Speaker 1: And hello, greetings everyone, Welcome to the Big Podcast on
this Thursday. Today is the eighteenth day of June, year
of our Lord twenty twenty six. My name is Tom Sullivan,
and man live with this whole thing about the agreement,
the memorandum of understanding. It's not an agreement. It's just
a memorandum of understanding that was signed, I guess a
couple of times. It was signed apparently electronically this past Sunday,
and then last night the President signed a paper copy
of it sitting at the dinner table at the Palace
of Versailles. Well, it was part of the G seven thing,
and Matt Crone knew that Trump loved gold, and the
Palace of Versailles is like this, just gold everywhere, and
so they knew it would make him happy. And while
he was there, Marco Rubio brought over some paperwork for him.
While he's at the dinner and he gets out his big,
big marker pen and signs the paper, which is apparently
the Memorandum of Understanding. So with that, the blowback has
been pretty strong. Of course the Democrats, but also a
lot of conservatives and a lot of Republicans are going
this is not a good deal. But rather than start
off with something negative, I thought, the vice president came
out today and boy, he's getting a lot of the blame.
Trump was joking about it yesterday, but there are apparently
a lot of people that are saying, I heard Brian
kill Meat on Fox say, you know, this isn't the
president's deal, this is this is the vice President's deal.
Because he's so protective of Trump, so he had he
had to blame. He blamed Vance because JD Vance was
involved in the negotiations going back a few weeks. So
JD has been now saddled with this thing, and the
President joked about the fact that if it turns out bad,
it'll be JD's fault. But so he came out this morning.
He was on every television show that is possible to
get on in New York television networks, in the New
York networks yesterday he went from one network to another,
to another to another. And his job is to sell
you on the idea that this is a great deal.
So this is He came out this morning into the
White House briefing room and said hello to the assembled media.
Speaker 2: First of all, I think the President's peace plan in
Iran as already bearing real fruits for the American people.
Last night, twelve point five million barrels of oil went
through the Strait of Horn Moves. That is a high
since the beginning of the conflict. Oil prices are down
nearly at their level from the pre war conflict. Gas
prices drop below four dollars a gallon today for the
first time since the conflict, and importantly, they're going to
keep falling further given how low price low oil prices are.
Speaker 1: So there's some numbers for us to chew on. Number one,
I agree with him. Prices probably will go lower if
everybody behaves, which is another whole part about this agreement
is that Donald Trump will determine whether or not Iran
is behaving. And that's that's very subjective. I mean, there's
no objective measurement, all subjective depending upon if Donald Trump
thinks a run is behavior or not. But let's go
back to what Vance just said. He said that oil
prices are about the same. They've been coming down, They're
about the same, and I'm going no, Actually, oil prices
were about sixty dollars. There were fifty eight to sixty two.
Let's use sixty sixty dollars before the war started, and
today they're at seventy seven, so that's they're still twenty
eight percent above where we were back on February twenty eighth.
As far as gas prices coming down, he says, it's
coming down, yeah, it is, but gas prices are the
average cheap stuff according to triple A three dollars and
ninety nine point nine cents three point nine nine nine.
In my math classes, I was told to round the face,
so it's four bucks. But that is thirty four percent
higher than where it was on the day that the
war started, So well, I know it's still it's going
to it's going the right direction. As far as the
number of barrels that were shipped through the Gulf straight
of horror moves last night, he said twelve and a
half million barrels. That's the high mark, he said, I'll
take his word on it. But before the war they
were shipping roughly on average twenty million barrels, so that's
still thirty seven percent gap there. So it's still gas
price is thirty four percent higher, shipments of oil thirty
seven percent lower. Number of the price of a barrel
of oil is twenty eight percent higher, So that get
I'm just trying to point out what the Vice president,
he's trying to sell this thing. He's trying to say
in the worst way. But I'm looking down the list
of people that are not happy with this. Let's start
off with the guy. We've used an awful lot. He's
from the Carnegie Institute. His name is Kareem Sajipoor, and
his analysis of He's well tied into Iranians. He knows
what's going on over there, and this is his reaction.
Speaker 3: I think I was much closer to an unconditional surrender
by President Trump this document. If you read the fourteen points,
at least nine or ten of them are favorable to Iran,
perhaps three are neutral, and really only one is asking
for a concession, a nuclear concession from Iran. My view, John,
what happened here over the last four months was President
Trump made a big gamble four months ago that American
military action will either change the behavior of Iran's leaders
or perhaps change the regime itself. And now the administration
is making a different gamble that American inducements, American incentives
may may bribe he runs revolutionary leaders into changing their
long time identity. I'm also skeptical that this gambit is
going to work.
Speaker 1: Well. I'm not being critical, I think, but I think
Kareem has hit the nail on the head. I said
this yesterday. Donald Trump is a gambler, That's what That's
how he made his money. Did he win all the time?
No gambler wins one hundred percent of the time. Did
Donald Trump do pretty well with his gambling? Yes? Did
he well? He went bankrupts six times, his companies did
because he took a gamble. It didn't work out. So
it's not always He's a gambler and gamblers don't always win.
And in this case, he's saying that Donald Trump took
a gamble to get into this, and now he's taking
a gamble that the Iranian regime will change. So, Kareem,
what do you think about this memorandum of understanding.
Speaker 3: Well, my reading of the MoU is it only said
that the strait will be open for sixty days, and
after sixty days there will be a discussion about Iran
perhaps exercising administrative control over the Strait. That's certainly the
Iranian takeaway from this mu They have already pocketed that concession.
They believe that the strait of hormones is going to
be under their administrative control, and it's going to be
both a fixed revenue stream for the future in Iran
and a source of deterrent deterrence to prevent and deter
future American and Israeli action against iiron.
Speaker 1: Yep, he's right that the MoU basically says that they
will have free passage for the sixty days. So what
happens at the end of sixty days. I'm I will
bet you a large lunch of the drive up when
you know that this thing falls apart before sixty days.
All right, let's see who else we have on the
list here? How about General H. R. McMaster, who was
the initial national security advisor in Trump one point zero.
Here's the general bill. It's a terrible deal. I mean,
we have to wait to see like how it gets implemented.
But just on its face, first of all, it acknowledges
and the president's statement yesterday he acknowledged Iran's coersive power
over the global economy because he said it never would
have been opened. I guess he's saying that we could
not have forced it open, which actually I don't agree
with I mean, we could have forced it open, and
I think we could have continued and maybe will still continue.
We'll see Operation Economic Fury, which was really starving the
regime of the cash flow it needs to survive, you know,
to pay its armed forces, you know, to keep its
tools of repression in place, and to strengthen his proxies
across the region. If you remember the war aims. The
war aims were certainly to block a Wren's path to
the most destructive weapons on our two and queer weapon,
but there were other war ams and one of those,
stated very clearly by General Kane at the very beginning,
was to destroy a rans ability to project power outside
of its borders. And this has to do with the
missile drone strike complex that not only poses a threat
to traffic in the Persian Gulf and the Straight of Wormus,
but really to the economic models of the Gulf states.
And it gets to a rans ability to threaten Israel directly,
you know, as it did in April on October of
twenty twenty four then and then continued with periodic onslaughts
during this during this campaign. So hey, Bill, I just
think it's I think it's really bad. There are a
number of things that are wrong with that. I think
the first is that the regime is now declaring victory,
as you showed on that clip, and I think they're
in boldened in a lot of ways, even though they're
in a position of really profound weakness at this moment.
What I'm afraid of is that you know, the flow
of Iranian oil again, and then if they do get
sort of the release of funds, you know, associated with
their frozen assets, this could be what like what President
Obama did for the regime in twenty fifteen, which you know,
pick them up off the mat at a time when
they were really suffering from their own, you know, their
own corruption and ineptitude of that government. So I could
think we have to look to see how this is implemented.
I think if we give them an infusion of cash,
which is what they're desk before at the moment, we
know what they're going to do with it, right, we
know from history what they're going to do with it
is they're going to reinvigorate their proxies in the region.
One of the things about this deal really is I
think super disappointing, is to give them a.
Speaker 4: Say about what happens in Lebanon. Hey, Aran, you should
have to say about anything app is a Lebanon, that's
a sovereign country. By the way, that that's trying, you know,
that is trying to disarm Hesball at the moment.
Speaker 1: So General says, we had them on their economic back,
they were ready to succumb, and instead we threw in
the towel. Now, speaking about economics, the President yesterday was
talking about the fact that he was worried about becoming
like Herbert Hoover. Well, Herbert Hoover is blamed over and
over again for the Great Depression. So what did he
do well? President Trump said that he raised taxes and
interest rates. Well he did. He did raise taxes a
lot and interest rates. No, he did not. The big,
big reason why the Great Depression it had already started.
But what sent it right down the skids, made it
even worse, was the Smooth Holly Bill. And President Hoover
signed that thing, which was a massive increase in tariffs.
Sound familiar, but again history is clear. Hoover ran these taxes,
but he did not raise interest rates. He raised tariffs,
massive new tariffs. So how is the economy are we
worried about going into some sort of recession or depression?
Steve More, the economist, weighs in.
Speaker 5: I don't think we're headed to any kind of global depression.
In fact, you know, the economy. The thing that's makes
me das over the last three or four months, even
with those high oil prices and gas prices, economy has
been pretty durable and resilient. Well, look, every country is
affected by high oil prices. I can't really say what
was happening in the rest of the world, but I'm
talking about the US.
Speaker 1: We've been doing just fine.
Speaker 5: And I'm going to make a prediction also that if
this holds up and we see those oil prices fall
like we're talking about, I think we're going to see
a big boom in this country.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So, Steve, who's a very big supporter of President Trump,
I agree with him. I don't know what the President
was talking about about some recession. We have a very
good economy. It's moving long. The Federal Reserve yesterday came
out from their meeting and said that we have a
steady growth in our economy. So I don't know what
the worry was on that front. The President stopped at
an every where he went yesterday and he was on
the on the airport apron at air Force one and
he was read at I think he was in Geneva
and he was asked about well, the sixty days is
that hard and fast? I mean, at the end of
sixty days, are we going back to war? What are
you going to do? And also what about how long
you keep the military there? Because the MoU says that
you have to get them out of there's where's there?
How do they have to get out? Well, this is
what the president said.
Speaker 6: You see the secret letal powery deadline for a final agreement.
Speaker 1: No, I don't. Well, could take longer, you could extend,
you could extend.
Speaker 7: This fails.
Speaker 1: I don't view it as hard though.
Speaker 8: You don't think of it as a hard no line.
Speaker 1: As long as they're behaving, I really don't care that much.
Speaker 5: How long will you leave the US elitariat of the call?
Speaker 1: It's a good question. We haven't thought of it. Were
really probably a while. So the sixty days is not
a hard and fast rule. And as far as how
long are you going to leave the military, it says
in the MOLU you're supposed to get everybody out of
there wherever there is, that's why not well defined. And
the fact that the President said, we haven't thought of it.
You would think all of this would be well thought out,
like before the war started. If, however, this come to
a conclusion, how long are we going to leave the
military there? I don't know. I haven't thought of it.
I'm just blown away by some of these answers. A
renowned CIA officer who spent a lot of time in
the Middle East, he knows the Middle East, that's where
he lived, that's where he did is clandestine work. His
name is Mark Paul Moropolis, and he was asked, what
do you of thing's going to happen?
Speaker 9: So the Israelis I speak with are in a state
of panic one form of missade. Officials said, literally, I
can't believe this is happening. But in some ways they
should have known better. And one analyst actually told me, look,
you know, Benjaminyiaou decided to ride the tiger, that's Donald Trump,
and the tigers just turned around and just bit him
on the rear end. And like many of us predicted
he would because Trump was no dedicated, you know, a saber.
He was not the messiah for israelis too transactional. And
let me just add one quick Let's not forget at
the end of the Biden administration is to calculate what
President Biden did after October seventh. He gave the israellies
eighteen billion dollars in military aid, Yet somehow he is
seen as not a supporter of Israel.
Speaker 7: That was preposterous.
Speaker 9: And right now I think the Israelis are realizing that
Trump was not who they thought he was and that
this MoU actually puts them in a very precarious national
security situation, particularly in terms of ballistic missiles and what
to do about his balla a terrorist entity sitting on
their northern border.
Speaker 1: I mean the missiles, the ballistic missiles that Iran has,
and the estimates are all over the map. I've for
forty percent of their inventory, they still have. I've heard
as high as sixty percent. So we did not obliterate
their ballistic missile supply. So they can reach at Tel Aviv,
they can reach all of Israel with their ballistic missiles.
So now, how long is it going to be before
Iran starts throwing ballistic missiles into Israel? They really are
on their own, So Israel. I know a lot of
people have criticize the fact that we're there to be
the big brother. Iran has always called us the great
Satan and Israel the little Satan. But we're kind of
joined at the hip in many ways. Rebecca Heinrich, she
is with the Hudson Institute, She's a think tank person,
she's been a specialist in the Middle East. I always
thought I was on the same page with Rebecca because
when the war broke out, on this program, I said,
I support the president. Iran has been of serious danger
to all of us waiting to happen, and what we
were waiting to happen was a nuke bomb, so they
had to be taken care of. But the problem is
we were taking care of the problem, and the President
stopped the military action. So I guess I'm guilty of
being a big hawk. But we stopped something that we
could have taken the regime out and put in a
new regime. Let the people choose their next leaders, save
the people of Iran, and have some peace in the
Middle East. Here's Rebecca Well.
Speaker 10: I think it wasn't necessary because I did support President
Trump's economic fury, and I thought the blockade was working,
and I thought Project Freedom was essentially getting shipped through
the strait. But here we are, we're moving forward. President
Trump has essentially prioritized opening the strait to deal with
these other thorny issues later. The things that I'm worried
about right now that much to be addressed in any
final deal. Number One, if there's further sanctions relief, it
has to be in an ESCRO account so that we
can control it. Otherwise this is just going to go
to the IRGC and they're going to rebuild. Number Two,
I'm very concerned about this provision in the MoU about
who controls the Strait of Hormuz. Right now, Iran is
only obligated not to collect tolls for the first I
think sixty days, but Iran can have no control over
the strait. It certainly can't collect holes and simply just
call it collecting fees. That to me would be a
massive problem. And then I think the third one, of course,
with the nuclear program, there is a concern that once
you relieve let all of let Iran start buying oil
selling oil now in the market, they're going to be enriched.
We're not going to have the leverage to compel the
Iranians to make progress on their nuclear program, So very
concerned about that, and then a three hundred billion dollar investment.
We don't want to rebuild a terrorist regime and the
IERGC are the ones that are still in power.
Speaker 1: Well, again, if you go back to the beginning, the
question was about getting those ballistic missiles taken care of,
because those were the what the idea was that they
were able to fend off any attacks from Israel or
from the United States if they had just a plethora
of ballistic missiles to shoot, and that we wouldn't be
able to get through that and to the nuclear bombs
that they were creating. So that was I was all
for that, but that's now scrap Well.
Speaker 10: Look, I mean one of the great reasons I think
that President Trump and Marco Rubio gave for going in
for Epic Fury was that the Iranians were amassing a
massive ballistic missile program that would act as a shield
to prevent the United States from being able to target
its illicit nuclear program. So I don't think that we
should be defending the ballistic missile program at all. I'm
glad that President Trump successfully with Epic fury destroyed a
significant amount of their ballistic missile program. But we should bet.
I mean, the Iranians are going to get back to
a massing that program again. They're not going to be
restrained to look to see what the Saudis and the
Emirates are doing and say even with them, They're going
to do what they can to exert influence over the
entire region. Remember, the Iranians want hegemonic control over the
entire Middle East.
Speaker 7: That goal of Theirs has not changed.
Speaker 1: So, Rebecca, is this is going to fall apart? Is
this going to be a failure?
Speaker 7: I certainly hope not. You know, I don't.
Speaker 10: I'm rooting for this to succeed, but I do think
that it would take a miracle. I mean, the Iranians
have not given us any evidence that they have that
they want to lay down their arms and have some
kind of accommodation with the United States. I mean, even
that rhetoric coming down of this, coming out of this
regime now is still determined to avenge the United States
and Israel for taking out their leaders, for taking out
their military. And so I'm very concerned that the Iranians
still want to assert what they believe is their right
over control of twenty percent of the planet's oil energy
flow through the Strait of Hormuse. And remember, they believe
that we are the great Satan and that Israel is
the little Satan. And they still fund Hesbela, and they're
very defensive of Hesbela, which is still at war with Israel.
So I I certainly I'm not optimistic, but I'm hopeful,
but I am. I think it's good that President Trump
contingentes to say that the United States is not going
to pull any forces out of the region. Secretary Hegseth
was saying that this morning that if the Iranians do
not comply and do not cooperate, that the United States
may be back to military activity.
Speaker 1: Well, I'll be I'll be in the front of the
line for those that will be shocked if we actually
go back to military activity, especially the President doesn't want
to use He brags about how big and strong our
military is where he doesn't want to use him. And
so while he stopped the military action seventy percent of
the way on their mission that they had laid out
and everybody agreed to, and he's had plenty of opportunity
to strike up the band again when it comes to
the military, and he has not. So throw in the
fact that the midterms are in November. They're four and
a half months away, and do you think the president
would go ahead with kinetic action again and watch oil
and gasoline prices go back up again right before an election.
My biggest concern comes down to Iran is not a
normal country. The regime are not normal people. They're evil people.
They kill so many people, so many Americans, so many
people around the world without hesitation. So I think someday,
I think we just kick the can down the road.
I think someday, And that's what I was worried about.
That's why I supported the president and going after Iran
is that someday they are going to have a missile
that will reach us and they will use it, and
someday there are going to be people that say, oh,
we should have stopped them when we had the chance
back in twenty twenty six. I hope I'm wrong, but
I can see the history books right in this one.
So let's talk about the Supreme Court, because here we
are in June, and usually by now they've unveiled most
of their decisions. But they they had a couple of
them today. One of them was a gun rights case.
It was a gentleman by the name of Ali Hamani,
and he was charged with knowingly possessing a gun in
his home while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance,
namely marijuana, which the court said is inconsistent with the
Second Amendment. The Second Amendment rules, and so it was
nine to nothing. We talked about how the justices fight
with each other. Mostly they don't, some big cases they do.
But this was nine to nothing. The opinion written by
Neil Gorsich, with Justice Thomas writing a concurring opinion that
again Sky had marijuana and where he lived it was illegal.
And they said, well, yeah, but he still had has
the right to possess a gun in his home. Shannon
Bream ways in.
Speaker 7: Great to be with you guys.
Speaker 11: Okay, so we have about twenty outstanding opinions, eight that
were on our watch list. We did get one this morning,
and it's one of the gun cases, and it was
what or not you could go after someone who you
discovered was an habitual drug user, in this case marijuana,
and that disqualify them from owning or possessing a gun.
The court has got a unanimous opinion. Essentially, there are
all kinds of factions and concurrences, but nobody's dissenting here
saying that the prosecution of this individual, or going after
this individual based on his drug usage and gun ownership
violates this second Amendment.
Speaker 7: Now, it may be very.
Speaker 11: Fact specific to this particular case, but that is the
first of the gun cases. There's another one we're waiting
on as well, so we may often the court will
pair up decisions, so we make it the other gun
case we're dealing with, which with has to deal with
concealed carry specifically in Hawaii. But we're waiting on birthright citizenship,
we're waiting on when the count for ballots has to
and after election day. We're waiting on transports and whether
you can say that biologically born males can't be in
girls' sports at the collegiate and high school level. So
those opinions are still coming in right now. But that
first gun case is the one and it's on our
watch list. So nineteen cases to go, guys.
Speaker 1: The next date that they are scheduled to issue opinions
will be next Tuesday, So we'll wait and see what
they have to do with each other. The group that
was arrested, well not all of them have been the
group that was arrested for an attempt to attack the
White House South Lawn at the UFC event on the
south lawn of the White House last Sunday, that five
have been arrested. They're out looking for the others. There
was a group chat or these people were planning to
use drones, explosives, guns, a variety of things to try
to kill as many people as they can't they could.
That was in some of the communications, and so Donna Rotuno,
a big defense lawyer, has the latest on this.
Speaker 8: Well.
Speaker 6: Obviously it's quite scary that this is something that could
have happened on such a big stage, and thankfully our
government was able to intercept what was happening and thwart
this awful plan. It is very interesting to see how
this is happening all over the United States, and Judge
Jenine is correct. Without any actual action taking place in DC,
they would not have jurisdiction.
Speaker 7: So it's these other states that.
Speaker 6: Will come in and the federal agencies out of those
states that will take care of the prosecutions of these cases.
I expect that all of these judges will keep these
people in custody. I can't imagine that they will let
them out and put them in a situation where they
can be electronically speaking to others. Again, I do hope
that they're able to find and communicate with the others
that were involved in this.
Speaker 7: I mean, this could have been a.
Speaker 6: Very catastrophic event taking place in DC last weekend.
Speaker 1: So apparently the ringleader behind this is a young man
who falls under the DOCA rules. He was brought in
to this country by his parents when he was a child,
so he doesn't know he's from Mexico. He doesn't know Mexico.
He well, he lived there when he was an infant.
So he's one of those where you look and you go,
give this guy a chance. But they have to qualify
for how many are they going to school, do they
have a job, A lot of those sorts of things.
So I don't know if he currently qualifies. But this
obviously is a bad apple in that group, and he
has been arrested. But Donna brought up the fact that
it's a good thing the government intervened. No, the government
never caught this. There was no clue that the government went, ahah,
We're going to run in and catch him. No, a
mother of one of the guys who's been arrested lives
in Ohio and saw what her son was up to,
asked him about it. She found out what they were
going to do, and she called the local police at
the least call the FBI. So I'd love to give
credit to some government law enforcement agency, but this was
a mom who turned in her son. It wasn't because
of anybody monitoring the internet or phones or anything like that.
So now the question is, since this guy is a
daka kid, a dreamer, what will happen to him?
Speaker 6: And I think that really goes to the bigger conversation
and why President Trump was elected in the first place.
I mean, this was a situation where, you know, here's
somebody who has the ability to be here even though
he was not properly born here and didn't have the
right citizenship, but he was granted this ability to stay here.
Speaker 7: And then when we allow him that right, look at
what happened.
Speaker 6: So I think that this goes to the bigger conversation
and really shows that the Trump policies of trying to
remove people that should not be.
Speaker 7: Here are quite important.
Speaker 6: I mean, look, most people involved in this think have
ties to circumstances like this, and it really goes to
show that people that sometimes claim they want.
Speaker 7: To be here do not want to be here for
the right reasons.
Speaker 1: Okay, one more for you today We've got I saw
Bernie Bernie Sanders being interviewed about AI, and I thought
I should play this for you. For those of you
that are Bernie Sanders fans, I'm sure you're probably going, yeah,
this guy's this, this guy's got the number wired. I'm
looking at it and going, what a selfish man. Somebody
else has the skill and the talent to create artificial
intelligence and build it and form a company to sell it.
And Bernie's going, you have, but you're making all that money?
What about? What about us? What about me? I can't
believe how selfish he is. But listen, listen to his
attitude about he wants half of the profits on AI
because well, let him explain, all.
Speaker 8: Right, AI is the most transformative technology in the history
of humanity. It's going to impact every man, woman, and child.
Right now it is being owned and pushed by the
wealthiest people in the world. Mister Bezos are Zuckerberg, Ellison
and others. Their goal is simply more wealth and more power.
My own view is that given the fact that the
foundation of AI is based on human knowledge, they've accumulated
all of human knowledge that humanity must play and people
in America must play a vital role in the future
of AI.
Speaker 1: What does that mean.
Speaker 8: It means that the public should have fifty percent of
the seats on the major AI companies in order to
prevent bad things from happening. You talked about mass unemployment.
It is quite possible that over the next decade, ten
of millions of jobs will be lost. I want to
see the public on that board of those companies saying, sorry,
you know you can't do that. We're talking about the
evisceration of privacy rights. We're talking about democracy being endangered.
You got deep fakes right there. We've got people looking
like Bernie Sanders saying things that we never said. How
do you deal with that? You're looking at the mental
health of our kids. You're looking at an existential threat
that if AI becomes independent of human control, as they
become smarter than humans, there could be a cataclysmic impact
on humanity. You got all this stuff and more that's
out there. So what we are saying, given the fact
that human beings Americans helped build AI, we deserved a
to be able to stop bad things from happening, and
b with fifty percent ownership less financially gain from the
profits that AI may well create. Now we're talking about
for a start of five percent every year, the fund,
which we estimate right now would be about seven trillion dollars.
Five percent of that would be go use for direct
dividends every man, woman, and child, whose country starting the
beginning to be about one thousand dollars per person per year.
If AI is as valuable and grows as quickly as
people think it might, that number will go up. In addition,
you'll have a large amount of money available that make
sure that in America, every maned, woman, and child does
healthcare as a human right, that we improve the educational opportunities,
we build a housing that we need. So bottom line
here is we cannot allow AI just to be used
to benefit the very richest people in the world. It
has got to be used to benefit all of us.
Speaker 1: Well, I got to give him guts. I mean, he's
asking basically, a hey, give me money, I'm thinking, well, shouldn't
we all Thomas Edison invented the light bulb. But I'll
bet you Edison made a lot of money on that.
I'm not sure anybody in my family made money on.
How about Henry Ford when he came up with the
Ford Model A or Model T or whatever it was.
I mean, there's all kinds of inventions, there's all kinds
of of industrial revolutions, and we're in the information revolution,
all of these companies. I don't know how I can
put my hand up. But the other part about it
was which surprised me, was he said, well, you're going
to have a seven trillion dollar fun and you're going
to get one thousand dollars a year, and that is
supposed to somehow pay for your education, your children's education,
your housing. What else did he say he had he
had wanted he wanted AI companies to pay or everything.
You talk about socialism, but you know he would be
in the front of the line getting the biggest chunk
of It's not going to happen, But Bernie, I wanted
to plan it because I just think he's crazy. He's absolute.
I don't know how your brain can come up with
that unless he's just larceny of trying to get his
piece of the pie. He did nothing to contribute to AI,
to chat, GPT or to clod or to anthropic any
of that, but he wants he wants a slice. Greedy guy,
isn't he? Speaking of greed? Jeez, Let's take a look
at Wall Street today, Tyler, they're all Rodger greedy. I
guess they weren't that greedy today. Now, the market was
up measured by the Dow, it was up seventy two points.
That's it at fifty one thousand and five sixty four
the s and p up eighty the Nasdaq. Oh, I
bet you that's those technology and AI companies. Yeah, they
they went up four hundred ninety six points on the Nasdaq. Oh,
by the way, excitement about SpaceX a couple of days ago,
well it's now two days in a row in which
the average post IPO buyer of space X is probably underwater.
After a two day slide, it fell three and a
half percent today, down to just under one hundred and
eighty five dollars. And speaking of stocks, today, today is
triple witching day, which is where you get the index
and options and all of that'll all come due usually
on the third Friday of the month, but because tomorrow
the stock markets are closed because of the federal holiday
is Juneteenth tomorrow, so a lot of volume happens on
Triple Witching Day, and that is kind of added to
some of the dynamics today. Price of gold down one
hundred and forty three down to four thousand and two
thirty seven, and oil down a little down, just a
couple of pennies down to just under seventy seven dollars
for one barrel of oil. That's it for today. Thank
you for coming by. We will be back again. Yeah,
I know it's a federal holiday. We're working tomorrow. I
hope to see you then, to see you then