. That's going
Speaker 2: to be manufacturing back home, that there's going to be
Speaker 2: this golden age, and this is the temporary, short term.
Speaker 2: I think he stalked himself into that, and I think
Speaker 2: they will keep making arguments, you know, suggesting that this
Speaker 2: is the case. But you know, I really do think
Speaker 2: that he's at a point where what he really cares
Speaker 2: about is getting back at the people he believes have
Speaker 2: her to him, including Wall Street, and I think that
Speaker 2: he has nihilistic tendencies are now stronger, maybe than his
Speaker 2: narcissistic ones. But you know, he can be a nihilist
Speaker 2: and irrationalizes narcissism. He's rationalized that he will have a
Speaker 2: legacy by assuming that something good will come of this,
Speaker 2: or that by doing this he is destroying his enemies
Speaker 2: and destroying the enemies of America, and therefore there will
Speaker 2: be positive consequences by eliminating the enemies of America. You know,
Speaker 2: it's very difficult to analyze an irrational, completely irrational mind.
Speaker 2: It's not like people are pure narcissism, pure nihilism and
Speaker 2: pure pragmatism and pure mafiosa. People a mishmash of a
Speaker 2: lot of different things. On any given day, one of
Speaker 2: those might motivate them. Again, irrationality is inconsistency. It's inconsistent
Speaker 2: by its very nature. Frederick, I missed yesterday's show, but
Speaker 2: I want to second yesterday's on the LeRoy's message. YBS
Speaker 2: withdrawal is real. I'm glad you're safe and the WiFi
Speaker 2: hasn't caused trouble so far. Thank you, Frederick. And uh,
Speaker 2: Unfortunately the next two months are going to be spotty
Speaker 2: when it comes to your on book shows. Now, not
Speaker 2: that there won't be a lot. There'll be a lot,
Speaker 2: but they won't be as consistent as they have been
Speaker 2: in the last few months, and they won't be as
Speaker 2: consistent as.
Speaker 3: Afterwards because of the travel. So that is the reality.
Speaker 2: Neil. You have Gallant's latest interview highlights actions Israel could
Speaker 2: have taken but b be refused a much he must
Speaker 2: watch for insights and discussion. Yeah, I I recommended. I
Speaker 2: think Gallant was generally a force for the good within
Speaker 2: the Nataniel government, particularly in the first days after October seventh.
Speaker 3: Again, I have said this for years.
Speaker 2: Netao is a coward, a procrastinator, a power lusting, you know,
Speaker 2: narcissist who has done more harm than good for Israel
Speaker 2: and should have been kicked out as Prime Minister immediately
Speaker 2: after October seventh. I think somebody like Gallant could have
Speaker 2: done just.
Speaker 3: As good a job.
Speaker 2: Indeed, I think he could have done a much better
Speaker 2: job in Ntennio. I'm more anti Nitenial today than I've
Speaker 2: ever been in the past. Stephen, this actually had no
Speaker 2: actual experience, has few tech skills. But I passed the
Speaker 2: first two tests a long time ago. Does that change
Speaker 2: your answer? You know, I don't know. I'm not an
Speaker 2: expert on the actual field. I don't know what it's
Speaker 2: going to take. You passed the tests a long time ago.
Speaker 3: I don't know if.
Speaker 2: It's worth retaking them. It might be, or if it's
Speaker 2: worth brushing up on the content. But you know, I
Speaker 2: think it's I think it's going to be challenging to
Speaker 2: be hired unless you can convince the employers that your
Speaker 2: skill set is fresh, that you know that it's clinton,
Speaker 2: it's fresh, you've been a lawyer. How would they know
Speaker 2: you'll know how to do the job.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Stephen. I hope this is awful. I'm not
Speaker 3: sure it is.
Speaker 1: I c.
Speaker 3: Saracen.
Speaker 2: You are making it sound like it's Qatar, not Iran
Speaker 2: that is the threat to as well. No, Kata's not
Speaker 2: a threat to Israel directly. Kata just has a lot
Speaker 2: of money. Iran doesn't. And Iran provides huge quantities of
Speaker 2: money to Gaza, but so does Qatar. You know you
Speaker 2: can have two enemies, not just one. The main enemy
Speaker 2: of Israel in the Middle East is Iran, but Qatar
Speaker 2: is a funder of terrorism. Qatar is a supporter of Ramas.
Speaker 2: Qatar is a supporter of Sunni extremism, Sunni Islamism and
Speaker 2: therefore particularly from Syria. Now Qatar is very close to
Speaker 2: the new Syrian regime. It is a threat and it
Speaker 2: needs to be dealt with as a threat.
Speaker 3: And the fact that.
Speaker 2: Israel is allowing Qatar to help with the negotiations with
Speaker 2: Hamas is a disgrace.
Speaker 3: First of all, they shouldn't be negotiations, but they certainly
Speaker 3: should not be.
Speaker 2: Moderated by Qatar. Qatar is not a disinterested party. Qatar
Speaker 2: is clearly a Hamas ally, and it should be treated
Speaker 2: as a Hamas ally.
Speaker 3: So I don't think Israel has much choice because.
Speaker 2: The US thinks Qatar is an ally or behaves as
Speaker 2: if Katara is an ally, in spite of all the evidence.
Speaker 3: Of the contrary.
Speaker 2: An add to that that Qatar is the number one
Speaker 2: supporter of American universities. It provides more funds to American
Speaker 2: universities than any other institution out there, and that support
Speaker 2: is unbelievably corrupting of American universities because Qatar is dedicated
Speaker 2: to an Islamist ideology. Now, that doesn't make it the
Speaker 2: number one thread in the Middle East. It's a tiny,
Speaker 2: low country. It has money, but it has nothing else.
Speaker 2: The number one thread in the Middle East is Iran.
Speaker 2: It's the ideological home of Islamism, and it actually has
Speaker 2: missiles and an army and the potential for nuclear weapons.
Speaker 2: It doesn't mean we should have ben Qatar. You can
Speaker 2: have one with one enemy. You can have more than
Speaker 2: one threat. You can have more than one country that
Speaker 2: presents a threat to you. Demon you see the video
Speaker 2: of Trump posted, didn't make about him trying to bring
Speaker 2: stocks down. Yes, yesterday, I think to fill the treasury
Speaker 2: to get fed to lower interest rates. Apparently White House
Speaker 2: responded that it isn't trying to lower stocks. Yeah, I
Speaker 2: mean I'm sure they did. I mean, I'm sure that
Speaker 2: video scared them and the Trump would retweet it, retweet it.
Speaker 2: But yes, there is the theory out there that what
Speaker 2: the Trump administration would like is a recession. A session
Speaker 2: would force the Federals off to lower interest rates. Lower
Speaker 2: interest rates would reduce the interest payments that the government
Speaker 2: has to make on its debt, which would reduce the deficit,
Speaker 2: which would then lead to what to a batter economy,
Speaker 2: which would then raise interest rates that would then increase
Speaker 2: payments on the debt. I mean, look, you can play games.
Speaker 2: You could pretend that all this works. It doesn't. All
Speaker 2: this is a disaster. None of it will work, and
Speaker 2: a recession. A recession actually reduces revenues to the government.
Speaker 2: If companies don't make as much money, then they pay
Speaker 2: less taxes. If individuals lose their jobs, they don't pay taxes.
Speaker 2: If individual they actually start drawing on benefits, more people
Speaker 2: go in welfare, and people's incomes go down, so they
Speaker 2: pay fewer taxes. So a recession actually reduces revenue, so
Speaker 2: it doesn't help the deficit that much. Even if interestates
Speaker 2: come down. In the meantime, you're destroying people's lives, You're
Speaker 2: causing real economic harm. You're setting in America backwards. It's
Speaker 2: going to have to catch up somehow. It's just an
Speaker 2: unmitigated from beginning to end disaster. And you know, there's
Speaker 2: no guarantee that interstates will indeed go down, because it's possible.
Speaker 2: Then inflation picks up as interstates go down, and then
Speaker 2: the Fed has to increase interest rates. There's one way
Speaker 2: you can solve all these problems. Cut coment spending, cut
Speaker 2: come and spending a lot, and at the same time
Speaker 2: county regulations. That's the formula of economic growth. That's the
Speaker 2: formula of economic success. Cut goverment spending a lot, and
Speaker 2: cut regulations a lot. That'll do it, Nrick trumpstaffs is
Speaker 2: class warfare against Americans of the mind, for those of
Speaker 2: the muscle. But it's not. Trump's tariffs is a war
Speaker 2: against all working Americans. Doesn't matter mind or muscle. Right,
Speaker 2: even the working class who works with their muscles still
Speaker 2: use their mind. And the reality is that this is
Speaker 2: an attack about against every working productive every American working
Speaker 2: in a productive job. This is a war against them.
Speaker 3: It's destructive to them.
Speaker 2: It will lower their quality of life, it will lower
Speaker 2: this stand of living.
Speaker 3: Store Brust.
Speaker 2: If you had a five year time span to invest
Speaker 2: one hundred thousand Israeli schickel, would you stay away from
Speaker 2: stocks and invest in bonds? Split hap bonds and the
Speaker 2: other half as simply five hundred. I don't give investment advice.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: This depends on.
Speaker 2: What your other assets are, your income is, what your
Speaker 2: job prospects are, depends on a million different things. I
Speaker 2: hold you a million different things. But you know right now,
Speaker 2: in this environment, which bonds would you choose? Israeli bonds,
Speaker 2: American bonds, Dollar bonds, Shehakel bonds. There's too many factors
Speaker 2: here that even if I wanted to give you financial advice,
Speaker 2: and I don't that you would have to take into
Speaker 2: account in thinking about this. But it might be a
Speaker 2: good idea to hold cash for a little while, just
Speaker 2: to see how things shake out. Jennifer, there were just
Speaker 2: anti Trump protests here, but it wasn't hands off my freedom,
Speaker 2: it was hands off my free stuff. Yes, I mean
Speaker 2: that's the problem that there is no pro freedom movement
Speaker 2: in America to the extent that the Tea Party maybe
Speaker 2: was a little bit somewhat. That has those tea parties
Speaker 2: of all renegged on those ideas and adopted statism of
Speaker 2: one form or another. So yes, So what's left is
Speaker 2: keep your hands off my medicare small I want smaller government,
Speaker 2: but keep your hands off my medicare. Silvanas, thank you
Speaker 2: coming in with fifty bucks. I appreciate it. Did you
Speaker 2: see Ben Shapiro came out against tariffs? Is there any
Speaker 2: hope Ben mitigates the tariff manness in the right. Yes,
Speaker 2: I saw that Ben came out against taifs. Good for Ben, uh,
Speaker 2: I hope he's waking up to the evil that is Trump,
Speaker 2: and to how horror built Trump is. Can he mitigate
Speaker 2: the madness in the right? I I doubt it. I
Speaker 2: I looked at generally, there is a significant portion of
Speaker 2: the right that is that is still somewhat economically literate,
Speaker 2: that n understands that that understands that tariffs are wrong.
Speaker 2: I think if everybody else is beyond educating, I think
Speaker 2: they're mindless Trump zombies. And I think many of Ben's
Speaker 2: audience is a mindless Trump zombie. And I think the
Speaker 2: comments he is probably getting I haven't looked to see
Speaker 2: what comments he gets, but the comments he's probably getting
Speaker 2: is he doesn't understand afore d chest that Trump is playing,
Speaker 2: which is the comments you get all the time. These
Speaker 2: are the comments that are popular out there. I don't
Speaker 2: know how Ben escapes that. But good for Ben for
Speaker 2: coming out against the tariffs. I don't think he has
Speaker 2: enough sway on the right to improve the right in
Speaker 2: dramatic fashions, but it still is good to have some
Speaker 2: voices on.
Speaker 3: The right.
Speaker 2: That get it, that see it, that are that are
Speaker 2: you know, not necessarily the conventional voices that get economic
Speaker 2: liberty on the right, but you know, Ben Shapiro's all
Speaker 2: over the place. I guess it's good to see somebody
Speaker 2: who supported Trump to some extent realize that this is really,
Speaker 2: really bad now. Whether that he's willing to say that
Speaker 2: it was a mistake to support Trump because of this,
Speaker 2: I don't think he is, but it is good to
Speaker 2: see that he's doing this, and I hope more voices
Speaker 2: come out against the tafts. I mean, even who else
Speaker 2: did I see? I think that a lot of people
Speaker 2: who are beworlded by the at best by the tariffs,
Speaker 2: but there also a lot of people just buy into
Speaker 2: it and rationalize it and rationalize it and rationalize it
Speaker 2: and rationalize it. Yeah. I mean, here's one, right, William Backman.
Speaker 2: Trump is playing cards. He is the guy at the
Speaker 2: blackjack table who scares out the players away so he
Speaker 2: can go one on one with the dealer.
Speaker 3: That's just not true.
Speaker 2: Trump is the mafiosa boss who base is flexing his muscles,
Speaker 2: willing to kill his own people in order to show
Speaker 2: how tough he is and to scare everybody else into submission.
Speaker 2: But he's acting like a pure mafia boss who is
Speaker 2: willing to sacrifice anything in anybody for his own grandeur
Speaker 2: and his own power.
Speaker 3: But it's nothing.
Speaker 2: I mean, to play blackjack, you have to think.
Speaker 3: And and.
Speaker 2: Who is the who is the dealer in this metaphor?
Speaker 2: Who is he up against? Trump is a thoroughly destructive
Speaker 2: force at this point. Yeah, Nrick says, Elon came out
Speaker 2: against Tavis. Yeah, I mean, I think Elon gets it.
Speaker 2: Elon's not an idiot. And again, you don't have to
Speaker 2: be that smart, but you need. You know, anybody with
Speaker 2: a basic knowledge of economics knows that tariffs don't make
Speaker 2: any sense. You can rationalize them, you can pretend, you
Speaker 2: can attribute to Trump all kinds of stuff. But the
Speaker 2: reality is he's a moron. He is a thuggish moron.
Speaker 2: He's not smart, he's not able. He doesn't understand, he
Speaker 2: doesn't have any conception of the meaning and benefit of trade. Yeah,
Speaker 2: he is a thuggish moron. He's a thug and a moron,
Speaker 2: as most mafia bosses I think are well. I mean,
Speaker 2: Mha says, if he's such a great mafia boss, why
Speaker 2: isn't he the mafia boss? Because he's figured out, at
Speaker 2: least late in life, that the ultimate of being a
Speaker 2: mafia boss is to use these skills in politics. He
Speaker 2: has a lot more power than any mafia boss. He
Speaker 2: has the nuclear codes. Why would he be a mafia
Speaker 2: boss if he has the nuclear codes? The mentality of
Speaker 2: him off your past. Could the nationwide turn out Saturday
Speaker 2: be less about hands off and more about frustration with
Speaker 2: governor overreach? I think it's a combination. I think a
Speaker 2: lot of different people are coming out. But at the
Speaker 2: turnout wasn't that big? I don't think. I don't think
Speaker 2: it's it's meaningfull. It's the country's still not pissed off
Speaker 2: enough anywhere near enough to have a real impact and
Speaker 2: and bring about real change. It's letting Trump get away
Speaker 2: with way too much. Oh god, my mouse is behaving weirdly.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure why. All right, I don't know what's
Speaker 2: going on here. Computer stop? Huh yeah, not sure what's
Speaker 2: going on. Once eirned, the mouse is basically not working.
Speaker 2: Let's see. I think I need to close some windows.
Speaker 2: By the way, you know the kiss of the Hamas
Speaker 2: guy that uh was mentioned? Oh yeah, the guy who
Speaker 2: did the kiss actually said he was forced to do
Speaker 2: it by his captors. He had no choice, he wanted
Speaker 2: to be released, he had to do the kiss. So
Speaker 2: I don't know why you would attribute it to anything,
Speaker 2: but something like that. Okay, not sure what's going on
Speaker 2: with my computer, but something's weird's happening. But we'll keep
Speaker 2: going as long as I can, as long as ah
Speaker 2: it's like the mouse is fighting me.
Speaker 3: Anybody know what this is about? All right?
Speaker 2: Michael says, the American people are turning on Trump. This
Speaker 2: is a very healthy sign. I hope, so, I hope.
Speaker 2: So I'm just not seeing. I'm not convince the numbers
Speaker 2: a day yet.
Speaker 3: We'll see.
Speaker 2: And if you know it, does it go beyond the
Speaker 2: regular leftist people who would be against Trump anyway? Is
Speaker 2: it broader than that? I hope so. But it's still
Speaker 2: too early to say, Michael, we hate in others what
Speaker 2: is missing in ourselves? I don't think that's true. I
Speaker 2: don't think that's true. Yeah. I think why you hate
Speaker 2: is completely a function of your own psychology and your
Speaker 2: own ideas. So yeah, I don't buy that people haven't
Speaker 2: got enough going on.
Speaker 3: Envy is a distraction from.
Speaker 2: Their own growth or lack of it.
Speaker 3: No, envy is not a distraction.
Speaker 2: Envy is a I think, driven by both particular psychology
Speaker 2: and a particular set of ideas built up presentment against
Speaker 2: achievement and success against the good and it's basically envy
Speaker 2: is an admission of one's own lack of goodness, when
Speaker 2: his own weakness, one's own failings. I don't think it's
Speaker 2: about not being busy enough. Okay, Michael, Are we really
Speaker 2: going to let Trump destroy the global economy to protect
Speaker 2: this fragile ego? Yeah, it looks like the American people
Speaker 2: are exactly going to do that. And it could be
Speaker 2: that the court stop it. That would be amazing if
Speaker 2: they do. But other than of course, I don't see
Speaker 2: who's going to stop him. Congress is not. You'd think
Speaker 2: Congress should stop him, but it does not look like
Speaker 2: Congress is willing to do their job. Republicans are too
Speaker 2: cowardly to actually do it. Democrats will do it because
Speaker 2: it's a Republican now, because they believe in anything. Republicans
Speaker 2: are just too cowardly to go up against them, which
Speaker 2: is pretty horrific, right, Neo. If you were the president
Speaker 2: of the Israel, how would you proceed with handling relations
Speaker 2: with the US? Well, I mean I would proceed with caution.
Speaker 2: I look, I don't know, you'd have to really think
Speaker 2: about it. I would basically say that I am going
Speaker 2: to do what, as they say, to defend the state
Speaker 2: of Israel, to state to do what my government. I
Speaker 2: would try to convince the Americans to go all in
Speaker 2: on Gaza. I try to convince the Americans. I would
Speaker 2: basically lower all tariffs to zero in Israel. I think
Speaker 2: that there's nothing that could boost the use of the
Speaker 2: Israel economy more than creating a basically a free trade
Speaker 2: island in Israel what Bexit should have been, you know. Basically,
Speaker 2: lower tariffs generally in Israel to zero would incredibly enhance
Speaker 2: the Israeli economy. I would deregulate on a massive scale,
Speaker 2: massive scale. I would just focus. If I were Prime
Speaker 2: Minister of Israel, I would focus on making Israel as
Speaker 2: strong as it could be, and then go to America
Speaker 2: and say, look, we need your support. We'd like you
Speaker 2: to support us, but this is what we're going to
Speaker 2: do because this is our lives are on the line.
Speaker 2: Please help us, and in particular, we need your help
Speaker 2: with you on. And I wouldn't I wouldn't grovel, I
Speaker 2: wouldn't try to get these tariffs reduced. I wouldn't make
Speaker 2: that a big deal, you know. I would just encourage
Speaker 2: I would try to convince other countries to buy Israeli good,
Speaker 2: but I would you don't want to destroy your relationship
Speaker 2: with the US as well. Has no replacement for that,
Speaker 2: and it needs to be able to buy weapons from
Speaker 2: the US, and it needs diplomatic cover that the US
Speaker 2: gives it. On the other hand, it can give up
Speaker 2: on its ultimate goals, which where the where the life
Speaker 2: of Israeli citizens depends on achieving. All right, let's see. Yeah, sorry, guys,
Speaker 2: I'm not sure what's going on here. Yeah, that's trying. Yeah,
Speaker 2: it's not helping. I'm not sure.
Speaker 3: Okay. As a Turk economy.
Speaker 2: This week, I've watched my portfolio sync below the principle,
Speaker 2: below the principle I have invested. It's an awful feeling.
Speaker 2: Hopefully the courts can thwart this maniac. Yeah, I hope
Speaker 2: so too. I hope so too. You know, for all
Speaker 2: of our sakes, for all of our portfolio sakes, let's
Speaker 2: hope that the courts so Congress, maybe we'll wake up
Speaker 2: and actually stop this guy.
Speaker 3: Esoteric dichotomy.
Speaker 2: Several older folks at my work are mostly Trumpsts, schewing
Speaker 2: the terrorist deportations, even though they affect our business.
Speaker 3: It's upsetting. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's so an American. It's so horrible to see
Speaker 2: Americans behaving this way. It's sad, really really really sad.
Speaker 3: Somebody says, check the battery with them us.
Speaker 2: It's not a battery.
Speaker 3: It's the built in.
Speaker 2: Trackpad on my laptop. And it's built in so it
Speaker 2: doesn't have a separate battery. Whoops, weird. Okay, Cam'm gonna
Speaker 2: just shut down because it's too hot. That's a new one.
Speaker 2: I'll try to turn it back on. Didn't run out
Speaker 2: of thatttery, it.
Speaker 3: Was just too hot.
Speaker 2: Go figure. All right, Well almost done, guys, And given
Speaker 2: all these technical problems for public time, and it's getting
Speaker 2: late here anyway, let's see what is What's amazing is
Speaker 2: how many people just don't care or actually think it's good,
Speaker 2: and so much wealth has been destroyed. Too much. Yes,
Speaker 2: I agree completely, it's the how many people don't care.
Speaker 2: What you need is the American people to be really
Speaker 2: really upset and really really pissed off. That's what you need,
Speaker 2: and that I don't see yet. It might still happen
Speaker 2: as the country potentially spirals into recessions, certainly into slowing
Speaker 2: economic growth. Then we'll see what Americans are willing to
Speaker 2: do or not do. How are they gonna make their
Speaker 2: voices heard? Huh the mouse is suddenly working fine?
Speaker 3: Alright?
Speaker 2: Uh, Gulag, can you help me understand trade deficits in
Speaker 2: your mind? Why do people find them to be such
Speaker 2: an issue? What is the impact of a large trade deficit? I?
Speaker 2: There is no impact of a large trade efficit. I
Speaker 2: mean the impact of a large trade deficit is a
Speaker 2: common account silplus. That is that more investment get made
Speaker 2: in your country than your country than people in your
Speaker 2: country make in other countries. That is, the dollars flow back.
Speaker 2: That that is what happens. That's the impact of a
Speaker 2: large trade deficit. There is no negative impact. There's no
Speaker 2: nothing bad, there's nothing wrong, there's nothing problematic, there's no impact.
Speaker 2: Some countries run trade surpluses, like Germany has a big
Speaker 2: trade surplus. That's not good.
Speaker 3: That's not bad. That just is.
Speaker 2: It's it's the way the particular economy is structured and
Speaker 2: it's relationship to other economies. So you can't learn a
Speaker 2: lot from trade surpluses or trade deficits. Generally, rich countries
Speaker 2: that have gone up the value chain, that are producing
Speaker 2: more higher value goods or services. In America's case, run
Speaker 2: trade deficits because people in other countries want to invest
Speaker 2: in those countries and therefore want dollars in One of
Speaker 2: the ways in which they get the dollars is by
Speaker 2: producing goods and selling into Americans. And they produce a
Speaker 2: lot of goods and sell a lot of them to Americans,
Speaker 2: and then the dollars flow back into America's investments, which
Speaker 2: is part of the reason why people are willing to
Speaker 2: invest in production to sell to America.
Speaker 3: So a trade deficit is simple.
Speaker 2: I go to the grocery store, I leave my dollars
Speaker 2: and take the groceries. I got a trade deficit with
Speaker 2: the grocery store. And as long as I'm productive and
Speaker 2: as long as the grocery store productive, that's a win
Speaker 2: win situation. I am productive somewhere else which allows me
Speaker 2: to make them money to be able to go to
Speaker 2: grocery store and buy stuff in the grocery store.
Speaker 3: As long as it runs.
Speaker 2: A profit on that trade, it's better off. So like
Speaker 2: your relationship with the grocery store and the relationship between
Speaker 2: in international trade, it is the same. It's healthy as
Speaker 2: long as both parties are better off from the trade,
Speaker 2: and as long as both parties are productive. If the
Speaker 2: United States just printed money and then went and bought
Speaker 2: that money, used their money to buy stuff from other countries,
Speaker 2: other countries wouldn't sell to America because they would say,
Speaker 2: wait a minute, you're just putting money like this, no tomorrow,
Speaker 2: and you're using that money that money is not worth anything.
Speaker 2: The value of the dollar would plummet. We don't want
Speaker 2: your dollars. We don't want to sell to you because
Speaker 2: the dollars are worthless. The very fact that people are
Speaker 2: willing to sell us goods means that they value the dollar,
Speaker 2: that they want dollars, willing to take dollars in exchange
Speaker 2: for their goods.
Speaker 3: It's a good sign. It's a positive.
Speaker 2: Sign, Yeah, Publius says, which is true.
Speaker 3: America had a trade s plus during the Great Depression. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Partially because of smooth Holly.
Speaker 2: The tariffs are from nineteen thirty, and partially because whoops,
Speaker 2: now it's gone back again to not working, And partially
Speaker 2: because when you're in a depression, nobody wants to invest
Speaker 2: in you, and therefore they don't want your Cuncy Michael says,
Speaker 2: modern psychology. Ah, there we go, No, got it worked
Speaker 2: a second ago? What did they do differently? Modern psychology
Speaker 2: seems to think the ego is there to protect you
Speaker 2: from shame and embarrassment, not to cultivate and produce pride
Speaker 2: and self esteem. Well, but it depends what you mean
Speaker 2: by bout it.
Speaker 3: Psychology.
Speaker 2: I don't think that's cognitive behavior therapy believes that, but
Speaker 2: it is kind of Freudian. That's very Freudian attitudes. So
Speaker 2: some modern psychology believe that. And I think these kind
Speaker 2: of views actually less popular in psychology today than they
Speaker 2: were maybe forty fifty years ago. Kind of these fortyan views.
Speaker 3: Robert, recipical tariffs.
Speaker 2: Reciprocal tariffs make as much economic and moral sense as
Speaker 2: a cypical slave labor. And that amount of sense is
Speaker 2: less than zero, yes, or recipical shooting of the knee,
Speaker 2: as I like to say. It doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 2: Nothing about this makes sense. Michael, looks like Musk had
Speaker 2: a melt down with Trump over these tariffs. I hope
Speaker 2: that's right. That would be good. I'll have to check
Speaker 2: that out. I haven't seen that again. I mean with
Speaker 2: family the last few days haven't really been following the
Speaker 2: news like I really usually do when I do these
Speaker 2: new shows. We'll get back to that routine once I
Speaker 2: get back home soon, very soon. Mh eight. Thank you
Speaker 2: a yell a yell yell oo. Thank you appreciate the sticker.
Speaker 3: You can still support the show.
Speaker 2: By the way, guys with stickers, We've got two last questions.
Speaker 2: So if you're going to do it, do it soon.
Speaker 2: All right, what's going on? This is so weird. I
Speaker 2: don't think I've ever had this happen to me on
Speaker 2: my laptop. All right, Michael. Michael says, I'm listening to
Speaker 2: Ronald Reagan's old speeches on tariffs and free trade. He
Speaker 2: was spot on. How far were you falling? Yes, I
Speaker 2: mean Reagan was amazing in a lot of his speeches.
Speaker 2: He gave really good speeches. It's his actions that weren't
Speaker 2: always that good. I mean, the reality is that Reagan
Speaker 2: imposed tariff's Reagan imposed you know, voluntary quotas on Japanese
Speaker 2: cause he didn't live up to his free trade rhetoric
Speaker 2: anymore than he lived up to any of his other
Speaker 2: free market rhetoric. Which is sad. But yes, we have
Speaker 2: come a long way, a long way from Reagan to Trump.
Speaker 2: How how low has the Republican Party sunk? It really
Speaker 2: is hard to believe. It's not the same political party anymore.
Speaker 2: It's a completely different political party. All right, Jack, thank
Speaker 2: you Ron. I appreciate the knowledge I gained from you,
Speaker 2: not just from here but your books also. Thank you, Jack,
Speaker 2: really appreciate that. And Jacob says Elon came out urging
Speaker 2: free trade, free movement of talent immigration between the.
Speaker 3: US and Europe.
Speaker 2: Trump, Elon Bronemance has a few months left to live.
Speaker 2: I saw rumors that Trump was that Elon Musk was
Speaker 2: leaving Doge. Who knows that could happen any day now.
Speaker 3: So yeah,