Speaker 1: A lot of the metals, lational self interest, and an individuals.
Speaker 1: This is the show, all right, everybody, Welcome to every
Speaker 1: One Brook Show on this Monday, April fourteenth, for the
Speaker 1: first of two shows today, two shows. All right. We're
Speaker 1: going to talk about the brewing conflict between the US
Speaker 1: Supreme Court and the Trump administration over El Salvado. We'll
Speaker 1: talk about Zelensky, Trump's latest comments on Zelensky, inspiring tariffs,
Speaker 1: more tariffs, more news on tariffs. We'll talk about anti trust, Harvard, CBS,
Speaker 1: Big Law. No good news today, sorry none, No, anyway,
Speaker 1: probably a short show. I'm going to go over these
Speaker 1: stories quickly. You have an opportunity to ask me questions
Speaker 1: in the super chat. We'll see how many I get to.
Speaker 1: But because there is a second show tonight, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: have Christina Laporte, the author of two novels, two medical thrillers, Dissection,
Speaker 1: and you'll find out tonight the second novel and so
Speaker 1: it's going to be fascinating. She's a cardiologist, doctor internals
Speaker 1: to and cardiologists, turned author of thrillers, found a publisher,
Speaker 1: got them published, so I will talk to her fascinating.
Speaker 1: She's an immigrant for Italy all of that. So it
Speaker 1: should be a lot of fun. Christina's a lot of fun.
Speaker 1: So we'll talk to Christina tonight. Next week, next Monday,
Speaker 1: we've got Uncle Gate on Monday. A few notes about
Speaker 1: this week. Not many shows this week. Tomorrow show, Wednesday,
Speaker 1: probably no show, maybe late, I'm hoping. I'm hoping Thursday show,
Speaker 1: no show Friday. Then we'll do Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday,
Speaker 1: no show, Monday Tuesday. Okay, anyway, we'll see, right, So
Speaker 1: we'll try to get as many shows in and the
Speaker 1: rest of April. In the meantime, you can support the show.
Speaker 1: You can ask questions, you can do super chats. All
Speaker 1: available right here, right now, so go for it. So
Speaker 1: this week I'm in Atlanta to do some stuff and
Speaker 1: tape capitalism course for the institute. Yeah, that's it, all right,
Speaker 1: let's jump in. All right. So here's a setup, right.
Speaker 1: Ice rounds up a bunch of gang members. It doesn't
Speaker 1: pay too much attention to who it's running up their tattoos.
Speaker 1: If they're suspicious of someone, they follow us as a
Speaker 1: gang member. They put them in a plane ship them
Speaker 1: to Salvado. Before the plane reaches Al Salvado to a
Speaker 1: high security jail, one of the nastiest, maybe in the world,
Speaker 1: nastiest maybe in the world. A judge says, wait a minute,
Speaker 1: none of these people are due process. You didn't document
Speaker 1: any of this. None of this was processed. You can't
Speaker 1: ship people out of here to an Al salvadori in
Speaker 1: jail without due process. Bring the planes back, I ignores them,
Speaker 1: lends the planes in El Salvado. They're unloaded in El
Speaker 1: Salvado and put in the high security jail. In the meantime,
Speaker 1: it turns out that several of the people, maybe up
Speaker 1: to ten percent of the people on the planes in
Speaker 1: the Salvadorian jail right now are not gang members. Maybe
Speaker 1: it's more than ten percent. Episode is probably what we know.
Speaker 1: They're although illegal limics, with exception of one person, Abrigo Garcia,
Speaker 1: who literally has an order from a judge saying he
Speaker 1: cannot be deported. He went through immigration court, he went
Speaker 1: through an asylum hearing, and at the end of the
Speaker 1: hearing it says he cannot be deported. So he's got
Speaker 1: a document saying Abigo Garcia is married, he has three
Speaker 1: young kids, and he lives. I think it's in Boston.
Speaker 1: If I'm not correct, I think it's in Boston. At
Speaker 1: some point during his immigration hearing way back, he was
Speaker 1: accused of belonging to MS thirteen. That was never proven,
Speaker 1: that was never the basis for the accusation, and indeed
Speaker 1: he was the Ice was barred from deporting him because
Speaker 1: the judge viewed it as a risk to his life
Speaker 1: if he was deported to El Salvado, because because the
Speaker 1: gangs were after him, not because he was there Miss thirteen. Anyway,
Speaker 1: he was rounded up and he is now in an
Speaker 1: Ol SALVADORI in jail. Now, all this evidence was brought
Speaker 1: in front of a judge, and a judge basically said,
Speaker 1: you got to bring you back. He is not you
Speaker 1: know you He had a clear there's a clear legal
Speaker 1: standing that prohibited you from deporting him. If we'd gone
Speaker 1: through due process, we would have discovered that and you
Speaker 1: wouldn't have deported him. And the government is saying no, Yes,
Speaker 1: the government's saying basically, yes, we made a mistake. Yes
Speaker 1: he was deported illegitimately. We shouldn't have deported him, but
Speaker 1: we can't do anything about it. Can't do anything about it.
Speaker 1: He's in Ol Salva now can't do a thing about it.
Speaker 1: We're now going to do a thing about it. So, uh,
Speaker 1: this issue was appealed to the Supreme courte and the
Speaker 1: Supreme Quote came down with the ruling I think it
Speaker 1: was on Friday, well, Thursday, nine to zero. How often
Speaker 1: do you see that nine to zero basically telling the
Speaker 1: government you got to bring this guy back. You got
Speaker 1: to bring this guy back. You got to facilitate his
Speaker 1: return to the United States. That's what the Supreme Quote ruled.
Speaker 1: And so they and and they they told the judge
Speaker 1: in the Low Court, you have to, you know, hold
Speaker 1: the government accountable and monitor that they bring this guy back,
Speaker 1: facilitate his return. Yeah, Edward, Edward, the Trump zombie is
Speaker 1: going to tell us that there's a big difference between
Speaker 1: facilitate and effectuate. That's right, and and and that's the
Speaker 1: source of it. Anyway, they have to facilitate the return. Now,
Speaker 1: all facilitating a return would require is Trump telling the
Speaker 1: or the Trumpet dover station telling the El Salvadorians, we
Speaker 1: want this guy back, and they would put him on
Speaker 1: a plane and to come back. So today, Bukeley, the
Speaker 1: presidente of Lsalvado, the guy who built these horrific jails,
Speaker 1: was in the White House scheduled meeting. He is a
Speaker 1: fan of Donald Trump, or maybe it's the other way round.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is a fan of Bucellas. But at the
Speaker 1: end of the day, Boukelly is a tin pot dictator
Speaker 1: of a tiny little country. Trump is the president of
Speaker 1: the United States of America. And uh, Trump could have
Speaker 1: asked Boukeley to ship a Brigo back to the United
Speaker 1: States very and let me tell you, Bukeli would have
Speaker 1: done it. Or he could have told him, now, let's delay,
Speaker 1: and Bikela would have said, I mean, I need to
Speaker 1: think about it. I mean, in other words, Bookela would
Speaker 1: have done whatever Trump said. Well, whatever happened in their
Speaker 1: private meeting, it was clear that something else was decided.
Speaker 1: That is when they came out in front of reporters
Speaker 1: and Brikela was asked if he would facilitate the return
Speaker 1: of Abrigo Garcia. He said no, I will not. And
Speaker 1: Trump was sitting there with a huge grin on his face,
Speaker 1: just smirking like, Yeah, the guy's doing what I told
Speaker 1: him to do. This is so cool. What does Supreme
Speaker 1: Court gonna do? Now they can't force a foreign leader. Yeah,
Speaker 1: s Vincourt has no jurisdiction in Elsavado. But the US
Speaker 1: government is basically saying we will now do anything anything
Speaker 1: to bring Abrigo Guscia home. And the President of the
Speaker 1: United States is saying, I'm not going to do anything. Basically,
Speaker 1: the administration is saying, the Supreme Court has no authority
Speaker 1: of a farm policy, and therefore we are going to
Speaker 1: ignore the Supreme Court. Now here's what here's the night misscenario.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying this will happen, but it could happen.
Speaker 1: As the walking out. This is not the night true seremony.
Speaker 1: This is reality. Is actually what happened as the walking out.
Speaker 1: And he's saying goodbye to b Kelly. This is the transaction.
Speaker 1: Was there the there the conversation was actually recorded, and
Speaker 1: Trump says to Bukeley, I want to I want to
Speaker 1: put you know, Americans in your jails. You know, real
Speaker 1: criminals in your jails. So build more, build You got
Speaker 1: to build at least five more huge jails. These are
Speaker 1: massive jails, hold tens of thousands. You got to bring
Speaker 1: five more because I want to. I want to put
Speaker 1: Americans in your jails. Now he has a scenario. Let's
Speaker 1: say Trump is serious only hardened criminals. But let's say
Speaker 1: a hardened criminal. If somebody goes to the trial and
Speaker 1: is found guilty of murder and is shipped off to
Speaker 1: a Salvadorian jail, which seems unconstitutional to me, but I
Speaker 1: don't think anybody cares anymore about the constitution. Imagine that,
Speaker 1: and imagine a year later, DNA evidence is found that
Speaker 1: shows that this guy didn't commit the murder, and now
Speaker 1: you you should, you think bring him back from Osalvado
Speaker 1: and the President goes, na, I don't think so, I'm
Speaker 1: not gonna ask Bokela for that favor. Why would ask Bukella.
Speaker 1: Let him stay there, and that's it, and there's no
Speaker 1: recourse and nobody cares. An America just goes, yeah, I
Speaker 1: know he's innocent. Yeah, we shouldn't have sent him to
Speaker 1: the Alisilvadurian jail. But let him rot. We don't care. Particularly,
Speaker 1: I don't know if he's an immigrant, maybe has dark
Speaker 1: skin or something that makes him unappealing to the powers
Speaker 1: to be. Oh. Even worse, imagine that they just start
Speaker 1: arresting people and sending them to you know, l Salvado.
Speaker 1: And you know, once in a while they rope into
Speaker 1: the rounding up some critic of Trump and he started
Speaker 1: gang man. But he did nothing, and he goes, oh, yeah, sorry,
Speaker 1: that was a mistake. We didn't mean to send that
Speaker 1: guy to El Salvado. But he's there now. There's nothing
Speaker 1: we can do about it, so be it. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is sci fi level American dictatorship is coming stuff.
Speaker 1: This is how bad it is. It's crazy, and what's
Speaker 1: going to happen? Right? So the Supreme Court could now say,
Speaker 1: you know you are you are not fulfilling. Right, we
Speaker 1: ruled nine to zero. The Supreme Court could escalate, so
Speaker 1: abgo Gussia's lawyers could go back to the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: alleged administration has refused to comply with the court's order.
Speaker 1: And then the court finds that the administration did not comply.
Speaker 1: It was again it demands action. And then what would
Speaker 1: Congress then take it up and impeach the president? No,
Speaker 1: we know that wouldn't happen. Would the military now led
Speaker 1: by Trump accolades, who he fired the military leadership and
Speaker 1: put his own people in there, would they back the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court? And I don't know depose the president and
Speaker 1: it never happened in American history? Would it happen? In
Speaker 1: no way, It wouldn't happen. If the court found the
Speaker 1: administration in contempt, Would President Trump be arrested and put
Speaker 1: in jail for contempt of court? Would Secretary ubioh with
Speaker 1: you know who? I don't know who is responsible the
Speaker 1: head of Ice? Would any of them be arrested? No,
Speaker 1: not given who runs the Justice Department, not given who
Speaker 1: runs the FBI. I mean, the reality is the scary
Speaker 1: part of this. I mean, I feel sorry for a
Speaker 1: Bert goo Garcia and his family. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: tragic and horrific. But think of the wider implications here
Speaker 1: of the rule of law. Think of the wider implications
Speaker 1: of an administration completely out of control with no respect
Speaker 1: for the courts, no respect for the rule of law?
Speaker 1: Is there? I mean, where does it go from here?
Speaker 1: And it very could well could be that the court
Speaker 1: decides not to hear the case, because it could very
Speaker 1: well be that the court decides, you know what, you know?
Speaker 1: Is this the hell we want to die on? Is
Speaker 1: this the constitutional crisis we want to have? I mean,
Speaker 1: shouldn't if we're going to have a constitution crisis would
Speaker 1: be over a bigger issue. Trump's canna ignore me anyway.
Speaker 1: I mean, Roberts might think that he got the unanimous decision.
Speaker 1: He now you know, ignores the non compliance and and
Speaker 1: lives to fight another day. There's nothing, there's nothing in
Speaker 1: American constitutional system that can compel Trump and oh can
Speaker 1: compel to dictator in Olsalvado to do something that he
Speaker 1: understands the President does not want him to do. So
Speaker 1: Trump doesn't have to say don't do it. He just
Speaker 1: has an understanding with Bukela. That smile clearly articulate that that.
Speaker 1: And Roberts can say, I can't compel Boukele to hand
Speaker 1: over this guy, and I can't, so what. There's nothing
Speaker 1: I can do, nothing you can do. Just think of
Speaker 1: that as you defend this president. Just think of that.
Speaker 1: I mean, God, I'm looking at a video of Bukele saying,
Speaker 1: how can I smuggle a terrorist in the United States?
Speaker 1: Of course I'm not going to do it. The question
Speaker 1: is preposterous. And Trumps sitting there with this smug smile, nodding.
Speaker 1: This is sick. This is behavior of a unhinged man,
Speaker 1: an authoritarian, an authoritarian and as we'll see. I think
Speaker 1: there's a pattern. The pattern is these guys are setting
Speaker 1: us up for a Urbann ultimately putin like we have elections,
Speaker 1: but they don't matter type authoritarianism. That's certainly what it
Speaker 1: looks like. I hope I'm wrong. I hope I'm wrong.
Speaker 1: But last time, four years ago, we had January sixth.
Speaker 1: Next time, they're not going to be that polite. They're
Speaker 1: not going to be They're going to have the support
Speaker 1: of everybody within the administration, including potentially the military. Why
Speaker 1: would they hand it over to a you know, a
Speaker 1: mob of crazy, mega incompetence. Why not do the job right? Anyway?
Speaker 1: It's scary stuff, legit scary stuff. Yeah, I know, you
Speaker 1: just can't buy into it. It's just hard to believe
Speaker 1: that that would happen. Did you believe in twenty twenty
Speaker 1: that January sixth, twenty twenty one would happen. Did we
Speaker 1: believe that Trump could just say, to hell with him,
Speaker 1: let him rot in, let him rot in prison, he's
Speaker 1: sick and you know the Supreme Court? Or did you
Speaker 1: believe that Donald Trump would write the following after Zelensky
Speaker 1: was sixty minutes over the weekend, Donald Trump was not happy,
Speaker 1: not happy. Donald Trump wrote, the war between Russia and
Speaker 1: Ukraine is Biden's war, not mine. He is such a child,
Speaker 1: a child. You guys voted for a five year old
Speaker 1: to run this country. I just got here, and for
Speaker 1: four years during my term, he had no problem preventing
Speaker 1: it from happening. There were stillities between Ukraine and Russia
Speaker 1: during that period of time. During the first Trump presidency,
Speaker 1: Trump Putinded already invaded Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. It just
Speaker 1: was in as heart as a war, and Trump did
Speaker 1: nothing about it. Tes he Appeace Putin even back then
Speaker 1: President Putin and everyone else respected your president might yeah, anyway,
Speaker 1: I had nothing to do with this war all caps,
Speaker 1: but in working diligently to get the death and destruction
Speaker 1: to stop. If the twenty twenty presidential elections were not
Speaker 1: rigged and it was talk about a five year old,
Speaker 1: he cannot let it go. He cannot let it go.
Speaker 1: It's a lie. He knows it's a lie. And every
Speaker 1: single you know, every every day almost it comes up
Speaker 1: in one of his statements, one of his tweets, one
Speaker 1: of his press conferences, if the twenty twenty presidential electors
Speaker 1: was election was not rigged, and it was in so
Speaker 1: many ways that horrible war would have never happened. President
Speaker 1: Zelensky and cooked Joe Biden did an absolutely horrible job
Speaker 1: in allowing this travesty to begin. There were so many
Speaker 1: ways to prevent it from even ever starting. But that
Speaker 1: is the past. Now we have to get it to
Speaker 1: stop and fast. So said, So. Putin didn't start this war.
Speaker 1: Putin didn't invade Ukraine. Putin had no responsibility for the
Speaker 1: actions of his military. Putin has no responsibility for this war,
Speaker 1: no culpability, nothing, zero. Not that this is on Zelensky
Speaker 1: and Biden. This is their war. It's their fault. Yeah.
Speaker 1: He later goes on and says, you know, so Zelensky
Speaker 1: during his sixteen minutes interview, said he wants to purchase
Speaker 1: Patriot missiles. He wants to watch fifteen billion dollars of
Speaker 1: American Patriot missiles. I think ten batteries. These are essential
Speaker 1: for the protection of Ukrainian skies from a constant bombama
Speaker 1: by the Russians. And he said he wants to buy them,
Speaker 1: didn't ask anybody to give it to him. This is
Speaker 1: what Trump says. Zelensky is always looking to purchase missiles.
Speaker 1: You don't start a war against somebody that's twenty times
Speaker 1: your size and then hope that people give you some missiles.
Speaker 1: You don't start a war against somebody that's twenty times
Speaker 1: your size and then hope that people give you some missiles.
Speaker 1: So you might have thought, you know, a couple of
Speaker 1: months ago, when Trump accused of Zelenski starting the war,
Speaker 1: that you know, maybe mispokey, it was an accident, or
Speaker 1: he's just trying to put pressure on him that moment. No,
Speaker 1: this is a strategy, or this is Trump, this is
Speaker 1: his agenda. Zelensky started the war, not putin Zelensky Ukraine.
Speaker 1: This time he doesn't mention Biden. And of course he says,
Speaker 1: and then hope that people give you some missaules looking
Speaker 1: to purchase missiles. He wants to buy them, buy them now.
Speaker 1: Note the patriots are not missiles, the defense systems. Why
Speaker 1: do they want defense systems because Russia is pounding their
Speaker 1: civilian population with missiles. Just had one hit the city
Speaker 1: of Sumi and killed thirty four people injuring one hundred
Speaker 1: on their way to church. Civilians. Note that Zelenski didn't
Speaker 1: start the war. Trump's best buddy Putin did could a baba.
Speaker 1: It's not that he's a dufist. I don't get I
Speaker 1: don't get you calling Trump dufers like duffis is like
Speaker 1: an innocent god. He's so spaced out, he's so This
Speaker 1: guy is evil through and through. President Trump is evil
Speaker 1: through and through. This is immoral, moronic, detached from reality,
Speaker 1: and downright evil. It's evil to let the person initiating
Speaker 1: the force, to let a brutal dictator like Putin with
Speaker 1: no nothing, and then to blame the innocent who's defending
Speaker 1: himself with everything that's not being a doufist, that is
Speaker 1: being through and through corrupt in his soul, in every
Speaker 1: fiber of everything that he is. This is a bad,
Speaker 1: bad human being. Now, of course we're gonna be told
Speaker 1: that this is just his stance to try to get
Speaker 1: ze Lynsky to sign a piece deal. It's out of
Speaker 1: the deal. It's three D chess, it doesn't matter. This
Speaker 1: is disgusting. And the fact that no pressure is being
Speaker 1: put in Russia, not a none, none, is truly despicable.
Speaker 1: Note that Russia was the one country that avoided tariffs
Speaker 1: on Liberation Day. Pretty interesting, huh. And then when he
Speaker 1: was told asked about the missile attack by the Russians
Speaker 1: on Sumi, where As I said, all those people were
Speaker 1: killed and injured and everything. He said, Look, I was
Speaker 1: told this is Trump again. I was told they made
Speaker 1: a mistake, this is Biden's war, this is not my war.
Speaker 1: Made a mistake. Putin makes mistakes. Zelensky starts wars. I mean,
Speaker 1: watch the sixty minute interview. Selinsky comes across as this honest,
Speaker 1: even courageous, thoughtful, try not to fend, trying to use
Speaker 1: the right words, but doesn't want to lie kind of person.
Speaker 1: I mean, Zonisky is a good guy. He really is.
Speaker 1: Trump is just thoroughly corrupt, thoroughly imo and president of
Speaker 1: the United States. I laugh because it's so absurd that
Speaker 1: he is. All right, guys, don't forget support the show.
Speaker 1: Support the show through stickers, super chats, value for value.
Speaker 1: I do these shows. You listen the value I provide,
Speaker 1: you should reciprocate. All right, that was Zelensky. All right,
Speaker 1: Constant news about tariffs, It doesn't stop, right. Every day,
Speaker 1: every hour there's something new, some new angle, some new thing.
Speaker 1: So you know, we had this exemption from electronics on
Speaker 1: Friday evening, the Trump put in primarily from China, because
Speaker 1: China has one hundred and twenty We have one hundred
Speaker 1: and forty five percent tariffs on Chinese goods and Apple
Speaker 1: and Nvidia, and all these were panicky, and somebody made
Speaker 1: a phone call and Trump excluded electronics from the tariffs.
Speaker 1: Well in the meantime, in the meantime, during the weekend,
Speaker 1: Lutnik Lutnik, this guy should be taught and feathered, right,
Speaker 1: taught and feathered. This guy should be out this this
Speaker 1: is god. He's the worst of all the Trumpet point
Speaker 1: he so far. Anyway, Lutnick goes on TV and says, oh, no, know,
Speaker 1: these exemptions are just temporary, just temporary, they won't last
Speaker 1: reversed them. Talk about creating uncertainty, ongoing, constant, no stop
Speaker 1: on certainty. Then Trump comes out and says, look, uh,
Speaker 1: the new tariffs coming. We're gonna have tariffs on on
Speaker 1: computer chips, We're gonna have tariffs on drugs and all
Speaker 1: of that on national security grounds. But I might I
Speaker 1: might spare the auto industry, constant shifting, moving around, nothing
Speaker 1: stays still, constant, changing the rules, and suddenly through the roof,
Speaker 1: I'll give you a favor take it away later. Maybe
Speaker 1: I'll give them a favor. Maybe I won't. Maybe I'll
Speaker 1: do that, maybe hear me. Yeah, So we're gonna have soon,
Speaker 1: we're gonna have tariffs on computer chips, farmceuticals, and we'll
Speaker 1: probably have some relaxation of levies of tariffs on cause
Speaker 1: and autoparts. So why do we do it to begin with?
Speaker 1: If now we're going to relax them? All right, So
Speaker 1: beyond just being a was it emol dufus, corrupt to
Speaker 1: the bone, the guy's incompetent, can't make up his mind,
Speaker 1: is creating massive uncertainty in the US economy. So this morning,
Speaker 1: the expectation was that stocks would be way up, and indeed,
Speaker 1: at some point early in the morning, I guess the
Speaker 1: NASAQ was up something like two percent. But as it
Speaker 1: kind of sunk in that, no, these new taffs are coming.
Speaker 1: It's not a done deal. It's temper stocks decline, they
Speaker 1: landed up up, still up, and indeed everything kind of moderated.
Speaker 1: The dollar kind of basically was flat today. Uh, but
Speaker 1: interstate and interstrates were down. So after the trend of
Speaker 1: interstates going up, interstates were down. And I think that's
Speaker 1: that's a big calming effect. But this is not ending
Speaker 1: anytime soon. The circus around trade is not ending about soon.
Speaker 1: And you're probably hearing. If not, you're not following what's
Speaker 1: going on, which is fine because you said you should
Speaker 1: only listen to the run book show for news. A
Speaker 1: lot of small businesses are going to really really be
Speaker 1: struggling and maybe go out of business here because they
Speaker 1: depend on inputs from China. A lot of businesses just
Speaker 1: don't know what to do because they don't know what's next.
Speaker 1: They don't know how long they can plan. They can't.
Speaker 1: I talked about this the pain felt I'd say primarily
Speaker 1: by small to medium sized businesses who can't lobby, They
Speaker 1: can't call up the White House, and they can't hedge
Speaker 1: their bats. They can't revamp their supply chain, revamp their
Speaker 1: supply chains on a dime. They're gonna struggle. They're gonna
Speaker 1: be real challenges here for a lot of companies, a
Speaker 1: lot of companies. And remember a lot of manufacturing that's
Speaker 1: done in the United States uses components or raw materials
Speaker 1: that are imported. So even manufacturing which is supposed to
Speaker 1: be grow because of this house, potentially in the short
Speaker 1: run will shrink because they can't bring stuff in, So
Speaker 1: it's a complete destruction. I mean, think about the fact that,
Speaker 1: you know the tariffs that were excluded electronics, Apple and
Speaker 1: Nvidia and Microsoft. They're in better shape because the exclusion
Speaker 1: temporary as it may be. But if your mom and
Speaker 1: pop shop selling toys, if your mom pop shops or
Speaker 1: not a mom or mid sized business selling furniture, a
Speaker 1: lot of the furniture in the United States is made
Speaker 1: in China, how are you going to survive this? Even
Speaker 1: if it's only temporary, even if Trump folds, what about
Speaker 1: the damage? The massive damage. I mean a lot of
Speaker 1: these companies, their margins are very small. How do they
Speaker 1: survive the next few days, in the next few weeks,
Speaker 1: in the next few months. And while he might fold
Speaker 1: on a lot of things, it's not obvious he will.
Speaker 1: It's not obvious he will. I really think he hates trade,
Speaker 1: he hates trade deficits, and he is willing to inflict
Speaker 1: a lot of pain in order to try at least
Speaker 1: to fix it. I don't know that any deals are
Speaker 1: going to be cut because the deals will not cut
Speaker 1: the trade deficit. That maybe he'll fold because there's a
Speaker 1: lot of pressure, but I'm not convinced. Again today he
Speaker 1: was talking about more tariffs on pharmaceuticals and computer chips,
Speaker 1: and then for some reason reducing them on autoparts and automobiles.
Speaker 1: He hates trade. He believes trade is zero sum. That
Speaker 1: is hating trade. He hates trade. He doesn't believe trade
Speaker 1: is win win. And then so he is destructive, destructive,
Speaker 1: and he's destroying people's lives now again, small businesses, media
Speaker 1: sized businesses, so be it. You might say, the big
Speaker 1: guys will survive. The big guys will survive. Let's see. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's clear. Now on top of all this, in the meantime,
Speaker 1: he is handing China a massive strategic victory. I mean,
Speaker 1: you couldn't have scripted this if you are pro China
Speaker 1: any better than it is. You know, Trump is a
Speaker 1: huge fan of Putin's and you couldn't script his his
Speaker 1: behavior towards the Lenski anymore pro Putin. It's completely motivated
Speaker 1: by his pro Putin stance. Now, what you get is
Speaker 1: you could have scripted this maybe towards China as more
Speaker 1: an end, strategically more pro China, because what is China
Speaker 1: doing right now? China now is basically going around Asia
Speaker 1: and saying, see, you can't trust the Americans, you can't
Speaker 1: trust Trump, and who the hell wants to pay even
Speaker 1: ten percent tariff. We'll offer you a deal. We'll sign
Speaker 1: a free trade deal with you. You will see that
Speaker 1: China will be signing a whole bunch of deals on
Speaker 1: trade with other Asian countries, potentially other countries around the world,
Speaker 1: even maybe the EU. Trade the lowest barriers in both directions.
Speaker 1: China has a lot of bad economic policies. China's ignorant
Speaker 1: of a lot of things when it comes to economics.
Speaker 1: But they understand, they understand that, they understand that they
Speaker 1: benefit from trade, and so does everybody else. There's very
Speaker 1: few people out there in the world who have the
Speaker 1: kind of infantile, perceptual level view of trade that Trump has.
Speaker 1: I can't resist. You know, every day the Trump's zombie
Speaker 1: core out there, the drums zombie pr machine, produces new
Speaker 1: excuses why tariffs are good. Every day. You see it
Speaker 1: on X you see it, and then you see all
Speaker 1: the Trump zombies saying the same thing. You know, to
Speaker 1: a placed income tax, it'll bring manufacturing back. And then Edward,
Speaker 1: Now trade defers a decrease the value of the US dollar.
Speaker 1: We want a strong dollar, but Trump points a week
Speaker 1: dollar because a week dollar makes it possible to export
Speaker 1: moret So they come up with stuff they don't even
Speaker 1: understand what they're talking about. They don't understand the concepts
Speaker 1: they're relating to. But that's what the pr machine of
Speaker 1: the tribe has dictated. Is today's excuse for why tariffs
Speaker 1: are good. Anyway, So we have a we have a trade,
Speaker 1: we have continuing uncertainty. We have she going around Asia
Speaker 1: now strengthening ties, trying to cut deals. I think he's
Speaker 1: in Vietnam today trying to cut deals Vietnam, which is
Speaker 1: a should be a strategic gally of the United States,
Speaker 1: and trying to trying to control China. Vietnam, who is
Speaker 1: afraid of China, who has a border with China, has
Speaker 1: fought wars with China. Vietnam is going to move more
Speaker 1: in the direction of China because they're being tariffed by
Speaker 1: the US, so they better establish relations with the other
Speaker 1: big player in the world, which is the Chinese. He
Speaker 1: is in Vietnam today, he will be in mal Asia
Speaker 1: tomorrow and in Cambodia, so he is doing a little
Speaker 1: trip out. There also relations between China, Japan, and South Korea.
Speaker 1: Japan and South Korea, two have America's strongest allies in Asia,
Speaker 1: have warmed recently when they were very cold up until now.
Speaker 1: Trump has managed to get the Chinese, the South Koreans,
Speaker 1: and the Japanese talking to each other in a kind
Speaker 1: of warm kind of way. So Trump is providing everybody
Speaker 1: within incentive to shift to China because he is acting
Speaker 1: like a schoolhouse bully. Now in the meantime, China's trying
Speaker 1: to hurt America where it counts. So for example, there
Speaker 1: was a story and it's how to verify if this
Speaker 1: is actually the case. But it looks like this is
Speaker 1: the case that China is halting all rare earth mineral exports. Right,
Speaker 1: so China is not providing rare earth minerals, at least
Speaker 1: not to the United States. Now, remember you need rare
Speaker 1: earth minerals or everything defense, medical equipment, caused, phones, industrial tools, everything.
Speaker 1: And while China only minds about sixty percent of the
Speaker 1: rare earth metals in the world, it refines refines ninety
Speaker 1: five percent of them. It would take the United States
Speaker 1: five to ten years if environmental regulations were reduced to
Speaker 1: be able to open up a refinery that refines rare
Speaker 1: earth metals. Now, as of now, American companies have an inventory.
Speaker 1: They've stockpiled the minerals that they need for a quarter
Speaker 1: or two. But if this continues, this could be more
Speaker 1: pressure on financial markets to do their thing to penalize us.
Speaker 1: All By Greenland, you get zero zero rare earth capacity
Speaker 1: refining capacity. There's plenty of earth materials in Montana and Wyoming,
Speaker 1: but we don't have the refining capacity to do anything
Speaker 1: with them, and the environmentalists won't let them. Just mind
Speaker 1: them in Greenland is going to have the same environmental concerns.
Speaker 1: But even if you could mind them where you're can
Speaker 1: never find them. You have to send them to China
Speaker 1: to refine them. We could get more real earth materials
Speaker 1: from Ukraine, but there's very little refining capacity anyway in
Speaker 1: the world. Again, let me just repeat it, since it
Speaker 1: seems ninety five percent of all the refining capability is
Speaker 1: in China. Now, you could probably increase a little bit
Speaker 1: to keep abilities existing, but it takes a long time,
Speaker 1: huge capital investments and a long time. In the meantime,
Speaker 1: I'm making firms and I'm making defense firms run out
Speaker 1: of it within three to six to nine months. So
Speaker 1: it doesn't help you to get the earth materials if
Speaker 1: you can't refine them anyway. Just and that's just one
Speaker 1: other aspect to the whole trade fiasco that those responsible
Speaker 1: for trade in the United States are not thinking through.
Speaker 1: All right, let's see more bad news. All right. So
Speaker 1: during the first Trump administration, towards the end of the
Speaker 1: first Trump administration six years ago, the Trump Federal Trade
Speaker 1: Commission there was Trumps from the first round, started an
Speaker 1: investigation for anti trust violations are Meta Facebook. That investigation,
Speaker 1: of course, was continued with even more vigor by the
Speaker 1: Biden administration. Well after six year investigation and legal battles.
Speaker 1: Today the Federal Tade Commission will face off against Meta
Speaker 1: in court, suing Meta for anti trust violations. They're going
Speaker 1: to demand a breakup of Mata at the very least
Speaker 1: spin off of Instagram and WhatsApp. You know, it is interesting, right,
Speaker 1: this is Trump's FTC. But Andrew Ferguson, who's Trump's newly
Speaker 1: installed pick to lead the FDC, has said that they're
Speaker 1: willing to go against Meta. So Trump is not pro business.
Speaker 1: He's not pro big tech. He wants to break them up. Now,
Speaker 1: so this is going to go to trial again. The
Speaker 1: case is bipartisan. Democrats wanted it, Republicans wanted it. Anti trust,
Speaker 1: as you know, I think is an evil law, a
Speaker 1: bad law. There should be no anti trust laws. The
Speaker 1: government should not be in a position to decide what
Speaker 1: is too big or not, what is so called anti
Speaker 1: trust or not. And so this is going to go forward.
Speaker 1: Now there is a chance, notice how this works, there
Speaker 1: is a chance the President Trump will weigh in and
Speaker 1: argue and try to not try get the FTC to
Speaker 1: drop the case. Now why would he do that, Well,
Speaker 1: because Marcus Zuckerberg has become chummy with the president. Zuckerberg
Speaker 1: met with Trump in the Oval office earlier this month.
Speaker 1: Facebook gave money for the Inauguration Corruption Fund, and uh,
Speaker 1: you know, as Zuckerberg has tried to convince Trump to
Speaker 1: do to ask to range for settlement so that it
Speaker 1: doesn't go for trial. So the one chance that we
Speaker 1: won't get a Trump being as bad as a Biden
Speaker 1: when it comes anti trust is cronyism. Is if Trump
Speaker 1: is in a sense bribed in one way or another
Speaker 1: to let Facebook not be broken. Up and just pay
Speaker 1: a fee or something like that. Right, So settle with
Speaker 1: a Facebook. So if that happens, you'll know why it happened.
Speaker 1: It happened because Zuckerberg kissed the ring. Remember when Trump
Speaker 1: a long time ago talked about draining the swamp. He's
Speaker 1: making the swamp bigger. The swamp animals now are maybe different,
Speaker 1: but there are plenty of them. There are lots and
Speaker 1: lots and lots of them, lots of them. Okay, By
Speaker 1: the way, what Edward is saying about dollars and trade
Speaker 1: is just wrong. He's just getting the economics of it wrong.
Speaker 1: So trade trade deficits the dinosipist the dollar. The dollar
Speaker 1: up until Trump was, up until a month ago, the
Speaker 1: dollar was at record levels. The dollar versus yen was
Speaker 1: trading at one hundred and sixty yen to the dollar,
Speaker 1: which was a record, well not a record of all time,
Speaker 1: but it was very very high. The dollar was very
Speaker 1: very strong visa VI the EU Europe. Even though we
Speaker 1: want to a trade deficit with Europe. The dollar is
Speaker 1: very strong. Was very strong related to the Canadian dollar,
Speaker 1: in spite of the fact that the Canadian that we
Speaker 1: want a trade deficit with Canada, the dollar is very strong, yeah,
Speaker 1: very strong with regard to the UK, in spite of
Speaker 1: the fact do we want a trade deficit. Maybe we
Speaker 1: don't want a trade deficit with the UK. We certainly
Speaker 1: do with and even so certainly with Canada, with EU,
Speaker 1: with these others, the dollar is very strong versus these
Speaker 1: really checked, you know, and so we run a trade
Speaker 1: depiside with Israel. That's changed because as the taps have
Speaker 1: come in, the dollar value has actually gone down significantly.
Speaker 1: Even though theoretically should have gone up, it's gone down
Speaker 1: because nobody wants the old dollars anymore. So the dollar
Speaker 1: is it's Edward. You don't know economics, You just should
Speaker 1: shut up. I mean, it's fascinating to me how everybody
Speaker 1: has an opinion about fairly complex economic issues, right, I
Speaker 1: mean the value of the dollar, how it works as
Speaker 1: a reserve currency. You know what that actually means to
Speaker 1: its value. The dollar has been a reserve currency since
Speaker 1: nineteen seven, since World War Two. It was detached from
Speaker 1: gold in seventy one, right, so it's been a fiat currency,
Speaker 1: complete fiat currency, and a reserve currency since nineteen seventy one.
Speaker 1: And yet the value of the dollar has flunctuated dramatically
Speaker 1: during Neput. It's been very high, has been very low,
Speaker 1: but it's still a reserve currency. It never changed the
Speaker 1: fact that it was a reserve currency. The very fact
Speaker 1: that I'm saying the dollar. The dollar was high, you know,
Speaker 1: when Trump came into office, was very highly valued. Suggested
Speaker 1: before it wasn't. So it functuates over time for all
Speaker 1: kinds of reasons, geo political reasons, economic reasons. Relationship between
Speaker 1: interest rates of bonds in different countries will determine the
Speaker 1: value of the currency. Trade being one of the elements
Speaker 1: within this soup of elements to determine the value of accurrency.
Speaker 1: But this is the thing that happens in the world
Speaker 1: in which we live today. You go to Twitter and
Speaker 1: you eat a few tweets about the dollar, and you think, WHOA,
Speaker 1: I am now an expert on economics, and I'm an
Speaker 1: expert on trade, and I'm an expert on fear currencies,
Speaker 1: and I'm going to go to somebody's stream or do
Speaker 1: it on Twitter and explain to people, teach people how
Speaker 1: the dollar value of the dollar gets determined global markets.
Speaker 1: I mean the audacity of people to do that, and
Speaker 1: I see thousands, tens of hundreds of thousands of people
Speaker 1: doing it every day. Right, you actually have to know something,
Speaker 1: You have to actually understand and know the different elements
Speaker 1: that go into determining the value of a couvency. And then,
Speaker 1: as Edward does, then you predict the economy in the future. Oh,
Speaker 1: the value of the dollars going up? How do you
Speaker 1: know that? By what standard? Do you understand the soup
Speaker 1: that goes into determining dollar and you know with certainty
Speaker 1: that it's going up? I mean, how much money have
Speaker 1: you made in courncy trading? That would be the question, right,
Speaker 1: if you know the dollars going up, why don't you
Speaker 1: going onto the courvency exchange? Isn't buying dollars or shorting
Speaker 1: other currencies. It's just mind boggling. The stupidity of the
Speaker 1: culture we live in like this is the consequence of
Speaker 1: we don't need experts. Experts overrated. The experts got it
Speaker 1: wrong in COVID, so we don't need experts. Burn them all,
Speaker 1: throw them into the sea. I mean, if you knew
Speaker 1: even a fraction a fraction of what you claim to
Speaker 1: know about economics and currencies and so on, how much
Speaker 1: money have you made in the markets based on this
Speaker 1: amazing knowledge that you have that nobody else has anyway?
Speaker 1: I mean, that's a holy you about experts, which was
Speaker 1: part of that debate between Dave Smith and Douglas Moray
Speaker 1: on Joe Rogan and Douglas Muy's absolutely right, expertise does matter.
Speaker 1: It doesn't mean you don't question the experts. It doesn't
Speaker 1: mean you don't challenge them. But being an expert means something,
Speaker 1: and the fact that you have an opinion that's counted
Speaker 1: to the expert, you should most of the time keep
Speaker 1: your mouth shut until you know more. The first thing
Speaker 1: you should happen to you, and that happens to me
Speaker 1: all the time when I having an opinion. It's different
Speaker 1: than a lot of people who actually know something about
Speaker 1: a particular field. Is I question myself first, and only
Speaker 1: then after I prove it to myself do I question
Speaker 1: the experts? Really, Mike says, audio is fine, but this
Speaker 1: show crashes every forty five minutes and has to be
Speaker 1: refreshed before I can watch further. Does that happen to
Speaker 1: you in the past as well? Just this show today,
Speaker 1: this actual show. Does anybody else getting that phenomena? Which
Speaker 1: is weird. I hope it's not happening to all of you.
Speaker 1: All right, So antitrust is moving, chugging ahead as if
Speaker 1: we were still had Biden, no difference, no change, Biden
Speaker 1: Trump when it comes to attacking American business, no difference.
Speaker 1: I have no idea why it happens to you always, Mike,
Speaker 1: that is where Mary Mary says yes, Neil kun Gaming
Speaker 1: says no, Rand says no, Chaos says yes when he streams,
Speaker 1: Hondo says yes, huh interesting, but Jennifer says fine. Mike
Speaker 1: says every single show, but no other shows just me.
Speaker 1: That's bizarre. I have no idea. I'll try to look
Speaker 1: into it, but it's very hard to address a problem
Speaker 1: that not everybody has, that only some people have. All right,
Speaker 1: let's keep going. As you know, the Trumpet degistration is
Speaker 1: going after universities. It is withholding funds from universities. We're
Speaker 1: talking about primarily the Ivy League schools. We know about Columbia, Harvard.
Speaker 1: Now nine billion dollars are being withheld. I think Cornell
Speaker 1: and Northwestern. I think Cornell is about seven hundred and no.
Speaker 1: Conal's about a billion in federal funding, and Northwestern is
Speaker 1: seven hundred and ninety eight thout a million dollars being withheld.
Speaker 1: Columbia basically a compromise with the government, no offer to compromise,
Speaker 1: basically capitulated to most of the Gun demands, including placing
Speaker 1: two departments on kind of academic supervision. The government, I
Speaker 1: don't think is happy with that. And Trump administration actually
Speaker 1: wants Columbia, the whole of Columbia to basically come under
Speaker 1: federal oversight in terms of the content of what they teach,
Speaker 1: which is super scary, super scary. But so that is
Speaker 1: so that is happening with Columbia anyway, the same was
Speaker 1: happening with Harvard. Harvard acquired that they eliminate all DEI,
Speaker 1: did they screen international students supportive of terrorism and anti semitism,
Speaker 1: And they also wanted Harvard. They wanted some oversight over
Speaker 1: some of the courses at Harvard. Harvard basically has said no.
Speaker 1: Harvard has said no. As they wrote, Although some of
Speaker 1: the demands outlined by the government aimed at committing anti semitism,
Speaker 1: the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the intellectual conditions
Speaker 1: at Harvard. So there's going to be a confrontation now
Speaker 1: Harvard is the richest university in the United States, and
Speaker 1: it is going to be really interesting to see how
Speaker 1: this plays out. Basically, Harvard is saying, well, private institution.
Speaker 1: Again to quote Harvard, no government, regardless of which party
Speaker 1: is in power, should dictate what private universities can teach,
Speaker 1: whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of
Speaker 1: study an inquiry they can pursue. That is a great statement,
Speaker 1: that's true. And then the next question is how do
Speaker 1: we create a system where these universities don't get any
Speaker 1: money from the government, so they don't depend on the
Speaker 1: government in any kind of way. And that is all
Speaker 1: now coming to a head. So this is going to
Speaker 1: be really interesting to see as the Trump administration tries
Speaker 1: to regulate their content being taught at private universities. It's
Speaker 1: pretty scary. Again, again pretty scary. And of course, since
Speaker 1: one they issue of free speech, here we go again,
Speaker 1: more free speech issues. As Donald Trump wrote almost every
Speaker 1: week sixty Minutes, which is being sued for billions of
Speaker 1: dollars for the fraud they committed in the twenty twenty
Speaker 1: four presidential election. With their interview of failed presidential candidate
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris mentions the name Trump in a derogatory and
Speaker 1: defamatory way. But this weekend's broadcast tops them all. They
Speaker 1: did not one, but two major stories on Trump all caps,
Speaker 1: one having to do with Ukraine, which I say is
Speaker 1: a war that would never have happened if the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty election had not been rigged, in other words, if
Speaker 1: I were president. And the other story was having God
Speaker 1: this is a long sentence, was having to do with
Speaker 1: Greenland casting out country as led by me, falsely, inaccurately,
Speaker 1: and fraudulently President of the United States. Ladies and gentlemen,
Speaker 1: I am so honored to be suing sixty minutes CBS
Speaker 1: fake news and paramount for the fraudulent, beyond recognition reporting.
Speaker 1: They did everything possible to illegally elect Kamala, including completely
Speaker 1: and corruptly changing major answers to interview questions, but it
Speaker 1: just didn't work for them. They are not a news
Speaker 1: show but a dishonest political operative simply disguised as news,
Speaker 1: and must be responsible for what they have done and
Speaker 1: are doing. They should lose their license, Hopefully the FCC
Speaker 1: FCC is organization his administration as headed by the highly
Speaker 1: respected Chim and Brandon Karr. His Chim will impose the
Speaker 1: maximum fines and punishments, which is substantial for the unlawful
Speaker 1: and illegal behavior. CBS is out of control at levels
Speaker 1: never seen before, and they should pay a big price
Speaker 1: for this. Make America great again. In other words, they
Speaker 1: criticize me, they said nasty things about me, they maybe
Speaker 1: even said false things about me. They should lose their license,
Speaker 1: they should be fined. And by the way, I'm suing
Speaker 1: them in court, which he won't win, but it won't
Speaker 1: make it a court because CBS will probably settle because
Speaker 1: they don't want to be shut. Now. Now, this is
Speaker 1: Victor Auban, This is putin. You slowly systematically attack the media.
Speaker 1: You slowly systematically take away their ability to broadcast, their
Speaker 1: ability to operate. The media that survives you hand off
Speaker 1: to your buddies and friends. And then soon enough you
Speaker 1: wake up and the entire media is Trump's friends, is
Speaker 1: Trump friendly, and there's no criticism. And it's not the
Speaker 1: criticism is officially banned. It's no like law that says
Speaker 1: you can't criticize the government. But there just isn't any
Speaker 1: criticism because everybody who has been critical has been fined
Speaker 1: or fired or you know, made to understand they should stop.
Speaker 1: Maybe they're in an El SALVADORI in jail. This is
Speaker 1: a direct attack on the First Amendment. I hope this
Speaker 1: goes to the Supreme Court, not that it seems to
Speaker 1: matter that much. And you know, no matter who the
Speaker 1: president is, you do not threaten the media. Now Obama
Speaker 1: did this once. Trump did this many times during his
Speaker 1: first term. But he is clearly clearly ramping it up
Speaker 1: this time, dramatically ramping it up much worse, going after them. So,
Speaker 1: uh yeah, this is not good. This is not good.
Speaker 1: You might hate the mainstream media, but the mainstream media
Speaker 1: is important to their existence, is important for free speech,
Speaker 1: and the government starting to regulate mainstream media in terms
Speaker 1: of this speech is a unmitigated disaster and unconstitutional. Now
Speaker 1: add to that the fact that is as much as
Speaker 1: the ancient media is biased and often lies, Trump lies
Speaker 1: a lot more than the mainstream media does. He his
Speaker 1: lies on a completely different scale than anybody in the media.
Speaker 1: So anyway, this is again scary stuff. I continue to say.
Speaker 1: You know, Trump is the most dangerous president we've I
Speaker 1: think ever had. All right, let's see, just just adjacent
Speaker 1: to that. You remember the that woman, the student of
Speaker 1: tough Te University who wrote a not bad criticizing Israel
Speaker 1: and was picked up by ice unmanned you know, men
Speaker 1: with masks, unmarked car and she was detained. Well, the
Speaker 1: government is now admitted, admitted that she has no links
Speaker 1: to terror organizations, uh, and that she was not engaged
Speaker 1: she was not engaged in any anti Semitic activities or
Speaker 1: any activities that could be deemed supporting of terrorism. She
Speaker 1: co wrote and our bad criticizing Israel. Now it was
Speaker 1: a bad op ad and she's you know, it's a
Speaker 1: stupid idea and it was all of that. But okay,
Speaker 1: that's what free speech means. People can publish stuff that
Speaker 1: I don't agree with the State Department has no evidence
Speaker 1: linking her to terrorism anti Semitism, yet her deputation is
Speaker 1: being pursued under the legal provision of the Immigration and
Speaker 1: Nationality Act from the Cold War era. This is she's
Speaker 1: a national security threat. So yeah, anyway, that is more
Speaker 1: attack on free speech. What happens when your speech, my
Speaker 1: speech gets viewed as in danger doing national security in
Speaker 1: some way? What happens then? All right, finally we've talked
Speaker 1: about this story, but it keeps developing. It keeps getting worse.
Speaker 1: You remember Trump issuing or signing executive orders for the
Speaker 1: Justice wanted to go after law firms that he deems
Speaker 1: as being a PC, that he accuses of supporting the
Speaker 1: enemy Democrats. He wants the government to go after them.
Speaker 1: He's taken away their privileges to argue in courts and
Speaker 1: in federal buildings and things like that. Well, if you
Speaker 1: remember Paul Weiss, that company came the head of the
Speaker 1: company came met with what medical tripe and agreed to
Speaker 1: basically provide forty million dollars of legal services to causes
Speaker 1: that supported the Trump agenda. And as a consequence, Trump
Speaker 1: rescinded the executive order against the firm and allowed them
Speaker 1: to fully practice. Well, now we have nine more firms,
Speaker 1: eight more firms. They're nine in total, eight more firms
Speaker 1: who have basically signed deals with Trump. Combined, they are
Speaker 1: pledging nine hundred and forty million dollars, nine hundred and
Speaker 1: forty million dollars, just short of a billion to provide
Speaker 1: pro bono legal work for causes that support Donald Trump's agenda.
Speaker 1: I mean, nobody seems to care. This is not a headliner,
Speaker 1: This is not making the news. You have to find
Speaker 1: it buried somewhere. Law firms basically paying Trump to ascend
Speaker 1: an executive order that would have constrained their ability to
Speaker 1: practice their profession, and they were singled out, they were
Speaker 1: named by name. It wasn't the whole legal profession, but
Speaker 1: just some. I mean, this is so outrageous. There is
Speaker 1: a sense of which I'm speechless. It's unbelievable. I mean,
Speaker 1: so you've replaced the military, You've Congress is ineffectual, They're
Speaker 1: not going to criticize you at all. And now you
Speaker 1: basically eviscerated nine of the largest law firms in the
Speaker 1: country and created a massive distancentive for the other law
Speaker 1: firms to sue your administration, to challenge it, to go
Speaker 1: after it in any kind of way. You're basically turning
Speaker 1: the entire law profession basically telling if you go after me,
Speaker 1: you after my interests, We're coming after you now. To
Speaker 1: their credit, there are three prestigious law firms that have
Speaker 1: opted to fight the threats in court at least for now,
Speaker 1: rather than can make a deal. But it's unbelievable to me.
Speaker 1: And what's unbelievable to me is that nobody's used this
Speaker 1: as a major event. I mean, we're I mean, really
Speaker 1: are inching towards authoritarianism here without anybody caring, literally without
Speaker 1: I mean, you know why. It's in the streets and
Speaker 1: other demonstrations. Even the newspapers they're being on tariffs. They
Speaker 1: talk a lot about tariffs, and maybe they'll talk a
Speaker 1: lot about uh, you know the guy, you know, Salvadult
Speaker 1: and I'll talk about that for a few days. But
Speaker 1: this is happening to American law firms, and nobody cares.
Speaker 1: Nobody cares. I don't know. What can you do, Bonnie.
Speaker 1: This is what Americans elected, and what can you do?
Speaker 1: Here's the things you can do. You can call your
Speaker 1: congressman up and tell them to go some balls. You
Speaker 1: can call your congressman up and tell them you want
Speaker 1: them to challenge Trump. You want them to, for example,
Speaker 1: you want them to return tariff power to Congress. You
Speaker 1: want them to consider impeaching Trump on this massive, massive
Speaker 1: power grab that he is entailed engaged in. All you
Speaker 1: can do is call your congressman, write, let us to
Speaker 1: the editor. Those are the things you can do. That's
Speaker 1: about it. What else can we do. We can't elect
Speaker 1: him out, we can't vote him out of office. He's
Speaker 1: already there. Next time. Next time, you can remind everybody
Speaker 1: of how bad he is and maybe that vote him
Speaker 1: out office. But for now he's there and we're stuck
Speaker 1: with him. You can call your newspaper and say, why
Speaker 1: an't you covering the story. You can write letters to
Speaker 1: the editor. Here's the thing, guys, and this is reality.
Speaker 1: You can do something. What did Michael the other day say,
Speaker 1: you know, if I called on my followers to go
Speaker 1: out into the streets, we'd get five thousand people out there.
Speaker 1: I doubt it, But here's what I'll call on you.
Speaker 1: Start writing letters the editor, Start writing letters to your congressman,
Speaker 1: Start calling him up and bugging the hell out of him.
Speaker 1: Get politically active, not in the sense of joining a
Speaker 1: political party, but you vote. You have a district, you
Speaker 1: have a congressman. Make sure he hears from you that
Speaker 1: what Trump is doing is unacceptable, despicable. Now, who said
Speaker 1: there won't be a next time? Bannon keeps saying every
Speaker 1: interview that Trump will run in twenty eight and win
Speaker 1: in twenty eight. At the rate Trump is going, What
Speaker 1: is going to stop him? Exactly? Who's going to stop him? Congress? No,
Speaker 1: the courts here, you know them. Who's going to stop
Speaker 1: him if he decides to do it. The military, No,
Speaker 1: the FBI, Justice Department no. So it's now to put
Speaker 1: pressure on Congress. Trump himself is not ruled out running
Speaker 1: again in twenty twenty eight, even though he knows there's
Speaker 1: a constitutional amendment prohibiting him for doing it. He doesn't care.
Speaker 1: He doesn't care. All right, guys, that is you are
Speaker 1: the news for this Monday, April fourteenth. I told you
Speaker 1: there's no good news. It's just all depressing. There was
Speaker 1: one positive news story, where was it? All right, let's
Speaker 1: do this. There's a new gene editing therapy that you
Speaker 1: know basically works to suppress the liver's regulation of cholesterol.
Speaker 1: So it it is just being shown in a small trial.
Speaker 1: Gene therapy is always small trials, that a shot of
Speaker 1: this will reduce cholesterol by fifty three percent. Now this
Speaker 1: is still phase one trials. It's very early, and we're
Speaker 1: talking about bad cholesterol. We're talking about so called bad
Speaker 1: the LDL cholisto. We're talking about LDL cholesterol. So in
Speaker 1: this study they managed to get a fifty three percent
Speaker 1: reduction in cholesterol of LDL without any side effects. You know,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's the first trials of a drug of
Speaker 1: a gene therapy. This is something that affects your genes.
Speaker 1: It affects the genes of the pc PCSK nine gene
Speaker 1: in the liver. It affects that directly. So this is
Speaker 1: a major breakthrough. It could involve like an injection, an infusion,
Speaker 1: I guess, an infusion you know, once every few months,
Speaker 1: and you could have dramatically lower cholesterol l d L
Speaker 1: cholesterol LDL cholesterol for the most part, holding some things
Speaker 1: constant is a major predictor of heart disease, of of
Speaker 1: of problems in the heart. So getting that under control,
Speaker 1: getting that down that the the the best measure from
Speaker 1: what I can tell from doctors for your for your
Speaker 1: risk of heart disease is your apo B level of
Speaker 1: the apo B. It again relates to cholesterol into into
Speaker 1: the ability to create clogs, calcification of your of your uteries.
Speaker 1: This drug with low YOI prob be dramatically fifty is huge, huge,
Speaker 1: and some people have very very very high collection will
Speaker 1: have huge, very high risk of heart disease. Uh and
Speaker 1: this could this could be a lifesaver, all right, guys,
Speaker 1: I remind you a few things. Alex Epstein is a
Speaker 1: sponsor of the Iron Book Show. His substack is Alex
Speaker 1: Epstein dot substack dot com. Substick is amazing. It gives
Speaker 1: you kind of the the info you won't read anywhere
Speaker 1: else about both the state of American energy, electricity, the grid,
Speaker 1: power production, and drilling, and the solutions to how to
Speaker 1: dramatically improve the grid and electricity and all that stuff
Speaker 1: right power generation. There is nobody better, there's nobody more knowledgeable.
Speaker 1: And he does it in a way that he provides
Speaker 1: you are talking points. So when you get stuck in
Speaker 1: that pass over dinner, those of you go to pass
Speaker 1: over dinners and those family members are complaining about fossil
Speaker 1: fuels and climate change, Alex will provide you with the
Speaker 1: talking points to shut them down. Just shut them down.
Speaker 1: So sign up Alex Epstein dot substack dot com. Alex
Speaker 1: is great. And then the Dinern Institute is offering the
Speaker 1: listeners of the Ion brook Show The Ion Brooks Show
Speaker 1: an exclusive discount for ocon the objective confidence that the
Speaker 1: conferences that is happening in Boston, Massachusetts in July, I
Speaker 1: think July first to fifth. Over the fifth of July
Speaker 1: weekend and it is an amazing conference. I'll be there.
Speaker 1: I'll be speaking on the opening day. There's lots of events.
Speaker 1: You can play Poco with me. We'll be playing PoCA.
Speaker 1: It'll be a blast. It'll be a lot of fun.
Speaker 1: And anyway you can. You can get a ten percent
Speaker 1: discount by signing up for the conference and in the
Speaker 1: space where it gives you to put in a discount code,
Speaker 1: put twenty five. That's from the year ybs. That's US ten.
Speaker 1: That's a ten percent disco. I don't think if you
Speaker 1: put in twenty five ybs twenty five you get a
Speaker 1: twenty five percent discoun but you can try ten will
Speaker 1: work twenty five? I'm not guaranteed. All right, whoops? What
Speaker 1: did I do? Also, we are way behind on the
Speaker 1: super chat. What's up guys? Forget your wallets at home
Speaker 1: or wherever. It is so way behind on the superchat.
Speaker 1: Please consider supporting the show value for value. This show
Speaker 1: is funded listeners like you. You can do it on Patreon
Speaker 1: or PayPal on a monthly basis, or you can come
Speaker 1: over to YouTube and you can ask a question or
Speaker 1: and get an answer, or you can come out of
Speaker 1: YouTube and do a sticker and participate that way. One
Speaker 1: way or the other. You can't support the show, no excuses.
Speaker 1: We got one hundred and fifty seven watching on YouTube,
Speaker 1: two hundred and something on Twitter. We should be doing
Speaker 1: better than we are. And of course, finally, yes, I
Speaker 1: highly highly value those of you who support the show
Speaker 1: on Patreon. So please go to patreon dot com you
Speaker 1: on book show and become a monthly contributor. That is
Speaker 1: an enormous, ornormous help. I'll also remind you again that
Speaker 1: we do have a show tonight at eight pm East
Speaker 1: Coast Tein with Christina Laporte. We'll be talking about her novels.
Speaker 1: We'll be talking about some issues political, Yeah, political issues
Speaker 1: that are brought up in the novels that I think
Speaker 1: are interesting. We'll be talking about our future novels, so yeah,
Speaker 1: we'll be talking to Christina about her career, her career
Speaker 1: in medicine and how that got it into a career
Speaker 1: in literature. I think you'll be very inspired. Here's somebody
Speaker 1: who he turned to literature very late in life and
Speaker 1: has been successful in writing her thrillers and getting them published.
Speaker 1: All Right, Mike Miller is now saying that Abrego Garcia
Speaker 1: was found by a court to be an MS thirteen
Speaker 1: in twenty nineteen. I assume he's bending the truth. Yes
Speaker 1: he is. He was accused of being a member of
Speaker 1: MS thirteen, which he denied and continues to deny, and
Speaker 1: it was never proven he was a member, and he
Speaker 1: wasn't kicked out of the country because it was proven
Speaker 1: he was a member. So he was accused of Miller,
Speaker 1: just like his boss lies all the time. Oh, we've
Speaker 1: got a question here by a different Miller. This is
Speaker 1: not that Miller. This is Jeffrey. Hey, Jeffy, it's frustrating
Speaker 1: to hear in defense of tariffs that consumers pay only
Speaker 1: a small percent of tariffs. What about the businesses? Well,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure. Why do you think consumers pay only
Speaker 1: a small percentage of the tariffs? Basically, either consumers are
Speaker 1: paying it, or the importers the people who buy it
Speaker 1: from China and then sell it to businesses or sell
Speaker 1: it to individuals, their profit margin shrink, or the American
Speaker 1: small businesses who sell it to customers their profit margin shrinks.
Speaker 1: Or it's possible that the Chinese, you know, nobody is
Speaker 1: buying their products and they will reduce the prices and
Speaker 1: their profit margin shrinks. But all the empirical evidents suggest
Speaker 1: that the brunt of this, the biggest share of the
Speaker 1: tariffs is borne by consumers. And now in some cases
Speaker 1: it won't be because the small businesses will go out
Speaker 1: of business, so the consumers will never buy the stuff
Speaker 1: and the businesses will just go out to business. But
Speaker 1: short of that, most businesses who buy from China and
Speaker 1: resell in the United States, or repackage and resell, or
Speaker 1: included in something and sell have very low profit margins
Speaker 1: that they cannot absorb the tariff. And indeed, the countries,
Speaker 1: the companies in China cannot absorb the tariffs. Their profit
Speaker 1: margins are very low. The only people that can actually
Speaker 1: absorb the tariff are the consumers, and they the ones
Speaker 1: who can't won't buy, and if a demand for these
Speaker 1: products will go down, and again that puts the business
Speaker 1: in big trouble. All Right, what am I hearing that
Speaker 1: there is gorgeous weather in Michigan? I know, I know
Speaker 1: this is a setup. Right, this is a setup. You
Speaker 1: can have gorgeous weather over the next ten days, and
Speaker 1: as soon as I arrive, the clouds will the you know,
Speaker 1: it'll I don't know. It'll snow in uh snows in April.
Speaker 1: It'll snow, it'll be muddy, it'll be horrible. Uh, you
Speaker 1: guys are setting me up. You know, not nice. It's
Speaker 1: not fair. It really isn't fair. I mean, the home
Speaker 1: country can subsidize the manufactures so they can lower price,
Speaker 1: like the United States does with farmers. They're constantly subsidizing
Speaker 1: the farmers. They can lower price so they can get
Speaker 1: over the towests that are being placed on them by farmers.
Speaker 1: That is possible as well, but that is again not
Speaker 1: sustainable for very long. But that's unlikely to happen. Most
Speaker 1: of the towers and the past towerts the Trump has
Speaker 1: passed have been shown to have basically been paid for
Speaker 1: by consumers. And if I remember, consumers are not you
Speaker 1: and me consumers. A significant portion, maybe most, of imports
Speaker 1: into the United States of parts of materials that then
Speaker 1: are used by businesses to produce some other uh stuff
Speaker 1: that then is sold right, so it you know, the
Speaker 1: cost of the tariffs is often borne by the businesses
Speaker 1: that are doing the importation, and then they also raise
Speaker 1: the price of let's say they bring in they buy
Speaker 1: motors for their washing machines from China. The washing machine
Speaker 1: is made in America, but the engine is Chinese, then
Speaker 1: the price of the Washington is going to go up. Now,
Speaker 1: in Trump's first term, he raised tariffs on washing machines,
Speaker 1: and the prices of washing machines went up, without any question,
Speaker 1: went up. So this is tax paid by businesses and
Speaker 1: consumers primarily, but consumers because businesses will try to pass
Speaker 1: on the tax to consumers, They're not gonna they don't
Speaker 1: have the profit margins to bear it themselves. Ali, Ian,
Speaker 1: did you catch the Senate hearing of Matter's alleged collaboration
Speaker 1: with China? What's your take on Project Aldron? Is this recently?
Speaker 1: I did not, But you know, would I be? So,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I'm gonna I'm gonna copy paste this
Speaker 1: and I'm gonna look into it and I will get
Speaker 1: back to Ali. You know, I don't have a take,
Speaker 1: so it's better that I don't say anything. I try
Speaker 1: to only talk about things I know something about, all right,
Speaker 1: So I will I will get back to you Ali
Speaker 1: with an answer for that. On a future show, Alio
Speaker 1: said a question Van, I want to sponsor book review
Speaker 1: Right The Tiger by Evola let me just see how
Speaker 1: big of a how long of a book? Is it?
Speaker 1: Survival Manual for Aristocrats of the Soul? Oh, it's kind
Speaker 1: of got an interesting Oh, Evola is the right wing guy.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to look and see how many pages it is?
Speaker 1: Turn fifty six pages. I mean, that's at least that
Speaker 1: would cost you all at least five hundred dollars. So
Speaker 1: if you want me to do it, just either PayPal
Speaker 1: me or hear super chat me five hundred dollars with it,
Speaker 1: and uh and uh I will I will do it.
Speaker 1: It will take me some time, I give you that,
Speaker 1: because I'm way behind on reviews. But if for five
Speaker 1: hundred dollars, I could probably do it. I'm interested in
Speaker 1: reading Evola anyway. I've read some stuff of his, or
Speaker 1: if read a book about him, but not his stuff directly,
Speaker 1: so it wouldn't be bad for me to read something
Speaker 1: of his. I expect to hate every word, but part
Speaker 1: of my education, all right, Marilene, I'm still astounded that
Speaker 1: anyone could support Trump after January sixth I detested him
Speaker 1: years before that, yep, and you know I did too,
Speaker 1: So since twenty sixteen, since he announced he was running,
Speaker 1: I don't get it. Ryan. At this point when we
Speaker 1: have to start a GoFundMe to buy off support of
Speaker 1: keep people in Congress to hold the president accountable, I
Speaker 1: guess this is now the American way corruption pay them off.
Speaker 1: Sadly that might be the case. We might not have
Speaker 1: a choice, but it ain't happening, So don't worry about it.
Speaker 1: It ain't happening, Sandy. I'm a senior in college. It
Speaker 1: seems like I will be able to go full time
Speaker 1: into a startup I created after college. You and Randa
Speaker 1: being some of the best voices inspiring me through the journey.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That is great, Sandy. That is fantastic news,
Speaker 1: and it's exact kind of optimistic tone. I like to
Speaker 1: counter all this negative news. At the end of the day,
Speaker 1: there's still Americans out there, there's still young people out there.
Speaker 1: We're enthusiastic about the world, want to do something in
Speaker 1: the world, and have their courage and the ambition to
Speaker 1: go out and start companies and make do something new.
Speaker 1: And that's that's at the end of the day. Economically
Speaker 1: what really really matters. So thank you, Sandy, Ryan. I
Speaker 1: think that economic i'mageddon will be Trump's undoing if Americans
Speaker 1: had a more backbone wrong for the deportation of one
Speaker 1: person who would be unacceptable, and that would be enough.
Speaker 1: Will recession be enough? I don't know. I think it
Speaker 1: might be. I think there'll be a lot of pressure
Speaker 1: on Trump if there's a recession. I think they can
Speaker 1: all say, yeah, you need some pain. But when the
Speaker 1: pain is there and it's not clear that we're coming
Speaker 1: out of the pain, but it's not clear to me
Speaker 1: we're going to recession or how bad the recession will be.
Speaker 1: Because tariff saw again a relatively small part of the
Speaker 1: US economy that so t isday business activity will slow down.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I just hate to bet against American
Speaker 1: American entrepreneurs, against Sandy's of the world right, but a
Speaker 1: recession could make could make a difference. I Already Americans
Speaker 1: are turning against Trump in pretty astounding numbers. I mean,
Speaker 1: his favorability rating is plummeting. And what's interesting is his
Speaker 1: favorability rating among young people, who who he did very
Speaker 1: very well with in the election is just collapsing. Is
Speaker 1: just collapsing. So those are good signs Americans. Americans are
Speaker 1: not happy with Trump. They might not know what to
Speaker 1: do about it. They might not know, they might not
Speaker 1: be so outraged outraged as to go into the street
Speaker 1: about it. But they're not happy with Trump and a
Speaker 1: lot of the people who voted for him, a lot
Speaker 1: of the people who voted for him are not happy
Speaker 1: with him. If the election was held today, I think
Speaker 1: Trump would lose. Make a better day. What would be
Speaker 1: a more advanced guide to economic thinking? Is the university
Speaker 1: going to cover that subject? I mean, their plans to
Speaker 1: do it at some point, I don't know when The
Speaker 1: challenge is finding the right person to teach it. We don't.
Speaker 1: Funnily and surprisingly enough, we don't have a lot of
Speaker 1: talent in the field of economics. We don't have a
Speaker 1: lot of people who are objectivists in the field of economics,
Speaker 1: which is sad. I'd say the best place to study
Speaker 1: economics is through you know, if you want to go
Speaker 1: to university, it's it's probably George Mason University. But it's
Speaker 1: reading the great Austrian economists. It's reading of v. Mess
Speaker 1: It's reading econoctually one lesson by Hazlitt and and and
Speaker 1: Haslett's work. It's reading some of the Austrians. If you can,
Speaker 1: if you can ignore the fact that they are that
Speaker 1: they are anarchists. It's reading uh the uh you know
Speaker 1: Thomas soul ignore the fact that he's wrong on some things.
Speaker 1: But he's pretty good. So there's a and by the way,
Speaker 1: he came out against Tariff's uh recently. He's ninety something
Speaker 1: years old. So there's a lot of a lot of books,
Speaker 1: a lot of content out there that's on good economics.
Speaker 1: I mean, Sulgent has a good book out now on
Speaker 1: the Great Depression. Uh, that is good at economics. Larry
Speaker 1: White and just Telgian have good, good books on banking
Speaker 1: and on money. So there's a lot of good content
Speaker 1: out there. Mary Aleen, is the media afraid to carry stories?
Speaker 1: By the way, we're almost done with questions, So we've
Speaker 1: got two more questions and then we're done with the show.
Speaker 1: We could go longer. Is the media afraid to carry
Speaker 1: stories about the law firms that have caved? Trump is
Speaker 1: trying to intimidate all his opponents into silence. Who's going
Speaker 1: to stop him if he refuses to leave office in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty eight. I really don't know who's going to
Speaker 1: stop him, and it worries me. Are they intimidated? Maybe?
Speaker 1: I really. You know, I don't know if that is
Speaker 1: the issue, if it's an issue of intimidation, but it
Speaker 1: is clear. It is clear that it is clear that
Speaker 1: I think what's happening. Put it this way, I think
Speaker 1: what's happening is the media is so overwhelmed with what
Speaker 1: Trump is doing. There's so much going at them that
Speaker 1: they they can't cover everything. They're making choices and and
Speaker 1: they're prioratizing, and every day it's something new. Every day,
Speaker 1: some new, you know, urgent thing is happening. Mike. I'm
Speaker 1: lukewarm in human space travel, but I love that an
Speaker 1: all female crew went into space today. I hope it
Speaker 1: will inspire more girls to go into science. I think
Speaker 1: it was like the the was it the the bride
Speaker 1: and the and the and her friends from the wedding.
Speaker 1: So it's Jeff pizus uh fiance. She went up with
Speaker 1: her friends. I think it's part of her celebration of
Speaker 1: for the wedding. What do you call it? The girls
Speaker 1: party before bachelorette party. It's out of their bachelor at party.
Speaker 1: Who was going up in space? And Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: it's cool and exciting and I have no problem. I'm
Speaker 1: not Lukewarm. I'm excited about human beings in space, if
Speaker 1: only because it shows what is possible, the potential of
Speaker 1: human beings. It's a positive in this world, in this
Speaker 1: gray world, it's a shining light. Soup Cask, I think
Speaker 1: I'm going to give up. I'm twenty, and these tasks
Speaker 1: just confirmed. I'll never own anything, I'll never be dependent.
Speaker 1: I don't know what to do. Oh, you can't give up,
Speaker 1: SUBCASKI that's ridiculous. There's no reason to give up. You're twenty,
Speaker 1: You've let a whole life ahead of you. This idea
Speaker 1: that you won't own any own anything, it's just not true.
Speaker 1: There's plenty of jobs out there, there's plenty of businesses
Speaker 1: to get started. There's plenty of things to do. Even
Speaker 1: if we go into a session, even if Trump does
Speaker 1: all the crazy things that you want to do, there's
Speaker 1: still life to be lived. There's still positive things to do.
Speaker 1: This still stuff to create, to make, to build. Your
Speaker 1: life is too precious to give up. It's you know,
Speaker 1: there's so much potential joy that is possible, And the
Speaker 1: idea that you can never own anything, it's just not true.
Speaker 1: You have to find the right kind of job. You
Speaker 1: have to work hard, be motivated, use your mind and
Speaker 1: constantly be thinking, constantly, be looking for opportunities. There's so
Speaker 1: much you can do. There's so much open space out there.
Speaker 1: In spite of the bastards, do not let them get
Speaker 1: to you. And I know my show can be depressing,
Speaker 1: but my goal is not to depress you, but to
Speaker 1: give you a warning about what is happening. But that
Speaker 1: does not diminish the value of your life and the
Speaker 1: upside potential that you still have. Nephel, thank you for
Speaker 1: the stick of Esoteric Economy. Thank you for the sticker. Robert,
Speaker 1: thank you for the sticker. Alan, thank you for a sticker.
Speaker 1: You two can do a sticker and help us, help
Speaker 1: us inch toward the goal. Oh, thank you for the sticker.
Speaker 1: Steven just came in with the sticker. Thank you, Steven.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Catherine for the stickers. Jonathan Honing Mary Mary,
Speaker 1: So yeah, we've got we've got a bunch of these.
Speaker 1: Thank you, guys, Katherine Dawson, Thank you guys, and Jonathan again.
Speaker 1: So yeah, keep the stickers coming. We've got one more
Speaker 1: question twenty dollars question from phillopp of nine nine nine.
Speaker 1: If your country runs the currency used by the world.
Speaker 1: Because your country was once rich, you use this fake
Speaker 1: well to buy stuff overseas to keep it going. At
Speaker 1: some point you collapse because you outsourced all your production. No, no,
Speaker 1: I mean, that's just not true. It is not true.
Speaker 1: For example, the United States produce nothing. All it does
Speaker 1: is prints money and uses that money to buy up
Speaker 1: stuff in the world. Nobody would take our dollars if
Speaker 1: that were the case. The United States is the greatest
Speaker 1: powerhouse in the world for high tech, for design, for finance,
Speaker 1: for consulting, for marketing, for a lot of soft products
Speaker 1: that have enormous value in the marketplace. And the United
Speaker 1: States is the largest manufacturer of goods in the world.
Speaker 1: It is second place to China. The United States manufactures
Speaker 1: more than Germany, South Korea, and Japan combined. So the
Speaker 1: United States is not a you know, it's not true
Speaker 1: that it was once rich. It's rich today. It's richer
Speaker 1: than it's ever been, and it has a massive military
Speaker 1: to back that up and to protect it. We produce
Speaker 1: oil and we sell it. We have many natural resources
Speaker 1: in this country that gets sold. So the idea that
Speaker 1: the United States was one rich, once rich, and now
Speaker 1: just using fake money, you know. I mean the money
Speaker 1: is fiat money. That does not make it fake. Money
Speaker 1: is the common medium of exchange. It is the medium
Speaker 1: of exchange in the world. The reason the world uses
Speaker 1: it as a as a medium of exchange is because
Speaker 1: of the United States economic strength twenty five percent of
Speaker 1: world GDP in spite of only having four percent of
Speaker 1: the population, and that has not shrunk in spite of
Speaker 1: the rise of China, and the United States is much much, much,
Speaker 1: much richer than it was at the end of World
Speaker 1: War two, much richer. And trade surpluses are not a
Speaker 1: good thing. They're not a bad thing, but not a
Speaker 1: good thing. And trade deficits are not a bad thing,
Speaker 1: done a good thing, but they're not a bad thing.
Speaker 1: So and everybody in the world wants dollars so they
Speaker 1: can invest in the United States until Donald Trump came
Speaker 1: along and destroyed a reputation. Everybody wants to invest in
Speaker 1: the United States. Why Because we have incredibly productive people.
Speaker 1: Productivity rates are super high, much higher than Europe. We
Speaker 1: have incredible technology. Everybody wants to invest here. Now, it
Speaker 1: is true that we run massive government deficits, and that
Speaker 1: is what is going to kill us. If something's going
Speaker 1: to kill America. It's government spending, it's goverment consumption. I'm
Speaker 1: going to do a show on this soon, i know
Speaker 1: exactly when. But excellent article body John Cochran analyzing the
Speaker 1: whole trade situation and how to relate it to the
Speaker 1: budget that the budget deficit we borrow too much money
Speaker 1: because we spend too much money. Government spending, government consumption
Speaker 1: is a problem. The trade deficit is not the dollar.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's a problem because we have inflation because
Speaker 1: the thread prints it and it's a fear currency. But
Speaker 1: it's not going away, guys. It's not going to disappear.
Speaker 1: It's not about to collapse. The system is surprisingly robust.
Speaker 1: It's not a counterfeit. It's a counterfeit to what. There
Speaker 1: is no money today. The money being used is the dollar.
Speaker 1: It's not a good money. It's a lousy money. It's
Speaker 1: a really, really bad money. It's a money that is
Speaker 1: easily inflated and constantly being inflated. But it's no money.
Speaker 1: So don't get overly depressed. The world is not coming
Speaker 1: to an end. The United States is not this pathetic,
Speaker 1: weak country that does you know, people that do nothing.
Speaker 1: We're an incredibly productive place. The wealth that we have
Speaker 1: is real, not fake, and it's a and and you know,
Speaker 1: and the real opportunities still out there, you know, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, just just just just listen to who is
Speaker 1: the one who is uh, who was a sandy? Listen
Speaker 1: to Sandy who's starting a business starting a business in
Speaker 1: spite of all this, but just drive around America. There's
Speaker 1: so much wealthier. And we're much wealthier than we were
Speaker 1: in nineteen fifty four, nineteen forty eight or nineteen any
Speaker 1: other any other. From a material perspective, we are the
Speaker 1: wealthiest we have ever been. And that's true of poor,
Speaker 1: middle class, and rich. They're all wealthier than those equivalent
Speaker 1: groups were in the past. Much healthier, not much wealthier,
Speaker 1: not a little bit. Tessa spent hours at the Wold
Speaker 1: Then Museum this week. Thank you for improving life in
Speaker 1: so many ways. The Then Museum in Paris. You're in Paris, Tessa, Yes,
Speaker 1: the Then Museum is beautiful. There's some magnificent, gorgeous sculpture.
Speaker 1: There's also some terrible s culpture there. Verdin is a
Speaker 1: very very very mixed bag with some very very ugly
Speaker 1: stuff that's very depressing, particularly given his level of talent,
Speaker 1: but there's us a beautiful, beautiful stuff. Some of his
Speaker 1: portraits are just amazing. Highly encourage people to go visit
Speaker 1: the word Den Museum when you have a chance. All right, guys,
Speaker 1: And Tessa's in Paris, so she must be in a
Speaker 1: good mood. I mean, being a visitor in Paris. How
Speaker 1: cool is that? Oh? Is cool? All right? Guys? Thank
Speaker 1: you to all the super chatters and the stick is
Speaker 1: all one most superchat It seems to me that many
Speaker 1: of the people who were against Israel seem to be
Speaker 1: almost against seem to be also against Ukraine. Have you
Speaker 1: come across this, and if so, what do you make
Speaker 1: of it? Well? I mean there are two types those
Speaker 1: who are against both Israel and Ukraine. And they typically
Speaker 1: they hate Western civilization. They hate the West and everything
Speaker 1: it represents. They hate liberty, they hate freedom, and therefore
Speaker 1: they are much more inclined to support Putin or Ramas
Speaker 1: or the Islamists, and they were so the fact that
Speaker 1: they against Israel and Ukraine is a what do you
Speaker 1: call it? An overwhelming statement against Western civilization. There are
Speaker 1: some people who are pro as well in against Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Some Maga people pro is well against Ukraine. These are
Speaker 1: people who have not rejected Western civiliztions in in total,
Speaker 1: but have missed in a sense. They associate Western civilation
Speaker 1: with Putin and mistakingly associated is rall with Putin. They
Speaker 1: think Israel is more religious than it really is and
Speaker 1: more authoritarian than it really is, and therefore they support it.
Speaker 1: So it's basically one way or the other, an attack
Speaker 1: on Western civilization. It's people who resent the West. All right,
Speaker 1: Thank you, Abraham Compost, appreciate it, all right, Thank you guys. Remember,
Speaker 1: in an hour and forty five minutes we will have
Speaker 1: Casino Laporte on to talk about who career as a
Speaker 1: doctor and then her career as a novelists as a
Speaker 1: writer of thrillers, and that will be fun. So join
Speaker 1: us then and again, thank you to all the super chatters,
Speaker 1: thank you all the stickers. Thank you to all of
Speaker 1: you for being here. I will see you in ann
Speaker 1: oun forty five minutes. Bye, everybody,