Export Tax; Goldman; Putin/Trump; Tariffs; Gov Spending; High Rents; Post-Modern | Yaron Brook Show - Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Fun, the principles I've read last will and individual wants.

Speaker 2 (00:15):
This is show.

Speaker 1 (00:20):
Oh right, everybody, welcome to your one book show on
this Wednesday, August thirteenth. Back to you from Lisbon, Portugal. Okay,
you guys are having a good a good week. All right.
I guess we'll just jump into the news. I mean,
I have to admit, the news just gets weirder and

(00:45):
weirder as we go. We'll talk more about this, but
this administration is is is very unique. So so let's
jump in. I mean, we talked yesterday. I think about
the export tax. I think, first time in American history,
we now have a selective tax on certain goods when

(01:07):
the president feels like it in exchange for export licenses.
Both in Nvidia and AMD are now paying fifteen or
fifteen percent of all sales to China of these specific

(01:27):
chips that were just allowed to be sold to China.
And this is just unprecedent. It's never happened in American
history as far as I can tell.

Speaker 2 (01:41):
And so.

Speaker 1 (01:44):
Companies now have to pay for export licenses. And of
course the license was denied to them originally because of
national security concerns, right, otherwise they otherwise, American companies are
not restricted in exporting to anybody. The limitations and exports

(02:08):
are created by national security concerns. So the national security
concerns suddenly disappeared once these two companies were willing to
pay fifteen percent to the U of all sales to
the US Treasury, which is an interesting feature in and
of itself. And then of course Absent was really really

(02:30):
excited about this deal, and he came out and said,
there's absolutely no national security concern here. We would we
would not sell any of the advanced chips, so don't
worry about national securities. Then you have to stop and say, okay,
if there's no national security concern, why was the export
license denied originally? Why were these companies restricted from selling

(02:54):
these microprocess processes to China?

Speaker 2 (02:57):
Originally? Answer?

Speaker 1 (03:00):
And of course Trump is going, well, wait a minute,
it's a good deal. So Trump is not saying he's
going to consider expanding the arrangement with in Vidia to
export the more advanced chip, the Blackwell chips to China,
which are not allowed right now. Video is not allowed

(03:21):
to sell these chips to China, they're too advanced. National
security concerns, And Trump is like going, no, why not
let's sell them to China.

Speaker 2 (03:29):
It's like.

Speaker 1 (03:33):
There's no coherence, there's no thinking, there's no strategy, there's
no actual consideration of national security issues, there's no there's
just guts, there's just emotion. There's just whatever they feel
like doing. They're just doing, and you know this isn't

(03:59):
that sense says I've said often, the most authoritarian American
regime I've ever seen. I don't think anybody comes close.
There's no plan here, there's no long term vision. There's
just whatever whatever Trump feels like doing. Indeed, Bessant, who

(04:20):
I used to think was the most rational of the
people surrounding Trump, but I think he is over time.
And this happens to people who are who have decent ideas.
If you surround yourself with people who are just nuts,
and it will completely irrational. If you surround yourself with
irrationality and you continue to serve the irrational, and you

(04:43):
continue to justify the irrational, it affects you, It dominates you.
This is what Beston said. I think we could see
it in other industries over time. I think right now
this is unique. But now that we have the model
and the beta test, why not expand it. So let's

(05:10):
create a new form of corporate tax, a new form
of corporate tax. I mean, by the way, Trump in
his first term lowered corporate taxes quite a bit, one
of the best things Trump did in his first term.
And I complemented that and that that's the best tax
to cut. If you're going to cut a tax, there's
no better tax to cut than the corporate tax in

(05:30):
terms of just its economic impact. And then they just
passed a big, beautiful bill which sustained that tax cut.
That is, it was a temporary tax cut and it
was going to expire next year, and they've continued it
into the future. So that's all good. But hey, we

(05:51):
can selectively increase corporate taxes just don products we want
to whenever we want to do it for whatever reason
we might want to do it. And it brings in revenue.
And we're spending like there's no tomorrow, so we need
more revenue. We're running out these massive deficits, so we

(06:12):
kind of need more revenue. So what the hell, let's
just do it, Bessett. I think we could see it
in other industries over time. And then you know, the
White House spokesman Caroleen Levitt said in a news press briefing,

(06:32):
it stands with these two companies, perhaps it could expand
in the future to other companies. I think it's a
creative idea and solution. All right, here's the question I
have for you, and I'm eager to find out if
any of you have an answer to this question. I mean,
I'm looking for help you because I don't understand. I

(06:53):
just don't understand. What is the problem that this is
a solution too. What is the problem What was the
problem of selling these chips to China originally if there's
no security issue? And what is the fifteen percent that

(07:14):
the government takes a solution too? I mean, this is.

Speaker 2 (07:25):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (07:26):
I don't know. You guys tell me, you guys, tell me.
Ian says expo tax is explicitly unconstitutional. Yeah, but wait
a minute, I'm calling it an expot tax. Ian, you're
calling an expo tax. Trump isn't calling it an expo tax.
And Bassett isn't calling it an expo tax. And who

(07:48):
exactly is going to sue them in Nvidia and AMD,
I'm not going to this is a deal they cut.
Who has standing sue the government? Claiming this is an
expert tax and should be stopped. I don't think anybody does,

(08:10):
I mean China. So if you don't call it attacks,
and you don't create any entity that is losing anything
except for those entities that already agree to this, then
there's no reason you cannot get away with it. So

(08:32):
it's it's great to argue that what the administration is
doing is unconstitutional, but you know, there's a whole line
of stuff that's constitutional that they're probably that they're doing.
And get in line. And again here in this case,
I can't think of who could sue.

Speaker 2 (08:56):
And it's.

Speaker 1 (09:02):
It's complete insanity. And and the reality is nobody's calling
them on this. I mean again, a few people on Twitter,
you know, but but nobody's calling on this.

Speaker 2 (09:13):
Well, it's just bizarre.

Speaker 1 (09:21):
And again and and and they bombard us. We'll talk
about this later when we talk about postmodernism. They bombarde
you with so much crap like this that you can't
keep track. Nobody keeps track, and nobody knows what to
do with it. And of course they're most sane voices
that are out there. They're in the tiniest minorities. If

(09:42):
if you're a democrat. Everything's pooprude, is uh, you know,
you're just being partisan. Uh. If you're an economist who
disagrees with Trump, your pur prude is playing into I
don't know, the left, and nobody takes you seriously anyway,
and you're so overwhelmed as an economist by all than
crap that this administration is doing and all the nonsense

(10:04):
and all the contradictions this administration is involved in. Every
day you're commenting on some new insane thing that they
are doing. At some point people just become I think
they just can't hear you anymore, because I mean, I
feel like that way. Oh again, I'm going to talk

(10:25):
about another thing in which this administration is doing, which
is crazy and stupid. Again, every day it gets boring,
and you guys don't want to hear it. And I
wouldn't be surprised if your people listen to the show,
because yeah, you're I'm just saying what he's been saying.

(10:47):
It's difficult, It's very difficult. So again, the Trumpet administration
is not talking about expanding the scope of these of
these export taxes. We're not allowed to call them that
because then it would be unconstitutional if we don't call
them export taxes. Then it's constitutional, and then it's okay.

(11:09):
I don't know what category it falls under. I guess
the standing would be if there is another company, if
there's another company that is barred from exporting something to
China equivalent to what similar to what Nvidia an AMD have,

(11:30):
and it could sue that they are getting this deal
and that they're not getting an export license, that the
company itself is not getting an export license. Let's say
Intel had a competing chip. It doesn't, sadly for Intel,
and it's not part of this deal. I guess it
could sue to say it's been excluded or that it's

(11:52):
being forced to pay this fifteen percent when it doesn't
want to. But then I have to fight with the
Trumpet administration. Certainly Intel is not going to do that.
We know that they're sucking up to the administration as
much as they can't say who's gonna see nobody, nobody,
And then god, can you imagine all the products that
they can now declare national security threats, then get fifteen

(12:17):
percent from the companies and then declare them okay. And
there was never so security. There was never a national
security threat to begin with, and as long as and look,
the reality is, nobody cares. There's nobody out there who
sympathizes with Nvidia and AMD. They're just rich corporations. They

(12:40):
make a lot of money and they cut this deal.
It's voluntary. And I don't know that there's anybody out
there who cares enough about the rule of law when
it comes to corporations to complain about this. Yeah, I mean,
this goes no way. It's it's not a big deal
in the press. It's not a big deal anyway. And
it brings in revenue to the US Treasury, So why

(13:02):
get upset? The death sit is huge, more revenue, good thing, right,
all right? So I'm I'm you know. That's that's what
we are. Along the Along similar lines of of of
President Trump just emoting about economics, uh, Trump has basically

(13:29):
called up Goldman Sachs. He's chided the president of Golden Sacks,
David Solomon, basically saying that the bank has been has
been wrong in predicting that US tabs wouldhurt the economy,
and has questioned whether David Solomon should actually be the

(13:52):
CEO of Goldman Sacks. So last week he was questioning
whether the CEO of Inter should be the CEO of Intel,
and thought that he should quit pretty quickly. And then
the CEO of Intel came to Donald Trump and had
a meeting with Trump and Bessent and and Ludwick and
the sucking up thing that you do with Donald Trump.

(14:14):
And now Donald Trump is praising him. And now it
looks like he's got his job. He's keeping his job.
And maybe there's some deal with the US government that's
going to happen between Intel. Maybe they'll give them Maybe
Intel will give the US government fifteen percent of all
its revenues in exchange for keeping the CEO. I don't
know anyway, Now, Donald Trump, right last week was Intel CEO.

(14:35):
Today it's the CEO of Goldman that Trump doesn't like,
and he is now calling maybe this guy should quit.
Maybe he should resign because he's getting the tariffs all wrong, right,
you know? Trump?

Speaker 2 (14:57):
Trump wrote this in his social whatever it's called.

Speaker 1 (15:02):
But David Solomon and Goldman Sachs refuse to give credit
where credit is due. They made a bad prediction the
effect of tariffs on both the market repercussions and the
tariffs themselves. Trump said Solomon should make maybe focus on
being a DJ, which is Solomon's. Solomon has a hobby

(15:24):
of being a DJ. He DJs at night, I guess,
and not bother running a major financial institution. This is
what Trump wrote, Yeah, you know, he he also uh

(15:46):
you know, wrote I think David Solomon again should go
out and get himself a new economist. Now, the reality
is that Goldman's absolutely right. The economy is hooding because
of tariffs. It's not doing anyone as well as it
should be doing. The reality is jobs are barely being

(16:08):
created in this economy. That's what we saw from the
job numbers coming out of the of the Labor Department.
It's why Trump switched the guy at the Labor Department.
But again, nobody, nobody's questioning. Trump keeps saying the economy
is great, it's the best economy in history. Tariffs have
had no effect, maybe even a positive effect. Is this,

(16:31):
you know, is this really being questioned? Is this being challenged?
Certainly not by Fox News, Certainly not on the right,
where they are completely bought in to the fantasies of
Donald Trump. So yeah, you know, it's true that in
April Goldman warned that sweeping US tariffs would weigh on

(16:51):
global growth and prompt to fit a reserve to cut
interestates more aggressively and previously expected. All of that is
probably true. Tariffs without it out a weighing global growth.
And we'll talk about tariffs in a minute and why
they're not having as big of an impact as maybe
one would expect. But they are having an impact prices
of the stuff that is being tariffed.

Speaker 2 (17:13):
Those prices are going up.

Speaker 1 (17:17):
They're having an impact on what people what Americans can
buy or what prices they can buy them. So yes,
and it is not true that font governments are paying
for them. It is not true that front companies are
paying for them. It is absolutely a reality. And this

(17:40):
came out you saw this in the CPI numbers that
came out yesterday, that those products that have tariffs on
them are increasing at really high rates. And the reason
the CPI number did not come up much higher yesterday
was because all prices have come down and gasoline price

(18:00):
is therefore cheaper, so we're paying less of gasoline. As
I always told you, tariff's a relative price increase. They're
not absolute price They don't cause all prices to go up.
They cause relative prices to go up. They're not inflationary
in that sense. So what you saw is the tariff
goods went up way about two point seven percent, and
the non tariff goods like oil, like gasoline went down.

(18:25):
Why is gasoline prices going down middle of the summer
months when demand is typically very high? Question to ask?
Just asking questions. That's all I'm doing.

Speaker 2 (18:41):
Anyway.

Speaker 1 (18:42):
Um, So Trump is now on his second CEO in
two weeks, asking for the resignation of a second COE
in two weeks, and again very little pushback, very little
concern and so far, according to one economist, right, US

(19:12):
businesses have shouldered much of the tariff burden, so they
have taken the hit in reduced profits. According to the study,
so far consumers have observed twenty two percent of the
tariff costs, but will eventually absorb sixty of the tariff
costs if these taffs follow the same pattern as past tariffs.

(19:34):
Like the tariffs from twenty eighteen, US businesses have shouldered
much of the tariff burden. In the latest round of
earnings report, companies like Ford and General Motors reported big
hits to the bottom line because of the effects of tariffs.

Speaker 2 (19:51):
Now, remember Ford.

Speaker 1 (19:52):
And GM taking big hits to the bottom line means
less expansion, fewer jobs, investment in R and D. You know, profits,
corporate profits matter. Now. I know, nobody's sympathetic, nobody cares.
Everybody loves to hear that corporate America is suffering, But

(20:12):
the reality is prices are going up, corporations will become
less profitable. American businesses are going to suffer. I don't
know if we go into a recession or we don't
go into recession. Predicting recessions, I'm not good at I
know that. But is this a net not a net?
An absolute net? A large negative for American consumers in

(20:37):
the American economy, absolutely, without a doubt. And the positives
are trivial and insignificant. Uh so, yep, this is the
price we pay for having Trump as presidents? All right,

(21:07):
before we get to tell us which we'll talk about
in a minute. And by the way, this might go
fast today. So if you want to shape the show,
if you want to determine what I talk about and
kind of dictate the topics, use the super chat ask questions.
I'll talk about whatever you want me to talk about.

(21:28):
Just ask about it, and we'll have a conversation. The
bigger the question, the more money you put on it,
the more time I'll spend on it, and the more
the higher priority it gets. So jump in and ask questions.
So fight. Ay, this big meeting between Putin and Trump

(21:48):
is going to happen. The White House is not setting
any kind of expectations about it because the reality is
that neither Trump nor anybody else in the White House
know how it will go because it will completely depend
on Trump's mood, Trump's emotions.

Speaker 2 (22:07):
You know when it happens.

Speaker 1 (22:10):
Again, there's no strategy, there's no vision, there's no knowing
what you want to achieve.

Speaker 2 (22:17):
Putin knows what he wants to achieve.

Speaker 1 (22:19):
He puts In's number one goal right now other than
winning in Ukraine. But number one goal beyond taking over
Ukraine is to create a wedge, a significant wedge between
the United States and Europe. It's ultimately to draw the
United States to leave NATO or at least to diminish

(22:41):
its commitment to NATO. Putin will do everything he can
to create conflict between the Europeans and America because he
has ambitions, and his ambitions involve Europe and the only
thing stopping his ambitions right now is the United States.
He thinks I don't think this is true, but he

(23:03):
thinks he can take Europe if the United States is
not in the picture. I don't think he could take poland,
never mind Europe, but he thinks he can, and he
certainly knows he cannot if the US is in the picture.
So he needs the Europeans and Americans to have a
falling out. He needs the Europeans and Americans not to

(23:27):
be cooperating. He needs the United States ultimately out of NATO.

Speaker 2 (23:32):
And that's what this meeting is about.

Speaker 1 (23:36):
There's nothing else to be gained here other than for
the United States.

Speaker 2 (23:42):
Putin knows exactly what he wants. Again.

Speaker 1 (23:44):
He wants to piss off the Europeans. He wants Trump
to piss off the Europeans. He wants Trump on his side,
or at least he wants Trump to be neutral and
to step away and to retract whatever support he's given
Ukraine and and and Europe. So it's gonna be an

(24:06):
interesting meeting. I think Putin comes into the meeting knowing
exactly what he wants. Trump goes into the meeting being
clueless and uh, but but you know, one in peace,
went again to yell wanting winning.

Speaker 2 (24:20):
I don't know to.

Speaker 1 (24:21):
Stop the war, but all of that is meaningless. It
on what terms, you know, stopping them was easy. Putin
just needs to stop and pull his troops back to
his country. Is that what Trump is going to demand? No?
So uh, this is a meeting that's basically gonna We're

(24:45):
gonna be determined by a Putin and his ability to
manipulate Donald Trump. And if by all precedent he has
he has that ability, he's really good at it. He's
really good at it. All right, Europeans know this. Eupeans
understand this completely. Zelensky understands this completely. That the only

(25:09):
purpose of this meeting is to put America away from Ukraine,
to pull America away from Europe, to create conflict between
the United States and Europe and Ukraine. As a consequence.
Lensky is now in Europe. He's in Berlin, I think
today and convening with European leaders to try to figure
out what their strategy is going to be. But they

(25:30):
have no idea what's gonna actually happen. They are on
a zoom call I guess later today or tomorrow with
Trump to try to prep him for what Putin has
installed for him. I don't think they're going to be
very successful. I don't think Trump takes very well to coaching.
I don't think Trump takes very well to being told

(25:52):
by the Europeans what to do, what to think, or
anything like that. So I doubt they're going to be
very successful in what they are trying to do.

Speaker 2 (26:01):
But why are we off flying? All right? Let's see
you guys? Are we online?

Speaker 1 (26:17):
Are you guys seeing a picture? Is the video okay?
Sound okay? Can somebody give me kind of a thumbs
up or some indication of what the status of this
video is.

Speaker 2 (26:32):
M I'd appreciate it.

Speaker 1 (26:36):
Somebody in the chat do something, say something still here?

Speaker 2 (26:41):
All right? Cool? Because for some reason this is saying.

Speaker 1 (26:45):
I'm offline, but I'm clearly not a flye.

Speaker 2 (26:47):
Because you're all there, all right?

Speaker 1 (26:50):
Weird. So the Europeans are going to try to try
to convince Trump.

Speaker 2 (26:56):
I don't know what.

Speaker 1 (26:57):
They're gonna try to prep him. They're gonna try toughen
him up. They're gonna try to remind him of his
commitments and remind him of his kind of mood when
he left the NATO meeting last time, when he was
very pro Europe and all excited about Europe and was
very anti Putin. So whether they can have any kind
of impact on him, I just don't know.

Speaker 2 (27:18):
I just don't know.

Speaker 1 (27:19):
But that that'll be the suspense going into Friday. All right,
Just a few other notes, A few notes about.

Speaker 2 (27:28):
About tariffs.

Speaker 1 (27:32):
So you remember yesterday we talked about the fact that
the Trump administer submitted this ridiculous letter to the court
trying to stop the court from declaring that the President
does not have the authority to use the emergency powers
in order to in order to for these so called

(27:56):
the typical tariffs.

Speaker 2 (27:59):
And the idea was that if.

Speaker 1 (28:03):
The court's now at this point, if the courts now
said that these tabs unconstitutional, then this then this would
drive the United States into bankruptcy.

Speaker 2 (28:12):
This would be that this would be.

Speaker 1 (28:14):
An economic disaster of unimaginable scale. I mean, the Law
Street Journal today rights Trump's doomsday terrorf letter. That's how
he calls it. He says, judges must bless his emergency.

Speaker 2 (28:27):
Oh, I'll have a depression. I read you the letter yesterday.

Speaker 1 (28:31):
It was it was, it was, it was pathetic, pathetic, Right,
this is what Trump, by the way, wrote on on Friday,
last Friday before this letter was sent to the court.

Speaker 2 (28:46):
I think this letter was sent on Monday.

Speaker 1 (28:49):
Quote. If a if a radical left court ruled against
us at this late date, in an attempt to bring
down the disturb the latest amount of money, wealth, creation,
an influence the United States has ever seen, it would
be impossible to ever recover or pay back these massive
sums of money and honor. It would be nineteen twenty

(29:14):
nine all over again, a great depression, great depression, all caps.
And this is other Wall Street Journal editorial board response. Wow,
ending attacks increase means depression?

Speaker 2 (29:30):
Who knew?

Speaker 1 (29:31):
Mister Trump also seems to think any judge rules against
him is a radical leftist. But the eleven judges who
heard the appeal, including Republican and Democratic appointees Messrs So
and Schuma, these are the two people who signed that letter,
parrot mister Trump's doomsday prophecies.

Speaker 2 (29:51):
In their letter, and they quote the letter what we
did yesterday.

Speaker 1 (29:57):
I continue, it's true that foreign country is a pledge
to increase investment in the United States in return for
avoiding even higher tariffs than mister Trump is imposed. But
these are non binding commitments, and the governments wouldn't have
to pay anything back and the government, our government wouldn't
have to pay anything back to countries. If the tariffs
are blocked, it would have to compensate US businesses to

(30:20):
pay the illegal tariffs, and with interest. So here's the thing.
If American businesses paid the tariffs, and they did one
way or the other, only American.

Speaker 2 (30:29):
Businesses paid the tariffs.

Speaker 1 (30:31):
If the courts ruled them unconstitutional, there's no money flowing
from the US overseas because nobody oversees pays the tariffs.
The money would be returned to US businesses. So the
letter and Trump are exhibiting such blatant ignorance of just
the mechanisms of the deals they cut. The wallstat Journal

(31:01):
continues Obtaining a refund would be a bureaucratic mass and
take years, but putting an end to this tax increase
would also be a relief to thousands of businesses. The
US Chamber of Commerce recently estimated that the Trump tariffs
will cost the average small business importer eight hundred and
fifty six thousand dollars a year. Consumers, notably won't be

(31:24):
able to seek refunds for tariff costs passed on to them.
The letter to the Federal Circuit judges illustrates the Trump
style try to intimidate by exaggerating the impact of a
decision he doesn't like, and suggest he'll blame the judges.
We trust the judges won't fall for it. If they
douel against the president and he appeals, we hope the

(31:48):
Cervin Court quickly takes the case. So good for the
Wall Street Journal. Wall Street Journal, you know, is standing
up against some of the bigger abuse, you know, abuses
of the Trump administration, and they should get credit for that.
I'm not talking about the front page of the Wall

(32:08):
Street Journal, which has always been kind of tilted left.
I'm talking about the editorial page and the board of
the Wall Street Journal, which has always been called it
conservative but but tend to tends to be and still
holds on to a little bit of a belief in markets,

(32:32):
not capitalism, but a little bit of a belief in markets.
In addition, twenty seven prominent economists have come out against
you know, swinging in the use quote against Trump's emergency terroriffs. Uh.
They they they write that trade deficits aren't quote unusual
and extraordinary or a threat to the United States. This

(32:54):
is you know, Trump is't you know, is using an
emergency declaration to justify the tafts. But they're not unusual,
they're not a story, and they're not a threat. And
the economists also saying the tabs won't meaningfully reduce trade deficits,
but we'll have other major economic effects. So this is

(33:16):
in a I guess in an amicus brief. There was
filed by a.

Speaker 2 (33:21):
Series of economists.

Speaker 1 (33:24):
Against the Trump administration and the Trump's Trump administrations. Let
me see and if there's I'm looking to see if
I can find the signators who these economists are. But absolutely, uh,
this is this is good stuff. And you know, I'm

(33:47):
glad to see some economists and these are conservative economists
because this, I think is published by the American Institute,
the American Enterprise Institute, which is a right wing But
I'm just looking at some names. Let's see we know
any of the names. Darren Megeloo who just won the

(34:08):
Nobel Prize. He's not a conservative, but he just won
the Nobel Prize. And economics Stephen Davis, who who is
the director of research at the Hoover Institute. Let's see, Uh,
Jason Furham, we quoted him yesterday again not not a conservative.

(34:29):
Samuel Gregg is a conservative. His president and Frederick che
and economics at the Institute of Economic Research, the American
Industry of Economic Research. Let's see who else. Douglas Holts
Aiken not again a well known economist, Man cow who

(34:52):
is at Harvard University and is a conservative. Relative conservative.
Jeffrey Myron, who is a senior lecturer and director of
Graduate program at the Economics at Harvard. Also a free
market guy. He's a director of research at CATO. Let's
see Michael Strain, who is from the American Enterprise Institute.
And anyway, so you got twenty seven credible economists writing

(35:17):
against against this, you can in yeah, let me just
do something, so.

Speaker 2 (35:38):
Right, Let's see.

Speaker 1 (35:46):
So, yes, So you've got a you've got ah, you've
got a conservative fighting an amicus brief. You've got uh,
pretty much any you know free market, you know femalkeet
economists knows how corrupt and wrong these tariffs saw And

(36:10):
really anybody defending these tariffs doesn't know what they're talking
about from an economic perspective or from a publical perspective, a.

Speaker 2 (36:16):
From a from a.

Speaker 1 (36:20):
Global strategy perspective, this is all politics, and this is
all pr and this is all Trump's fantasy. There is
no economic justification for these no, none, zero, and there's
none no you know, even semi reasonable economists out there
that I know of in the entire United States defending

(36:42):
these tariffs. Now, what's interesting about the tariffs, Now, I'll
give you this is because I think even within the
Trump adminstration, they realized that if they took these tasks seriously,
they would be really bad for this country. And they
would they would actually cause you know, will real you know,

(37:02):
economic destruction. They're not taking them that seriously. So for example,
you know, the big bombast was made about thirty five
percent tariffs on Canada, right, thirty five percent on Canadian products.
But the reality is that ninety percent of all the
products imported from Canada are covered by the US MCA,

(37:24):
that is the NAFTA, the new NAFTA, the new and
improved NAFTA, and as a consequence of tariff free, So
the thirty five percent tariff only applies to non us
MCA goods, so all the rest are tariff free. Indeed,

(37:45):
Canada Central Bank has says that one hundred percent of
energy exports and five percent of other exports.

Speaker 2 (37:53):
You know, a US have no tariffs.

Speaker 1 (37:58):
Almost ninety percent of Canadian exports a pet access the
US market duty free in April, So I guess it
might change from month to month depending on the composition
of exports going to the United States, but generally Canada
is exporting stuff basically without any tariff. The same is

(38:20):
to a Mexico. Most of the goods coming in from
Mexico are coming in tariff free. The thirty five percent
tariff is so targeted, affects so few goods that it's
having very little impact on anybody. It's very having very
little impact on Canadians, have very little impact on.

Speaker 2 (38:42):
Americans.

Speaker 1 (38:44):
The twenty five percents on Mexican goods is again a
very slice, a very thin slice of the trade. It
affects only a few, you know, a few products. Most
of the products coming in are coming in another MCA,

(39:04):
you know. And the one exception for that is a
twenty five percent tause on auto steel and aluminum, which
is outside of the treaty. So let's see, according to
the Economy Secretary of Mexico, no taris were paid them
more than eighty four percent of Mexico's trade with the
United States again in April. So so, Tessa, there's a

(39:31):
lot of hype, there's a lot of talk, and luck
a leaf all of us. I think Trump is just
is not imposing the worst of them. They're still going
to have a significant different mental effect on the economy,
but not as bad as they could have. A few

(39:53):
went all out. Let's see, I'll add that. You know,
the tariffs on China was supposed to kick in yesterday.
So yesterday, you remember, you got China got an extension,
They signed an extension, and they were supposed to negotiate

(40:14):
the details of their framework that they had decided and
they got a ninety day extension, and yesterday Trump extended
it by another ninety days.

Speaker 2 (40:25):
So they're still negotiating. They're still negotiating.

Speaker 1 (40:28):
He wants where earth materials, the Chinese want the best chips,
the best microprocessors.

Speaker 2 (40:36):
We'll see how all that turns out.

Speaker 1 (40:42):
Let's see one last thing about about tariffs. Just say,
just so you don't think Trump is the only milk into.

Speaker 2 (40:51):
List out there.

Speaker 1 (40:54):
You know, there are other people who are just as
almost as milk of the list as Trump. Is that.
I mean, the Europeans are pretty bad, ad uh. And
the good thing about Europe is it has the EU,
so that doesn't have tais within the EU. But for
example the EU, you would think during this period of
taris with the United States and a trade trade war
with the US, that the EU would look for free

(41:16):
trade opportunities with the rest of the world. And they
had a deal. They had a deal with South America. Basically,
South America would export raw materials to the to the
to Europe and Europe would export manufactured goods to South America,
all duty free. So this would be a trade free
between the EU countries in Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay.

(41:39):
So four major countries. And this is an no brainer.
Europe needs more trading partners and this this is good
for everybody. Zero taris is always good. And it was.
You know, they they the trade between the two countries
is between you and these four Latin American fifty five

(42:00):
billion dollars or billion euros a year. And you know
this was an easy dunk.

Speaker 2 (42:09):
And yet.

Speaker 1 (42:12):
Macon, the French president objected. Why did he object, Well,
it's always the same with France. French farmers. French farmers
didn't like the deal. They're afraid of food imports coming
in from South America competing with French produce. Basically, they

(42:33):
didn't want the competition. And as a consequence of that,
Maclon was getting ready to you know, veto the bill
and to kill it. He was trying to rally other
countries in the EU to support him, and what the
bureaucrats and Brussels decided is just to shelve it, put

(42:53):
on the side, not vote on it, so that it
wouldn't be dead, maybe hoping that mcclon loses the next election,
but users it's still La pen And I don't think
Lapan is gonna want more free trade. I don't think
the French white wing is it wants free trade deals
with Latin America. So the world is just you know,

(43:15):
it would be so easy to make us all so
much richer, so much better off, and yet our leaders
are political leaders in here, in the United States and
in Europe.

Speaker 2 (43:34):
Just completely messing this up.

Speaker 1 (43:38):
Yesterday we got a report on gunment spending for July,
of for July, and in spite of the fact that,
as we've been told over and over and over again,
by officials in the compan administration, in spite of the
fact that teriff revenue is through the tons of teriff revenue.

(43:58):
In spite of all that, US deficit grew to two
hundred and ninety one billion dollars just in July, a
significant increase.

Speaker 2 (44:10):
Over the same month last year.

Speaker 1 (44:16):
So govern spending way up, gouvermnent deficits way up under
this administration, exactly as I told you it would be,
exactly as I predicted. So Trump is a spender, big spender.
He also raised taxes, significant tax increase, and yet you

(44:38):
didn't raise taxes enough to competate for the increased spending,
which is driving the deficit higher and higher as we speak.
And this is going to have long term.

Speaker 2 (44:53):
Just disastrous consequences for the United States.

Speaker 1 (44:55):
But it's also interesting is that in July twenty twenty five,
one out of every four tax dollars, one out of
every four tax dollars went to interest payments, not to
protecting your individual rights, not to building infrastructure, not to
move welfare, and not to I don't know, subsidies, not

(45:17):
to whatever interest payments on the debt. One in every
four dollars, if you take the amount of revenue that
came in in July the amount paid in interest payments
on the debt. And this is not going to get
much better. And even if power lowers interest rates, it's

(45:39):
not going to make that much difference at the at
the at the level of which the government is constantly
adding to the deficit and therefore adding to cover and borrowing.
And of course, if the Fed lowers interest rates all
the way to zero, and you say zero, well can

(46:00):
borrow at zero? Well that's not clear. Because the Fed
lowers interestrates. The zero the interest rate the lowering is
the rate at which they pay banks on reserves. That
is not the rate at which the market prices government
bonds that the Fed does not directly control and usually

(46:22):
does not control. It could go into that market and
influence it by buying and selling bonds and nuts trying
to influence those rates, but that's not the interest rates
they directly rely on. And it's not clear what happens
if the Fed tomorrow lowered interest rates by three percent,
which is what Donald Trump wants. My guess is that

(46:42):
yields and guvernment bonds would go up because the inflation risk,
I think would be perceived as going up significantly ces
your tax money, not that it ever goes to anything
particularly useful, but is now being spent on paying bondholders interest.
Maybe that's a bit thing. We could be spending attacks
many money on it. At least it comes back into

(47:04):
the private economy in some way, all.

Speaker 2 (47:10):
Right, So.

Speaker 1 (47:13):
Yonah, not yonah?

Speaker 2 (47:15):
What was I saying?

Speaker 1 (47:17):
There is this story that goes around that the Left
is pushed for a long time, really going back till
what eighteen twenty seventeen, twenty eighteen, twenty nineteen. And the
story is that rents in the United States are going up,
and the reason rents in the United States are going
up is that Black Rock, the largest money manager in

(47:39):
the world, is buying up homes, buying up apartment buildings,
buying up residential homes, and basically monopolizing homes in particular
regions and then squeezing the American people with higher ends.
Private equity is evil, we all know that. And private
equity is buying massive quantities of American homes and renting

(48:03):
them mountain Americans that exobitant prices and thus making a profit.
And we have to get away from this. And this
has been a story going around the left for a
very long time and really has been has been a
dominant feature among the left, and the complaints about rent.
So you know, when people say no, no, no, the

(48:25):
reason housing prices are going up is because of regulations, zoning,
lack of supply, which I always you know, which I
argue for, they say, oh no, the reason housing prices
are going up is because the housing stock has been
monopolized by actors like black Rock and other private equity funds.

(48:48):
And I think a few years ago, maybe months ago,
I can't keep track. We went through some of the
graphs and some of the data on this to show
how absurdly stupid this is. But what's interesting thing is
that like almost everything crazy that the left does, like
any any economics, that almost everything that the left picks

(49:09):
up about economics and complains about, I don't know, the
wages have an increased wages of divorce from productivity, the
rich are getting rich at the expense of the middle
class and the poor, like any one of these complaints
that the left repeats over and over and over again. Ultimately,

(49:29):
what happens is this group of new writers to pick
up on it and adopt it. So Charlie Cook was
on some TV, yeah, Fox News, on Fox News the
other day. This is a couple of weeks ago, and
this is what he says. This is what Charlie Cook
says on Fox and Friends. One out of four of

(49:52):
all new home purchases in the last year were out
of these firms like Blackrock that come in and a
bidding out first time home buyers, so driving up the price.
One out of four. Now, you know, that's a stunning claim.

(50:18):
One out of four. Now, let's get a few things right.
First of all, Blackrock does not buy homes zero, you know,
Charlie and everybody else, and the leftist that he follows.
He used to used to follow pro capitalists, but now
he follows leftists, Charlie and Charlie Coke and.

Speaker 2 (50:37):
The leftist that he follows.

Speaker 1 (50:39):
A confusing black Rock with black Stone. I guess it's
a it's easy to confuse.

Speaker 2 (50:44):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (50:44):
You know, Blackstone is much much smaller than Blackrock. It's
a private equity fund and and indeed Blackstone has indeed
a purchased purchased homes around America. But the reality is
they've done very few. Indeed, private equity as a whole

(51:08):
is very few. So let me read you something that
was written in twenty twenty one, because again, these stories
have been around for a long time, and this twenty
five percent number that Charlie Cook used is completely completely
made up. I mean, he literally pulled it out of
the air. It has no relation to reality whatsoever. He

(51:31):
has learned from the left that if you lie, lie, lie, lie,
lie lie, and keep lying, then people will just Now
I don't know that he knows. I mean, I think
he's so ignorant. He probably picked it up from Steve
Bannon or picked it up from some other world class economists,
and it just repeats it. But if you repeat it

(51:52):
and repeat and repeat it, then it becomes mythology. Everybody agrees,
nobody questions it anymore. See here's just some numbers. I'm
reading from an article that Derek Thompson road in twenty
twenty one about this. The USA is roughly roughly one
hundred and forty million housing units, a broad category that
includes mansions, tiny townhouses, and apartments of all sizes. Of

(52:16):
those one hundred and forty million units, about eighty million
a standalone single family homes. Of those eighty million, but
fifteen million are rental properties. Of those fifteen million single
family rentals, institutional investors own about three hundred thousand. Most
of the rest are owned by individual landlords. What I

(52:39):
want to repeat that of the eighty million single family
you know residences, fifteen million are rental properties. Fifteen of
the fifteen million, three hundred thousand are owned by.

Speaker 2 (53:03):
Institutional investors.

Speaker 1 (53:06):
So of the eighty million, again eighty million rental properties,
three hundred thousand owned by private equity. Right, So a
real estate rental company invitation homes in which Blackrock is
an investor, owns about eighty thousand, eighty thousand out of

(53:28):
eighty million. That's what eight millions, ten percent, eight hundred
thousand will be one percent. This is one tenth of
one percent of the rental stock is owned by Blackrock.
And it's Blackstone, not Blackrock. So again, so it's just

(53:56):
it's completely made up, this stuff. It's just complet untrue.
Blackstone owns zero points zero six percent of all single
family housing stock. Other institutional investors own about ero point
five percent half a percent of all single family rentals,

(54:21):
I mean almost all rentals, almost all rentals. You know,
people like Unity buy a few houses and then rent
them out. So a big chunk of this. I mean,
most homes are owned by the people who live in them,
but then there's some homes that are owned by people
who own one to nine units. That's a big chunk.

(54:43):
And then a few homes are owned by people who
own ten to ninety nine units, and then even smaller
section owners that own one hundred to ninety nine units,
and anybody owns more than a thousand units. That is
such a tiny sliver of a percentage, less than one percent,
well weigh less than one percent. So just I'm just

(55:07):
here debunking the bs of left and right. And it's
not left and right anymore. It's yeah, it's not left
or right anymore. It's left and right anymore, because it
turns out that the economic bullshit is now common to
both left and right. They completely agree on economics. But

(55:30):
this whole discussion and really the everything we've been talking
about about the Trump administration, and you know, the export
tax and the firing CEOs and they on and off
again tariffs and on and off again Ukraine and blaming
Zelinsky for Ukraine, for the war, and you know, just

(55:51):
just the ongoing irrationality, the different court filings, the disrespect
for the Constitution, the disrespect for the rule of law,
and more broadly that they're taking you know, they're sending
troops into the streets of Washington, d C. And claiming
that there is connage in the streets of America when
we you know, when climb in d C is way
higher than it should be, but it's lower than it

(56:12):
was a year ago, two years ago, and it's it's
heading downwards. Just the lying, the constant, constant, constant, completely
disregard for truth and evidence and reality that this administration has.
It is really unique, and I really do think and

(56:33):
Jennifers has spins the mind a head. Yeah, it's it's
head spinning, and it's NonStop and it doesn't slow down.
They are constantly making stuff up, lying to you and
me about everything, and they are contradicting themselves and they

(56:55):
don't care. So it's a national security threat. And so
it's not a national security threat because we're getting fifty
percent of the revenue.

Speaker 2 (57:03):
You know, it's it's there was another one that.

Speaker 1 (57:10):
Yeah, the tariff in the first quote filing, they say, oh, no,
we can stop these tariffs anytime there's no you know,
you don't have to put an injunction on it now,
because even if you let it continue at any time.

Speaker 2 (57:24):
We can do away with it.

Speaker 1 (57:26):
And now, oh no, if you do away with the tariffs,
if you gruel them unconstitutional, it's nineteen twenty nine.

Speaker 2 (57:31):
We're heading towards a great depression.

Speaker 1 (57:33):
And it's constantly they're contradicting each other.

Speaker 2 (57:35):
They don't care, they don't care.

Speaker 1 (57:40):
We can't bring the guy back from El Salvado. Oh
he's back. It's exhausting, it's head spinning, it's tiesome. And really,
what this all boils down to is I really do
think this is the right you write, and in particularly

(58:02):
this administration, you know, basically taking basically of adopted postmodernism.
This really is the first post modern administration. And what
are you even about postmodern? Postmodernism held holds there's no truth.

(58:24):
There's no one, single authority authoritative account of anything, not
in literary interpretation or art criticism, which was their original
kind of where they came from.

Speaker 2 (58:37):
Not in language itself.

Speaker 1 (58:38):
Again they analyzed language and said, you know, there's no
there's no there. There there's no authoritarative account. There's no
one interpretation, not in science, not in history or economics.
So there's no truth in economics, and there's no authoritative
account in economics. It's whatever. It's whatever, it's whatever in

(59:02):
a sense, you make up. It's whatever your perspective happens
to be. It's whatever the angle that you have on it.
Don't confuse me with the Labor.

Speaker 2 (59:11):
Department employment numbers.

Speaker 1 (59:15):
I mean, I know that they're wrong, so I know
the facts are different, or who cares about the facts,
just produced numbers that are more reflective of what I
want them to be. And certainly you know, so no truth,
there's no letary account of anything. And you know, of

(59:38):
course history, history, economics and all these things, and of
course none in journalism, anything associated with mass media. All
of that is perspective, point of view, interpretation. And this
used to be the position of the left right. And
this was part of how the New York Times and
much of the mainstream media veered even further towards the

(59:59):
bias because they rejected the idea of objectivity, the rejected
the idea of truth. It was all about narrative. It
was all about who told the story and what perspective
they had on telling the story. And in journalism school,
journalists were taught there was no such thing as objectivity,
as real facts. You're just telling a perspective. Everything is

(01:00:20):
a perspective. There's no reality, there's no there's no truth.
And this used to be what the left was all about,
or at least kind of the woke left was all about.
And you know, it's completely it's not turned around, because

(01:00:46):
much of the left still holds this, but now it's
being completely embraced by the right. I mean, the old
contempt for expertise and any kind of facts, the rejection
or suspicion or I'm just asking a questions about history. Hmmm,

(01:01:06):
I don't know. Maybe maybe Hitler wasn't as bad as
they think he was. I'm just asking questions, is what
they tell you. We don't know what really happened. And
you know, these people who have alternative histories, these histalians,

(01:01:27):
and they have an alternative set of stories. Let's not
call them facts. Maybe they're right. I'm just asking questions,
so let's look for them. By the way, there's a
an article about this in the Atlantic this week, about
this idea of postmonerism and the right.

Speaker 2 (01:01:52):
So you know this, there's there's no experts.

Speaker 1 (01:01:58):
This was Joe Rogan's thing, right, I mean, why not
have a comedian who knows nothing about the Middle East
comment in the Israeli Palestinian issue.

Speaker 2 (01:02:07):
Let's do it?

Speaker 1 (01:02:08):
Why not? Why can't he be viewed as a world
expert as much as somebody who studied the field and
really thought about it for years and years and maybe
visited there and seeing what it's like in the ground.
I mean, why do we have to treat experts differently
than just anybody who has a view about the topic.

(01:02:32):
Isn't having a view and Elf isn't having an opinion? Enough?
It was Joe Rogan, right, and of course Taker Koss
and constantly, Yeah, I can't trust any of the experts,
so we have to bring in, we have to bring
to the show. You know, people who have alternative views,

(01:02:52):
are they based on facts?

Speaker 2 (01:02:53):
Well?

Speaker 1 (01:02:54):
What is a fact? Who's to tell what a fact is?
How are you going to discover what facts are? And
all we're doing is asking questions. I mean, if you
describe what you know. The kind of rhetoric and the
kind of attitude for Co and the rest of the
of the post modernists had towards reality, towards facts, towards journalism,

(01:03:20):
towards history, towards I don't know if they talk much
about economics, but I'm sure it applies to economics. They
you know, you would get, you would get.

Speaker 2 (01:03:33):
The Trump administration and the new right.

Speaker 1 (01:03:42):
Yeah, and only read things that you have labeled as
non progressive. God forbid you actually read something coming from
me one of those progressive rags. You can't judge an
article by actually reading it and evaluating the content of
the article.

Speaker 2 (01:03:57):
Don't do that, Just judge it by its cover.

Speaker 1 (01:03:59):
If it has the New York Times on enter, the
Washington Post on the or the Atlantic, or for that matter,
of the Lost General.

Speaker 2 (01:04:05):
What the hell.

Speaker 1 (01:04:06):
Just dismiss it because it's it's exactly that it comes
from that rag. You don't have to read it. There's
no point in reading it. What's the point of reading anything,
because it it's obviously know what you think, and it's
obviously not being stamp with a stamp of approval from
the Trump administration, and therefore.

Speaker 2 (01:04:23):
It must be crap. It's exactly the.

Speaker 1 (01:04:27):
Kind of nonsense that creates the mindless mentalities that are
just Trump, the Trump zombies, the mindlessness, I mean, Postmondernism.

(01:04:47):
Postmonernism is exactly, exactly describes how this administration functions contradictions.
Who can country don't matter. What matters is perspective emotion.

(01:05:08):
Oh and has actually read The Atlantic before making the call, Wow,
why are you wasting your time on a progressive rag?

Speaker 2 (01:05:15):
Ann?

Speaker 1 (01:05:17):
And I haven't read it. So when I say there's
an article in an Atlantic about this, that's pretty good,
it means that your valuation of my assessment is I'm
an idiot. I'm an idiot. I read an article in
the Atlantic which is a progressive rag, and therefore I
shouldn't I can't judge it, and therefore I should just

(01:05:37):
dismiss it because it's a progressive rag.

Speaker 2 (01:05:39):
What are you talking about?

Speaker 1 (01:05:40):
Anne? So you're either insulting me or you're just speaking
out of nothing. Trump is a postpondernist. I mean he
acts like a postponderence. I don't think he's anything. He's
a mafia thug. He has the mentality of a mafia thug.
But on postmoditors and Charlie Cook can go on television

(01:06:03):
and just lie through his teeth and nobody will call
him on it. Nobody on the right will call him
on it. I mean, some free market economists will, but
nobody on the right will call him on it because
it doesn't matter. The only thing that matter is it's
achieving the effect. So, I mean, the article is spot on,

(01:06:32):
and it's not the only article. I mean, there's there's
been a lot of connections between the new right and postmodernism.

Speaker 2 (01:06:38):
I think.

Speaker 1 (01:06:40):
I think James Limsey has basically made a great point
about this.

Speaker 2 (01:06:47):
He basically, I mean, he did this trial.

Speaker 1 (01:06:49):
This is not about the trumpet inverstation, it's about the
new right generally. He did a trial. He basically grabbed
language from the Communist Manifesto, changed left wing kind of
examples and tone and made the sound right wing. And
he took this article based on the Communist Manifesto and

(01:07:10):
submitted it to an online conservative journal and it was accepted.
The American Reformer ran the piece under the headline the
Liberal Consensus and the New Christian Right, and he basically

(01:07:32):
ripped us off from the Communist Manifesto. It was a
completely made up article. And of course Lindsay did this
in the past, the left wing publications. He wrote garbage
down and he submitted it and they accepted it.

Speaker 2 (01:07:45):
Well.

Speaker 1 (01:07:45):
He did the same thing to the right and the
right today. The right today is in the same place
as the wok left was. And when he revealed the hoax,
instead of repudiating it's inadvertent endorsement of Marx and Marxism,

(01:08:07):
this conservative journal embraced it. It says, quote, while we
were unaware of its authorship and motive, it is still
a reasonable aggregation of some you write ideas repackaged into
Marx's effective rhetoric. And we have corrected its authorship to
properly credit mister Lindsey, so they're not embarrassed by the

(01:08:28):
link to Marx. They'll take it on absolutely. I mean,
if you think about if you think about the way,
what do you call it? Postmonerism is categorized disdain for
quantitative measures.

Speaker 2 (01:08:48):
And hard evidence.

Speaker 1 (01:08:50):
Does that not represent Tucker Coulson, Donald Trump, Scott Bassett,
Charlie Koch.

Speaker 2 (01:08:57):
Absolutely it does.

Speaker 1 (01:08:59):
Since stationalize your language when in doubt, be murky, when
stating the ludicrous, be melodramatic. I mean, that's the letter
to the judges that the Solicitor General wrote, that's Trump's
every single one of his tweets is exactly that. It's

(01:09:23):
their whole attempt to defend tariffs. Is that it's completely
disdain for quantity measures and hard evidence, and it's sensationalizing
and melodramatic. I mean, we're heading towards a great depression.
Is melodrama if ever there was one. I mean, this

(01:09:44):
is pure trump Ism and trump An administration. And you
know this goes throughout this administration of con constant constant lying,
constant deception, constant flip flopping, constant manipulation, constant hysteria. How

(01:10:09):
many emergencies are being declared by this administration, How many
emergencies that need to be dealt with immediately, all in
the name of violating our rights, of increasing our taxes,
rounding up people in the streets of America and deporting them.

(01:10:30):
And if mistakes are made, eh, big deal. And you know,
all in the name of complete disregard for the rule
of law. I can't think of another administration there was
this consistently disregard evidence, facts, truth.

Speaker 2 (01:10:54):
They're all bad.

Speaker 1 (01:10:55):
All of them are bad. Bet these guys are worse
than anybody. And you know, if you if you look
at the if you look at the playbook.

Speaker 2 (01:11:09):
Of the postmodernists, they're following it to the t.

Speaker 1 (01:11:14):
Maybe that's because all irrationality ultimately bails down and looks
the same. Yep. Anyway, it's it's quite a it's quite
a mastery, and it's I guess you would say it's ironic,

(01:11:38):
but irony is not the exact right term. It's very
distressing that we now have two left wing political bodies,
that we now have two in a sense postmodern political
parties that we now have without any question you can
argue about the postmodernism. We now have two anti capitalist political.

Speaker 2 (01:11:58):
Bodies, not just one political party. This that's just.

Speaker 1 (01:12:04):
You know, shrugs at capitalism, but clearly actively anti capitalist
political party, as the Republican Party has become. That we
now have political parties. You know, think about Trump, Think
about Trump. Maybe the best example of this kind of
lurch to complete divorcing yourself from from reality is R. F.
K at the Health and Human Services who just pulled

(01:12:27):
the the uh the grants to to all what is it,
uh m r n A vaccine to all m r
n A vaccines because he said they're dangerous. And then
when Jay whose family name I can't pronounce, who's the

(01:12:49):
head of the FDAC.

Speaker 2 (01:12:50):
I think he's the Stanford.

Speaker 1 (01:12:52):
Professor who is you know, it's pretty well regarden and stuff.
Was asked about this, his argument, he didn't repeat r
f K because he's too good of a doctor to
do that. He knows that mRNA vaccines of productive and efficacious.
He said, all the research funding was pulled because the

(01:13:12):
public has no trust in them. Isn't your job to
help them gain that trust if they're good for their health?
Isn't that part of what your job description is? But

(01:13:33):
that's the thing. They're going to switch explanations constantly. They're
not going to stick to a single thing. Everything is
to cover up. Everything is cover up. Everything's you know,
the RFK is a devout anti vax. He hates anti vacs,
he hates mRNA. He's destructive to American health. He's destructive

(01:13:56):
to innovation in healthcare. The consequences. I'm mind boggling for
having this guy run health and human services. And it
doesn't seem to really matter to anybody, because it doesn't matter.
It's you know, he's not you know, it's the Trump administration.

(01:14:20):
They can do no wrong. They can do no wrong,
and we just have to grin and bear it. And
since they're not leftist, at least they're not declared leftist.
They all leftists in their fundamental mentality. And others are

(01:14:43):
just gonna go along with him. They're just gonna they're
just well, I mean, this is good. At least it's
some Biden. At least it's not Obama. So tell with
the truth, Tell with facts, Tell with evidence, Tell with science.
We don't eat science. We know mRNAs are bad. We
feel it, and MAGA told us, and they know it.

(01:15:05):
And RFK is a well known scientist who has studied
this area, and he can tell you that mRNAs are
dangerous and they had no impact on COVID, didn't save
any lives nobody's. Indeed, they killed millions, millions, tens of
millions of people were killed by mr and evictions.

Speaker 2 (01:15:28):
This is the story they tell you.

Speaker 1 (01:15:30):
This is the bullshit that you hear on a daily
basis from our supposed experts, from the people who are
running things. I mean, the damage this administration is doing
to health institutions, to our perception of health, that damaged
this administration is doing to our trade, to our geopolitics,

(01:15:52):
the damage this administration is doing to our economy. It's
just it's just stunning, and on a scale that we
will pay for it for decades to come, because you're gonna,

(01:16:13):
you're gonna, you're gonna have to get in a world
and where government funds all basic biological science. Yes, m
RNA is banned basically right if you if you withdraw
suddenly all the money that you have committed for funding

(01:16:34):
research into m r and A, that is basically the
equivalent of making that area of science and disappear, and
you've announced it's unsafe. You've announced it unsafe now again
and continues to pursue this. I will defend anything that

(01:16:55):
they do, no matter what, and somebody will come back
at me.

Speaker 2 (01:16:58):
But we're against.

Speaker 1 (01:16:59):
Government funding science, yeah we are. But if you're going
to fund science, and the government is funding science, then
it should be done. I don't know, scientifically, not quackerillly
based on quackery, which is what is being done right
now at HSS. If you ban, if you retract all

(01:17:28):
scientific funding farm a field, then right now, then you're
killing that field. You're the equivalent of banning that field.
And yes, everybody should do their own research. You should
study m or in A vaccines and see how unbelievably
safe they are. God the conspiracy theories and the bullshit

(01:18:00):
about this stuff is just unbelievable to me.

Speaker 2 (01:18:03):
I mean, this is not hard.

Speaker 1 (01:18:06):
The stats on m r n A, the stats on
the COVID vaccines are not hard, not hard. Right, It's
and it's an amazing technology that not only could provide

(01:18:27):
us with safe vaccines for all kinds of things, including
potential new virusism might come down the road, but it's
an incredible technology that could they could help us kill cancer,
cure other diseases. And you're basically making it persona non grata,

(01:18:48):
You're making it not acceptable to the United States government.
I hope. And this is what's gonna happen. I know
what's gonna happen. The Chinese are going to develop mRNA vaccines.
They're going to work very hard on mRNA vacts, and
they will have the technology and we will not. And
they will do all kinds of stuff with mr and

(01:19:08):
A that will help their own population, and we will not.

Speaker 2 (01:19:12):
We will fall behind.

Speaker 1 (01:19:20):
All right, that is the news and my commentary on
it for this August Wednesday, August thirteenth.

Speaker 2 (01:19:30):
All right, let's.

Speaker 1 (01:19:32):
And and is becoming the new Scott. I mean she
does this right, So it's it's the same technique as
Tucker Colson uses, right, She says, Look, I'm not inhibited
against it. I'm just asking questions. I'm just asking questions.
We should all ask questions. Shouldn't we ask questions? It's
so dishonest, It's such a dishonest technique, right, I know,

(01:20:00):
say anything bad about RFK, but I'm not supporting RFKM.
Just asking questions about why you're on hates RFK so much.

Speaker 2 (01:20:06):
Maybe maybe there's something else going.

Speaker 1 (01:20:07):
On here, all right, or the Atlantic magazine or for
that meant anything else. All right. We are open for questions,
super chat questions. As you know, we have targets on
the show, and I know, I know that it's hard

(01:20:29):
when I started twelve to get to get our to
reach our targets. It seems a lot more difficult at
this time slot twelve pm East Coast time to generate
the kind of super chats than the necessary to.

Speaker 2 (01:20:42):
Make our targets. But we need to.

Speaker 1 (01:20:46):
This is a show funded by you. Without you, I
can't do this. I have to stop. So please consider
supporting the show. Please consider doing stickers and asking questions
and asking about anything things you don't agree with me
on Ask Away challenge me, challenge me too. Few of
these questions are challenging. They might be snarky sometimes, but

(01:21:10):
almost none of them are challenging. Am I pessimistic today?

Speaker 2 (01:21:19):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (01:21:19):
I mean every time I prep for these shows, I
get a little pessimistic, because you know, I look for
good news, and I look for silver linings and for
things that might be better, and I just don't find them.
I mean this every day. It seems like every day
I discover this administration is worse than I thought it was,
and I already thought.

Speaker 2 (01:21:39):
It was really really bad. All right.

Speaker 1 (01:21:43):
Reminder, we have three sponsors for the show, hand a Shot, Wealth,
hand to Shotwealth, dot Com hand a Shot, two T's
at the end, dot Com, slash ybs.

Speaker 2 (01:21:54):
They offer a variety of different products. Well, one of
the products they offer.

Speaker 1 (01:21:58):
Really, really really does reduce your exposure to capital gains
taxes and defers them and makes some possible for you
to save a lot of money on taxes a lot.
So I encourage you to check it out, check out
the interview, drop me an email if you're interested. I'm
happy to discuss it with any of you guys that

(01:22:19):
are interested in this. Just the finance of it, but
the best thing is to talk to Robert Hendershot himself,
which you can do if you sign up on their website.
You can get scheduler one on one with Robert and
see if it applies.

Speaker 2 (01:22:30):
To your situation.

Speaker 1 (01:22:31):
If you're about to sell a business, if you're thinking
about selling your business in the future, or you have
lots of appreciated stocks and maybe you're living off of
that stock and you're paying the capital gains, you should
definitely talk to Robert about your situation. Alex Epstein, as
you know, Alex Epstein is the world expert on climate change,

(01:22:52):
on environmentalism, on fossil fuels and energy, and just a
brilliant mind, constantly writing, constantly communicating, articulating the message of
freedom in this in the realm of energy and fighting
for it in Washington, d C. So sign up, you know,

(01:23:13):
read a substack alex Epstein dot substack dot com. You
will learn a lot. You will become a much better
communicator about these ideas and these these are things that
come up all the time at work, family dinners, all
over the place.

Speaker 2 (01:23:29):
I'm sure you.

Speaker 1 (01:23:30):
Know people who are completely bought into the idea that
we you know, were killing ourselves by using fossil fuels.
Check out Alex. Alex will give you the talking points
that you need in order to in order to defend
I think what most the position most of you already hold. Finally,

(01:23:51):
the Iron Institute remind you they have an Iran Institute app.
On that app you can find Iran original content, you know,
video audio, and you'll find Leanna Peacocks all of his
courses free free. The app is free and the courses
are free. You'll find courses from the Inland University ARU

(01:24:14):
from AARU, So.

Speaker 2 (01:24:15):
Check it out.

Speaker 1 (01:24:16):
Go to Iron Rand dot oag slash start here. Iinrand
dot oak slash start here. You'll get a link there
to the relevant app store and.

Speaker 2 (01:24:24):
Download the app.

Speaker 1 (01:24:25):
All right, let me thank John and David, thank you
for the stickers, and Roland and Enrich.

Speaker 2 (01:24:35):
And and and Mike.

Speaker 1 (01:24:39):
And Jason and Esoteric Dichotomy and Normative Randroyd and Savanna
started us off. Thank you, Savannas and Gail and Jeffrey.
Jeffrey Miller is there, and Justin and Jonathan Honey. So
I think I caught all the stickers. Thank you guys

(01:24:59):
for the stick and I really really really appreciate that.
I think we've got a lot of people kind of
doing stickers and a lot of people participating, which is great.
I think what I'm missing today in order to get
us to kind of the numbers are some of the whales.
The whales are not here to push us over the threshold.
The people who can write one hundred dollars one hundred

(01:25:21):
dollars stickers of twelve twelve o'clock is not a good
time for them. I have to adjust my schedule for that.
That's good to know, all right, Reminda, keep asking questions.
We've got plenty of time to answer them, so keep
it out, particularly if you can do twenty plus dollar questions.

(01:25:43):
Paul asked, what do you think of the poem the
New Colossus by Emma Lazarus on the Statue of Liberty,
give me your poor, your huddle masses yearning, yearning to
breathe three? I mean, I look I like it. I
like the idea that this is a country that accepts

(01:26:05):
anybody who owns to be free, that this is a
country that does not discriminate against the poor, as Europe
always had, as aristocratic societies always do that in America.
Anybody could make it that anybody could achieve, So send
them over. You don't want them, right because they're poor
and you know they're not of value to you, but

(01:26:29):
they want to be free. And we have an a
you know that creates massive opportunities right here in the
United States. So I don't think it's altruistic. This is
Remember this is a poem written at the time of
no welfare state, no redistribution of wealth, at a time
where America was the land of opportunity, right the land

(01:26:50):
of opportunity, and as such it you know, it's a
poem that basically articulates this.

Speaker 2 (01:26:58):
Message of.

Speaker 1 (01:27:01):
You know, we'll welcome anybody who wants to be free.
And I guess you could add to that, understands what
freedom means, Understand what it means to be free. Thank you, Paul,
all right, Dyef, thank you for the sticker. Shasbat, thank
you for the stick I really appreciate it. And Blaze's

(01:27:23):
guitar lessons says that he is not away all but
he is watching and supporting from Vietnam. That's a long
way away. Are you living in Vietnam or you're just
visiting Vietnam just just on vacation, just touring around, what
is the deal with Vietnam? And I'm curious how you
find Vietnam or you like Vietnam, you're enjoy it, So

(01:27:45):
I am curious.

Speaker 2 (01:27:52):
All right, let's see Ian.

Speaker 1 (01:27:56):
Did you see the piece in Fortune by a bunch
of X CEOs titled is MAGA going Marxist and Maoist?
Trump's assault and free market capitalism? Excellent and good to
see some business people standing up. No, I didn't see that,
and I agree with you that it's excellent, and I
agree with the CEO.

Speaker 2 (01:28:13):
Is there no question that.

Speaker 1 (01:28:14):
MAGA is leftist. It's going completely leftist when it comes
to economics. If you follow Charlie Cook and you see
the kind of nonsense he says on economics. Now, he
used to be a big defensive capitalism. He completely rejects that.
Now if you see, of course, Taker Carlson and Candace on,

(01:28:34):
but if you see others that basically all become statists
of the fascist kind. But of all statists, I mean,
if you see Donald Trump and you see an administration, there
is nothing capitalist or pro capitalist, or even as semblance
of pro capitalism in what Donald Trump is advocating for.
So there is a real Marxist Maoist tendency and a

(01:28:57):
real you know, Maoist of whatever the leader says. We
just go by the leader. The only thing MAGA seems
to be excited about and willing to contradict Donald trumpon
it's not gonna be tarifts. It's not gonna be economics,
it's not gonna be taxes. It's not gonna be Goman
spending or deficit or anything like that. The only thing
they're willing to do is if he says, and I

(01:29:18):
mean there's two things, really, if he contradicts any of
the conspiracy theories. So the one thing that MAGA is
willing to contradict Donald Trump on is COVID vaccines. But
he's repudiated that and appointed by appointing RFK, he's clear,
and he's clear and free of the blame for actually
being the guy who got M and E vaccines fast

(01:29:42):
tracked during COVID. The one good thing, one of the
few good things he did he's done, he did in
his first term. Very few things that he did there
were good in his first term. And the second thing is,
you know Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein. They're not willing to give

(01:30:04):
up on that conspiracy theory. So he pissed them off
on that, but pretty much anything else he gets a
free right on and again in economics, they're all in
with him on the kind of status perspective. So no,
I'll left to look and see who these x CEOs
are maybe and see if I know any of them.

Speaker 2 (01:30:22):
It would be really interesting, all.

Speaker 1 (01:30:24):
Right, Blaze's guitar. Lesson says, just visiting and working remotely.
He says, I like it. A lot of Vietnam is
growing a lot, and the people I talk to want
more freedom and capitalism.

Speaker 2 (01:30:35):
Yeah, I mean they know, Andrew.

Speaker 1 (01:30:40):
I feel that the population is suffering from a post
modernistic disorientation where their minds can be convinced the two
plus two egos four or egos five, and that's a
dangerous cultural state to be in. Of course, only philosophy,
only philosophy is the core. Yeah, I mean, I definitely
think that's true. I think this is a consequence of

(01:31:01):
kind of, if you will, post modern education and progressive
education over the last fifty years. We've got a population
that's very easy to manipulate, very easy to convince that
A is non A. Donald Trump is constantly talking about
A is non A and this administration is an AA

(01:31:25):
is non A administration. They constantly contradict each other, and
nobody seems to bother about it, because that's our educational system.
I mean, I've often talked about the fact that what
our educational system is focused on is on emotion, on
what they call emotional intelligence now, but on emotions, on
getting along, on fitting in, on socialization. And when you

(01:31:50):
raise kids from a very very young age to emphasize
their emotion, to think only in emotion, then this is
the world you get. Originally, we saw this in the
early twenty teens with the whole microaggression. Oh my god,
you hurt my emotions, and therefore it's the end of
the world. And you can't say that, and it's okay
to violate your free speech because you might hurt somebody's emotions.

(01:32:12):
And now we're seeing it in that whatever you feel
is true, that's the only thing that matters. It's emotions,
and you're seeing it. It used to be just a
leftist phenomenon, and now was left and right. Left and
right a driven by emotionalism, and it really is the dominant.

(01:32:36):
It's not a philosophy, but it's a dominant approach to living,
the dominant approach to knowledge in quotation market It's not
real knowledge, of course, But yes, we become an emotionless society.

Speaker 2 (01:32:49):
Frank, this is Woodstock week. I don't know what that is.

Speaker 1 (01:32:53):
Ever attend a big rock festival? No, I haven't. It
would stuck movie. I love the Who Santana. Also, shouldn't
be in a state like New Hampshire instead of California.
Why what is the state in which ARII is in relevant?

Speaker 2 (01:33:12):
Right?

Speaker 1 (01:33:13):
I I I is ari supposed to be in the
free estate? Is New Hampshire the free estate? By what standard?
By what criteria? But why should AOI be in the
free estate? Shouldn't ARII, given that it's fighting against statism,
maybe be in a state of state I mean? Or
maybe air I should just be where the people who
look at ARII want to live. I mean, that's I

(01:33:36):
mean uh Ai. When it was founded, they should have
taken a list of the states and gone gone somewhere
they didn't want to live, because they had to be
in the freest place. I don't live in New Hampshire.
Do you live in New Hampshire? Frank?

Speaker 2 (01:33:49):
Does Every objectivist is their.

Speaker 1 (01:33:51):
Commitment to live in New Hampshire. Should you live in
the best place for you? Maybe the people who founded
diaman and she didn't like New Hampshire too cold, to
east coast. Whatever, there's no there's no commitment, right, there's

(01:34:11):
no commitment to live in the free state when you
know we're fighting for freedom at a level that makes
New Hampshire seem like a status place, and it is
a status place. Yeah, but we're not libertarians, Frank New
Hampshire is more libertarian by what standard, and we're not libertarians.

(01:34:35):
So maybe that's a good reason to avoid New Hampshire.
If you've seen the New Hampshire Libertarian Party posts on Twitter,
then you would you would want to avoid New Hampshire
with every fiber of your body and get it, get
out of it. I do not know any Woodstock movies.
I'm not a huge Woodstock fan. I like some Stuck

(01:34:56):
by the Who, I like some stuff by Santana, but
I'm not it's not my my thing. I did not
see the Woodstock movie. And if you've read when I
wrote about Woodstock, she was very very negative about Woodstock
and everything the Woodstock represented and sivanas I'm not saying

(01:35:18):
emotions are blood.

Speaker 2 (01:35:19):
I'm saying.

Speaker 1 (01:35:20):
Emotions are not the standard for making decisions. Emotions are
not the way to deal with the world. Emotions is
how we experience life. Emotions are beautiful things and they're great,
and you should have emotions and cherish your emotions and
experience your emotions and.

Speaker 2 (01:35:33):
All of that.

Speaker 1 (01:35:34):
But emotional, Liz them is letting emotions guide your life.
It's letting emotions make your decisions. It's letting emotions dictate
what is true and what is false. And that is
not the job of emotion. It's not how emotions function.
All right, Wes just showed up. Hey, Wes, thank you,
thank you, thank you. Wes just did fifty dollars stick
up to get us over our first hour goal. And

(01:35:57):
that is amazing. Why is it selfish for the US
to support Ukraine war. It's selfish because Russia is a
real threat to the United States. Russia is a threat
to American interests, and Ukraine is a country in Russia
is an aggressor. It's an aggressa nation happy to violate

(01:36:21):
the rights of other countries. And therefore, you know, and
it's an aggressor in Europe, and it's an aggressor who
has nuclear weapons, and the last thing you want is
the United States. They have to go to war with
Russia because then you risk nuclear war. So the beauty
of the Ukraine War is you have another country standing
up to Russia, another country that could defeat Russia, give

(01:36:44):
them a knockout blow, retard their you know, aggressive ambitions
by potentially years, if not decades, and all we have
to do is give them our old weapons systems, give
them some money, and give them old weapon system It
is the deal of the century to have the Ukrainians
do the fighting for us. So instead of the United

(01:37:07):
States having to commit to going to war with Russia,
Ukraine is going to war with Russia does the dirty
work for us, which is excellent. So I think it's
an unselfish interest because if Russia wins, I think that
will boaster it its case.

Speaker 2 (01:37:25):
It'll boast its confidence.

Speaker 1 (01:37:26):
It's aggression, and I think the next country it invade
would be a NATO country. And then we buy treaty,
and I assume we still abide by treaties.

Speaker 2 (01:37:34):
Maybe not.

Speaker 1 (01:37:36):
We would have to go and defend a bulk of
state or Poland or some other country that is part
of NATO, and then you're looking at the potential of
a third World war because the United States will be
fighting directly with Russia. The way to avoid World War three,
or the risk of World War three, I don't want
to sound hysterical. The way to avoid the risk of

(01:37:57):
World War three is to support Ukraine in defeating Russia
and do everything we can, sort of sending troops to
make sure that they do defeat Russia. That is in
our selfish interest Matthias. Given that the government legitimate function
is the protection of individual rights, what percentage of GDP

(01:38:17):
should be allocated to funded, Well, you'd have to really
think that through. I don't know, right and it would
depend on the particular threats to the individual rights that represent.
How big should the defense budget be? How much of
GDP right now is defense. Let's say it's a trillion

(01:38:38):
dollars of defense GDP usgdb's thirty trillion. I think so
if it's thirty trillion, one trillion out of thirty is
what percent somebody want to give me the percentage of
one trillion out of thirty And then you've got some
other functions that are dramatically smaller. Maybe FBI just you know,

(01:39:02):
some Justice Department functions and a few other things. Ultimately,
all right, so one out of one out of thirty
is so what four percent if you include other stuff

(01:39:31):
other than defense. And indeed, if you look at the
nineteenth century, federal government spent between two and a half
to three and a half percent. Two and a half
to three and a half percent basically is all the
years government spent, federal government spent. I think that's about right.
Maybe because we have a bigger army now and it's

(01:39:51):
a standing army, maybe you'd have to go to five percent,
but that's the most, not twenty two percent, but probably four.
But it does depend on the specifics of what you
need in order to protect individuals in a given situation,
the world as it is today. All right, Dave just
came in with fifty dollars question, Thank you, Dave. Do

(01:40:15):
you think that those who advocate against body autonomy, anti
choice just call it anti abotion for women a morally
consistent when advocating against vaccination, science, anti choice for everyone,
both being anti life for individuals. That's a good point,
I mean, I mean yes, and you could add to

(01:40:37):
that being anti euthanasia, right, anti suicide, anti the ability
to kill yourself, you know, if you're diseased and dying anyway.

Speaker 2 (01:40:49):
They are anti life.

Speaker 1 (01:40:51):
You know, basically that the people are anti abortion are
fundamentally anti life. The anti a woman's life to live
her life on her terms. They are anti my life
to be able to take what of a vaccine that
I want? And of course it's there are anti drugs,
and they're anti you know, a lot of things that

(01:41:13):
should be available to people. And then of course they're
anti euthanasia, which is again anti life. To have a
right to life means to have a right to end it.
A true right to life means the right to be
able to end the life. So yes, it's all the
same thing. It's all a disrespect for the individual, his choices,

(01:41:36):
his control of his own body and mind. And of
course they want to control your mind as well if
you follow through with them.

Speaker 2 (01:41:44):
And so so.

Speaker 1 (01:41:50):
Yes, there are many, many many people out there anti vacs, right,
many people are anti vax and there are many many
people who are anti mRNA vaccines right, particular vaccines that
are incredibly effective that people are that people are condemning
and attacking and they don't want people to take They

(01:42:11):
want them banned. They haven't passed that yet, but that's
what they want. So yes, I think there is a
strong streak suddenly within MAGA, certainly within the right today
and in the far left, that are anti science, anti
a woman's right to own body and her own choices,

(01:42:32):
and you know, anti anti individuals making choices themselves, anti life,
anti life. They claim to be pro life, but what
they are is anti life. Gail, can you explain who
the Vicy French? Who were the Viccy French during World

(01:42:54):
War Two? Yeah, the Vicci was a French government. They're
basically controlled a big chunk of France to the south.
This is after the Nazis that occupied Paris, and they
were nominally a French government there was allied with the Nazis.

(01:43:15):
That is, they were a French government that was an
ally of the Nazis and controlled the south, and.

Speaker 2 (01:43:30):
That is.

Speaker 1 (01:43:32):
That's who they were. They fought against the French resistance.
They fought on behalf of the Nazis. They helped the
Nazis round up the Jews to send to concentration camps.
They were an arm of the Nazi regime.

Speaker 2 (01:43:52):
You know.

Speaker 1 (01:43:52):
RFK if he had his way in maga. If they
had their way, they would ban vaccines. They wouldn't just
not take them because they don't like them. Nobody has
any problem with people making choices about what vaccines they
take in what they don't, or very few people have
a problem with that. They want they want to restrict

(01:44:13):
out choices.

Speaker 2 (01:44:14):
Of course they do.

Speaker 1 (01:44:20):
Jason, I feel there should be an easier way for
people to pull money to build a condo complex with
individually owned units, But zoning seems geared towards rental only development.
Should could that change?

Speaker 2 (01:44:39):
I mean all of that is zoning.

Speaker 1 (01:44:41):
I mean yeah, I mean all constraints about what you
do with how with a property you build, whether you
do it for rental or not for rental, whether you
sell it or rent it or whatever, should be up
to you. There should be lots of options, and they
should be lots of building, and the regulations and controls
and zoning that constrained it and limited should be moved away,

(01:45:02):
and then we can see what economic models work and
what economic models don't work. I think I answered the question,
Gary Mayland. Constant emergencies are the hallmark of a powerluster. Absolutely, absolutely,
and some emergencies are self created right, you create yourself.
You know, if Top's economic policies ultimately lead us to

(01:45:26):
a recession, I'm sure he will declare an economic emergency
because it's a recession, because we're in a recession, in
order to fix it. And you'll blame bite In, and
you'll blame the people who issue the statistics.

Speaker 2 (01:45:40):
You'll blame.

Speaker 1 (01:45:42):
Anybody, but take responsibility for it himself and use it
as another opportunity for power grab, as these power lusting
politicians always do. Gary, constant emergency is a hamemark. Oh
we just did that of a powerluster. It's worth repeating.
That's good, Andrew. How is the arts scene in Prague.

(01:46:05):
I'm not in Prague, but the art scene.

Speaker 2 (01:46:07):
In Prague is.

Speaker 1 (01:46:08):
I mean, first of all, the buildings are beautiful. Old
town Prague is is quite pretty. There's a lot of
art deco and there's some good art in the museums.

Speaker 2 (01:46:19):
There's some good.

Speaker 1 (01:46:19):
Sculpture, public sculpture, there's. Yes, the art scene in Prague
is is fairly good. I'm not in Prague, I'm in Lisbon. Uh,
the arts scene here is mediocre. That'll be in Siberia.
Iberian Peninsula.

Speaker 2 (01:46:33):
Is not did not produce the you know.

Speaker 1 (01:46:38):
The the amazing art that Italy and France and the
Netherlands did. I mean, Spain has some great artists, Velasquez
and and and so on, but not not on the
scale and and not in the numbers, certainly, no, very little,
very few sculptors on the kind of on the scale

(01:46:58):
of what was going on in the rest of you
during from the Renaissance through the nineteenth century. But Prague, Prague, Yeah,
there's a lot to see in Prague. Pug's a beautiful city.
Blaise's guitar lessons. Is Argentina's economy improving or booming? I
mean it's improving, you know, I don't think it's booming in.

Speaker 2 (01:47:18):
The sense of.

Speaker 1 (01:47:21):
It.

Speaker 2 (01:47:22):
It's you know, the stand of living is.

Speaker 1 (01:47:23):
Now equivalent to the stand of living of Western Europe
or something, or the United States. It's just it's booming
relative to where it was. It's both improving and booming.
So the booming is a consequence of it's very very
fast improvement over what was. And again there seems to

(01:47:43):
be nothing that's slowing down that improvement in Argentina's economy
right now. So Melaya is doing a fantastic job just
in case you think I only say bad things about
all politicians, No, I think Milai is doing the good job,
but as good of a job as I'd expect any
politician could be able to do better. Actually, I'm surprised

(01:48:06):
at how good of a job he's doing. Wc zn
Glipto Tech. This is in Copenhagen was excellent. Thulverton Museum
also thanks to the recommendations. Absolutely yeah, glip is one
of my favorite museums, certainly one of the best sculpture
collections in the world.

Speaker 2 (01:48:23):
And Thulvaton is also excellent.

Speaker 1 (01:48:25):
And if you have a chance, go to the beer
the headquarters of the beer I forget the name of
the beer in Copenhagen, where you'll find more good sculpture
and more good painting at the headquarters of the beer company. God,
what's the name? Anyway, if you have time in Copenhagen,
go check it out. Charsbot Whips. This is from Inglorious Bastards.

(01:48:55):
This is Shoshana saying to the German soldier quote. If
you're looking for a French go friend, I suggest you
try the vicy Where do you have all these quotes
just readily available?

Speaker 2 (01:49:08):
Like that?

Speaker 1 (01:49:09):
Child's But it's pretty amazing. I'm impressed. I can't remember anything,
never mind direct quotes from movies that are relevant to
stuff we're just talking about, and just come about.

Speaker 2 (01:49:19):
That's great, Frank says.

Speaker 1 (01:49:23):
At Woodstock, Hendrix got paid, most other bands did not.
That's because the giant crowd forced promoters to make it
a free concert. Rock plus socialism. Yeah, it was the
gathering of hippies. It was the hippie the New Left.
It in every way, you know, reflected the new Left,

(01:49:45):
the the hedonism and nihilism of the New Left. Rand
has this great Apollo versus Dionysus, this great essay you
talk about emotionalism. Iran brings this out. You know, a
Dionysus is the god of drunkenness. It's the god of emotionalism.

(01:50:06):
And Woodstock is the symbol of emotionalism. And that is
the beginning, the beginning of everything going on now, everything
we're experiencing now, I mean, the beginning is cont Or
maybe Plato, but suddenly that was a Woodstock was a
milestone in making the hippies and their emotionalism a kind.

Speaker 2 (01:50:30):
Of bringing it into the hearts of American culture.

Speaker 1 (01:50:35):
W c Z n I'm nearly in Amsterdam. What to
see there, Well, you definitely have to go to the
big Amsterdam Museum, where you'll see a few Vermires, you'll
see some amazing Rembrandts. So there's a lot of really
good painting. Not so much sculpture in the Netherlands, not

(01:50:58):
a sculpturing not a sculpting culture, but a lot of
great painting, a lot of great painting from the sixteen seventeen,
eighteenth centuries. And there's also a brim Brand Museum which
is probably worth visiting rem Brand even if you don't

(01:51:19):
like him, it's worth learning to appreciate his genius.

Speaker 2 (01:51:25):
So again you don't.

Speaker 1 (01:51:26):
Have to like all great painting, but it's worth being
able to identify what makes the painting great?

Speaker 2 (01:51:33):
What else?

Speaker 1 (01:51:33):
What else in Amstem in terms of art, you know,
everybody goes to the and a frank Museum.

Speaker 2 (01:51:40):
It's definitely worth going. There's a reminder of.

Speaker 1 (01:51:46):
Kind of the horrors of the Holocaust. There's a museum
at the Hague which has a couple of Vimeias, I think,
which is definitely which is worth going to see. If
you can take a you can take a train. It's
a pretty short hop to the Hague and you can
walk I think from the train station to museum, see

(01:52:06):
the paintings and come back.

Speaker 2 (01:52:08):
That's what I'd suggest.

Speaker 1 (01:52:09):
But Amstein is also a city to just walk around.

Speaker 2 (01:52:12):
It's a beautiful city.

Speaker 1 (01:52:13):
There's a lot just to see by just walking around
and hanging out. Roberts says Apollo, and Dionysius is I
must hear iron RAN's speech, even if you love woodstock
and rock and roll. But Yef, I think the left
and right are becoming fascist. Do you agree? Yeah, I

(01:52:34):
mean absolutely, there's no I mean Mamdani is a socialist,
but there's really not a lot of socialism on the left,
most like people like Elizabeth Wan and even AOC, mostly
kind of economic fascists rather than socialists. That is the

(01:52:54):
stage and control, regulate in control business, not own the
means of production, not own the grocery stores, like mom
Donny wants to do in New York. And I think
what Mom Donny will become when if he becomes mayor.

Speaker 2 (01:53:08):
He won't be a he won't.

Speaker 1 (01:53:09):
Be a socialist mayor. He won't he won't advocate. He
ultimately will not have the city owns the means of production.
Maybe it'll open one grocery store something, just to be symbolic.
He will control rent control, the city won't own the
blocks of apartments'll they'll have rain control, they'll regular businesses,
they'll yeah, I mean there'll be much more economic status

(01:53:31):
and economic fascism and economic socialism. All right, guys, thank you.
You really came through on the super chat. We were
way behind and we did. We did, okay, we did okay,
so thank you. Tomorrow's show let me just tell you
what time tomorrow show is going to be. Tomorrow's show

(01:53:54):
is going to be at nine pm my time, which
is four pm your time, so four pm East Coast time,
and on Friday will before thirty pm East Coast time,
four thirty pm East Coast time, So Tomorrow four pm, Friday,

(01:54:15):
four thirty pm. And then I might do a show
Saturday night. I have come.

Speaker 2 (01:54:19):
I have to think about what to do it on,
but I might do a show on.

Speaker 1 (01:54:22):
Saturday night as well, So stay tuned, but definitely tomorrow
nine pm Friday, nine thirty pm or ten pm nine
thirty to ten, depending on.

Speaker 2 (01:54:33):
How where I am exactly.

Speaker 1 (01:54:35):
But yeah, so we're back to well, yeah, we're back
to a more regular schedule, I guess, rather than the
early schedule. Sivanno. Sorry, I know Sivannas likes her when
I do twelve pm shows. I mean, everybody, have a
great rest of your week. I'm off to dinner and
I will see you guys all tomorrow. W CZN, thank

(01:54:58):
you for the sticker. I appreciate that.

Speaker 2 (01:55:01):
Did I miss any other stickers? I don't think so.

Speaker 1 (01:55:03):
I think I got them all. Yes, Wes was the
one before that. Again, Thank you Wes for the fifty
dollars sticker. Thank you Dean for the fifty dollars question.
You guys made a huge difference on the super chat.
And again, I'll see you all tomorrow and we will
continue to be continued. There's no rest, no rest for

(01:55:27):
those of us who cover the news, it should be
dramatic music.

Speaker 2 (01:55:32):
Hi, everybody,

All Episodes

Export Tax; Goldman; Putin/Trump; Tariffs; Gov Spending; High Rents; Post-Modern | Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

24/7 News: The Latest

The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show

The Charlie Kirk Show

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Export Tax; Goldman; Putin/Trump; Tariffs; Gov Spending; High Rents; Post-Modern | Yaron Brook Show